RWE Aktiengesellschaft (RWE) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I declare open this year's AGM of RWE AG and would like to welcome you very warmly on behalf of the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board. I would like to extend special greetings to our shareholders and shareholder representatives, the representatives from the media and all other guests who are following the AGM today on the Internet. Ladies and gentlemen, the coronavirus pandemic is continuing. Large events, similar to an AGM with physical attendance, are not possible. The Executive Board with the approval of the Supervisory Board decided to hold today's AGM, just like the regular AGM of 2020 as a virtual annual general meeting without physical presence of the share or their proxies. We are making use of the possibility given to us by the legislator through the so-called COVID-19 Act, which is still valid until the end of 2021. Within the scope of the specifications of this law and what is technically feasible, we intend to implement the rights of our shareholders in the best possible manner. Thank you very much that you were following today's Annual General Meeting live on the Internet. The persons who are here today -- or the number of persons here today has been limited to the number of participants necessary. In addition, the safety and security of the event is ensured by a comprehensive hygiene and test concept. I would like to welcome the Chairperson of the Audit Committee, Dr. Erhard Schipporeit from the Supervisory Board; also would like to welcome the Executive Board members, Dr. Rolf Martin Schmitz, Dr. Markus Krebber, Mrs. Zvezdana Seeger; and Dr. Michael Muller. As in the previous years, the notary public, [ Dr. Ehringer ] will take the minutes. On the Board, we also have the Head of the Legal Department of RWE AG, Dr. Rust. The other members of the Supervisory Board will be participating by means of video and sound transmission. They're going to follow the AGM via the Internet and are able to make a contribution if required. Now let us continue with some necessary formalities and organizational remarks. The invitation to the Annual General Meeting was published in due form and time in the Federal Gazette on March 16, 2021. It was made accessible to the European Union. Together with the agenda, the proposed resolutions of the management on agenda items 2 to 13 were published. At the same time, the invitation and the other documents to be submitted were made available on the Internet under -- or at www.rwe.com/hv. The documents will also be available there today. And they are also available here in the assembly room. The Executive Board also delivered the invitations to the Annual General Meeting of the recipients defined in Section 125 of the German Stock Corporation Act. The countermotions submitted shareholders in due time and the comments of the Executive Board have been made available on the company's website at www.rwe.com/hv. Today's entire annual General Meeting, including a simultaneous translation into English, will be broadcast live and publicly via webcast. You can select the language on the website. My speech and the contributions by Dr. Schmitz and Dr. Krebber will be recorded and will be available on the website of the company as from tomorrow. Together with the service providers commissioned, we carefully checked the necessary technical preconditions for live transmission so that the virtual AGM can be held properly and without any interferences. Should interruptions occur, nevertheless, please be patient for a few minutes. In the event of persistent technical problems, we will provide you with information on our website under www.rwe.com/hv. Please refresh the web page if required. The participants' register will be kept and updated here, and the participants' register will record the proxies of the company present and the shareholders represented. I would now like to read out the current attendance as recorded in the participants' register. The proxies represent a total of 398,324,313 shares with an equal amount of voting rights. That corresponds to an attendance of 58.91% of the registered share capital. In addition, we have postal votes in the amount of 11,096,238 non-PAR shares. In total, 409,420,551 votes are represented at the Annual General Meeting, which corresponds to 60.55% of the registered share capital. Virtual annual general meetings do not provide for the right to speak and ask questions. However, registered shareholders were able to submit questions via the Investor portal until the day before yesterday, that is the 26th of April midnight. These questions will be answered by the Executive Board and myself in a few minutes. After the Q&A session, we will proceed to the voting process. Shareholders or their proxies may only exercise their votes by postal vote or by authorizing the proxies of the company. Before, the Annual General Meeting was possible to vote by postal vote and to authorize proxies by way of a form sent by post, e-mail or telefax. Through the Internet-based investor portal, you will also be able to use the possibilities to vote during today's AGM. Casting a vote via the Investors portal is possible until the time when I start determining the voting results. Until the voting procedure is closed, you will be able to change or revoke your vote via the Investor portal. I will remind you of the closing of voting portal and the voting process in due course, but would also like to encourage you to cast your vote early enough. The company's proxies will vote according to the instructions by releasing the votes entered in the system. Also, the postal votes will be taken into account for determining the voting result. Via the Investors portal, shareholders will also be able to file objections against one or several resolutions of today's Annual General Meeting and have this recorded by the notary public until the end of the Annual General Meeting. I would remind you of the closing of the possibility to object before the end of this time and the end of the event, but I would like to remind you that you should not wait until the last second if you would like to submit an objection. The voting process on the technical preconditions are monitored and checked by the notary public, just like the functioning and the reliability of the system used for submitting objections. So much for formalities and organizational remarks. Ladies and gentlemen, before we continue with the agenda, I would like to make a few comments on another topic. All of you have probably heard that today's Annual General Meeting will be the last that Rolf Martin Schmitz will be attending in his role as the CEO. Dear Mr. Schmitz, an AGM is hardly the