Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today for our 2026 half-year results presentation.

12 months after the launch of Spring, the first operational results of our transformation are becoming visible. In this period, we continue to simplify our organization, improve capital allocation discipline, and reduce development costs while maintaining strong operational execution.

In addition, most of our disposal processes have been launched. We also benefit from the recognition of historical curtailment compensation in Brazil, representing around €29 million of EBITDA, and we continue also to progress with 438 MW commissioned and nearly 1 GW of PPAs signed.

As a result, we confirm our 2026 EBITDA objective. However, we now expect a net loss for the full year 2026, including the second half, reflecting a more significant than anticipated deterioration of items below EBITDA, particularly financial expenses, certain loss-making assets, and transformation costs.

Sylvine will provide more details in a few minutes on these factors and their expected impact on our full-year results. Despite these challenges, Spring remains fully relevant, and the first benefits of the plan are already visible.

I will now take you through the key achievements of the first half and the initial outcome delivered by the transformation. Let's begin with today's agenda.

We will start with the key highlights from the first half of the year, including our recent operational and commercial progress. We will then review our 2026 half-year financial results and explain the main factors behind our performance.

Next, we will provide an update of the execution of Spring, including progress on cost savings, portfolio refocusing, disposals, and operational performance. Finally, we will look at our outlook for 2027 and beyond.

Let's start with the key highlights now. I will start with one of Voltalia's key strengths: the long-term visibility of our energy sales business.

We have around €7 billion of secured revenues with an average remaining PPA life of 16.6 years. In addition, 79% of our revenues are indexed to inflation, which provides further protection.

You see that secured revenues decreased from €7.7 billion at the end of 2025 to €7 billion. This mainly reflects the revenue recognized during the first half and our revised and more prudent assumptions, including curtailment.

We also have a geographically balanced 12 GW development pipeline and 3.6 GW in operation or under construction. Our priority is now to improve the quality and maturity of the pipeline rather than increasing its size.

Together, these elements provide strong visibility and a solid foundation for disciplined and profitable growth. Let me now turn to our recent commercial developments.

This is our second headline, which is our strength on our commercial activities alongside the refocusing of our portfolio. Then we continue to convert our development pipeline into long-term contracted growth, as you can see, while applying stricter investment criteria, and this is important.

During the first half, we advanced around 1 GW of PPAs, mainly through 860 MW [Raza?] wind project in Egypt and new agreements signed in the UK and in Italy.

In Brazil, you've been able to read probably in the press that we made further progress on Pecém, one of our first projects in the data center sector. Indeed, after securing 322 MW of grid connection capacity in June, the project reached recently another important milestone with its approval under the Pecém export processing zone framework.

What does it mean? Means that this will allow the project to move to another key milestone, which is the tax incentives and which would make the project even more attractive.

Pecém also gives us the opportunity to combine our strong local presence with our energy expertise and explore how Voltalia could support the data center industry as an energy infrastructure partner. Of course, based on this first experience, we may gradually consider similar opportunities in Brazil and potentially in other countries.

At the same time, our services businesses continue to grow, with new contracts for Heenvliet and additional opportunities for Helexia. Somehow, this shows that Spring is not about reducing our growth ambitions, but it is about focusing our resources and investments on the opportunities that create the most value.

To capture these opportunities, of course, maintaining access to long-term financing remains a key priority. Then, on this third highlight, it shows our continued ability to attract long-term financing partners.

The proposed partnership with IFC that you know already for up to €120 million is a good example of that. Beyond the financing itself, it demonstrates the confidence of a leading international institution in Voltalia's strategy and project portfolio.

This financing would mainly support large-scale projects in Uzbekistan, Egypt, and Tunisia. Given the size of these opportunities, we also intend to bring in an equity partner at, of course, the appropriate stage.

This will help us share the risk, limit our capital exposure, and also maintain a balanced portfolio. Together, these three highlights that I just commented show that Voltalia combines long-term visibility, strong commercial momentum, and disciplined financing to support measured and sustainable growth.

Let me now hand over to Sylvine, who will present you the 2026 half-year results and the first evidence of the transformation. Thank you, Sylvine.

Thank you, Robert. Good morning, everyone.

Let me begin with headline performance for the first half. Turnover reaches €331 million, up to 30% at constant exchange rate, while EBITDA rises +35% at €110 million.

At the same time, the quality of earnings require a balance reading. The period includes Brazilian past curtailment compensation.

We will revert to this point soon to give you more detail, but first point is we've recorded €29 million, which is more than what we budgeted, initially more than €20 million, while resource availability transformation costs continue to weight on the performance. Consolidated net loss remain at €40 million, which is flat compared to last year.

Important point I'd like to highlight is the cash delivery improvement. Operating cash flow reach €102 million, which is equivalent to 92% of cash conversion, and the closing cash position increased to €343 million, which is a raise from half of June '25 of €108 million.

What is the output of this slide is we do have a strong operational progress, and we continue to apply a financial discipline to improve cash generation. Let's now move to our business line, we will do a focus and a deep dive per main activity within Voltalia.

