Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Verbund's presentation of our results for the first quarter '26, and thank you for joining today's conference call. I'm here with Andreas Wollein.

Before we turn to details of our financial performance, let me start with a few overarching remarks. As in '25, the first quarter of '26 continued to be marked by geopolitical tensions and trade policy challenges, reinforcing the perception that elevated global uncertainty is likely to persist.

This environment intensified further with the escalation around Iran, most notably the attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran had far-reaching repercussions, triggering significant volatility in oil and gas markets, spilling over into electricity prices, and adding renewed strain to already fragile supply chains. We were also affected by this environment.

In Austria, discussions about potential further regulatory interventions continued to weigh on visibility. At the European level, uncertainty was amplified in particular by debates around possible changes to the merit order system and by ongoing discussions regarding a reform of the emissions trading system, both of which, as could have material implications for market functioning and investment frameworks.

Against this backdrop, two operational and commercial factors also shaped our first quarter: a very low hydro coefficient reflecting a hydrological situation that remained subdued, and significantly lower average achieved contract prices, mirroring the overall lower price levels across the market. I will address these topics in more detail as we walk through our Q1 results and our outlook.

Now on the first page on the influencing factors, let me now highlight the key drivers. I will have particular emphasis on the hydro coefficient and the average achieved contract price.

The hydro coefficient, which determines the generation from run-of-river hydropower plants, was exceptionally low during the first quarter at 0.78. It stood 22 percentage points below the long-term average and 5 percentage points below the level recorded in the first quarter of '25.

This development was primarily driven by an exceptionally low snowpack during the winter season, and that combined with limited precipitation in the first three months of '26, and all that resulted in reduced hydro availability for our hydropower plants. Average achieved contract prices declined by €34.20 year-on-year to 92.60 in the first quarter '26.

This decrease is caused by an exceptionally high base in the first quarter of '25, and that high base benefited from early limit sales, which we executed in '23 at very elevated wholesale market prices. At the same time, development also reflects the overall lower price environment across European power markets.

Now let me turn to the results for the first quarter in greater detail. As always, let me briefly comment on our hedging positions and achieved contract prices.

For '26, we have so far hedged approximately 75% of our expected generation volumes at an average achieved contract price of €86.60 compared with €116.30 achieved for the full year '25. Now looking ahead, our hedged position is as follows: by the end of the first quarter of '26, we had secured around 21% of our expected generation volumes for '27 at an average price of 92, as well as approximately only 1% of the expected '28 volumes at €85.80 per megawatt hour.

Now based on forward market prices as of the 30th of April '26, the mark-to-market average contract price currently stands at 92.10 for '26, 98.40 for '27, and 84.30 for '28. On the next page, I want to talk about the profit skimming mechanism.

You are already familiar with the key elements from our previous conference calls, I will refrain from repeating all the details which are summarized on this slide for you. For the first quarter of '26, the levy amounted to €8 million at the EBITDA level in Austria.

In addition, Verbund incurred further 1.6 million in Spain. In comparison, the total levy recorded in the first quarter of '25 amounted to €4.2 million.

Looking ahead, we expect the Austrian government either to adjust the existing price cap mechanism or to replace it with a different framework during the course of '26. Several alternatives are currently under discussion; however, it is still too early to comment on the potential outcomes or implications in greater detail.

On the next page, I would like to share with you the contribution from our flexibility products. In the first quarter of '26, this contribution amounted to €46 million.

That represents a decline of 21% compared with the prior-year periods, primarily reflecting lower market volatility. For the full year '26, we continue to expect a contribution of around €270 million.

This would be broadly in line with the level achieved in the full year '25 and slightly above our previous guidance which we have given for '26. Why?

We anticipate wider spreads for pumped storage operations over the remainder of the year. On the next page, hydro segment, I would like to comment on developments, and I will start with the hydro segment and then go through our individual businesses.

At 0.78, the hydro coefficient, which is an index measuring generation from run-of-river hydropower plants, was 22 percentage points below the long-term average and 5 percentage points below the level recorded in the first quarter '25. In addition, generation from annual storage power plants declined by 2.3%, mainly due to lower pumping and turbining operations.