right place to sufficiently and adequately appreciate your professional life, not least because I do not have enough time to do so, I will not even succeed in giving a rough account of all your achievements in the energy industry over the last 3 decades. Dear, Mr. Schmitz, your retirement represents the end of an era for the RWE Group. You have shaped the company in the past 12 years and in the past 6 years as the CEO so that it became one of the most important green power producers in Europe. Who would have imagined in 2016 how -- what RWE's current situation is today? The nuclear phaseout and the coal exit has been agreed on the basis of a social consensus and in a socially compatible way for the employees. Secondly, the independence and the IPO of Innogy and the transaction with E.ON have been completed successfully, and the RWE Group has a solid financial position as reflected in the recent rating improvements. These comprehensive and successful transformation -- this successful transformation of the company has changed our country's energy industry in a sustainable way and has changed the company, of course. RWE has proven the energy transition can succeed. And for this, you deserve the utmost respect, recognition and gratitude on the part of all parties involved, the employees of the company, the shareholders and society, which is already appreciating this to a large extent. Sustainability and social responsibility is the compass that you used to safely steer the company with a forward-looking approach. With this realignment under your leadership, RWE has made an essential contribution and is now positioned in a way that Germany will be able to achieve the climate targets for the next decade. And that's not all. At RWE, you've built up an excellent team, and you made sure that a well-organized succession at Executive Board level can be achieved. And that's also a sign of entrepreneurial vision, building up a successor and handing over the business in a state that makes it possible to generate growth. Dr. Schmitz, one thing is certain, if we were in the Gruger Hall today and not at this rather small event, our shareholders would give you a huge round of applause. On behalf of the entire Supervisory Board, I should like to wish the best for your retirement. Now you will have more time for your family and your many different interests. I am certain that you will not be bored, and you will be able to look forward to fulfilling and exciting years. On behalf of myself and all of us, I would like to express our heartfelt deep gratitude for your cooperation and dedication to our company, RWE. The Supervisory Board decided to appoint Dr. Markus Krebber as the successor, as the new CEO, effective in May 1. We do not have to really introduce him here. As a highly competent CMO, he was also responsible for designing RWE, placing and played a key role in shaping it. He will continue the strategy. And with effect from November 1, 2020, the supervisory Board also appointed Nanna Seeger and Dr. Michael Muller as new Executive Board members. Nanna Seeger is responsible for -- has the CHO role and also is responsible for IT. Michael Muller is responsible for finance, taxes and business services. And as of the 1st of May, he will assume the role of CFO. So the Supervisory Board has 2 excellent and experienced managers who, together with Markus Krebber, will continue the transformation of the company and develop RWE further as a sustainable, value-creating and responsible company and attractive employer. On behalf of the Supervisory Board, I would like to wish the good luck and all the best to the new 3-member Executive Board. We also will witness changes at Supervisory Board level. Agenda Item 6 relates to the election of new Supervisory Board members because the term of office of the current Supervisory Board members will come to an end. From the current Supervisory Board, Mrs. Muhlenfeld, Mr. Ottmann and Mr. Schussel will not be available for reelection. Mrs. Muhlenfeld, after 15 years as a member of the Supervisory Board, you are going to leave the supervisory board. How much has changed? With your determined and active participation, we have been able to transform the company. You know better than anybody else what RWE has achieved. And as the former Lord Mayor of Mülheim an der Ruhr, you've been able to contribute your vast political and municipal experience. You also represent the routes, our routes in the region, which is the region of the -- this company, the home of this company. The next Supervisory Board will -- Mr. Ottmann will also resign from the Supervisory Board. You also contributed your local -- your experience in the area of local self-government and your routes in Northern Westphalia and in the Rhineland lignite-mining area. As the Managing Director of the Association of Municipal Shareholders, you were the voice of the municipalities. This voice, together with an energy industry experience and the commitment that you showed, will also be required in the future. You stood up for what is right. Mr. Schussel will also leave us. Your international experience, especially at European level, gave us a broader view of geopolitical and strategic developments, that was definitely to the benefit of the company. There are very few companies that can -- that have had an EU Counsel President on its Supervisory Board, and we truly developed from your strategic farsightedness. Mrs. Muhlenfeld and dear gentlemen, all of you have one thing in common, your advice, your dedication and your experience helped steer the future and the development of RWE. You discussed with a lot of passion, and you thought for your opinions and monitored the businesses of the company to the benefit of the company. And you contributed to RWE surviving the difficult times and now being faced with a bright future. On behalf of the Supervisory Board, we would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to all of you, but also on behalf of our shareholders. In order to find the best possible candidates for -- as replacements, the Nomination Committee started the selection process early on. The basis is the qualification profile decided by the Supervisory Board. At the end, we extended additional competencies so that they now also include knowledge in the area of renewable energies and digitalization. To replace the 3 persons who -- members who will not be willing for reelection, the Supervisory Board suggest Mrs. Hauke Stars, Mrs. Helle Valentin and Dr. Hans Bünting as new members. The candidates are experts in the area of digitalization and new technology or in the area of renewable energies. The 3 of them would like to introduce themselves personally in the form of a video message. Mr. Stars?

