Good morning, and welcome, everyone, to my first annual results presentation. Also, for those of you who don't know who I am, I'm Angus Gordon Lennox, Chair of this company.

On this presentation, we've also got Keith Pickard, who is the Chair of the Audit Committee, and three members from Gore Street Capital who will be talking to you as well. I think the first thing to say is that this new board has only been in place since the 1st of February.

These results are to the end of March, it's literally two months of the new board that we're talking about, although, of course, there's been a couple more months passed since the end of March. The new board has taken significant action.

In the first place, we have had a strategy review, and we announced that in March, as many of you may have met me at that point. A couple of things that we did: we promised to have a good, hard look at this company, and we've done that, with some quite simple results, which we'll come onto later.

I think the most important thing at this stage is that the NAV that we've announced this morning is, in our view, a realistic NAV and therefore a change. The dividend that we've announced this morning is entirely in line with the new strategy that we announced in March.

It's early days. We're taking action, and actually, as you'll hear now from Alex and the team, the company in the circumstances that it's in is doing well.

Over to you, Alex.

Thank you very much, Angus. Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for joining. Let me take you through some of the headlines here.

Obviously, the thing which will grab most people's attention, of course, is this NAV decline from over the course of the year, now just under 75p. Sumi will take you through the detail of that NAV bridge.

It is a NAV which is driven by third-party forecasts. Throughout its history, this company has taken what we believe is the appropriate way to look at NAV.

We have an asset class which is volatile in terms of revenue, and the third-party curves have reflected that volatility with some material changes in their curves going forward. We've taken those curves into the DCF, and after discussion with the board and the audit committee, several adjustments to those curves leading to this NAV here of 75p.

Overall, what would I say here around the NAV? What does it mean in terms of storage?

We've been investing in storage; this fund has been up and running since 2018. We are surprised at the build-out of storage.

We always knew this would be a large asset class and one that was critical to the energy transition. In some of the markets how we operate, the build-out of storage has been more than our expectations, and that supply-demand dynamic has led to an underperformance against revenue.

That said, it's a 20-year portfolio and one which has reasonable volatility year on year. As Angus mentioned, we have a new board, working very closely with that new board, who have been involved in every aspect of this business, including, of course, this set of results and this NAV.

We'll talk a little bit about the progress on strategy, but that strategy is one of recycling capital and strong distributions. This fund has given back significant shareholder distributions, most recently last year with the ITC, very significant amount of money, and previous to that, large amounts of distributions.

We look to continue that with a series of disposals which are in progress and progressing well. Then we'll end talking a little bit about some of our future plans in terms of augmentation and new developments, but constant focus in terms of delivering cash back to shareholders as we look at what is a dislocation in the market between share price and NAV.

Overall, then, all investors on this call realize the importance of BESS. The BESS has proved itself to be the critical asset in our transition.

It is an asset, revenues determined through volatility. Owning a portfolio of BESS assets is to be long volatility on the energy system.

More and more renewables get built, bigger and bigger effects of climate change, geopolitical lead to volatility in the energy system leading to higher revenues. Those revenues are then matched by the build-out of storage, which we have seen higher growth than we imagined, for instance, in the GB market and the Texas market in particular.

This platform operating in five markets, well distributed, well diversified. We are geeky enough that we have done the regression analysis to show that that diversification strategy has reduced volatility very significantly and actually is also delivering a higher level of revenue than if we'd stayed in one market.

Over nearly 650 MW in operation, 7p per share is our target distribution, and outside of the operational portfolio, significant amount of assets ready to go into construction. Some of the key metrics in terms of the portfolio, how it's distributed: 200 MW in California operating under very high contracted revenue contracts, strong revenue coming from our contracted portion of our revenue stack in California, 400 MWh in operation there; nearly 300 MW operating in the island of Ireland, has been a standout market for us consistently, we've done very well in that market; only 20 MW in Germany, been a very high IRR asset for us, delivering very strong cash flows; Britain has been a lower market for us over the last 12 months, although we are overachieving against the market baseline, but a market which is absolutely moved by the amount of storage at any one time on that market; same I would say in the Texas market, where we've seen a considerable build-out of storage, though that is lessening now, and a considerable build-out of solar and wind as the AI boom fuels huge amount of energy load increase.

