Elia Group SA/NV (ELI) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this live stream event that is being broadcast from our headquarters in Brussels. Over the next hour or so, we will cover Elia Group's 2024 full year results. And for this, I have been joined by the CEO and the CFO, Bernard Gustin and Marco Nix. Welcome. What's on the agenda? First, Bernard Gustin will provide us with an update about some of our ongoing projects. We'll also look back at the most important achievements from 2024. Marco Nix will then take us through the financial results and the outlook for the rest of this year. Before we can continue, you must take note of the disclaimer, which is on screen now. The slides and the script will be made available on our website later today. Let's begin with breaking news this morning. Elia Group announced a EUR 2.2 billion equity package, which includes secured agreements to raise EUR 850 million through a private placement of new shares to a specific group of investors. The private placement, or PIPE, involves Atlas Infrastructure together with The Future Funds, BlackRock, CPP Investments and Elia Group's reference shareholder, Publi-T, Next Grid Holding. The close of the PIPE is due to be promptly followed by a rights issue, which will form the second part of the equity package. Bernard, Elia Group is welcoming 3 cornerstone investors to contribute to the growth of the group. I think this is fantastic news, isn't it?

Indeed. We are really pleased to announce that we are welcoming high-quality investors who carry a lot of sector expertise. Their commitment shows that they have confidence in our vision, in our equity story and our long-term growth potential. Their support reinforces our ability to execute our investment plan. It will enable us to continue playing a leading role in Europe's energy transition. So today's announcements will allow us to continue investing in infrastructure and driving our growth strategy forward. That means the news is both good for Elia Group, but also for the societies that we serve.

Yes. Before diving into the details, let us introduce the partners and also the percentage that they are representing.

Our reference shareholder, Publi-T, NextGrid, will subscribe to EUR 380 million, maintaining its 44.8% ownership through a pro rata investment. The Australian infrastructure fund, Atlas Infrastructure, with The Future Fund, an Australian sovereign fund, will subscribe to EUR 235 million. This represents 27.6% of the PIPE. BlackRock, an American multinational investment company, will subscribe to EUR 117.3 million. An equal amount will be invested by CPP Investment in Canadian pension funds. They both represent 13.8%. It is important to highlight that this transaction allows us to raise equity in the most efficient way possible. Unlike traditional equity raises, this deal was structured without any discount to VWAP until, ultimately, this deal benefits all shareholders. Along with today's transaction, I believe Elia Group now has a very solid and diversified core shareholder base in place that will support our future growth.

Yes. Today's private placement is only the first step of a broader equity package. Let's go through it step by step. Bernard, what is due to happen next?

Yes. Indeed, Marleen. We kickstart the equity funding process now through a PIPE, private placement, of EUR 850 million, followed by a rights issue of EUR 1.35 billion to be executed promptly following the PIPE transaction. So in total, we intend to raise EUR 2.2 billion. And in this regard, it's important to mention that our reference shareholder, Publi-T, NextGrid, and our 3 investors have also committed to participating in the EUR 1.35 billion rights issue pro rata to their stake following the PIPE. So this leads to rights issue being in excess of 55% committed and, therefore, significantly derisking the rights issue transaction. Overall, the breadth of investor engagement and the strength of investor interest in the PIPE process make us highly confident in the delivery of the proposed equity package.

Let's now look at the bigger picture. What about then the remaining equity needs?

Our total equity needs stands for EUR 4 billion, EUR 4.5 billion, with EUR 2.2 billion already expected to be secured. We will still need around EUR 2 billion between '26 and '28. And the very good news is that we have a solid funding plan in place leading up to 2028 that could cover even more than our equity needs. More specifically, the group has a broad toolkit, providing us options. Hybrid bonds, we have ample headroom to raise additional funds through these instruments. Post transaction, the group has an additional EUR 1.9 billion equity credit, a figure that will continue to grow over time. Next to that, we could also consider reinforcing the capital of our operating entities. We may consider bringing in a minority partner at this level. And finally, with the cornerstone partners, we are set to further fund our growth. Therefore, we are convinced that this will provide a clear message to the financial markets and remove the current overhang.

Thank you, Bernard, for explaining the transaction. And I'm sure there will be questions about the financial roadmap during the Q&A session that will follow our presentations. Let's now take a moment to reflect on 2024, and the next video will highlight last year's most significant events. [Presentation]

And as we look back on 2024, what stands out the most, Bernard Gustin, or post-personal level, I would say, your switch from Chairman to CEO? But if you take a step back, what else stands out for you?

Well, looking back at '24, it's clear that the energy transition is accelerating. As a society we to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and the shift towards decarbonization goes hand-in-hand with electrification. It requires the timely readiness of extensive new infrastructures. In response, Elia Group delivered on its investment totaling EUR 4.8 billion. On top of this, we established our first partnership with a U.S. company, and we welcomed a record number of new employees into our growing operations.

That's the positive side of the story. However, making progress on the energy transition seems to be coming increasingly complex. The supply chain is under much pressure, and this has placed the financial burden of the energy transition at the center of many heated debates certainly in the last week, Bernard, isn't it?

Yes. Well, geopolitical tensions are reshaping global energy strategies. And in the current context, striving for a more independent energy system is becoming even more crucial. Last week, European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, presented the Clean Industrial Deal. She clearly stated that Europe's reliance on imported fossil fuel is the primary driver behind rising and volatile energy prices. While our rationale for the energy transition may have evolved, our societal objective remains unchanged. Let us not forget that transition is a societal revolution that we are undertaking together for the benefit of future generations.

Yes. Bernard, just to mention, the Clean Industrial Deal last week, Ursula von der Leyen, indeed, presented it as a transformational business plan that integrates both climate action and competitiveness into a comprehensive growth strategy for Europe. Let's watch a short clip from her opening speech. [Presentation]

In terms of its decarbonization goals, Europe is staying the course. And so the spirit of the green deal is still obvious. But von der Leyen said that as Europe fulfills these goals, it will become more flexible and more pragmatic. Bernard Gustin, and these transformative times being more flexible, being more pragmatic, is that also something that counts for Elia Group?

Yes. One of our main priorities this year is finding the right balance between staying committed to our vision and objectives, while carefully considering stakeholder expectation. As we implement our plans, it will be crucial for us to demonstrate a strong awareness of costs. Our new motto should be beat the budget rather than meet the budget. It may be the case that industry will shift from rushing to meet the 2033 -- the 3033 deadlines to adopting a more sustainable and steady pace of change. This could help to balance demand, reduce bottlenecks and ensure a healthier project pipeline over the next decade.

Yes. And if this happens, what could it mean for Elia Group?

Well, rather than moving at full speed in all areas of our business, we must evaluate and propose alternatives, both in the execution and financing of our activities to ensure sustainable growth. Well, take for example, the Belgian energy island. Market conditions for HVDC infrastructure are currently challenging. The cost for HVDC are doubling. We're fully aware of this challenge. And therefore, we postponed immediate signing of the HVDC contracts. Instead, we have initiated discussions about potential alternatives and their consequences. There is still a long road ahead before we achieve energy independence. However, given the high cost of the energy transition, some major projects across Europe have been delayed. It is essential to avoid a stop-and-go approach and instead ensures that growth remains manageable.

Keeping the costs under control, that's something our CFO will be pleased to hear. Marco, it's time to take a look at the financial results of last year. I would say go ahead.