As a result, total own hydropower generation decreased by 370 gigawatt hours, or close to 7%, year-on-year to 5,000 gigawatt hours. At the same time, average achieved contract prices were significantly lower, as I mentioned before, compared with the prior-year period.

Against this backdrop, EBITDA in the hydro segment declined by 37.7% year-on-year to 299, almost €300 million. Now as an operational update, let me briefly comment on Limberg 3.

The repair works are being processed and progressing according to plan. The recommissioning schedule remains unchanged: Unit 2 is expected to return to operation by summer '26, followed by Unit 1 in the winter of '26.

Now let me continue with an analysis of the generation from our New renewables segment. The New renewables coefficient, here it is an index measuring the generation from wind and solar, was below the planned level, but above the level recorded in '25.

In the first quarter of '26, the coefficient amounted to 0.89 compared to 0.76 in the prior-year period. Electricity generation from our wind power plants totaled 609 gigawatt hours in the first quarter, that represents an increase of 120 gigawatt hours year-on-year.

Although the wind generation coefficient remained below the long-term average, it was quite higher than in the first quarter of '25. In addition, the commissioning of new wind farms in Germany and Spain contributed positively to generation volumes.

The electricity generation from Verbund's solar plants increased slightly by 0.3 gigawatt hours compared with the prior-year period. Now turning to earnings development, EBITDA in the New renewables segment decreased by €23.3 million year-on-year to €35.8 million.

This decline was primarily driven by lower realized contract prices, reduced income from the sale of green certificates, and valuation effects related to energy derivatives. Verbund currently operates approximately 1.3 gigawatts of New renewable capacity.

This renewable capacity is across Spain, Austria, Germany, Romania, and Italy. Now as a recent update, I would like to highlight the signing of a framework agreement with Nordex Group for the supply of wind turbines with a total capacity of 700 megawatts.

In Spain, construction activities remained a key focus during the first quarter of '26, particularly across four PV portfolios with a combined installed capacity of approximately 1.1 gigawatts. On the next page, on the Sales segment, when we look at the earnings development here, EBITDA in the Sales segment increased to €49.4 million.

That was mainly driven by the stabilization of earnings in the end-customer business. The retail business EBITDA improved significantly, rising from €7.2 million in the first quarter '25 to €18 million in the first quarter '26, while the EBITDA in the trading business increased from 29.4 to 31.3.

At the same time, contributions from flexibility products declined by €2.9 million compared with the prior-year period. Overall, the improvement in EBITDA was primarily attributable to lower electricity procurement costs as well as positive valuation effects from future energy derivatives.

On the next page, we'll talk about the Grid segment. In the electricity grid business, EBITDA according to IFRS amounted to approximately €100 million in the first quarter, that represents a decrease of around €27 million compared with the prior-year period.

This decline was primarily caused by lower contributions from auction revenues. Now against this backdrop, we have slightly adjusted our full-year guidance for '26 to approximately €290 million.

Our previous guidance was €300 million. Now the regulatory account balance is expected to amount to approximately 589 million by the end of '26.

Now turning to Gas Connect Austria, EBITDA here amounted to approximately €30 million in the first quarter of '26. The increase compared with the prior-year period was mainly driven by a higher contribution margin from the transmission network.

As a result, we achieved roughly half of the EBITDA implied by our full-year guidance already in the first quarter. This development is primarily explained by the seasonal structure of our cost base.

Only around 10% of total expected energy costs for '26 were incurred in the first quarter, while we also benefited from additional short-term revenues. From the second quarter onwards, however, we expect energy costs to increase significantly.

With that, I would like to hand over to Andreas, who will talk about the other segments and the key financial figures before I come back with the outlook.

Thank you, Peter. Continuing with all other segments, I would like to focus on two elements.

First, the generation from thermal power plants decreased by around 90 gigawatt hours on a year-to-year basis to 828 gigawatt hours. Despite the lower generation volumes, EBITDA increased, mainly driven by lower fuel expenses, as well as higher realized margins, particularly at the beginning of the year.