Let me start with development. Our priority is clearly value through conversion over volume.

We have right-sized the pipeline, Robert mentioned it, to 12 GW, with a tighter project selection, clear conversion threshold, and more discipline of capital allocation. Financial effect and consequences are here visible.

Point one, cash cost spend decreased by 33%, reaching €30 million. Prospection fell by 23% to €6 million.

Headcount reaches 293 people, which is more or less 14% less than prior period. In addition to the project sales made over the first semester, development P&L operating impact is -€2 million, which is less than by €5 million compared to prior period.

These savings are not simply short-term reduction. It reflects the structural, leaner operating model we are currently implementing.

What next? Let's have a look now on Voltalia Energy Sales.

Thanks to new capacity, we've mentioned it, South Africa, Uzbekistan, with a bit lower ramp-up than expected, but with now a full operation, we increased slightly the production by 1%, though we are still facing some challenges in Brazil and French Guiana. One of them, curtailment in Brazil, slightly decreased, and finally, we recognized the past compensation.

As a result, the turnover increased by 29% to €158 million, while EBITDA increased by 32%. It means we did improve EBITDA margin.

Against this, wind resources and availability were weaker compared to prior period, especially in Brazil. French Guiana biomass assets only restarted in May.

On second half of this year, the priority are clear: restore availability, complete the ramp-up of the plants which has been commissioning in the last months, maintain a tight and operating cost control. The recovery levers are identified, and delivery remain our main objectives.

Let's now have a look and a focus on where we stand with the curtailment. Reduction in volume is a positive signal.

You can see it on the chart, but it's too early to consider normalization of Brazilian operating environment. Part of the lower curtailment is mechanically linked to weaker production in Brazil, but we must separate curtailment related to grid effects from resources and availability effects.

Now, regarding the accounting of the compensation. We recognize a revenue and receivables in our books this year because we finally managed to get clear evidence of amount and agreed with the administration about how much we can get as a recovery.

It relates to past curtailment, September '23-November '25. It definitely supports our H1 figure, but we should not consider that this amount will be recurring in our books.

We will and we are still continuing negotiating for curtailment further November '25 to get compensation. Indeed, the effect of curtailment is different between EBITDA and net results.

Why that? We have actually, first of all, recognized some taxes related to this compensation, and simultaneously, we did book an impairment of some of solar assets in Brazil because we reviewed our mid-term assumptions in terms of curtailment and therefore assumed that a prudent approach would to decrease by around €8 million the value of some solar assets in Brazil.

Therefore, the effect of the curtailment compensation is by €19 million on the net income. Let's now move to another business line: Helexia.

The growth is driven by dynamic European energy sales activity. Production increased by 12% to 323 GWh, turnover by 8%, increased by €32.5 million.

It's broadly stable for the EBITDA, €21 million. The challenge sits below EBITDA across the portfolio.

European energy sales remain resilient, but services is not enough profitable. In Brazil, activity remain unprofitable.

With an average project debt rising €459 million, the cost of debt increased by 56% to €21.5 million. It reflects an environment of local interest rate increase.

Bear in mind that in Brazil, inflation-indexed financing and assets are not yet for Helexia Brazil producing full capacity, we do not have yet the revenue generation to absorb and repay the financial cost, which creates a discrepancy. We therefore accelerate, complete the commissioning plan, and support with a restructuring plan to reverse the situation.

The objective in Helexia is to continue to grow on the top line, to improve the EBITDA, to assume a cash discipline, to get better returns. Let's now move to Heenvliet.

For the first half, Heenvliet increased by 45% to €124 million turnover. EBITDA doubles to €12.5 million.

EBITDA margin, which is a real success, increased to 10%, which is the target 2030, which is already reached. Growth is supported by both construction and maintenance.

We have more than 750 MW under construction for third-party clients, mainly in Europe. We operate more than 1.2 GW under maintenance contract.

The backlog stands at approximately €300 million, which is equivalent to 2.3 times last year 2025 turnover. It provides visibility.

At the same time, we are protecting the quality of growth, reducing as much as we can monitor risk and monitoring warranty control. This is essential to convert the backlog in cash and secure our margin.

Here Heenvliet is delivering a profitable growth with an increasing recurrence and visibility. To wrap up, all what we've been through are here consolidated within our two segmental reporting: Energy Sales and Heenvliet.

We do also have the Hub. You can see here that the group turnover reached €331 million.

Energy Sales represent 57% of the total, Heenvliet 37%. At EBITDA level, Energy Sales contribute to €116 million.

All major businesses improved. Corporate costs stand at €10.3 million and include some transformation and M&A-related expenses.

The group is benefiting from better performance in energy sales, development, and services, while underlying Helexia performance still needs to improve. Overall, EBITDA is up by 35%, the earning bridge does not stop at the EBITDA, let's have a look on the bottom line.

Moving below EBITDA, the first half net result reflects both the expansion of our asset base and the cost transformation. From €110.3 million EBITDA, we have in addition depreciation and provision, which amounts to €89 million.