Thanks, Marleen. Yes, we made significant progress on executing our 5-year CapEx plan outlined during our Capital Markets Day at the end of '23. It's solidly on track. We invested a total of EUR 4.8 billion, EUR 1.2 billion in Belgium and EUR 3.6 billion in Germany. These amounts demonstrate our commitment to the energy transition and our ability to execute this plan in the interest of society. Almost all our investments exceeding 99% are aligned with the EU taxonomy. As a result, our regulatory asset base has grown to EUR 18.5 billion. This reflects a substantial increase of 22% -- 27.8% compared with last year. In 2024, Elia Group's hiring drive further success, as we brought onboard a total of 744 new employees. This hiring milestone marks a crucial step in supporting our growing operational needs and strengthening our capabilities to meet future challenges. Importantly, this is also in line with the hiring goals we announced during the Capital Markets Day. Furthermore, in terms of system performance, Elia Group once again secured an exceptional level of good reliability, achieving 99.9% in Belgium and 99.8% in Germany. These figures underscore our commitment to operational excellence, ensuring high-quality and efficient service across our networks. As a result, Elia Group's DSO altogether, too, are few of the most reliable good operators since we consistently meet and exceed industrial standards for reliability and performance. In terms of the group's financial performance, it delivered impressive results in '24, achieving a net profit attributable to Elia Group shareholders of EUR 421.3 million. This translated into adjusted return on equity of 8.4%. Consequently, earnings per share reached EUR 4.73 (sic) [ EUR 5.73 ], reflecting a double-digit EPS growth, in line with our guidance. In summary, Elia Group continues to strengthen its position as a key player in the energy sector, advancing towards a sustainable future through strategic investments and strong financial stewardship, while keeping a reliable system safely up and running.

Yes. Thank you, Marco. So the earnings per share reached EUR 5.73, yes. Good. 2024 was marked also by several financing activities. Can you give an overview there?

Happy to do so. As our team proactively secured financing for the group, in '24, we contracted EUR 9.7 billion in sustainable financing across all group entities. We raised EUR 5.4 billion in debt capital markets, which were allocated to finance the CapEx programs in Belgium and Germany as well as the group's growth opportunities in energyRe Giga. Additionally, we enhanced the group's liquidity profile by securing EUR 4.4 billion in credit facilities, making our companies more resilient and robust. By the end of the year, EUR 7.4 billion remained available either in cash accounts or through undrawn facilities, derisking our operations into the new year. Overall, these transactions highlight the group's ability to secure funding, which is essential for its growth. They also emphasize our dedication to diversify our credit investor base, integrating sustainability into our financial strategy and maintain prudent financial management to the benefit of all stakeholders. Amidst a challenging environment, Elia Group delivered very strong results.

Thank you, Marco. Yes, thank you for sharing the initial insights with us. And of course, there are plenty more to come throughout this event. Let's now shift gears to politics. Belgium has a new government, and Germany has just wrapped up its elections. But what about Elia Group's international activities in the U.S. now that President Trump is back in the Oval Office? About a year ago, Elia Group took a big step into the U.S. markets by acquiring a minority stake in energyRe Giga projects, our acquisition -- our first acquisition in the United States. energyRe is a U.S.-based project developer specializing in clean energy solutions, and they have currently -- we have currently 3 transmission projects in the pipeline. And when you hear Trump say, "Drill, baby, drill," and when you know he is very skeptical about offshore generation, it's pretty clear that integrating and transporting renewables isn't his top priority. So Bernard, could you share your thoughts with us on how this might impact our business in the U.S.?

Yes, Marleen. We are seeing some challenges in the U.S. electricity sector, particularly around the future development of wind power and especially new offshore wind. That said, the need for new transmission infrastructure has never been more urgent. The demand for electricity is surging not just to power AI and data centers from the big 5 tech companies, but also to meet the growing needs of major cities. And most of the activities of energyRe Giga are focusing on transmission. Most investments through energyRe Giga are currently focused on advancing onshore activities. The 2 projects are called Clean Path NY and SOO Green, and they are HVDC transmission projects, crucial for electrifying the New York City and the Chicago areas. So these initiatives are largely handled at state level, and we witnessed a strong commitment from local authorities to keep things moving forward.

Yes. We know that President Trump as opposed to offshore wind development. We have only a very small stake in 1 offshore project, Leading Light Wind. What does it mean for the project, Bernard?

Well, Leading Light Wind already has its offshore lease in place. However, with project costs rising, the project requested for extra time to continue discussion with our supply chain partner and the New Jersey authorities. And right now, we are keeping a close eye on potential actions from federal departments and authorities to assess how they might impact the project's time line in the light of the new Trump administration. But allow me maybe a remark on all our U.S. activities, Marleen. The business model of energyRe Giga is different than our main business. It's about developing and building projects and then progressively divesting in order to rotate assets over time. Our added value as Elia Group is to support the derisking of the projects through their life cycles, thanks to our extensive transmission and HVDC transmission expertise in our home countries.

And that brings us back to Belgium. The new Belgian government will soon have to make some big decisions about the country's energy mix as we move towards 2050. Given that building a new line or cable takes about 10 years, there's no time to waste than to help policymakers about to take informed decisions about the future system. Elia published the Belgium electricity system blueprint in 2024. The paper is a road map that is aimed at ensuring that the necessary upgrades to the high-voltage grid are completed on time. Elia Transmission Belgium CEO, Frederic Dunon, will take us through the key findings of the paper in the next video, and he will also touch upon an important topic we have already raised today, the cost of the Belgium energy island.

We explore different options and came to the following conclusions. Doing nothing is the most expensive option. Doing nothing means no additional generation plants being built on top of what is already planned for Belgium. At the same time, maximizing Belgian renewables is a no-regret solutions in all scenarios. In nearly all scenarios, offshore wind proved effective, while new nuclear power plants are only cost effective in some cases. Extending existing nuclear plants based on the cost assumptions of the Federal Planning Bureau remains a cost-effective solution. What does it mean? It means that Belgium future energy system does not depend on choosing between nuclear power plants or renewables, no. What we need is a complementary approach, an and-and, and not an or-or approach. We'll not take any decisions about the future energy mix, but we are calling on policymakers to quickly develop a long-term vision. This will be a key factor in Elia's next federal development plan. Setting clear targets will be essential for planning out the right investments. That's the long-term vision. In the short term, we stand at the intersection of 3 key strategic shifts: climatic, economic and geopolitical. Each of these shifts found the same conclusion, achieving greater independence from fossil fuels through the large-scale integration of low-carbon energy resources. We are witnessing an international race to implement projects accelerate energy transition. It is putting immense pressure on supply chain and the availability of sufficient technical skills. Combined with rising material cost and inflation has led to significant cost increases. In some cases, the price of specific equipment has more than doubled. As a result, we are seeing unprecedented market price for current infrastructure, and that's for us a concern. In light of this, Elia, in close consultation with Belgian authorities, has decided to postpone the signing of the DC contract for the Princess Elisabeth Island. By delaying this decision, we aim to keep all options open. At present, alongside the Belgian regulator, we are presently supporting the authorities as they decide on the next steps to take.

The construction of the foundations of the energy island and the implementation of the AC contracts continue unabated, and these will ensure that 2 of the 3 planned offshore wind farms can already be implemented. And they relate to 60% of the Princess Elisabeth Zone. And offshore has to be connected to onshore, Bernard Gustin. What about -- can you give an update on the 2 other major projects in Belgium, Ventilus and Boucle du Hainaut?

Yes, Marleen. The Ventilus project is entering into a new phase. The project's route has been defined, and we are now finalizing the environmental impact report. And this report details the measures we are taking to minimize the impact of the project on the environment, including compensation for residents who live nearby. Our goal is to finalize the permitting process for the project by the end of this year. That's an ambitious time line, but it aligns with the objectives of the Flemish government. So if all goes as planned, construction could start next year. We expect Ventilus to be ready by 2029 in order to connect the first offshore wind farm of the Princess Elisabeth Zone to it. The Boucle du Hainaut project will be key for connecting the second wind farm to the shore. So the project will come online slightly later than Ventilus. The permitting procedure for the project is ongoing. We're currently engaging with local advocacy groups, and we are confident that the Walloon government will provide us with similar levels of support for the project as it did in Flanders since this project is very important for the economic development of the region.