Dear shareholders, my name is Hauke Stars, and I'm delighted to have the opportunity to introduce myself personally. It would have been an honor -- it would be an honor to become a member of the Supervisory Board and contribute to RWE AG developing successfully in the future and is able to make a contribution to a sustainable society. My professional life is closely associated with information technology. I started applied computer science at the Technical University of Magdeburg and then graduated as a graduate engineer in 1991. Then I continued my studies and graduated as -- I earned a Master of Science in engineering in the U.K. in 1992. I started my professional career in 1992 in the IT area of Bertelsmann. I worked in various functions and closely cooperated with the Chief Information Officer of Bertelsmann. Afterwards, in 1998, I joined the IT service provider, Triaton, a subsidiary of Thyssenkrupp AG. First of all, I was responsible for software development. And as from 2000, as a member of the management, I was responsible for sales and marketing. Triaton was purchased by Hewlett Packard in 2004, and then I continued my career in this truly global IT group. For Hewlett Packard, I led IT services in the Netherlands from 2004 to 2007. From 2007 to 2012, I led the Swiss Country Organization and was responsible for a business with CHF 2 billion -- with sales of CHF 2 billion. Now it was always important to me to not just see IT from a technological, but also from a business perspective. IT is more than a necessary substructure. If it is established well and implemented well, IT is always a driver for new business opportunities, innovation, and above all, earnings growth. In 2012, I made a very interesting change in my career. I became a member of the Executive Board of Deutsche Börse AG. Deutsche Börse is one of the DAX 30 companies and one of the largest exchange organizations worldwide. As a member of the Executive Board, I was responsible for information technology, and I was in charge of the Securities Trading business and also the Labor Director of this company in the last years. Deutsche Börse is, above all, a technology company. Modern IT solutions can be found in all offerings of the company. What was always important to me is to have a robust IT infrastructure, which is both cost-effective and flexible. In order to use it as a driver for innovation and new business opportunities, I spent considerable time on future technology such as cloud solutions, blockchain or artificial intelligence. After 2 terms in office and 8 years in total, I decided to leave Deutsche Börse AG at the end of 2020. Since then, I've been focusing on my supervisory board mandates, and I'm also a Senior Advisor at the Private Equity Company, Lindsay Goldberg, of the United States. In addition to my professional activities, I am also a member of the supervisory of supervisory boards since 2019 and have been able to gain extensive experience. From 2009 to 2016, I was a member of the Supervisory Board of GFK. At the time it was a listed company and one of the largest market research companies worldwide. From 2011 to 2016, I was a member of the supervisory of Klockner & CO SE, one of the largest producers and steel and steel distributors worldwide. Since 2016, I'm a member of the Supervisory Board of Fresenius and also a member of the Audit Committee. Fresenius is one of the DAX 30 companies and which operates globally with products and services for the medical industry, dialysis, hospital, outpatient services. Since 2016, I've also been a member of the Administrative Council of Kühne and Nagel and a member of the HR Committee. Kühne Nagel is one of the leading global logistics companies. Now a few personal words. I'm married. I have 3 children, and I live in Königstein, close to Frankfurt. I hope that I will be able to make a contribution with my wide experience in technology, in the operational business and in HR matters and will be able to help the RWE succeed. I would also like to contribute my knowledge and experience in corporate governance topics as a member of the Supervisory Board. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Stars. I would now like to ask Mr. Valentin to speak.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to introduce myself within the scope of today's Annual General Meeting. My name is Helle Valentin. I'm 44 years old, and I'm from Denmark. That's where I live, together with my husband and my son, and I'm the Managing Director of IBM Nordic. I studied engineering at the Technical University in Copenhagen. Throughout my career, I've worked in various countries and positions and was responsible for areas such as strategy, digitalization, transformation, sustainability, acquisitions and integration at regional, local and global level. I've worked in Denmark, the United States, France, the U.K., Morocco, and finally, 5 years in the South of Germany. I came to Germany, to Stuttgart, and worked for IBM as a COO of IBM Germany, Austria, Switzerland. I was in charge of strategy and transformation and also cooperated closely