This includes the full-year effect of recently commissioned assets as for amortization and approximately €10 million of impairment and regular guarantee provision linked to our regular activity of Heenvliet. It also includes other operating items such as Spring and Helexia restructuring costs.

Financial results stand at -€48.6 million. Increase is driven by higher average debt, higher costs of average debt, which rose overall from 6.14% to 6.3%, which is partially explained by our South Africa and Brazil scheme of inflation index, related to also revenues indexed.

Taxes and other items represent -€11.9 million, mainly reflecting the Brazilian tax. This leads to a consolidated net result of -€39 million and -€43 million of net loss group share.

What we can here conclude is that we do really have operational improvements, but challenges remain within the restructuring, the cash discipline, and the financial recovery. Let me now walk you through the financial balance sheet and structure of Voltalia.

Our balance sheet is designed around long-term contracted nature of the asset base. Approximately 79% of the fixed assets are operating projects.

Development assets represent the next source of earning growth. Gross debt is predominantly project-related.

€1.7 billion of project debt finance is the main part, compared to €945 million of corporate debt and €70 million of shareholder loan. On interest rate exposure, 75% of the debt is fixed, hedge, or inflation-indexed, leaving only 25% as variable.

Most important, project debt has an average maturity of 12.6 years versus 16.6 years of remaining PPA life. This positive duration gap provides structural protection and visibility.

The average all-in cost is 6.3%, while the net leverage stands at 68%, deleveraging remains a central priority for us. To sum up, long-dated contracted revenue support the financing model, but the capital discipline is now definitely to reduce the leverage.

Let's now have a look to the cash generation. From June '25 to June '26, we improved the cash position by €108 million.

Walking you through from December to June, what happened? We started with a €314 million cash, which has been improved thanks to operating cash flow by €102 million, while we did spend some CapEx, total CapEx actually both for development and for our plans, of €139 million, and get a net amount of additional financing of €49 million.

At the end of the period, our cash position improved to reach €343 million of cash. This is another key example of the financial translation of the action plan we are now undertaking.

Let's now have a look, looking forward on the remaining part of 2026. We are confirming our EBITDA 2026 objective from €210 to €230 million.

The first half provides a base of approximately €109 million from development and energy sales, €13 million from Heenvliet, and -€11 million from other activity together with corporate costs. We do expect from the second half of the year the following contribution: Development and Energy Sales are expecting to contribute for another €105 to €120 million, supported by recently commissioned assets and improved availability plan on second half.

Heenvliet expect to contribute within €5 to €15 million through backlog conversion, as I mentioned it to you priorly, additional maintenance contract as well. Other activity and corporate costs are expected to be in a range of -€10 million.

The principal sensitivity remain resources and curtailment, as well as the transaction timing of the M&A Spring planning we are now working on. Therefore, the EBITDA target is supported by some key operating and identified levers.

I will now address the items below EBITDA. We indeed revise the net result outlook for 2026.

We expect a full-year net loss, including in the second half, despite maintaining the EBITDA target. Therefore, the change is driven by three factors below EBITDA.

First, some loss-making activities, particularly Helexia Brazil. We continue to carry on high financial cost while the commissioning and the full-speed performance is not yet delivered and delay and therefore weights on the net result.

Second, the corporate debt remains temporarily higher while the Spring disposal program is implementing, with a final target to reduce the net debt to EBITDA ratio. Third, we consider some impairment to reflect an overall prudent approach that we have to have a leaner and more performance company within the next months.

This is a realistic reset, not a change in our ambition, and not questioning the operational improvements we've already achieved and I shared with you this morning. Let me close by summarizing the objectives for the full-year '26.

Our '26 operational and EBITDA objectives remain unchanged. We continue to target approximately 3.6 GW in operation and construction, including around 3 GW in operations.

We also confirm a group EBITDA of €210 to €230 million, including €190 to €210 million from Energy Sales. At the same time, we are clear that the full-year net result is now expected to be negative.

Our response, our action plan is execution, discipline, to continue to improve in all operational KPI and complete the ramp-up of recent assets, conversion of backlog, reducing structural costs, delivery the plant disposal. These actions are central to Spring, to our objectives to restore a sustainable profitability, stronger cash generation, and progressive deleveraging.

The overall message is we are confident in the operating fundamentals, combined with financial realism and a firm execution discipline. I will now leave the floor back to Robert for the Spring execution plan.

Merci beaucoup, Sylvine. Let me now give an update on Spring.

Then one year after its launch, Spring is now fully in execution, and most actions are on track. We are moving from implementation to visible operational and financial effects, as you've been able to see with Sylvine.

We are starting to see the first recurring benefits through simplification, workforce optimization, and stronger cost discipline. At the same time, we are reinforcing financial discipline with closer cash monitoring, more selective CapEx, stricter portfolio decisions, and clear focus, especially on deleveraging.

These benefits will build progressively as Spring moves towards completion by the first half of 2027. Our objective goes beyond Spring.

We are building the Voltalia of tomorrow: a more profitable and focused company, easier to understand, with a clearer business model and positioning. Now let me take you through concrete progress, achievement across each Spring workstream that you can see in the slide.