Yes. Let's hope that the project doesn't take 17 years to develop because that's exactly how long it took for the Uckermark line in Germany, 17 years, mainly due to environmental concerns. The new overhead line covers a total distance of 150 kilometers. The line has increased the electricity transmission capacity of the region by a factor of 3. And now, after a long delay, the line is finally operational. It eliminates longstanding issues with the local grid bottlenecks. The project is generating EUR 200 million per year in congestion management cost savings. So this demonstrates that the strategic grid investments pay off. And in Germany, many other projects started to materialize. In 2024, 50Hertz invested more than EUR 3.6 billion in its grid, and that's double the amount invested in 2023. More than 900 kilometers of new on and offshore lines and cables were commissioned. 863 kilometers of lines are currently under construction and more than 1,800 kilometers have been submitted for approval. And to tackle the challenge of working on so many projects at once, 50Hertz had to increase the number of its employees and its work spaces. Later this year, the extension of its headquarters, the Netzquartier, will be ready. 50Hertz has also started the construction of a new offshore operation center in Rostock. And in Wolmirstedt, a new regional center has been opened. And 2024 was for a 50-hertz also a record year in terms of renewable energy integration, 73%, so maintaining a steady level of growth that was developed over the past few years as you can see now from the graph on the screen. Electricity consumption in Germany is expected to rise significantly over the next 20 years at a slower pace and to a lower target level than previously projected in the German grid development plan. Let's hear a bit more on this from Stefan Kapferer.

Last year, 50Hertz published a study about the expected electricity consumption until 2045. And we have all noticed that the energy demand is growing much more slowly as we would have expected. So more time for grid expansion. But less electricity demand and more time for grid expansion means less investment needs in the upcoming decade. So good news for electricity prices in our countries. Concretely in Germany, it has an impact to the discussion about the DC corridors additionally foreseen in the last grid expansion development plan. So there is a great opportunity now for the next discussion about this grid expansion development plan to check which power lines of DC corridors are really needed in a short-term period and for which of them we have more time to realize. First of all, Germany needs a stable and strong government. But also additional measures are needed in the energy transition. One of the most relevant one is investments in additional power generation on a reliable basis. Therefore, we need a capacity market in Germany. We have seen a lot of capacity markets in Europe in the last few years. Also a very well-established one in Belgium. So I hope that the new government will look at these established capacity markets and develop an own one for Germany soon.

And to end our overview of the year, let's briefly consider 50Hertz's position within Elia Group. Yes, Bernard, it's clear Germany is becoming increasingly important for the group, isn't it?

Yes. Well, it remains a very, very strong pillar. And as the new CEO, it's my ambition to reinforce the unique collaboration between Elia Transmission Belgium and 50Hertz. We are now more than ever a multinational company, and let us not forget that Elia Group is also important for Germany. We are a source of stability in the German energy vendor. We are a reliable partner for KfW, the sovereign fund of Germany, and are working for a solid funding roadmap to finance the expensive CapEx program. Meanwhile, the performance of our consultancy firm, Elia Grid International, EGI, continues to improve. EGI keeps the group's finger on the pulse by monitoring and understanding new global trends. We must not underestimate the importance of this.

Yes. There is one last point about -- I would like to briefly discuss. Two days ago, the German regulatory office, BNetzA, published its first view for the new regulatory framework for TSOs in Germany. Marco, what can we expect from that?

Yes. Indeed, the BNetzA published a paper, which contains the key elements of a future regulatory framework for Germany's TSO. This paper is now the foundation of a public consultation process. One key takeaway is that we are moving towards a cost-plus model, with additional incentive mechanisms. Another shift is the introduction of a WACC model for capital cost remuneration. Right now, our focus is on analyzing the details. 50Hertz is actively involved in discussions to help shape a well-balanced framework. Over the next few weeks, we will be participating in expert workshops together with the regulator to contribute to that process. It's also clear that the introduction of efficiency incentives and retrospective test like this and cost reviews still needs to be discussed further. Overall, the proposed framework remains investor-friendly, but some of its critical elements still need to be clarified. The move towards simplification, consistency and risk reduction is indeed something we appreciate. However, our final judgment will be based on the achievable return. So it's too early at this stage to fully assess its impact on the financial position of the company.

Okay. Thank you for this update. Let's now take a deeper look at the full year results, I would say. Let's start with group figures. So go ahead, Marco.

Overall, Elia Group delivered strong operational performance across all segments. The group's revenues amount to EUR 4.1 billion, a slight increase compared to previous years. In Belgium, revenues increased by around 16%. They have been mainly impacted by a higher regulated net profit, increased depreciations linked to the expanding asset base and increased net financial costs. In Germany, revenues decreased by around 2%, mainly due to lower energy prices impacting the energy revenues. This was mainly offset by increased revenues from the updated OpEx base with the start of the new regulatory period and the ongoing investment activities. Elia Group's adjusted net profit rose by 24.6%, reaching EUR 512.5 million. This was driven by the execution of the investment programs in Belgium and Germany, the strong operational performance of the regulated entities and the higher contribution from Nemo Link. These gains were partially offset by increased nonregulated funding costs associated with the investments in energyRe Giga and Eurogrid. Overall, Germany accounted for approximately 60% of the adjusted net result, generating a net profit of EUR 307.9 million. Belgium contributed roughly 40% with a net profit of EUR 213.8 million. Nonregulated activities and Nemo Link saw a decline of approximately EUR 21 million in results -- resulting in a net loss of EUR 9.2 million. After accounting for the noncontrolling interest and hybrid costs, the net profit Elia Group share rose by more than 29%, surpassing the updated Q3 guidance and reaching EUR 421 million by the end of the year. This resulted in an adjusted return on equity of 8.4% and earnings per share of EUR 5.73 per share, reflecting a strong double-digit EPS growth.

Yes. Good results, I would say. The expanding asset base of the group is, of course, an important contributor to this. How is this reflected in the RAB, the regulated asset base?

The RAB is the key driver of our remuneration. Thanks to our successful realization of our investment program, the Elia Group's RAB saw a notable 28% year-over-year increase, reaching EUR 18.5 billion by the close of '24. Specifically, Belgium experienced approximately 16% increase, while Germany saw around 36% uptick. This growth trend is attributed to significant infrastructure projects undertaking in both countries to support the development of a unified and sustainable European energy system. This network aims to incorporate extensive renewable energy production and cross-border electricity transmission, ultimately, minimizing costs for consumers and ensuring energy sovereignty across Europe. Looking ahead, we anticipate an average annual RAB growth over 20% over the period '24 to '28 at a group level, as we project to invest a cumulative CapEx of around EUR 26.8 billion on top of the EUR 4.8 billion spent last year. Now let's turn our attention to the company's funding activities. In '24, debt issuance supported by operational cash flow remained our main funding source. By year-end, net debt reached EUR 13.2 billion. By excluding EG, what is a 46% up. This was mainly driven by our EUR 4.8 billion investment program, while debt funding was used to finance our investments in the U.S. and strengthening the capital of 50Hertz, Eurogrid. As a result of these funding activities, Elia Group's average cost of debt rose to 2.8%, an increase of 70 basis points. The majority of our outstanding debt is fixed rate. The group's credit rating remains unchanged at BBB flat with a stable outlook.

Yes. That concludes the group overview. Let's now zoom in on the Belgian segment.