Key metrics: Sumi will go into much more details around this, but as I said, 74.9p NAV, a dividend yield on that basis of 13.3%, gearing remain a very low-geared portfolio in comparison to our peers, at 22% level of gearing. Operational capacity: just under 650 MW, nearly a gigawatt-hour of operational capacity.

Contracted revenue: 31% contracted revenue, a lot of that's coming out of California, though with good contracts in place in the Republic of Ireland and in GB. We also have floor pricing in our Northern Irish assets, overall, I think a good balance between contracted and merchant within it.

Availability: Alicja will talk more on technical side here, but 95% availability, that is a market-leading number. Sumi.

Thank you, Alex. Let me go through finance section from page 11.

This bridge shows movement in NAV over the year. As Alex mentioned, NAV fell from 102.8p to 74.9p in this period, driven by lower actual revenues, revised revenue curves, and changes to our opex assumptions.

Walking from left to right, we started at 102.8p. The DCF roll-over added 9.3p.

Actual revenue was lower than prior forecast, which cost us 6.1p. Largest item, revised revenue curve, was -19p, which I will detail next slide.

Discount rates were -0.6p, opex -5.6p, fund level expense -2.3p, and dividend, which paid out, was -4.2p. Inflation gave back 1.1p, and that all brings us to the 74.9p.

On methodology, our key valuation inputs come from multiple independent providers and all assessed by audit committee members. Under the DCF, pre-construction assets carry higher discount rates than operational ones, with commissioning dates updated for our latest expectations.

BDO oversees the process, and EY reviews all material inputs and audits the accounts. In terms of the context of this year's NAV, following significant board renewal with a new audit committee chair, this NAV was set under the fresh leadership.

The new board went through the valuation in detail, reviewing key inputs and assumptions, and took a consciously prudent approach. That is the reason why large scale of movement in this bridge.

Next one. Yep, thank you.

Page 12, slide 12 shows the revenue curve movement. It is the biggest single driver at -19p NAV impact, with the largest revisions coming from GB and US.

We use mid-case blended average from multiple third-party providers. Their updated forecast across both GB and the US moved the valuation down by 17.2p in aggregate.

On top of that, the new curve includes additional 1.8p of adjustment directed by audit committee. That means we applied the historical 12-month revenue track record or actuals to 2026 and 2027 forecast to bring near-term projection closer to the recent performance.

That is a deliberately prudent step took by the audit committee. Together, this gives the -19p drop in NAV.

Alicja can go over the market dynamics in more detail in the later slide. Other valuation assumptions are listed here.

Actuals, -6.1p: this is a variance between realized revenues and prior forecast for this year. In this year, revenue were below forecast due to poor market conditions, mainly GB and US.

Inflation assumption, which is +1.1p: we modestly raised short-term assumptions across all markets, now it's ranging from 3% to 3.7%, reflecting latest forecasts. Long-term one is kept unchanged at 2.5% for GB and 2.25% for EU and the US.

They are all set with reference to third-party forecast or peer assumptions and market expectations rather than internal house views. Next one, opex, -5.6p: this is for prudence, and with the audit committee guidance, we now included project oversight cost beyond routine O&M cost, which we've been including.

Project oversight cost is included in the asset-level cash flows from this NAV. This reflects broader buyer universe for valuation to capture the full cost which passive owner without management function would incur.

Other adjustments here includes the insurance savings and O&M contract revisions. Lastly, discount rates, -0.6p: US rate increased to reflect difficult conditions, but partly offset by construction assets moving into the operational status.