On portfolio refocusing, we continue to concentrate on our core geographies. Five country exits were identified last year, with two additional exits targeted by year-end.

On workforce optimization, around 160 positions have already been addressed, representing approximately 80% of our targeted reduction program. More specifically, in France, this affects around 100 positions, including 80 related to the completion of the social plan, what we call the PSE in French; in Brazil, around 40 positions; and for each Portugal and the United Kingdom, around 10 positions.

On cost efficiency, we have already delivered €16 million of recurring savings versus the first half of 2025, then including €12 million from development and prospecting activities alone. I will come back to illustrate that we are on track with our plan in the second focus on the next slide.

About disposals, very important one, most of the processes have now been launched, and discussions are progressing with multiple counterparties. While we cannot, and you will understand, we cannot disclose further details at this stage, we remain fully aligned with our objective of €300 million to €350 million for the first half of 2027.

Clearly, at the same time, we are ready to be flexible on timing when needed to maximize value rather than compromise on price. Finally, on performance improvements, we are moving from identification to delivery, with early evidence already visible in the operational performance of some of our assets, as well as Heenvliet, which doubled its EBITDA in the first half of to reach €12 million.

Overall, we are making good progress on Spring, with concrete milestones across all areas of the plan. Then, one of the first focus, the portfolio refocusing, our priority is no longer to maximize the size of the pipeline, you know that already.

It is to focus on the projects with the highest probability of conversion and strongest value creation potential. As part of Spring, we have thoroughly reviewed our development portfolio and introduced also a clearer maturity framework.

This approach allows us to allocate capital more selectively and then, as a matter of fact, improve expected returns and as well reduce execution risks. It also helps us better serve a broader range of offtakers, from utilities and governments through PPAs to corporate companies through what we call the CPPA, corporate PPA, including data centers.

At the same time, hybrid projects combining renewable generation and storage are taking a growing share of our pipeline, reflecting then increasing demand for flexible energy solutions. Going forward, we will, of course, continue to present this development funnel, providing a clear view of our project maturity, conversion potential, and future growth opportunities.

Next point regarding the savings. We are ahead of plan.

Let's take a moment to explain where we stand. In first half of 2026, we delivered €16 million of recurring savings compared with H1 2025.

This is around 60% more than transformation costs of the same period, which was €10 million. It is also important to remember that transformation costs are temporary, while those savings are recurring and will continue to improve our cost base going forward.

Now, to compare our performance with our original target, we need, of course, to use the same baseline, 2024. On this basis, we have already achieved then €21 million of savings on the base of six months, €18 million from development and prospecting, and €3 million from structural costs.

I can say that overall, we are generating savings faster than expected, and this gives us, of course, confidence in our ambition of reaching the €45 million of average annual recurring savings between '26 and '30. I remind you, €35 million from development and prospecting and €10 million from structural costs.

Moving now to our last focus: performance. Let me highlight an important point regarding our 2030 Energy Sales EBITDA margin target to go from 70% to 72%.

The improvement will come from two complementary sources. First, our existing operating portfolio, where we are working on production and availability, revenue recovery, cash generation, and cost efficiency.

Second, new power plants entering into operation with structurally higher margins. Then, on our existing fleet, these actions are already delivering results, and it will be improved month after month.

For example, we have reduced operation and maintenance, as well as asset management costs in Greece and in Brazil, as well as solar insurance costs on some of our assets. All together, and already those initiatives already represent around €2.7 million of annual savings.

We are only at the beginning. As we progressively roll out those initiatives across our geographies, it's obvious that the impact will continue to grow over time.

Moving now to our medium-term outlook. The targets, of course, are supported by four key drivers: the contracted visibility, the asset performance, Spring savings, and financial discipline.

2026 is the first step towards, as Sylvine mentioned, stronger performance in 2027 and towards, of course, our 2030 margin and leverage objectives. Our focus remains the same: building a more profitable, cash discipline, resilient growth model with development and IPP at the core.

To conclude now, let's come to our 2027 and 2030 objectives. First, our 2027 operating and EBITDA objectives remain unchanged.

We continue to target around 4.2 GW in operation and construction, including 3.7 GW in operation. We also confirm our EBITDA target of €300 million to €325 million, including €270 to €300 million coming from the Energy Sales.

Looking further ahead, our 2030 objectives also remain unchanged: around 5 GW in operation and construction, 70% to 72%, as I mentioned earlier, of Energy Sales EBITDA margin improvements, and a 9% to 11% improvement for Heenvliet margin, and net for the deleveraging, a net debt to EBITDA of 7.5 to 8 times. These targets, of course, are supported by Spring, with building stronger asset performance and, of course, our disposal program, important for progressive deleveraging.

However, as I mentioned earlier, on disposals, we want to maximize value rather than compromise on price, and this may result in some transactions taking more time than initially planned. For this reason, and given the uncertainty on the timing of disposals, we are suspending and only suspending our positive net result objective for 2027, as well as the related, of course, dividend objective for 2028.

This is only a prudent decision. It does not change our direction or operating on our EBITDA ambitions.

Let me now conclude with our key priorities for execution, and this is the final slide. Let me conclude with four clear messages.