Second, the contribution from KELAG, the provincial utility of Carinthia where we have a 36% shareholding, the contribution was slightly above the prior-year level. This development was primarily attributable to positive contributions from the heat business, which more than compensated for the negative effects of below-average water availability and lower sales prices.

Moving on to the next slide, I would like to comment on the development of the relevant key financial figures, first starting with EBITDA. I think we discussed basically the influencing factors, EBITDA declined by 26.1% year-on-year to €534.6 million.

The financial result remained broadly stable, changing from a plus of €1.3 million in Q1 last year to a minus of €1.6 million in the first quarter '26. As previously mentioned, the contribution from KELAG improved slightly compared with the prior-year period.

This positive effect was largely offset by lower interest income, mainly due to reduced returns from money market transactions. Taxes on income amounted to €80 million.

As a result, the group result declined by 32% year-on-year to €269.8 million. Finally, let me highlight the significant increase in additions to tangible assets, which rose from €152 million to €262 million in Q1 '26, major investment projects primarily related to the Limberg 3 hydropower plant, battery storage projects, and various investments in the electricity grid infrastructure.

On the next page, let me briefly comment on our cash flow and financial position. The operating cash flow decreased to €453.5 million in the first quarter of '26, primarily reflecting the lower contribution margins from the hydro segment resulting from lower achieved contract prices and weak hydro availability, as mentioned before by Peter, as well as higher income tax payments.

This development was partially offset by changes in margin payments related to hedging transactions in the electricity business, which were deposited as a collateral for open position with the exchange clearing house. Free cash flow after dividends declined from €289 million to €150 million.

This reduction was mainly attributable to the lower operating cash flow and the significantly higher level of investment activity during the quarter. Net debt decreased slightly from €2.818 billion at year-end '25 to €2.637 billion at the end of the first quarter of '26, supported by the positive free cash flow generation.

Accordingly, the gearing ratio improved to 23% compared with 25% at the end of '25. Let me hand over again to Peter for presenting the last chart related to the outlook for '26.

Great. Thank you, Andreas.

Let me first highlight key sensitivities for the '26 financial year as of the 31st of March '26. A deviation of plus or minus 1% in our generation would have an impact of approximately plus or minus €14 million on the group result for '26.

A deviation of plus or minus 1% in wind and PV generation would affect the group results by approximately plus or minus €1.8 million, and a deviation of plus or minus €1 in the wholesale price would have an impact of approximately plus or minus €4.2 million on the group result for '26. Our updated guidance for '26 is as follows: we expect reported and adjusted EBITDA in the range of approximately €2.1 billion to €2.5 billion, and a reported group result in the range of approximately 1 to €1.2 billion.

As always, this guidance is based on the assumptions of average hydrological, wind, and PV conditions for the quarters 2 to 4 '26, as well as the current opportunities and risk profile of the group. For the '26 financial year, we intend to make a distribution between 45% to 55% of our group result, which adjusted for non-recurring effects, is expected to amount to approximately 1 to €1.2 billion.

Now with that, I would like to open the call for your Q&A. We will now begin the question and answer session.

Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touchtone telephone. You will hear a tone to confirm that you have entered the queue.

If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. Participants are requested to use only handset while asking a question.

Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time.

Hi. Wanda Serwinowska, UBS.

Before I go into my questions, Peter, congratulations and best of luck in your new role, but at the same time, I must say, I'm 100% or even 200% sure you will be missed by the financial markets. Thanks a lot for all those years and the calls and roadshows you did with us.

Now back to 2.5 questions. The first one is on the Austrian regulation.

You mentioned that the discussions ongoing, but what options are being discussed if you can elaborate a bit more, and which one is the most likely in your view? The second question is about the trading environment in the current energy crisis.

What do you see on the trading during the current energy crisis? Is it different from 2022-2023?

Any observations would be much appreciated because some of your peers reported not that good trading results, and I notice you also didn't mention great trading results in Q1. Lastly, as usual, if you could comment or disclose the latest hydro year-to-date and the hedging, but without mark-to-market.