with Works Council. That gave me a lot of insights into the German codetermination system. Afterwards, I was also a Co-Founder and the Global Chief Operating Officer of Watson Internet of Things based in Munich, which was established at the time. Since -- I have a lot of experience from various industries. Since 2017, I've been a member of the Supervisory Board of the European construction company, Royal BAM Group, based in the Netherlands. In addition, for more than 8 years, I've been a member of the Supervisory Board of IBM Denmark. And for 4 years, I have also been a member of the Administrative Council of PFA Holding and PFA Pension with a balance sheet total of more than EUR 120 billion. Finally, in 2019, I won the Women's Board Award. It would be a great honor to design the success of RWE AG together with you in the future. The future of RWE, it's changed. And the change of the industry is something that I've been following with a lot of interest, and I am certain that the future will be exciting. Based on my international experience, I would like to make a contribution to your success in the future. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and now Mr. Bunting.

Thank you. My name is Hans Bünting. I'm 56 years old. I'm married, and I live in Mülheim an der Ruhr. I would like to be the candidate for the Supervisory Board based on my professional experience. After studying economics in Bochum, I worked there for 5 years as a research fellow and also earned the PhD there. Following my university and my academic work, I joined RWE Energie AG in 1995 as a controller. In the first years, I had management positions in the area of controlling, accounting, risk controlling, energy trading and risk management throughout the group. In 2008, a very exciting task was given to me. At that time, RWE Innogy was founded. It combined renewable activities of the group. At the time, it was not very much, but plan was to drive growth forward quickly. I became the CFO and the member of the Management Board. In 2012, I took on the role of the CEO and enjoyed this role until 2016. In 2016, the RWE Group was split into RWE and Innogy, and I was appointed to the Board of Innogy SE, where I was responsible for renewable energies and for innovation management. I was also the CFO on an interim basis for a few months. In October 2019, the takeover of Innogy by E.ON was finalized, and I resigned from my office as Executive Board member by mutual consent with the Supervisory Board. Since 2020, I have been working as a freelance business consultant and I am also active in -- as a business angel's investor and as an investor in startups. The 25 years of relevant experience in the energy industry, of which I was also in many leadership positions of a listed company, make me a qualified candidate for membership in the Supervisory Board.

Mrs. Stars, Mrs. Valentin and Mr. Bunting, thank you very much for your trust in RWE and your willingness to support the company in its new phase. In addition to these new candidates, we have Dr. Keitel, Dr. Kircher Mr. Schartz, Dr. Schipporeit, Mr. Sierau and myself, we are all candidates who are up for election again. On behalf of my colleagues, on the Supervisory Board, I would like to thank you for your trust over the past few years. I would be delighted if you could show us -- would show us your trust for the next years as well so that we can continue our dedicated and constructive work for the company. Additional information on all candidates who are up for election will be available in the invitation to today's AGM. The invitation will also show you the memberships of these persons in other Supervisory Boards in Germany and memberships in similar domestic and international control bodies of other corporations. After today's AGM, the term of office of the other members of the Supervisory Board will also come to an end. The -- and that's of the employee representative. However, they are normally voted or elected by the assembly of delegates, and there is no opportunity for this assembly to meet. Currently, there is no legal solution for that currently. Based on the motion of the Executive Board and in agreement with the employee representatives, the local court decided on the 24th of March 2021 to keep the existing employee representatives and to reappoint them to the Supervisory Board as from the end of today's AGM. This legal appointment will end as soon as in the assembly of delegates will be able to meet again and will be able to elect new employee representatives. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to now continue with item 1 of the agenda, presentation of the adopted financial statements of RWE, optimization and the approved financial statements of the group and the Supervisory Board report of fiscal 2020. I would like to ask Executive Board to discuss the presentations and to give an outlook on the future developments in the current fiscal year. For technical reasons, the speech by Dr. Schmitz was recorded before this AGM. The recorded speech will now be played and incorporated into this event.