Let's go straight to the bottom line. The adjusted net profit rose by 18% to almost EUR 214 million, driven by 3 key factors: high fair remuneration up by EUR 27.6 million, primarily driven by the regulated asset base and the growth of it; and improved return on equity. For the current regulatory period going until '27, the return on equity is updated annually based on an average 10-year OLO rate. For '24, the average 10-year OLO rate reached 2.91%, implying an equity remuneration of 5.3%, exceeding the previous period. Increasing incentives up by EUR 3.3 million, reflecting strong operational performance. Higher capitalized borrowing costs up by EUR 9.9 million, driven by rising assets under construction and a slight uptick in the average cost of debt. These positive FX were partly offset by regulatory settlements and the reversal of provision for the influenceable incentives, down by EUR 4.5 million, resulting in a return on equity of 6.8%.

Yes. In October, ETB secured, you saw it in the overview, a green credit facility from the European Investment Bank, recently followed by green bonds issuance. How have these initiatives strengthen ETB's overall financial position, Marco?

Elia Transmission maintained a strong capital structure with equity slightly above 40% of its regulated asset base, up 7% due to solid year-end results. In early '24, ETB issued its second green bond, raising EUR 800 million to finance and refinance eligible green projects. Additionally, it further diversified its funding sources by securing EUR 650 million green credit facility from the European Investment Bank, fully drawn by the year-end to fund the first phase of the Princess Elisabeth Island project. ETB maintains a balanced debt maturity profile with all outstanding debt at fixed rates. The average cost of debt rose by 40 basis points to 2.4%. Liquidity remains solid with the sustainable RCF and commercial paper fully undrawn at the end. ETB's BBB+ credit rating from S&P remained stable.

Yes. That was Belgium. Let us now focus on Germany where, as Marco already mentioned, a new regulatory period began in 2024. What other key factors influenced the performance of 50Hertz, Marco?

For Germany, the new regulatory period is characterized by an equity remuneration for new assets that is linked to base rate that is updated on an annual basis. For our '24 investments, this translates to a regulatory equity remuneration of 5.65% post tax, while investments made before 2024 have a fixed return of 4.13% post tax. Note that assets commissioned in '24 will maintain an equity remuneration of 5.65% until the end of '28. As mentioned, 50Hertz achieved strong results. Net profit reached almost EUR 308 million, marking an increase of almost 41% year-over-year. This performance was largely a result of a few key factors. Firstly, the growth of the asset base led to higher investment remuneration of EUR 106 million, although this was partially offset by increased depreciations and financial costs. The higher financial costs are driven by our debt issuance along the year and partly offset by increased capitalized borrowing costs. Secondly, there was an increase in the base year revenues of almost EUR 45 million due to the updated cost allowance that came with the start of the new regulatory period, which covered the EUR 17 million higher onshore costs we faced. This overall strong operational and financial performance resulted in a return on equity of 10%.

And having reviewed 50Hertz results, let's turn now to its financial position.

In '24, Elia Group and KfW demonstrated their confidence by injecting EUR 600 million in equity into Eurogrid GmbH, the mother company of 50Hertz, further strengthening its capital structure. Elia Group financed its contribution through debt issued at the holding level, while KfW followed pro rata its share. To further fund the growth, Eurogrid issued EUR 3 billion in green bonds financing projects that expand grid infrastructure, integrate renewables and enhance system reliability. Debt duration was actively managed to maintain a balanced maturity profile, with the average cost of debt rising to 2.9%, up 90 basis points from '23. Additionally, Eurogrid secured a EUR 3 billion revolving credit facility, further strengthening its liquidity. As of year-end, Standard and Poor's rates Eurogrid at BBB flat with a stable outlook.

Yes. In addition to its regulated activities in Belgium and Germany, Elia Group also operates Nemo Link and engages in various nonregulated activities. So Marco, how did this third segment contributed to the group's results?

Our nonregulated Nemo Link segment reported a net loss of EUR 9.2 million in '24. Although Nemo Link's contribution increased by EUR 4.5 million, driven by high availability and strong operational performance, additional funding costs of approximately EUR 23 million has been recorded. These costs steamed from the acquisition of energyRe Giga and the financing of organic growth in Germany. Additionally, a lower contribution of WindGrid to the energyRe Giga's operational losses further impacted the segment's results. At a group level, Elia Group completed the acquisition of a minority stake in energyRe Giga in February with an initial investment of USD 250 million. This was financed through a EUR 300 million term loan replacing a bridge facility secured at signing. Midyear, Elia Group issued a EUR 600 million senior bond, with the net proceeds used for general corporate purposes, including financing of Eurogrid GmbH and refinancing existing debts. Following these transactions, the holding cost of debt stands at 3.8% with a weighted debt duration of 5.4 years.

Before we turn to the outlook, there is one last area to take a look at, the dividend policy. What can we expect there, Marco?

As per our policy, Marleen, we envisage dividend increasing in accordance with our policy amounting to EUR 2.05 per share. To be clear, the new shares that will be issued in the context of the PIPE and the rights issue will not be entitled to the '24 dividend that will be paid in June.

Okay. And as we wrap up the financial presentation, let's turn our attention now to what's ahead, the outlook, starting with the CapEx plan. Any updates there, Marco?

We believe that the increasing importance of managing our CapEx will require great dedication and strategic focus from our teams. Given the significant investments plan, our teams will prioritize rigorous planning and execution to ensure that every euro is efficiently utilized. This will involve close monitoring of inflationary impacts on materials, maintaining strong relationships with suppliers to navigate market tightness and strategically accelerating project time lines where feasible and useful. The total investment for the '24 to '28 period has been increased from EUR 30.1 billion to EUR 31.6 billion. We already invested EUR 4.8 billion in '24, leaving EUR 26.8 billion to be deployed until '28. This revision is due to the 3 main factors; an increase in material costs linked to the inflationary environment and the tight supplier market; accelerated commissions in Germany; and partly offset by the exclusion of a portion of the part of the DC components of the energy island in the 5 years' plan. Consequently, we anticipate an annual RAB growth of 17% in Belgium and 27% in Germany. For the period '25 to '28, around 60% of the total CapEx is committed, making the CapEx plan relatively robust. The noncommitted portion is regarded a standard equipment or noncritical assets, so we are comfortable that this will be available when required. Turning now to our financial outlook. For '25, Elia Group reaffirms its guidance from the Capital Markets Day, expecting a net profit Elia Group share range between EUR 4.9 billion and EUR 5.40 billion. This outlook is driven by expected investments of approximately EUR 1.7 billion in Belgium and factoring in Belgium 10-year OLO of around 2.8% and approximately EUR 3.8 billion investment in Germany, factoring in the base rate of 2.3% for regulatory return on equity.

Okay. Thank you, Marco. I suggest we now move on to the Q&A session. And in a moment, we'll do a position switch. Catherine Vandenborre, our second CFO; and also Yannick Dekoninck, Head of Capital Markets, they will take my place during the QA session. And Stephanie Luyten, our Head of Investor Relations, will guide us through this. Stephanie, could you share the first question with us, please?

Yes. Thank you, Marleen, and good morning to all my analysts. I understand we had some very exciting news this morning. You will all have a lot of questions, [Operator Instructions] So let's first start with Temi from Barclays. Please, Temi, go ahead.

And good morning, everyone, and congratulations on your announcement this morning. A solid set of results. Two questions from my side, one to do with funding and the other to do with Germany performance. So on the funding side, I know you mentioned, going forward, you have capacity on the hybrid front, but also you could do asset rotations and disposals. Could you please elaborate on which assets you'd be thinking off this for these disposals or rotations? That's one. And then on the performance for 2024, we've seen very strong performance from Germany. And of course, your guidance for next year is also ahead of company guided consensus. To what degree can we expect this level of outperformance in Germany next year? I know this year, you hit the sort of 10% ROE level. So just kind of thinking for Germany next year, should we kind of think that continues? And could you maybe elaborate on the drivers?