Thanks a lot.

Wanda, thank you very much for your kind words at the beginning. Really appreciate it.

Let me tell you that the more than 12 years with all of you, research analysts and investors, were an outstanding experience, which I wouldn't have liked to miss. Thank you for all that, and fortunately, we have another results presentation, the half-year results, in about three months' time where I will certainly repeat what I've just said, maybe with a little bit more detail.

Now coming back to your questions, and more than happy to give you sort of like a hedging update per sort of like the end of April, which is a number that is highly relevant, as not too much has changed between the end of April and today. We are 80% hedged at a mark-to-market level of €92 for '26.

We are 26% hedged for '27 at a mark-to-market price of 98, and for '28, we're only 1% hedged at a price of 84. Those are the most current mark-to-market levels.

Obviously, you can see here that two two factors: number one, very high prices for '26, then leading into a backwardation in '27 and '28, which is a high correlation to the forward TTF prices. A lot will depend on gas price developments for '27 and '28.

I'm sure this is something we will discuss today as well. The trading environment.

The trading environment is not easy if you follow oil prices, gas prices, and then of course, electricity prices. We're very much influenced by daily news, and the market follows the news despite the fact that very often they assume that the information they get is not correct or will be changed the next day.

However, there will be momentum. This is almost like a psychological trading environment where people assume that when Mr.

Trump says A, a lot of people will react to that, and on the basis of this, we see oil prices moving. We also see gas prices moving, and the next day there is another comment, and then again you have a similar movement.

There's some traders in the market that basically say the best would be to basically ignore because everything can change within 24 hours, but then again, you lose some of the short-term momentum trades, which are happening a lot at the moment. Overall, as far as I'm concerned, a very difficult trading environment, which very much depends not on key data, like supply and demand data, but more on assumptions in terms of the Strait of Hormuz and peace negotiations between US and Iran.

Certainly happy to talk more about sort of like price developments the way I see it. Then on the political environment in Austria and the kind of measures that will be taken in terms of profit skimming, I would have liked to be at a better position today as it wasn't in the last conference call.

If you remember, I said in the last conference call I would like to share more information with you. Unfortunately, I don't have it.

I'm still in the same position. We don't have a very clear way forward in terms of the regulatory framework and the new rules as far as the profit skimming is concerned.

Methodology, there are a lot of different discussions. We don't exactly know what it's going to be.

The one thing which I can share with you, and this is our internal assumption, we think that the finance minister will stick to the around 400 million, which he wants to get from the energy sector, and we assume that we will be around 40% of that contribution, which basically means that purely on the profit skimming scheme, we could end up with around €160 million. Then of course, there are other considerations.

There's the industrial price, there's the social tariffs, and a few others. As a result of that, it's going to be interesting what the exact numbers are going to be for the subsegments.

Those are smaller numbers, but they all add up. Then what the actual methodology is going to be for the energy crisis contribution, as it is called.

Thank you. Just a few follow-ups.

Any words on hydro, because I read this is the driest spring in 170 years, any comments on hydro year-to-date? Do you have hedging without mark-to-market?

Because it's easier for us to make our own assumptions if we know what is the clean hedging.

Sure. The clean hedging is that what we have hedged to date is for '26 is the 80% at 86, the 20 for '27, 26% at 95, and for '28, the very small amount of around 1% at 87.

Then of course, the biggest delta, and you said you can obviously calculate the mark-to-market yourself, but what we have used for the '26 figures was the 114, and for the '27, the 100. You see that there is a big delta obviously between what we have already in the books as the hedged levels and what is open, and everything that is open is an upside, and that upside, we will take full advantage obviously of that upside up to the point where we are capped by the old system that is now still in place.

It is more sensible to be in place because of the Iran War and because of the higher power prices. If the power prices had normalized as we had anticipated before the Iran War, then of course, the contribution to the Ministry of Finance would have been very, very low, and then as a result of that, the new methodology would have been introduced much earlier.

Hydro, unless I missed it? Sorry for the second or third follow-up.

Oh yeah, the hydro coefficient, year-to-date?