GB and Irish rates were broadly flat, and that result in weighted average of 10.25% of discount rate, which is essentially flat compared to last year's 10.22%. Here are sensitivities and scenarios.

Headline of this page is the width of these ranges. NAV is highly sensitive to each of these assumptions, we took our best judgment on each of the assumptions, but these are our judgments, and another equally qualified professionals could reasonably differ, which is why we are being deliberate and prudent.

On the top half of this one, 1% move in inflation shifts NAV about 12p to 13p either way, and discount rate sensitivity is similar, but the opposite directions. FX looks small, 1.5p to 1.6p for 3% move of FX rate, but the 3% move in FX is entirely realistic for FX.

EPC is limited to 2p of the NAV impact for 10% EPC cost move. This is because majority of our assets are becoming operational.

The lower half shows scenarios. Uplift from non-operational asset progressing into the commissioning phase, then re-rated from the pre-construction discount rate to the operational discount rate, that impact will give us the 13.7p of the upside.

As you just saw in the earlier slide, impact of revenue assumption on NAV is large. That is also reflected at the bottom, sensitivity range of the high and low revenue case is the widest in this slide, ranging from -33.1p to the 20.5p.

Next one, moving on to balance sheet. GSF Group keeps deliberately lower gearing profile.

At March 2026, investment at fair value were £373 million, and with cash on balance sheet and working capital, total NAV was £378.32 million. Aggregate group debt was £105.82 million against the gross asset value of the £484 million, gearing is 22%, which is up from 18% last year.

This is reflecting Big Rock's debt and then also higher Santander increased balance. Out of this £106 million of debt, £61 million is drawn under the Santander RCF at HoldCo level, which is shared by Santander and Rabobank after syndication last July.

The balance, £44 million of debt, sits at the project level at the US Big Rock facility with the First Citizens Bank. We retain flexibility.

If you look at left-hand side, group cash of £52 million and in addition, £38 million of undrawn debt capacities are available to support growth and augmentation. We move on to the next one.

Concluding the finance section, this page gives a transparent bridge from revenue to total adjusted fund earnings. We start with top-line revenue of £36.3 million, or which is £7.3 per megawatt per hour.

Stepping down, revenue-related cost of £3.5 million, which is 9.6% of revenue, that accounts for RTMP, aggregator fee, and then also the energy cost. Next one, other operating cost of £10.8 million is the largest deduction, covering O&M, repairs, and site-level cost.

Admin cost is £2.8 million, and rent is £1.2 million. We have liquidated damage that is positive £2.7 million.

That is from project delayed or didn't have any access to the full revenue because of the delay. This sort of the lost revenue is partially reflected in this £2.7 million of the positives.

Below operating line, HoldCo and PLC expenses of £7 million, this includes investment manager fees as well. The manager fee fell 16%, 1-6%, year on year from £5.1 million to £4.3 million on the revised fee structure effective from October last year.

Also, commercial management fee also went down by 8%. Debt cost, mainly on Big Rock interest and principal, plus the higher Santander loan balance, that is a cause of the increase and resulting in £7.8 million of the cost.

All in all, total adjusted fund earnings were £5.96 million, which was down from £9.8 million last year. While new assets became operational this year, disappointingly, revenue remained flat.

Although revenue was flat, because of new assets becoming operational, it has the operating cost and debt cost from new asset that is pulling down earnings. This wraps up my section, and Alicja can go over market section.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sumi. I will just go to the next slide.

Apologies. The portfolio has averaged £7.3 per megawatt per hour, and this shows the effect of diversification of the portfolio across all the markets in which we have our assets and also overperforms against the single GB market strategy.

The strongest markets in the portfolio in this period have been consistently Ireland and also Germany. Ireland is driven predominantly by DS3 policy, which is very much tailored to batteries and strongly correlated to the renewable penetration in that grid.

This has increased last year. The share of energy that comes from renewables has increased in Ireland as a share, percentage share of demand.