I will maybe take the first one -- let go for the second one. But on the asset rotation, I just would like first to remind that, today, we already having some assets, some partners. And the best example is 50Hertz, where we collaborate since the start of the adventure with KfW, and we're very happy about this collaboration. It makes a lot of sense to have the sovereign funds of Germany next to us in the asset of 50Hertz, and it works. So that means that we don't have precise view on which assets we would consider. But based on this example, I think we could expand this setup and this model in the future. On the second question?

Yes, happy to take it on the performance -- or the outperformance in Germany, it's fair to say that usually at the beginning of the regulatory period, we are doing better, the setup of the costs, and you do see the difference between the EUR 45 million of upgrade in the cost allowance, while the cost itself rose by EUR 70 million. Only that this is something which is imminent in the system and which is going down over the 5 years. But of course, in the beginning, we usually benefit from that one. Second big driver is, fair to say, the optimization of the commissioning dates as it turns out positively for the performance of the company to commission soon once the projects really has been started the construction. And this was a high contributor to the result of almost EUR 50 million net if you deduct the imputed depreciation, which we could deploy in the revenues and in the returns compared to the real depreciation, which we faced once we are commissioning. And this is an optimization, which we do see and which we strive for to have over the 5 years period, but they are less predictable, of course.

Thank you, Temi. Let's now go to Wanda from UBS. Wanda, go ahead.

Congratulation on the move to raise capital. Two questions from me, and I will focus on Germany. The first one is on the special infrastructure fund. There has been a lot of noise about this EUR 500 billion to be invested in infrastructure, including grids. E.ON yesterday was saying it's probably more focused towards TSOs than DSOs. So what are your expectations? Should we see it more as a funding source of your CapEx versus your financing? Or should we see it as a source of basically to cover subsidies because there has been a lot of focus in Germany about high grid costs? And the second question is, sorry to come back on the proposal from the German regulator, Marco, I know you said it's too early to have a view what it means. But when do you expect to have enough visibility to form a view and to share with us? I think TSOs can submit their proposals by the end of 18th of April. So what is on your wish list? And do you see a move to a cost-plus model as a positive?

Okay. Happy to pick up. On one hand, the EUR 500 billion fund, it has been a recent announcement, and it's fair to say that, of course, energy infrastructure has been mentioned. But it -- for the time being, it's not approved yet, so it needs to be installed. And there are no specific plans being visible how this capital is being deployed and split over the topics which has been mentioned. To be fair, on our side, we feel comfortable with the funding set and our ability to fund the CapEx plan, which we put in place. So there's no need on that. But on the other side, we appreciate if there is additional source of funding provided by that fund. Whether this will be the case, that will be subject of further political discussion in the next future. So the second point on the regulation, of course, first of all, harmonization, on and offshore derisking, cost coverage, consistency in the system is something we appreciate. So that's fair to say. On the other side, the dependency on the return rate becomes to, some degree, higher, depending on the introduction and the level of the incentives, which are not being put in place yet. And you are right, there is a public consultation on that framework, but the framework itself will not be the final determination. So it will be the first stage. So -- and everybody can send in kind of a documentation, kind of a comment to the regulator, you as well, and appreciate if you give a glance on your expectation to the regulator, too, as this is a welcome input in the course of discussion. And then the second step after that debate, and there will be a public hearing either, and we are participating, as we stated, in the kind of consultation mode there. BNetz, I will take some time to put it into kind of firms -- yes, a firm framework, which then will be again in a formal process being consulted and where everybody has an option to comment on. The plan which BNetz has disclosed is to have that framework that -- being fixed at the end of the year. So I would say, over the year, there will be some more color, in particular, on the critical elements. When this will be placed? The case is, of course, the DSO framework needs to be settled either, and they are a little bit in front of us. That's really early to say, but that will be subject of a discussion in the April workshops either how the specific time line will looks like. And once we have it, of course, we will share it with you.

And what would be on your wish list, if I can just follow up?

Yes. Of course, on one hand, it needs to be attractive return, which hits the expectation of the capital market. That will be the most important element. The WACC model, which is being put in place is something which is common standard in Europe. And the first indication is that we can further benefit from the leverage, which we have on a German level, which is a positive news. And depending on the debt rate, which they are going to deploy there and as an indication that it will be rating adjusted gives us the opportunity to outperform that as well. So these elements are fixed yet, but this is something we need to elaborate, and these are on our wish list. And on incentives, it's not a blank sheet, but there is something which, for our understanding, needs to be achievable to some degree. And these 3 elements are on our wish list.

Thank you very much, Wanda. Let's now turn to Alberto from Alberto. Alberto, just go ahead.

Hello? Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, we can hear you now.

Yes. Okay. Sorry, I was on mute. So yes, my first question will be regarding the CapEx plan after 2028. Maybe if you can give us some light on what do you expect in both Belgium and Germany in terms of CapEx, if you expect to remain at the same levels that you are expecting in the latest years of the plan or at production or anyway. What's your view on that? And my question -- and my second question will be related to supply chain issues. You mentioned that one of the key drivers of the change in your CapEx plan is the cost increase. Maybe if you can give us some sensitivity on what has changed from the previous update to the current update and what are the key issues that you are seeing this. And also maybe if you could quantify how much of this CapEx is already secured or contracted. And what's the exposure on the HVDC that you have in the CapEx? And if you foresee any issue there apart of the ones that you have on the Princess Elisabeth Island.

These were quite comprehensive questions. But maybe just to start with the CapEx program, but what drives us up there. So on one hand, the EUR 30.1 billion, which we announced during the Capital Market Day is in the horizon, which we have given visibility on increase to EUR 31.6 billion. That's EUR 1.5 billion up, and it's driven on one hand on inflationary tendencies. That's around EUR 2 billion, which we must admit is a huge driver of the CapEx program. While on the other side, we made scope adjustments in Germany, which lead to a further increase of around EUR 1 billion, while we rescheduled mainly the DC components in the energy island for a little bit later, what reduced the CapEx program in total over the group of EUR 1.5 billion. So these free items, price and scope adjustments up and down were the main explanation for the move of the CapEx program. Why 2024 to '28? On one hand, it's fair to say that Bernard mentioned in his speech that there's a political discussion on the speed of the energy transition, and that determines and that's a fair point a little bit the CapEx level ahead. On the other side, we will remain on a relatively high level, and it will remain a growth story beyond '28. But for the time being, as recently, governments in Belgium and in Germany -- in Germany, it's still to be formed, but has been put in place. That's something we need to elaborate together with authorities how the speed will look like. And on top of affordability, we will open a discussion in particular in Germany on the kind of solution to be deployed in particular on the big DC corridors. And these are relatively big drivers of the entire program and on the cost connected to that. So framework is the second one where we want to have a kind of better visibility, what it gives and, of course, that determines our absorbability of this kind of CapEx request. That will give a little bit of framework how we structure our CapEx program on the horizon beyond. On the HVDC, I would say in Belgium, for the time being, as Bernard stated, it's post to some degree, in particular, the big one on the Princess Elisabeth Island. However, we have other elements to further work on. In Germany, there are 2 big projects impacting the program that's on one on Ostwind 4 and the start of LanWin3. These are 2 gigawatt 525 kV DC projects, which, on top of the DC corridor, so SuedOstLink and SuedOstLink+, gives a relatively high amount of the CapEx program and determines the entire volume there. It's on one side, fair to say, that the contracts which we have put in place are exposed to indices and potential increases. On the other side, we put in place, and that has been mentioned as well, quite a strong monitoring, a strong dialogue in place to protect ourselves to some degree and make it affordable for the society.