Yes.

Yeah, 0.71.

Thank you very much, Peter.

You're welcome.

Hello. Good morning.

Thank you very much for taking my question. My first one will be regarding buybacks.

Did you have a buyback so far this year, and do you anticipate additional over the end of the year? My second point would be regarding the New renewable coefficient below the planned value, and it has been the case for several quarters.

May I ask what are the underlying assumptions, and if by default it could imply a lower long-term average? Second point regarding New renewable, do you have any update regarding the hedging and PPA in Spain?

Okay. Two and three, I think, are related, Andreas Wollein is going to do two and three, and I will do the first one.

I just want to paraphrase to see if I understood you correctly. You asked me on the first one how much, because of the dryness, because of the very low hydro coefficient, how much did we buy back, and what was the quantum in euros, correct?

Yes. Yeah.

Around 60 Yes, around €60 million.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome, and I will hand over to Andreas.

With regard to New renewables coefficient. Can you repeat the question once again?

Yes, of course. My my question is I noticed that the achieved coefficient is below planned value, and it has been the case for several months is quarters.

Is it

is it an average, the coefficient, is it on average or is it a P50 assumption?

What Yeah. No.

It's based on long-term average as well, yeah. We compare that, of course, the actual generation to this average.

It's a little bit comparable to the hydro coefficient, yeah. We measure it, of course, against the actual generation, yeah.

What was the second one?

Regarding an update regarding hedging or PPAs in Spain.

In Spain. Na ja, currently in Spain, we're operating around close to 800 megawatt of existing capacity, primarily wind, it's about 60 65% is wind, the rest is PV.

The majority of the currently existing assets in Spain are either secured through a PPA or contracted, or they are basically run under a tariff system. In total, it's around I would say around 70% of the existing generation assets have basically secured prices, yeah.

Going forward, when we talk, we're currently developing a couple of new projects in Spain. We have currently about 1.1 gigawatt of project under development and construction.

The majority is linked to PV, and of course, we have the target for this asset under construction to also enter into longer-term contracts. As you are aware, currently PPA prices in Spain are very low.

Of course, we always measure these prices against our internal price curves and price expectations. When we see that the PPA prices are well below, let's say, our price forecast and expectations or price curves, we are currently not hedging.

We sell it instead on, let's say, in other channels, let's say through the electricity exchanges on the spot market or on the forward market. This is the current way how we handle it, but of course, long-term target is to hedge around, let's say, 80% of our production based on tariffs or PPAs.

Thank you very much.

Morning. Three questions from me, please.

The first one is just a little bit more on the hydro coefficient that you've seen in Q2 so far. The hydro coefficient year-to-date is 0.71.

If I assume that's done through the end of April, obviously it could be a bit later than that, but if it was done to the end of April, then I think that implies a coefficient of 0.55 in April. By numbers, that would imply an under-budget by about 1 terawatt hour in April, which given where your hedge is, probably a 90 million EBITDA impact.

I also account for further buybacks in April if the coefficient is 0.55. I can imagine buybacks could be another 40 or 50 million in April, meaning that taking the April hydro, potentially you're looking at EBITDA as being 130, 140 million worse off.

[Thoughts on that?] would be welcome.

Then the second question is on the full-year guidance which you've adjusted. Mentions that flexibility products have slightly increased.

Guidance for grid has been slightly lowered, those two are a bit of a wash. You've had an improvement in the hedge price for hydro.

Anything else from the other segments in Sales or in the other segment that's going better than you initially anticipated at the start of the year to factor in? With that guidance, are you very comfortable with the midpoint of the guide at 1.1 given what's happened in Q1?

Thoughts on that would be welcome, too. Thank you.

Olly. On the hydro coefficient, yes, you're right.

Obviously, the year has continued to be very dry, and I can give you the rationale for that. It is really a combination of two things which I mentioned before.

The snowpack in the mountains has been very low. There has been sort of late snow, but it wasn't enough to really make a big change to the snowpack.