First, one year into Spring, the transformation is delivering operational, tangible results: a lower cost base, a simpler organization, stronger operational performance supported by a better governance. Second, we are refocusing our business model.

Development is becoming more selective, we are improving the performance of our assets, and we are more disciplined in our capital allocation. Third, financial discipline remains at the center of our execution, of course.

We continue to secure project financing, strengthen liquidity, and develop strategic funding options, as you've been able to see with the proposed partnership with IFC. As you've been able to see today, despite improving the operational performance, we now expect a net loss in 2026.

This is obviously not satisfactory. It reflects the pressures below EBITDA and shows that our transformation is not yet complete.

However, this does not change the direction of Spring. On the contrary, it reinforces the need to continue and accelerate the transformation, particularly on cash generation, disposals, and therefore, deleveraging.

This brings me to my final message: our priority is to turn Spring progress into sustainable value creation. This means delivering our 2026 priorities, executing our disposal program, and, of course, progressively deleveraging the company.

Of course, we remain prudent on the pace of the transition, but our ambition remains clear: to make Voltalia a top performer, with profitability, discipline, and execution as our key priorities. Thank you very much for having been there for this presentation and listening us.

We are now ready to take your questions.

Yes, hello. Thank you for taking my questions.

I have two. The first one is I was wondering you mentioned a few reasons, but I was wondering what is the main driver really of the cut on net income expectations for 2026, because that cut is, I understand, at least €40 million, and it happened just in a month, basically from end of July when you did the trading statement to now.

Is it that some sales processes are going less well than expected and maybe before you assumed some capital gains linked to that and now you assume some impairments, because I struggle to see how the higher debt could be so meaningful to lead to more than €40 million of negative impact? That's the first part of the question on the guidance.

The second one is on 2027. What is exactly leading to the suspension of the target, because the timeline of your disposal plan doesn't seem to have changed.

Is it also linked to expectations of impairments versus capital gains on disposals? The second question on a totally different topic, on the Pecém data center project, I was wondering if you could provide a bit more detail on what will be Voltalia's role exactly.

Will you basically just build the power plants and sell the electricity via PPA, or is there also the monetization of some power plant, some grid connection that could take place and lead to development gain? Thank you very much.

We leave Sylvine for the first two questions, and I will take the third one, Sylvine.

Yes. Thanks, Arthur, for your question.

Coming back to the result being negative in '26 and the main reason why. What I was trying and explaining is that H1 is structurally in Voltalia net results negative due to the seasonality effect, point one.

Point two, indeed, we have a negative impact, which is linked to non-profitable activity. I mentioned into presentation, for instance, Helexia Brazil is definitely negatively waiting on our net results.

The point and the reason why, and you will say why it was not anticipated, the fact is that in Brazil, you do have a delay, Helexia Brazil, in the delivery of the commissioning of the plants, which therefore do not generate as much as we planned expected operating cash flow, and therefore, it has an impact on our P&L. The second question is in this case, why you did not mention and why you didn't share that point earlier within the year?

The reason is the following: at the time of the Q2 publication in July, the information available in the progress of the disposal plan still supported the assumptions of sufficient contribution for 2026. This is the main reason why in July we did not mention it.

To answer question is the main driver is non-profitable activity due to delay in commissioning, which is part of it. Second of all, it's the reason why we mention it now, it's because of the combined impact of all the expectation of the targeted, especially in terms of disposal plan, which make us sure that we had to indicate not a positive result for 2026.

Then, second point is why do we suspend '27 net results? The fact is, as you mentioned, we do have a disposal program, the Spring disposal program, which is expected to provide us of the total cashing of 300 to 350.

We actually did launch a lot of actions, projects, which are now underway. They are either in phase one, or we even recently received some NBO and are processing now the data opening data room and are expecting by the end of the year some binding offers.

What we want to do is to select and to take the best project, I would say, of disposal, which creates the more value for the company and which are the better for the company restructuring plan. Having said that, it means that, and we everyone knows that M&A is quite difficult to predict.

We consider that instead of telling you now an amount and then in six months to say we had a positive impact because of this transaction and then a negative impact with another transaction, there are too big volatility linked to the M&A program that we prefer to suspend and to inform you once we deliver each of the disposal programs. This is the main reason why instead of giving some indication which may change, we prefer to say, okay, let's freeze, and once we have more visibility, we share with you.

That was for question one and two, and as for the last one, I hand over to Robert.

Yes, thank you for the question. Indeed, this is what you mentioned, Pecém.

We've been working for a long time together with other competitors in this location, which is a very good location in Brazil for data centers because there is a possibility to take advantage of the arrival of fiber optic cables, especially in Pecém or close to Pecém, and our role is developing the projects, securing the connection, securing the land, the permitting, etc., in order to monetize, indeed, this project. Not only, we want to be an energy infrastructure partner, also supplying the energy thanks to the pipeline we have in Brazil, especially with wind projects, which are ready to build.