If I may add on the CapEx beyond '28. I think, as you know, in our both countries, we have today discussions about the energy mix, which will influence, of course, the picture. And that's why we want to participate, but also wait for the outcome of these discussions. But it's clear that growth will continue because that you call it for decarbonization of the society or energy independence, which is extremely important for Europe, the path is the same. It's basically more electrification. And so I'm quite convinced that beyond '28, we will continue to have a good growth on our activities. However, we also hope that this growth will be better planned and also absorbable. And that's, I think, what will happen. So the message here is, clearly, we expect growth to continue. And maybe for other reasons that it was originally anticipated, but we also hope and go for a more planned growth. As I said, in the previous discussion, we need to avoid too much stop and go, but have a better planning of this growth. And what's happening now at European level is, of course, very encouraging.

So there was one question left on the commitment, which we have taken on the 5 years' horizon, which we have given visibility on. That's 60% around committed. And as a rule of thumb, 20% beyond of the 60% are contracted. So without commitment, usually via framework contract, without commitment, 20% are still open to acquire, but that's something we do see doable in the time horizon, which we are talking as this is uncritical. So there is no scarcity on these elements.

Thank you, Alberto, for your questions. We can now go to Wim from KBC.

Yes. First, congrats on these great results. I've got also 2 questions. The first and it was already mentioned that the German infra program that will be kept out of the budget as a positive. It's very recent news. But what happened also was that the Bund went into a steep increase and is now almost approaching, I think, 2.9. In your guidance for Germany, you mentioned it's based on 2.30. Can you just run us through what the impact will be on the outlook supposing that, let's say, for the rest of the year, it stays at this level or even above? And then the second question. Also you mentioned the Elisabeth Island, so the high-voltage DC. Till when can you wait for this decision? And potentially, could that be a positive as, obviously, some of these projects are now especially in the U.S., but on maybe a longer horizon that, eventually, this whole supply problem eases and that actually you could benefit from that? So just your view on that.

So should you take the first one and I take the second one?

Yes. So on the sensitivity side, as a rule of thumb, the 10 basis points on the underlying rate, up or down, gives you around EUR 2 million on profit on the German segment. So that's the rule of thumb, which you can consider.

And on the Princess Elisabeth Island, so basically, I think, yes, we -- well, first, I would like to highlight that we really took our responsibility because we could see that the budget was growing merely because of inflation, but market effects. And we saw that on the supplier side. And the HVDC component is depending on a very few set of suppliers. We saw that the prices were increasing and that there was enormous tension. And therefore, we felt it was the right moment to put a pause, and that's what we recommended to the Belgian government. And we felt comfortable to do so because of 2 other reasons. The first one is that we were working on alternatives. So that means that if we were not to go with the DC component as originally planned, we have also other technical alternatives. And secondly, and now that one is solved, there was at the time where we needed to decide a certain political uncertainty in Belgium. We didn't have a government. And now, of course, we have a government, so we have really a partner with whom we can discuss about the best solution for Belgium. But your point, of course, is correct. One of our assessment was to say that the market from a supplier's point of view was not healthy anymore, and it was better to wait because we have the possibility to wait, and I will come back on your part of the question on that part. But there was a possibility to wait, and it was better to pause a little bit at that moment. It's also true that in the meanwhile, we see that some other projects have been delayed. And I think the good news is that they have not been stopped because these projects are very important for the energy transition that we need for decarbonization purposes, but also to ensure the independence -- the energy independence of our continent. But we want to be more cautious in the planning. And so we were kind of the first one to go in that direction, but we see that some other projects are also a little bit more on the slower path, which I hope will bring the supplier market to a more reasonable level. Now in terms of timing, we have now, of course, ongoing discussion with the Belgian government, and they have announced, by the way, that they wanted to have a decision in the near future. I think we will now be working on a solution towards the summer, I would say. The Belgian government has announced in March. But I think it's a complex project. We are already in early March now, but we are busy working on different options, including pursuing the current plan. And I think by the summer, latest, we should see clear on that respect.

Okay. Thank you, Wim, for your questions. Let's now turn to Bartek from Societe Generale-Bernstein. Go ahead, Bartek.

Two, as I only allowed to ask two. First of all, I would like to ask you about the CapEx overrun and CapEx underrun because in the press release and actually in the presentation, you mentioned that in Ostwind 2, you managed to have the CapEx 25% lower than budgeted. What does it mean? Does it mean that you keep the savings and you simply increase your RAB by 100% CapEx that you managed to save 25%, so this is your gain or whatever you spend goes into RAB? And on the flip side as well, if you're talking about inflationary impact on your CapEx and your budget plan, does it mean that all these inflationary increases will be also reflected in your RAB or there's a risk that the regulator will not agree to that? That's the first question. And second question, to push a little bit more on Elisabeth Island to understand it better. Would you tell us how much of that is included in your business plan? Meaning, what percentage of completion of the projects is included in the -- in your business plan until 2028? And what CapEx does it take into account in that plan?

Yes. Maybe starting with the second one. So the Princess Elisabeth stake in the total CapEx number is amounting to EUR 3.2 billion in total, and we are still optimistic that by '26, the island itself will be installed. And we are targeting to commission the AC part by end of '28. So that's the plan, and the numbers are reflecting that. That's first. Second one, on the overrun, the answer is simply no. That's good and better at the same time. On one hand, the RAB is taking off all the investments which we are going to spend. So far, we never faced any challenge in terms of costs, which shall be reduced by the regulator. And that's the main reason why we are going to use public tender procedures as this gives evidence that this is a proper market pricing, which we deploy there. And of course, the 25% lower than budgeted on the project, which we mentioned, CWA 2, is something which is for the benefit of the consumer.

And maybe coming back on the Princess Elisabeth Island, also, I think it's very important that, today, the investment is in our regulatory base. And so unless we would really not act professionally which we don't do, there is no reason to reject the cost. And I think it's important to remind that, so that's very important that -- and by the way, it never happened in the past, and it will not happen in the future. There was also a lot of debate about the increase of budget on the DC component. And of course, it would be very difficult to reach at costs that have not been engaged. And that's why we put the pause on this, and we took the initiative to put the pause on these developments because we felt that the cost, because of the market pressure, were not going the right way. But -- of the fact that we've decided to pause these investments means that the costs have not been engaged. So of course, there is no single risk of having them being rejected given that they don't exist.

Thank you. Let's now turn over to Harry from Morgan Stanley. Harry, please go ahead.

Again, 2 for me. Firstly, coming back to the German infrastructure fund, and I appreciate it's still early days, and so we don't have all the clarity here, but from your current understanding, do you see that -- could that fund be used to inject further equity into 50Hertz, for example, via KfW and expand effectively the existing arrangement there? Or would it have to be in the support by our other methods, which were mentioned earlier in the call? So that's the first. And then the second question. In your German CapEx, you used to provide a quite helpful breakdown -- rough breakdown of how much of that is driven by offshore wind, how much of that is driven by the electricity transmission backbone in the country and how much is driven by, I guess, maintenance. Could you please give us an update on that and how that may evolve as we approach the end of your '28 guidance period, just to get a sense of the impact of offshore wind build-out in Germany?