As a result of that, when we usually get a lot of additional water into the rivers into our hydropower plants by the snowpack melting and the water coming from the mountains, that has been lower, obviously, than in previous years. That is a result of April, and so far, May, which has continued to be dry, and all that has been combined with very little precipitation.

We have very little rainfall. The rainfall could have compensated for the snowpack, but it hasn't because it has been very dry.

Wanda mentioned, and I saw it in your report, Wanda, sort of the driest spring for 170 years. I didn't know that, but you can see that you have had very little rain since the beginning of the year, I'm not surprised.

The one thing, and I totally understand where you're coming from, the one thing we always do because as far as the weather is concerned, nobody has a crystal ball, neither do we, as a result of that, we always take the long-term average for the rest of the year. That is a downside, and that is an upside, which we cannot really assess.

Some people argue, well, when you have such a dry beginning of the year, it might continue relatively dry, but then again, I could give you many examples of years in the past over the last 100 years where we had a very, very dry start and then it started raining during the summer and fall, and part of it was compensated. There we have upside and downside, but purely mathematically, if we take the 0.71 and we take for the rest of the year, we take the long-term average, we end up at around 0.9 approximately.

Now on the buybacks, we don't give in-between numbers on the buyback. We will give you a buyback number at the next conference call when we have more data points, not just for four weeks, but for the period, for the quarter.

Obviously, you can assume that when a month is very dry and is below sort of our security levels in terms of dryness, then of course, we're forced to buy back. On the guidance, yeah.

The guidance is really sometimes it is relatively scientific, and sometimes it's a little bit of art. This year, we found relatively difficult because we have so many imponderables, which are external factors we have absolutely no influence on, but which have quite an impact.

Given the Iran War, what we discussed, very difficult. We don't exactly know what's going to happen there.

We obviously think that power prices are going to be higher, probably for longer, as a result of my assumption on the gas price, which by the way, there are two schools of thought in the market. There are some people, some traders, some investors who think that gas prices are going to normalize quicker than most people assume.

Then of course, there are some, and I belong to that camp, who think that it will take much longer for things to normalize in the gas market. Given the geopolitical situation, given the very strong demand from Asia that is now pulling LNG from the US because Qatar is not able to deliver, will have an impact that is going to take longer.

We shall see. Now given all that, we don't just have price, we don't just have the hydro coefficient, we have certain amount of uncertainty around flexibility products.

We have changed the guidance slightly, but on the flexibility products, there is always uncertainty. Where we see an improvement is on thermal power.

There we are up by at least €15 million, and then of course, in our Sales business, where we are up both on the retail side and on the trading side by approximately 30 million. You see, there are sort of the positive factors, then the negative factors.

Then of course, we have the entire political discussion around the caps, around the new methodology. On the European level, we still have an unresolved discussion around CO2 pricing, and we seem to have a lot of disagreements among various countries.

You have some countries that are very, very forceful vis-a-vis changing the ETS system because they think that is the quickest remedy to power prices, particularly in the context of deindustrialization. Then you have others that basically say, I think we should leave the scheme as it seems to be working, and don't want to change it.

As long as we don't have an agreement there, it will take longer to pursue that. We think that merit order discussions again, they flare up.

Everybody talks about it, and then the engineers and the technical advisors have more influence, and then they basically say, well, the system works so well, and it needs to be a European system. As a result of that, we should probably not touch it.

What the EU has done, and that is something we need to observe all over Europe, the EU is basically giving more power to the countries. The hot potato is thrown back to national states, and the EU is basically saying, well, if you're concerned about ABC, there are certain measures which you can implement.

The industrial power price is one of those. That is something where we might see some changes, but as far as I'm concerned, it all takes longer than many people would wish for.

That is, Olly, that is the framework in terms of your first question on hydro coefficient, and a little bit of background in terms of our guidance. On my final remark, do we feel comfortable with the midpoint?

The answer is yes, we do. Fantastic.

Thank you.

Yes. Andreas and I would like to thank you for your participation and again for very relevant and interesting questions.

Always a pleasure discussing those with you, and I look forward to hearing you for our half-year results. Have a great day.

Bye-bye.