That has allowed us to offset some of the changes that Irish regulator has introduced in the past to control the budget associated with ancillary services. Their decision to decrease some of the factors controlling the DS3 revenues have been offset by the need to have ancillary services on the grid driven by renewables.

Overall, £14, nearly £15 is a very strong performing market and consistently over all the operational years, also with high, very high availability of our assets, above 98% in that market. In Germany, strong performance still driven very much by renewable penetration in summer.

Strong solar input from photovoltaic installation in that country means that system operator has high need to regulate and balance the system, and therefore our batteries were able to participate in aFRR, which is now a predominant revenue stream in our stack and overall so shows positive, positive need for batteries in that market and again, strong performance of Cremzow asset there. In UK, we have seen kind of two sides of a story.

The first half of the year has been relatively stronger than financial year 2024/2025. We have seen day-ahead spreads about 16% higher in this financial year, and that also has translated into higher revenues in D-Star suite.

However, the winter has been significantly milder than 2024/2025, and we have seen a 40% decrease of day-ahead spreads, which then has led to significant decrease in overall revenues available to both merchant component and ancillary services. That also has, we have seen some impact from policy changes, notably the change in ABSVD methodology, which in the past has favored non-balancing units.

Weaker performance in Texas in terms of in terms of revenues, predominantly driven by low demand or lower-than-anticipated demand growth and stronger renewable growth offsetting that demand increase. We do expect that this is going to change quite fundamentally as the backlog of data centers will be consistently coming online in Texas, very much driving rapid demand growth and scarcity events, which are a fundamental factor driving revenues in that region.

Closing with California, in California, we have fundamentally mostly a contracted revenue profile with Resource Adequacy constituting about 76% of our revenue stack, but the merchant component has declined in that market by 40% year on year, and that has fundamentally been reflected in the overall revenue profile of that of that market. Moving on to the next slide.

In terms of our in-house G-Set, the trading team performance, the team has onboarded 100, nearly 114 MW over the last financial year, and that mostly constituted assets in Texas. We're pleased to say that the team has outperformed benchmarking in terms of using Modo benchmarks for the relevant duration.

In GB, our portfolio is consistently at the moment 1-hour system, and the team has outperformed against that. In Texas as well, since the time when the team has taken over, we have seen overall strong 14% overperformance against the 2-hour benchmark against the backdrop of lower revenues in in this market.

In terms of the technical performance and the overall developments in in our portfolio, the portfolio has maintained its level of availability through active management. This is on the 95% availability is on on par with last year's performance.

To manage the portfolio and reduce costs, we have focused on using and developing our in-house data technology platform. It allows us to leverage the vast amount of operational data and use it more efficiently and consistently across the portfolio.

This platform effectively allows us to identify faults more clearly, respond faster, and overall decrease the costs. Through this through this technology, we have reduced asset management costs by a little bit more than 300k per year.

We have also, through very strong track record in safety and our leading industry engagements on particularly on fire safety standards, we have managed to also drive down very significantly our insurance premiums in the portfolio, that is more than half a million pounds per annum just in insurance savings. We're also at the moment undertaking augmentation process for Stony and Ferrymuir assets.

We expect this is going very much on time and on budget, and we expect this processes to continue and complete by end of this calendar year as we envisage. Against the backdrop of this work, maintaining live assets, augmenting the assets as they operate, Stony and Ferrymuir have maintained operational, and therefore the availability levels that you see here are unaffected, which is a very, very good outcome.

Lastly, reporting on our ESG KPIs. Over the course of financial year, the portfolio has abated 15,000 tonnes of CO2.

We put this in the context, that's 3,000, more than 3,300 passenger cars traveling on the road for a year, and it constitutes a strong increase from previous year, as well as the portfolio has stored 56, nearly 57 GWh of energy. Again, for context, this is 23,000 households using energy in in a year.