Then basically, it's both: monetizing the development activities we've been doing so far in that very specific place and negotiating and signing corporate PPAs with those data centers that will require a lot of energy in order to be able to run. In Brazil, it's been now reconducting an incentive, tax incentive program, and we just had the outcome that we are eligible to this tax incentive program that will allow us to show a very competitive projects towards colocators or hyperscalers, etc.

Just to follow up to be entirely clear on that one, you will be linked to the Pecém data center project, you will be generating EBITDA linked to the sale of electricity via PPA at some point when the data center comes online, but you will also generate EBITDA coming from the sale of a site or just from a PPA?

From both. This is what I said: monetizing then all the development activities to sell the projects and being hopefully profitable with an EBITDA generation, and also EBITDA generation through the PPAs once the data center will start operation and will start also generating electricity.

On both, these were our expectations.

Thank you very much.

This is the aim of the project at the end.

Yes, good morning to all of you. Hope you are hearing me well.

I have several one. One is a follow-up concerning the Arthur questions on Pecém.

How are you treating this deal because it's a little bit particular? Are you including it in the divestments, means including the €300-€350 million you're expecting, or it's considered as operating, means EBITDA for the PPA, I could understand that, but the land disposal would be treated as non-recurring as a business which is including divestments or not?

That's my first question. The second question is concerning the curtailments.

You were mentioning at some point a target of €36 million some months ago. Where we are currently?

What is your last estimation of the impact on a full-year basis? Two other questions are mainly linked to the losses.

Could you just help us to figure out what's going to be the landing point, because you mentioned that financial charges are going to be higher linked to what you mentioned concerning the level of debt in Brazil? Could you just help us to have a rough figure what could be the Q2, or you would say, impact of that?

Also concerning the net losses, do we have to take almost the double of H1 for the full year? Last point is concerning the guidance '26 in terms of EBITDA.

The €29 million are included. What is today your estimate of this compensation level in a full-year basis as you are still working on that?

Do we consider that the 29 is already achieved, the min, and we may have more than that? Just in order to have an idea about where we have to land.

Many thanks.

We'll take the first one, and Sylvine, you take the other ones. No, the answer is no to your first one.

Actually, we consider Pecém as business as usual. As we are developing projects, it could be energy projects, and now it could be a data center project as an infrastructure energy partner.

Then it's not included in the €300 to €350 million divestments as you asked me. Then it's let's say considered as if we were selling a ready-to-build solar or wind project like it's part of our business model every year.

Sylvine?

Yes. Philippe, as for your questions, as for the curtailment, as I believe you mentioned the amount you mentioned is the one which was budgeted curtailment '26 without any kind of compensation.

We do, and this is what we are trying to reflect, that we notice and we can recognize that there is a step-by-step year-on-year a slight decrease in percentage of the curtailment, one point for this period compared to the prior period. We assume that this amount will continue to decrease, and as per targets in terms of curtailment for 2026 and what we budgeted, we are in line, and we have no deviation for 2026.

One point is that it weighs a little bit more compared to our budget because we did the budget with a 7 reais exchange rate, while we are now a bit more than 6 reais per euro, it weighs a little bit in our group contribution. Financial cost, cost of financing, we expect not a significant increase for the second half.

I would say the percentage which is, I presented, 6.3% will be maybe slightly increased, but not very significantly, this is going to be mirrored on H2 compared to H1. In terms of net loss, indeed, we have a group loss of -€40 million at the end of H1.

We do have two things to consider here. The first one is our run activity, and the second part is the net results impact of the divestment plan.

As for our running activity, as I was explaining, what weighs on our P&L, it's this non-profitable activity, and we indeed do not expect to go further that the one that we had for the first semester. Having said that, I put a caveat.

I know it's not comfortable, but I'm sharing you also what is the day-to-day life within Voltalia, saying we have a big program of divestments. We have some potential significant profit from this program, some of them which are not profit but can be loss, depending when they will happen, and this creates the volatility I mentioned.

I just put this note, which is important. Then the last question, I think, was the 29, we do not expect any further compensation related to this period or any future period for this year.

We're still strongly having discussions, but not anything to be booked within the year.

Many thanks, Sylvine. Very clear.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you. Good morning, thank you for taking our questions.

I have two follow-ups from my side if I may. The first one is on the disposal program that you signal and the ongoing discussions for it.

I want to better understand why is the difference in the timing that you've seen what you initially expected a year ago. Is mainly on the asset review on your side and the impairment charges that you've been having on solar assets, is mainly on investor interest and expected valuation that you're going to get?

I want to better understand this timing change. The second one is on the 2027 EBITDA guidance that is confirmed.

Are you including any curtailment compensation for this guidance as you are including for '26? The second is what are your curtailment assumptions, given that 2026 curtailment is slightly above what you expected?

The third one is, are any disposals effects included on EBITDA, or is it going to be mainly below EBITDA on 2027? Thank you.

Thank you, Juan. I will take the first one, maybe you can take the second one.

Basically, regarding our disposal plan, it's roughly what you said, and it's pretty diverse, actually, the reasons of taking more time. Sometimes because the process takes more time because it's a bit more complex that we were expecting.