Maybe to start with the structure, it was a technical question. Then in Germany, you've -- it's still valid as we have posted at the Capital Markets Day as well that outstanding CapEx on the period can be divided by 3, so 1/3 offshore, 1/3 the big DC corridor and 1/3 on the AC components. There's almost no maintenance included in that one as the grid is relatively new. And of course, if there is a replacement needed, and that's valid for Belgium as well, usually, it's exposed to extension as well. And therefore, we are not replacing like for like. So usually, we have higher capacity after the construction. And the Belgium -- the EUR 3 billion is dedicated to the Princess Elisabeth Island in the plan, and there are EUR 6 billion outstanding, which are mainly to be spent in a huge backbone project, as we mentioned, Ventilus and Boucle du Hainaut. On the infrastructure front, I think that's there are 2 separate streams. On one hand, we have a good relationship, and I'll let Bernard to elaborate on that one, with KfW. And we are both committed to support the future energy transition in Germany via 50Hertz. And that's something which has not necessarily to do with the plans of the government to install a fund. Whether the fund is being used to provide cheap funding for infrastructure or being used to absorb a little bit the burden of the consumer, as I said, that's a little bit early to say. There are a lot of ideas now in this sphere, and that's something which we do see more clear in the next 2 months, in particular, once the government has been installed, which is still targeted to be there in place by Easter, so quite soon. But then I think we will have a constructive debate in case there's some of the money being dedicated to the TSO infrastructure, what we are going to do with that.

To complement on this one, you -- from your question, I also understood a little bit that you were asking whether KfW could take another position within 50Hertz. It's, of course, a separate question. One is the question of the money, where will it come from? The second question is, of course, a question of discussion between shareholders, which is today not on the table.

Absolutely.

That's clear. Sorry, can I just add 1 -- throw a follow-up to the first question on the CapEx split? Do you envisage in Germany that -- is that the sort of run rate we should be envisaging as we leave the '24 to '28 period? Or is there a significant shift to that as we enter '29 and 2030?

As we said, we are now in constructive discussion then how we are shaping a little bit the CapEx profile over the time and to create an industrial PIPE on a supplier basis with a more constant load over time. As I said, we will remain on a growth path and the CapEx profile will be on a high level. To what degree this can be continuing, as we have currently give visibility on that subject of the debate, but it will remain on a level that the RAB is growing.

Thank you, Harry, for your questions. Juan from Kepler. Please go ahead, Juan.

I have 2 in -- on my side, if I may, mainly on results and guidance. The first one is on 2024 results. Can you please explain to us what ended up being slightly better than you initially expected? Because the results end up even higher that the revised guidance that you provided at the Q3 mark. So that would be the first one. The second one is on 2024 guidance. If you can give us more color on this EUR 490 million to EUR 540 million range at the net income level, what is the implied return on equity that you have both on -- in Belgium and in Germany? If you can give us as well a kind of ranges on the regions will be quite helpful as well as the JVs.

So the results '24 compared to the latest guidance we have given, the latest guidance we put out was at EUR 395 million and we will end in the end by -- at EUR 421 million, and that was driven by 2 main factors. On one hand -- 3 factors maybe to consider. On one hand, it was a better operational performance in Belgium as we achieved quite significant incentives there. Secondly, if you want to name it, a kind of one-off as we conclude FX hedging, which gives us a credit of EUR 7.5 million, what was not foreseen in the guidance of EUR 395 million. And last but not least, the optimization of commissioning in Germany turned out much more positive than we had envisaged in the guidance in the course of Q3. On the outlook, '25, I want to ask you to allow me that we do not want to give a return rate at this stage, as the funding is still outstanding. And of course, we want to do our homework before we are going to give you guidance on that one. However, we will give you a sharper picture in due time once the funding plans are more specific.

Okay. If I may follow up, in case of ranges that you expect for the different divisions, if not on return on equity then on, what can be the ranges?

Yes.

Maybe for this -- yes. For this, of course, we gave long-term hedge during the Capital Market Day, and we confirm those long-term hedges that we were giving at that point of time.

Yes. Indeed, Juan, so we gave at the Capital Markets Day that return on equity for Belgium would be over the regulatory period, between 7% to 8%, and for Germany over the entire regulatory period between 8% to 10%. So we will give a more detailed guidance once we have launched the rights issue. Yes. Thank you, Juan. Let's now turn to Julius from Bank of America.

I have 2 on CapEx, broadly. The first one, I think you just mentioned that it was EUR 2 billion in inflation that drove the uptick in CapEx from the last plan. Is that something that we have to expect going forward over the next years that there will always be upgrade to CapEx? And how certainly or confidence you have that the current funding plan that you presented today will cover this inflation? And then the second one is just on a little bit of color on the CapEx in Germany. I think there were some news articles on the Bornholm Energy Island and the Danish Energy Agency asking to rethink the project. Is that something that could affect the current plan? Or is it something that is outside of the scope?

Before you go in the detail, I will maybe give a little bit of the high-level view. Yes, you're right, there is a EUR 2 billion inflation in our CapEx estimate, but it's also a clear objective to fix the current total CapEx picture at EUR 31 million over the period and to really remain within that envelope. And I think it's very important. So that means that we are looking at ways if there was to be further inflation to compensate by other measures. We also see that some projects are a little bit on a slower path. And as I said earlier, they are not being canceled, but they are sometimes slower, which also creates some clear room of maneuver. But it's clearly our intention. I cannot, of course, predict what the inflation will be in the future. But if we are in an inflationary mood that is -- as we have known and so on a manageable basis to keep our total CapEx envelope as presented today at the same level over the period. Of course, if there were to be new projects, that's another dimension, but that's another ballgame.

Two additions on that one. On the CapEx program, which we have updated contains of a best estimate. So it's not in prices as today only. That's the best estimate, which includes some degree of inflation over the time already. We must admit that in the past, it was all the time above the estimation. What is something we are working on as well to have a better visibility, how it is evolving over the time. But as Bernard mentioned, we are targeting to maintain the bucket, which we are working with. And connected to that, we are convinced that the funding and the funding sources available for the group are sufficient to cover that needs. On Bornholm, it's a little bit similar situation as we are facing with Princess Elisabeth Island. We, on one hand, do see that the appetite in the offshore wind for the time being in that area is not as big as the Danish guys has been expected. What is a little bit the question, how quickly this is being needed, that's one. The second is, even though the price is on the components for that hybrid interconnectors are lower than we have seen recently, it's fair to say that the cost connected to that one are higher than, in particular, the Danish calculation has been foreseen. And of course, there is one big item outstanding, as wind farms and the Danish agency are in favor of letting the offshore wind farms benefiting from a German liability scheme, as they are then potentially connected to the German grid via that interconnector, that's something which needs to be put in place. And it's not existing. And without the government, it's hard to imagine that it will be coming soon. And that's a little bit the project is suffering from in terms of speed. However, all participants are working on that one. So the supplier, Danish grid operator, we as well, and, of course, government is still supportive on both sides, even though there is a firmer look on the cost benefits connected to that.

Could I maybe follow up and ask how much of the German CapEx plan is from this Bornholm Energy Island, if you could give us some rough indication?

It's roughly EUR 1 billion, which is connected to that in the 5 years' plan.

Thank you, Julius. Let's now go to Piotr from Citi. Piotr, go ahead, please.

I have 2 questions, please. So the first one is on the funding in the future. So once you close this EUR 2.2 billion capital increase now, when do you think will be the next tranche? Is it '27, '28? Can you roughly say what's the time frame? And how much -- you really have the hybrid capacity in your balance sheet, how much you're assuming the plan? So that's the first question on the funding. And then the second question I have on the possible impact of this new regulatory framework where supposedly, in Germany, we could move to the WACC. I was quite surprised when you provided your sensitivity to the rates environment because I would have thought all of the RAB, assuming we go to the one RAB concept, will be properly sensitive, and then we could revise all of the WACC to 2.7% or 2.9% risk-free rate. And therefore, there's a proper uptick in your results from this higher interest rates. So can you please really share your expectations how the system on the one RAB, one WACC could be revised? And what could be the regulator's approach towards setting the risk rate? Is still going to be 10-year averaging effect or maybe a shorter duration and so on?

Maybe I'll let Catherine to comment the funding.