We announced in March a new strategy, which it took a lot of hard work to get there, but it's actually pretty simple. It is to use operational income and capital from disposals to return some of that capital back to you shareholders.

On the basis that there's then additional capital to be used to create value and growth through augmentation and selective investment. It's quite a simple thing.

It's early days. It's very early days.

Bear with us, but there's one key thing: we are absolutely laser-focused on not reducing value for shareholders. We want to increase value for shareholders, and we want to return some of that capital to shareholders whilst we are doing that.

We are absolutely sure that we do not want to destroy value by doing anything in too hurried a way, but it's really important that we do continue along this strategy so that we can get more credibility and indeed create value for shareholders. Alex.

Thank you, Angus. Yes, as Angus mentioned there, a strategy around recycling of capital.

We are engaged in sales processes on Irish pre-construction and Cremzow, as the market has been informed, and those processes are going well. We're happy with the progress on that.

We, of course, and as Alicja mentioned, engaged in our augmentation and a range of more augmentations to complete as we bring our portfolio where it's 1-hour to longer duration. Of course, a key part of this is distribution back to shareholders.

GSF, through its history, has distributed very significant amount of capital back. Last year with the ITC, which the market I think had rightly had a level of concern around given the policy environment in the US, that was delivered successfully above the guidance, and we will continue on that path as we look and see where the portfolio can be both strengthened and disposals can be made in terms of rewarding to shareholders.

As we look in terms of those distributions at 7p, focused on that as a key metric, driven by operational performance. I would say, yes, the last year's revenue has been below expectations, really what we have is an asset class which is overdelivered in terms of capacity being built, and that gives quite high levels of volatility within the markets we operate.

That said, as Alicja went through in terms of her slide, we can see a portfolio which is generating 50% more revenue than we would be on a like-for-like basis if we'd stayed in GB, and it's doing so with a very appropriate conservative level of debt. We've also been focused, of course, on the cost side, major contracts have been renegotiated, leading to significant cost savings for shareholders.

As we continue to look at areas that we can overachieve against the market through the use of data, through the use of optimization, those initiatives continue apace. 417 MW in sales process, and then another 130 MWh in augmentation.

We will continue to report to the market on those, but both of those activities are going well. In conclusion, then, what would I say?

We have a portfolio which is well distributed between key markets. It is a portfolio which has a high level of contracted income, up to 30%, but also floor pricing in place in key markets such as Northern Ireland.

We have a portfolio which has a level of revenue significantly above the baseline from our home market in GB. We also have a portfolio which is absolutely driven by supply-demand dynamics, where private funds have increased their exposure very significantly in GB and Texas especially to energy storage assets, leading to a decline in revenue.

Our NAV, which is obviously a headline piece of news from today, features that as we take down the third-party curves. We have consistently used the mid-case, we've consistently used the average, but those third-party curves are forecasting a decline in revenue.

We've taken them into our DCF. Thank you, everybody, for your time, and we will move to questions.

Great. Thank you very much, and thank you for the questions submitted so far.

If there are any more questions, please put them in the chat. First question, which was pre-submitted, is around the augmentation.

How are the 2-hour duration extension projects progressing, and what is the target megawatt-hour capacity at the end of the year?

Maybe I can answer. It's progressing really well.

We expect no issues and no delays to this process, also because the way we undertake augmentation is very tailored and very effectively indicating the foresight that we have done in the design process. The assets have been designed with augmentation in mind, and effectively it's a simple DC, basically direct current cell movement exercise.

We are bringing new cabinets with cells, but we're not affecting the inverters, and therefore we're not affecting anything to do with the network operator, and therefore there is no dependency on any delays from DNOs from their processes. We are targeting end of this year, and the assets will come sequentially on one by one in October, November, December and very much ahead of schedule at the moment, and we anticipate no issues.

We're adding one hour into Stony and Ferrymuir, 130 MWh.