In other cases, basically, we prefer to take more time in order to be able to maximize the price. Then this is what I said during the presentation, and that's the reason why we could have an offset of planning in terms of asset disposal program.

Second question, Juan, was about the assumptions for 2027 EBITDA. We did not book any potential compensation in our 2027 targets in respect of curtailment in our plan.

The third question, which is about disposal, indeed, most of them will impact below EBITDA because it's not sale of assets, but it's mainly sale of activity, business lines, or so it's going to be below EBITDA.

A follow-up if I may, what are your curtailment assumptions on your budget?

Yes, sorry, I forgot that one. My apologies.

For the budget 2020 sorry, for the budget 2027, the amount is estimated to be 20. Just to give you an overview, this amount is below the one of 2026, but is actually in line with what we anticipated and when we build our P&T, because then after we expect 20 to decrease again a little bit.

When now we reviewed our curtailment assumptions, you've heard I explained that we booked an impairment of €8 million on some solar assets in Brazil because we reviewed mid-long-term assumptions for curtailment. We assumed that in a normalized environment where we will still have some curtailment, at least for the discrepancy between offer and demand, we do rely on a 5-10% curtailment.

Just to give a clear indication about short-term, long-term vision.

Quite clear. Thank you very much.

Let's move now to the question from the platform. Let me read it now.

There's several questions related to divestment, I will maybe select several one of one. This one is, could you update us about the divestment plan, as you confirm the 300-350 target, and about the planning?

Then this is what we said earlier with the question we had. Basically, we have launched already most of the process for the asset disposal program.

Then we have received some NBOs, we are negotiating with the counterparties, the data room are being opened or are going to be opened in some cases, and that's the reason why we expect closing those deals on the first half of 2027. Unfortunately, we cannot at this stage, and you will understand, for the best of the price of the processes, we cannot disclose precisely what are the operation in progress, but a big team is dealing with that, and we having quite a lot of progress.

There is a matter of timing as I answered to Juan just earlier, where basically, we may take some more time for some of the transactions in order to get the best price, as it's usual in an M&A process.

I have a question from CIC, from Emmanuel. One question related to keep going on divestment plan, the question about Helexia.

You highlighted Helexia performance, which is weaker than expected, particularly in Brazil and in services. Could this be a candidate for divestment under the Spring plan?

As I mentioned before, we cannot at that stage disclose the transactions. Then basically, you have to do your own mind about what are the candidates that we are thinking about.

Indeed, we are looking at all the options, including, of course, Helexia. As Sylvine mentioned during the presentation, it's a matter of the performance of Helexia, which is not in line with our expectation in 2000 on the first half in 2026, is really related about the offset from financing and the generation of revenues, the high cost of financing, and some delays on the commissioning of the plants.

Additional question from CIC, Emmanuel Chevalier. In your target of €100 to €120 million EBITDA for Energy Sales in the second half year of the year, have you made any further assumptions regarding compensation related to curtailment in Brazil?

Same question applies to 2027 targets. Actually, I think we covered it, but better to repeat.

Indeed, we do not expect any additional compensation in the second half of this year, and we did not build our 2027 targets of receiving compensation of curtailment. We have included a €20 million of curtailment costs, but no curtailment compensation in 2027.

In addition, it's worth saying that it's not because we have not considered any compensation, further compensation in '26, '27, and later on, that we are giving up. We are still, together with associations, fighting in order to be able to recover at least part of the losses due to the curtailment.

Then still actively participating to the negotiation with the government in order to recover it.

I can see a final question from CIC related to leverage. Without a significant divestment, what is the projected financial leverage at the end of the year?

The targeted leverage for Voltalia, we've said it since we launched Spring, we have to deleverage, and we will deleverage through the disposal program. To improve the net debt to EBITDA ratio, we are improving operation, and I hope I convinced you by showing how operating cash flow improved for the period, and we continue working on that, point one.

The main driver is definitely the disposal program. This really again, and I know that to plan, and this is also our goal to have the best view what will happen in '26, what will happen in '27, but between '26 and '27, thanks to this disposal plan, it will also decrease the leverage of the group.

Additional to the question of CIC related to development and IPP, and especially IPP activity, a question from Nicolas Royot. The EBITDA contribution of IPP related to H2 seems conservative, given the higher contribution of recent assets, seasonality, and recovery expected of availability.

Did you expect higher curtailment, and or do you expect also restructuring costs and impairments expected in H2?

Actually, you cannot consider that the EBITDA on the first half is considering the €29 million, which will not happen again on the second half, and we have considered the seasonality effect on the second half to reflect, let's say, a higher, normalized EBITDA. It means without further curtailment compensation.

We are not considering any degradation on the curtailment on the second, and we are realistic regarding the generation of electricity on the second half, and therefore, the generation of EBITDA.

Let's move to a question related to divestment. Thomas Piquemal ask about the disposal plan under Spring.

Are you planning to sell assets by region, or will you try to sell everything in a small number of transactions, one or two portfolio of assets to one or two buyers? Also, are your discussion mainly with financial buyer or utilities?

Thank you.