Dear shareholders, friends and guests, welcome to the RWE AGM also on behalf of my fellow Board members, Markus Krebber, Nanna Seeger and Michael Muller. Dear Mr. Brandt, thanks ever so much for your friendly words. I'd love to listen, and many of the things that you said about me can only give back the corporation with you, with the Supervisory Board was really outstanding. And there was always a support for my endeavors, even though we had to debate in cases -- in some cases, very softly. Well, dear shareholders, your health and that of our guests and employees takes absolute priority. This is why we're seeing each other on screens once again today. Well, I would have loved to be different for my final AGM, but it's unavoidable if you want to act responsibly. In these turbulent times, many people are worried about the virus or its consequences. So it's good that there's one thing they don't have to worry about, and this is having a secure electricity supply at all times. And I'm sure that on behalf of all of you, I can express high praise and a big thank you to all our employees. We can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. And more importantly, we're getting closer. We're getting there. Vaccination is on its way. One year ago, it was something we could dream about. Scientists and also in particular in Germany have done really an amazing job in a very short period of time. It goes without saying that RWE will be part of the vaccination drive as soon as company doctors are included in the campaign. Our medical department has extensive experience in this area, thanks to the annual flu injection program. We're prepared to start immediately at are locations as soon as the vaccines arrive. Ladies and gentlemen, 2020, well, that was a year of very special circumstances and a year that proved to be excellent for RWE. I'm standing here in Essen with a wonderful view across our new campus. We moved in a year ago, and it offers ideal conditions for us to collaborate closely and effectively while making use of the opportunities presented by digitization. Taking our campus from a building site to a state-of-the-art facility in a very short time frame is really rather perfect symbol of the excellent progress RWE has made in recent years. Well, we did a very good job of overcoming the challenges posed by the transaction with E.ON, one of the largest in the history of German industry ever. Today, we are one of the world's leading companies in area of renewables. And of course, we stand by our responsibility for the phaseout of nuclear energy and phaseout of coal. Well, let's take a detailed look. Based on last year's results, we exceeded our forecast significantly. Our adjusted EBITDA amounted to EUR 3.2 billion, which means it increased by about 7% compared to the pro forma result over the prior year. For 2021, we're expecting a figure of between EUR 2.65 billion and EUR 3.05 billion. Our adjusted net income reached EUR 1.2 billion. The target for 2021 is between EUR 0.75 billion and EUR 1.1 billion. The performance of our energy trading business was outstanding. The result in this area was much higher than the forecast range. And that was really outstanding, a great achievement. And our result for Offshore Wind was also very good in 2020, with a growth of 11%. Offshore and Onshore Wind/Solar also grew positively and grew by 7% compared to the prior year. Well, many German and the media reported about the extreme cold snap in Texas at the beginning of this year. Well, the extremely cold temperature in combination with freezing rain, totally unusually, led to substantial outages and electricity generation across all technologies. Our onshore wind farms were also affected in the current year. This segment will, therefore, close below last year's level. As expected, our result for Hydro/Biomass/Gas in 2020 was slightly below the result of 2019, when we benefited in particular from the one-off payment from the reinstatement of the British capacity market. In the Coal/Nuclear segment, however, we earned over 60% more than in 2019. This was mainly due to higher wholesale prices hedged on the forward market. And this was something that was expected. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the financial situation of the RWA Group has improved even further, thanks to strong growth in earnings from operating activities, and thanks to our capital increase of around EUR 2 billion. It was oversubscribed by a factor of 3. This shows how strong confidence in RWA is. Our net debt at year end amounted to EUR 4.4 billion. Our leverage factors measures are the ratio of net debt to adjusted EBITDA of our core business ranges around 1.7. Our objective is not to exceed 3x our core adjusted EBITDA, so we are well within the safe zone. Once again, we saw an improvement in our equity ratio. At the end of 2020, it was at a comfortable 29%. Our excellent financial situation means we can continue to invest heavily. And this is what we're doing, and nearly exclusively in green energy. In 2020, this amounted to about EUR 1.9 billion in wind power and solar plants. 