Thank you. Next pre-submitted question is: What has been the impact of the Iran conflict on revenues, and how long do you anticipate that will last for?

Maybe I'll have a go first. Taking a step back, an energy storage portfolio is long volatility on the energy system.

The more volatile the energy system is, the more revenues will accrue, balanced out by how much storage there is to answer that demand. I think what we have seen over the last few months is increased volatility in the British market, and therefore we've seen some higher revenue.

I think we were probably expecting a little bit more given some of the very big moves we saw, for instance, the oil price. In the US, the volatility has been a little less, mainly because they are a gas producer themselves.

The gas prices haven't moved as much, the oil price has. We've seen some uptick.

It's hard to really determine whether the uptick we've seen in GB revenues is to do with the war, but there definitely is another layer of volatility in it. Alicja, I don't know if you have comments as well?

I would agree with that generally. Gas is still setting prices in majority in the markets where we operate: Great Britain, Texas, Germany, and of course California as well; probably lesser of an impact in Ireland, where it's very much kind of driven by renewable penetration, and the remuneration there is driven by incentive to operate in times of high renewables.

Overall, I would say that we have seen mixed bag of impact of gas prices, and it has very much to do with intricacies of how the operational systems are being balanced by operators. From time to time, you see that especially in GB, system operators favor calling in gas peakers to control imbalance on the system.

Overall, the fundamentals are that gas prices still a driving factor in setting the spreads. There should be an ongoing impact if gas prices are elevated.

Thank you. Next question again pre-submitted is: Is the fund considered doing share buybacks to take advantage of the discount to NAV?

Perhaps I'll come in on that. At the moment, we're returning capital and revenue, but we're returning capital and revenue to all shareholders effectively at NAV by declaring these dividends, which we feel is better than selective buybacks at a big discount for the shareholder body as a whole.

However, we haven't said that we're not going to do buybacks. We need to make sure that we have the resources to do so, and clearly for NAV enhancement in the future, if we've got excess capital, which is for the future, when we've got excess capital, we will look at the potential returns on buying shares at a large discount versus the potential returns of new developments, etc.

We haven't done any yet. We think that the way that we're returning capital at the moment is fair and equal for all shareholders, but we will consider them in the future when we have excess capital to deploy.

Thank you. Next question is on fact sheets: What is being done to improve the content?

Moving to quarterly only. We think the monthly we weren't able to give enough information through the monthly given the listed rules.

We've added new content to the quarterly, and that was published this morning, I believe, Ben. Investors can see that.

I think we've always been at the forefront of getting out as much content as possible. It needs to be a balance, though, I think going forward on quarterly fact sheets trying to get information as soon as possible into the hands of investors, especially we have a very large retail audience, we think will be more useful.

Thank you. Next one is a few of these questions, I will bundle them together: Income does not sustain the dividend, is this a wind-up?

Let me take that first, and of course I'll hand over to Angus as well. The strategy that was announced in March is a strategy of distributions and recycling.

We obviously had a tough year on the revenue side, which was disappointing, particularly as we had so much capacity coming on stream. We need to look at this asset class and this portfolio in its context, and its context is that when we started investing into energy storage and our first assets came on stream in 2018, we underwrote those assets to between £7 and £8 per megawatt per hour of operation.

At the top, in GB at the top in 2020 and 2021, we were receiving between £20 and £25 per hour per megawatt, and then we've seen variability going all the way down to £3 to £4. Right now, we're at £7.50 across the portfolio.

For sure, we see difficulties on the revenue side for the last year, but what we have is a portfolio which is well distributed, which has good upside, which can move pretty heavily in terms of revenue depending on macro effects such as gas, as Alicja went through, such as supply-demand, build-out of renewables, and climate change. A lot of those are there, and one shouldn't gauge the viability of the portfolio to deliver dividends just on this one snapshot on an asset which is built to last for 20 years.