Thank you. Then let me comment on the funding, indeed. So looking forward, and so after the transaction that we are going to do this year, I think we are very comfortable with the options that have been presented by Bernard at the beginning of the session. First option was indeed relating to hybrids. And then coming directly to your question, the hybrid capacity in itself post transaction is EUR 3.8 billion, leading to equity credit of EUR 1.9 billion, like mentioned by Bernard during the presentation. And of course, it will grow over time. So this amount is post transaction. But towards 2028, it will still grow. That's one element. And additionally, of course, we have the possibility to open up the capital at the level of the operational affiliate. We are also confident at that level because we have already today, and for some years, some interest coming from strong parties. And so that, combined with also the very strong international partners that we have attracted through this private placement, international with a combination of infrastructure fund and sovereign wealth funds, we really believe that we have good partners, and we are fully funded leading up 2028.

And maybe on the WACC question, the sensitivity I mentioned is eligible for the current regulatory framework. The WACC model is something which is potentially to be introduced beyond the horizon, so from '29 onwards. And of course, there will be a higher sensitivity connected to that. However, it's really early to say as the components on that one are not disclosed. So that's a broad range of option, which might be embedded there. The only clarity is in regards of the gearing that will maintain a 40-60 gearing. But how the equity remuneration will be calculated, how the debt will be embedded there, that's a subject of the dialogue, which BNetz has been recently launched and that will be subject of the discussion then in April.

Thank you, Piotr. Now let's turn to Olly from Deutsche Bank. Olly, please go ahead.

Two questions for me, please. So first of all, just on this kind of broader equity toolkit that you speak about, obviously, you currently have 100% ownership in your Belgium network and 80% in Germany, with Germany before you said you wanted to maintain a relevant shareholding. So my question on the networks would be what would be the minimum shareholding you'd want to keep in each network? And then with this broader equity toolkit you have in mind, do you think that the -- there's additional method of the hybrid and potentially selling down of asset rotation, could that meet any actual need, if required in 2029? And then if I may, just on the CMD plan, just to clarify something you said earlier, where you had return on equity of 7% to 8% for Belgium and 8% to 10% for Germany. Have you said those ranges are still okay, but you will give a more precise number? And the EPS target of double digit, I know this will depend on the number of shares you have, but you're still broadly comfortable with where you see a reasonable potential discount or not coming into this -- for this next step. You feel reasonably comfortable with that -- the guidance, the double digit from '24 to '28 on EPS?

I maybe elaborate on the first question and let the colleagues elaborate on the next one. I think the key message here is that we really have developed these toolkits that gives us options and possibilities. But it's clear that as we do in Germany, our objective is to keep the control and the operational control on our operating entities. I think we see, as Catherine said, that there might be some interest in some of our assets because we have a really strong and with also a growth perspective assets, but the objective is clearly to find partners that allow us to keep the operational control on these entities as it's happening now in Germany. So there is no real, I would say, target or amount that is set next to that. But really, the objective is to keep that control. And as you can see, we really believe that we have all these options. And you can see that I'm rather satisfied because when I see today where we are, we have a toolkit with this type of tool, but we have also other tools, as it was elaborated, on the possibilities to go to hybrids. But also we integrate in our shareholding 3 blue chip top-notch investors that will also help us think about future developments and can also help us in the future financing of our company.

So maybe on EPS and the return rates, as the results in '24 have shown a quite remarkable performance of the company, we do feel comfortable that both profitability and cash generation are sufficient to maintain our EPS guidance, which we have given. So that is something we are still striving for to fulfill over the time. That's being said, of course, with an eye on the future regulation, it needs to be elaborated to find a quite good balance again, and you cannot prolong the current situation then to '29 as, of course, as we've discussed in Germany, there will be a new framework being put in place. And as I said, it's a little bit too early to judge what the outcome of that will be. But for the horizon, which we have given the visibility in the course of the Capital Markets Day, we do feel ourselves quite well equipped and confident that the guidance is still in line with that what we are going to achieve.

So also the EPS guidance...

And maybe let me build on -- sorry, let me build on what you said. I think 2029, you start really looking far, right, and that's in particular a moment where we don't know yet what will be the regulations, neither in Belgium nor in Germany. And second, we still have to discuss with authorities on the precise investments that we need to do. So very, very, very difficult to comment on '29 period. On the guidance, first what we said is that for return on equity, you can look at the CMD figures that we published. We intend to come with a more precise guidance, especially on net profit at the moment of the next step of the transaction. On EPS, we are confident. Like you are saying, we know that depending on discounts on operation, it can have an impact. But based on the business plan we have, we are confident on our ability to deliver a double-digit EPS over the period -- double-digit EPS growth over the period.

Okay. Perfect. Then we have still Thijs from ABN AMRO. Thijs, please go ahead.

We don't hear you. I think you're on mute.

Thijs, I think you are on mute. Can you try again, Thijs?

On mute. So...

Yes. We can hear you now.

Now we can hear you.

So first, I want to thank Catherine Vandenborre for a perfect delivery on '24 earnings. And I truly hope that you will have a bright next step in your career, Catherine.

Thanks a lot.

Then -- yes. Then the first question is, I'm afraid, again, coming back on the toolkits. Do I understand you are open to potentially selling an additional stake in 50Hertz to KfW? Or would this potentially also imply that KfW simply will take up a higher percentage on the new equity ratios within 50Hertz? That's the first question. And the second question is on the outlook for '25, but then more specifically, what is included in nonregulated Nemo Link in terms of assumptions? Is it included that you will again make start-up losses in the U.S. and/or take impairments? Or is that not included? And on Nemo Link, well, what is your assumption there for '25?

Well, I think on the first question, and I will let certainly the team complement, what I said is that we have a model in Germany that works because we have a partner with KfW. And by the way, we see that the balance is a healthy one. Happily, we also said that Elia is becoming more and more a multinational group, and we have other assets as well. So that means that I wouldn't especially focus on 50Hertz on the short term, but there are also other opportunities. And then we will have to see on the decision, but as Catherine said, today, at least in Germany, there is no discussion on the table on that topic. And what we just see is that, well, first, and sorry to repeat myself, we see that with the other tools in the toolkits we already have still means that almost allow us to cover all the remaining needs over the period. But also that we experience we have in Germany, looking at maybe Germany, but also other geographies, it's a model that we can replicate where we basically keep the operational and the financial control. But bringing partners that like the assets and can also bring some added value, I think that's where we are. And of course, if we do the math on these entities, we see that it would allow us, as we said in the introduction, to develop means that certainly cover the future needs and even a little bit more.

Yes. And to comment on the third segment. As we have provided you a split on the segments, yet I will not do for the third neither. But as a rule of thumb, we are quite confident that based on the availability of the interconnector, which we have seen in the past, we will come again more at the upper end of the revenue cap in '25 as well. On the impairment question, the answer is no. If you would envisage an impairment, we should do so already. So there's no intention to impair the assets as we believe in the value of the development of these projects, knowing that, of course, there might be some shifts in particular, on offshore projects. But of course, that's something we are used to.

And then maybe to finish, thank you very much for your nice work, Thijs. Very much appreciated.

Thank you very much for all the questions. And also thank you, Catherine, Bernard and Marco, for all your answers given. This gets us to the end of the Q&A session, so I will hand it back to the studio and to wrap up and to close today's call.

Thank you, Stephanie. Indeed, if there are no further questions, let's wrap up this presentation. And I can assure you that a great deal of hard work has been done in the past few weeks and even in the past few days and hours. So a big, big thank you to all the teams that contributed this. Thank you, Bernard and Marco. Thank you, Catherine, and also Yannick, who is here behind the scenes. And thank you also, Stephanie, for joining us in this live session. And of course, a special thank you to the entire technical team here in the studio for making this possible. Have a nice day, and see you soon.

Thank you, Marleen.

Thanks.