It's a large question, actually, and considering the large disposal program that we have, most of what you said is forecasted. Actually, we prefer, of course, to reduce the numbers of transactions because it's less work to be done in order to conduct all those processes.

In some cases, for instance, the exit of a country, of course, we prefer to sell the platform rather than selling assets by assets. Obviously, it could create more value and at the same time less work and then less cost in order to be able to conclude those transactions.

Then really, it depends case-by-case according to the objects and according to the market, according to the appetite of the market. We have several configurations here.

You asked about the potential buyers, also they are diverse. It could be funds, could be platforms, could be utilities, and depending, of course, of the disposal we are talking about.

I can see that I didn't ask the final part of the question of Nicolas Royot. Are you accounting for restructuring costs and impairment expected in H2 2026 additionally?

Aside from our disposal program, no, we do not expect significant impairment expected in H2, in the way that what we were saying before, if we have to impair some assets within a sell process, we will reflect it in our books, depending on the value creation, but apart from that part, there are no major impairments expected. We have also a question related to the market condition related to raising debt.

What is the market currently? Is it difficult, bearing in mind that, in parallel, the upcoming financing with IFC gives you more flexibility?

I would say the overall environment for any company in the market is facing increase of interest rates. As we do in Voltalia, and we are infrastructure company with a balance sheet structure with an amount of debt which is therefore important and which is drawing the attention.

What I'd like to remind, and this is something we try to convey to you, is that we do have within our debt, I would say, two types of debt. Because we have, on one hand, the project debt, which is the one, and it's 62% of our debt, which is the one linked to our PPA, long-term revenues.

We negotiate at the beginning before the construction, then we fixed, we hedge, or we indexed the interest, and then the life is moving on, I would say, of that debt. This is really something which is frozen at the moment we contract.

On the other hand, we have the rest of the debt, which is supporting, financing our development and activity. For sure, we are now controlling and indeed optimizing the cash flow generation of our operations to reduce the net debt to EBITDA ratio, because the higher net debt to EBITDA ratio I have, the less favorable, I would say, condition I can capture.

We do have some debts, indeed. We are negotiating.

We have some loans which are expiring, extending. We are having always some negotiations.

Things are going, but indeed, you're right, the environment makes it at higher costs than it used to be in two to three years. Finally, for the IFC, to make it clear, the IFC, it's really one of the milestone of Spring.

The IFC project is a partnership with a financial international institution to co-invest in equity in some emerging countries that Robert mentioned, to support and to share risk and reward, I would say, and to do bigger projects in sometimes some countries which could weigh too much in our balance sheet. It diversify, actually, with a partner, a long-term partner, and this is really what we want to develop and to continue to do in Spring.

It's a co-partnering, in investing in our equity for our energy sales activity, solar and best activity. The last question I can see from Allinvest, Claire Migeon, regarding the depreciation.

You mentioned depreciations following the impact of curtailment in certain assets. Does it means we should expect structural depreciations going forward?

Alors, the answer is no. Now I will explain why.

What we've done, we said, okay, now we have finally negotiated, reached the agreement, and hopefully collected compensation more than we expected. We need also on a regular basis to review whether our assumptions in terms of curtailment were too much optimistic compared to how it's moving on, or too much prudent.

We've run a full review of our Brazilian assets, full. We did some technical impairment discounted cash flow forecast, and we end up with some impact for this solar plant.

Why? Because if you remember, we mentioned it, maybe it was one year ago, the curtailment does not affect the same way wind plants, solar plants, and so on.

Solar were more affected, and this is the reason why that by working on the scenario, we feel it's more prudent to adjust the value of these assets. Hopefully, I cannot predict the future, but hopefully with information we have in mind, with the mid-term, I would say, five years time, 5% to 10% curtailment, I would say, in a more regular environment, in stable environment.

We are not saying there will be no more curtailment, we are saying there will be, but at a lower pass, and maybe some unbalance between offer and demand, we expect the 5 to 10. Reflecting this in our discounted cash flow end up with one impairment that we booked in June.

Just to complete, we say 5 to 10, it's because also there could be some curtailment which could be different if it's a solar plant or wind plant according to the moments those assets could generate energy.

Thank you, everybody. I think we can move to the conclusion, Robert.

You can say Robbie as well. People call me Robbie or Robert, it's the same.

I'd like to thank you for attending that presentation. Thank you so much for those questions.

As you've seen, it's fundamental not to repeat my further conclusion, but hopefully, we've been able to show you that the transformation actions are ongoing, and we start to see and to measure some of the effects, even if there are still some way and some actions to be done. The teams also, it's important in itself to talk about the team, they are more and more confident about the path we are going towards, and they understand every time more and more not only the needs, they have understood already some time ago when we started the transformation project, but now they see why they see some of the results.

They feel, of course, every time more confident. Of course, everyone and we are the first disappointed about the expectation of negative net results, but it does not affect the fact that we still believe on the effects and on the improvement of the operational performance, very soon on the financial performance.

There are, yes, some possible offsets regarding asset disposal that we mentioned earlier, but what I would say is that we are on the right track, and I hope we've been able to show that to you. Thank you very much.

Thank you.