That said, we recognize the share price and the discount, and we have consistently delivered back significant shareholder distributions compared to the listed infrastructure. We've done very well in terms of those distributions back, and we need to figure out a way to solve that discount, but we will do so on the basis of a growing portfolio where we will continue to recycle.

Angus, I don't know if you have anything to add to my answer?

There's not very much to add to that other than to say that this is quite a young industry that's proving to be quite cyclical, as Alex has already described. Also that in terms of the strategy, we are in the early days of that strategy.

This board has only been in place since the 1st of February. We're in the early days.

That strategy is predetermined by some selective sales, which are progressing well. Once those sales have been achieved and indeed perhaps others in the future, then as I said earlier, we'll take a view as to whether new developments and augmentations, etc., etc.

will be more advantageous than, for instance, buying back shares. All we care about is what's best value for shareholders.

We think that's going to take a bit of time, but we're certainly not in wind-down. We just need to sell some assets in order to execute on the strategy.

The strategy, as has been said a number of times, will include investment in the future as well as handing out distributions to shareholders.

Thank you very much. The next two questions are clarifications: Why has the quarter four dividend not been declared for this year?

That was declared this morning using the fact sheet and with payment date of around the 1st of September. The next question is: What do you hope to pay by way of a dividend this year?

The dividend target is 7p for the year.

That's 1.75p a quarter.

Thank you. Moving from Martin F: Is the correlation between inflation and discount rate to NAV sensitivity positive or negative?

Let me take that. Inflation and discount rates are correlated on the opposite way.

Interest rate goes up, then discount rate usually goes up, because the discount rate is set based on the, for example, Treasury rate or gilt rate. That's going to go up as well.

The impact of the NAV is opposite. If the inflation goes up, that gives a positive value to NAV, can be offset by the higher discount rate, which is reducing NAV.

There are always the time gap. Government does not or central bank does not necessarily react quickly against any kind of inflations.

There might be time lag from that.

It's worth commenting just because of that question on NAV, and Sumi pointed it out earlier, reasonable investment professionals could have easily looked at NAV in a different way, and in fact do, because we see a multitude of ways of people looking at the same curves. It's interesting when you look at that slide that Sumi presented on sensitivities.

If a high case in revenue had been chosen or if a different inflation rate or a different FX number, NAV would have moved absolutely in the opposite direction by the same amount. We're obviously comfortable with this NAV as a fair representation to shareholders, engaged using third-party curves, using the mid-case, using average, and then in dialogue with the audit committee about near-term results and how they feed into it.

Reasonable investment professionals could have looked at this NAV in a different way, and in fact in other peers they do.

Thank you. Next from Jeremy S: Can you confirm if higher inflation leads to increase in NAV?

Yes, in general, because you have the asset up and running historical capex is already paid. You will benefit from the higher revenue if the revenue is impacted by inflation, and then revenue is higher than cost in general.

The positive cash flow increment is expected, it will result in the higher NAV. Obviously, it will be depending on whether we will be offsetting that with the higher discount rate or if the interest rate cost for loan can increase also materially.

All in all, it will be 100% uncertain, but in general, gross asset value will increase on that basis.

Thank you. Next from Niall M: Does the company foresee further extending battery duration?

Alicja, jump in here, but it's worthwhile making a snapshot. In GB, we are 1-hour going to 2-hour, an excellent point to do that augmentation.

We picked the low point in capex, we're building at I think 50% lower than we would have two years ago. We're very pleased with the return on invested capital for that augmentation.

That's 1-hour going to 2-hour. In Texas, we already run 2-hour.

In California, we're running as a 4-hour system. In Germany, as a 90-minute.

Ireland obviously would be the one where we look at augmentation naturally taking place. Augmentation takes place for us to be able to gather more revenue from a different type of revenue source than ancillary services, from energy trading, where we want to actually deliver power for longer.

Alicja? Alicja, I think you're on mute.

Is that better now? Can you actually hear me?

Apologies. In the past, we have very carefully timed augmentation, and we very often kind of went against the mainstream of augmenting at times when effectively it was a little bit of a hopeful thinking from the market.

We time it, and that goes to Alex's point of choosing the GB moment very carefully, and we might continue to do so as we evaluate the capex movements and continue to evaluate 2-hour duration curves. In Ireland, market is slowly shifting to recognize merchant sort of trading component and some of the policy introductions by EirGrid-supported, like the dispatch program, which means that batteries are more frequently realizing their physical trading positions.

That also supports potentially looking to increase the duration in Ireland, that is currently very very efficient 30-minute portfolio, to look into extending this. This would be very much driven by the interplay between capex and continuously assessing that the timing is right for increased duration.

Thank you. Next question: Do you have or have you considered any tolling or floors?

Yes, we've been sounding the market all the time, and whenever we see the attractive one, we will engage on that. We always monitor the market.

We can potentially announce some sort of tolling arrangement whenever it's ready.

I think I would add to that, if you look at our revenues in GB, which is one of the more developed tolling markets, we're overachieving against what we see in tolls. We do have a high level of contracted, 30% contracted and then another significant portion of megawatts with floor contracts.

There is a good level of stability in that, just even outside of the diversification. As Sumi says, of course, we are talking to the market at all times in each of the markets we operate to see whether a toll would be attractive for the portfolio.

Thank you. One more: Why did Ireland's revenue fall despite pound per megawatt performance improving year on year?

The revenues themselves increase per megawatt basis. However, we're realizing the ownership share from this year onwards, the total quantum has decreased.

Basically,

let me add a little bit. Basically, we've been paid 100% of cash flow until last year, where original acquisition structure designed to GSF to get the 100% of cash flow until we get the 100% of amount paid back plus the certain return threshold is realized, which we have already achieved.

After that, any kind of excess will be paid with the co-investor shareholder on a pro rata to shareholding ownerships. That has kicked in from recently.

It's actually counterintuitively good news. We overachieved against the shareholder loans we funded with a high level of interest, and so we repaid that much faster, and we moved now to the ordinary equity position with our co-investor.

The Irish assets have overachieved massively against base case.

Thank you. A clarification question from David S: In terms of the dividend timetable going forward, are we looking at ad hoc dividends or quarterly?

The last dividend was paid in April, but now nothing until September. Great for some clarification.

I think the board are aiming for a quarterly distribution, Angus and Keith, if you wanted to clarify that?

Yep, no, quarterly distributions.

Thank you. Thank you.

One more question on the dividend. Given the hurdle set by dividends, how much will be left for augmentation and growth?

Depends on distributions and revenue, right? As I mentioned earlier, a long-dated asset class with short-term volatility in revenue, we are managing through that through the appropriate use of debt, the appropriate use of diversification, and selective disposals.

The strategy here depends on the correct level of recycling, and we are focused on doing that, managing, as Alicja says, the right capex cycle against the right revenue opportunity. That changes on a kind of yearly basis if you look at revenues per grid.

Also, we look at the debt level. Although we will be maintaining the debt level at the modest level, we can always think about potentially a project-level debt as well.

Also we can potentially introduce co-investor to our project, which can pay for the augmentation capex. We explore various possibility of external financing, but we always try to control a debt level on the modest level.

Thank you very much. That concludes the Q&A for today.

I will pass back over to Angus for closing remarks.

I just want to thank you all for taking so much time out to listen to our story, which is still in its early stages, as I've said a number of times. We created a new strategy.

We are executing on that strategy to do things faster. We believe would not be in the best interest of the shareholders, but to do it as we are currently doing is.

I would just like to thank once again all of you for taking the time out. The other thing I would say is that the board, the five members of the board, including Keith and myself who are on this call, would be delighted to answer any questions you have or any points you wish to make.

Meanwhile, let it be clear that we are here to make sure that we get best value in the medium to long term for you as the shareholders, and we are fully committed to that.