84% of our capital expenditure meets the taxonomy criteria for Environmentally Sustainable Investment, as proposed by the EU commission. The level of such sustainable capital expenditure as a proportion of our overall capital expenditure on property, plant and equipment also plays a major part in terms of our syndicated credit line. It's 1 of 3 major features of very specific sustainability criteria that we've agreed on with the banks for a part of our own credit line for the first time and on our initiative. This also includes fixed targets for carbon reduction and the share of renewables in our overall capacity. This demonstrates that we're making every effort to ensure RWE becomes more and more sustainable, and we keep our promise. Ladies and gentlemen, dear shareholders, only recently, rating agencies, Moody's and Fitch, upgraded our rating. Moody's raised a long-term rating from Baa3 to Baa2 with a stable outlook. Our assessment for subordinated hybrid capital bonds and the short-term rating has also improved. Fitch also upgraded RWE's long-term credit standing by one level to BBB+ with a stable outlook. The short-term credit score and the rating pertaining to subordinated hybrid bonds were also raised. These positive assessments are further proof of the fact that RWA's strategic realignment is being recognized and honored. And you will be particularly pleased to know that it's also been reflected in our share price. It has performed consistently well. In 2020, RWE was once again one of the top DAX companies, a repeat performance of 2017, '18 and '19. Our enterprise value is growing. And of course, as shareholders, we wish you to benefit from this positive trend. In 2019, our dividend was set at EUR 0.80 per share. For 2020, the Executive Board and Supervisory Board are proposing to increase this to EUR 0.85 per share. And I may ask you to approve this proposal. The Executive Board expects this trend to continue in 2021, with an increase in the planned dividend to EUR 0.90 per share. Ladies and gentlemen, RWE continues to focus on value-added growth for its portfolio. Well, we are spending a lot of money in order to achieve our wind and solar capacity target of more than 13 gigawatts by 2022, between 2020 and 2022, a net total of EUR 5 billion, EUR 1 billion of which are invested in Germany. In 2020, we commissioned approximately 800 megawatts of new wind power and solar capacity. Our wind power, photovoltaics and storage portfolio has, therefore, increased to 9.4 gigawatts. And another 3 gigawatts are now under construction. A prerequisite for these many construction projects is a well-filled project pipeline. Ours now comprises more than 30 gigawatts, which include the Nordex Development Pipeline, which we acquired in summer 2020, involving projects mainly in France and Poland. So we're in a very good way to achieving our target and to growing even beyond this target. Let me give you some examples. In March, we made the financial investment decision for the Sofia project of the British coast. With the capacity of 1.4 gigawatts, it will be the largest of our offshore projects globally. The investment totals about AUS 3 billion. Work is beginning this year. And against fierce competition, we're also successful in the latest British offshore auction for seabed rights, and we're awarded a potential total capacity of 3 gigawatts on Dogger Bank. And in Poland, the government put the legal framework in place in January to financial support wind farms in the Baltic Sea, which smooths the way for a 350-megawatt project, Baltic 2, for which we have established a bilateral contract for differences in place since the beginning of April. This is still subject to approval by the EU commission. Well, we're making good headway when it comes to the 2 large-scale offshore wind farms that is at the end of February, Triton Knoll began feeding electricity into the British grid. The wind farm will be completed in 2022, with a generating capacity of 857 megawatts. Kaskasi, now our third offshore wind farm of Heligoland, will also go into commercial operation next year. The installed capacity will be 342 megawatts. Ladies and gentlemen, offshore wind farms, far from the coast to design these, to build these and operate these is really an art in itself. And this is an art, which we, at RWE, have mastered. Well, just take the Kaskasi project for which 38 huge wind turbines are being transported out to the open sea. We anchor them in the sea floor at a depth of about 25 meters, and they soar above water with hub height of 110 meters. Our wind turbines are state-of-the-art. Their fiberglass blades are perfectly aerodynamic and ensure an ideal energy yield. And for me, as an engineer, it's something really to be proud of. Offshore wind power is really, by far, the most effective form of renewable electricity generation. It's particularly valuable for the energy transition and for RWE. And it's exactly in this very segment that we are world leaders. And this is where we want to stay, and this is why we don't just produce electricity using state-of-the-art technologies, but we also do pioneering work, researching new opportunities such as wind turbines that float on the sea, and that, we are calling floating offshore. But we're also pressing ahead when it comes to onshore wind power. Onshore projects with a total capacity of 1.6 gigawatts have been definitely approved and are now under construction in the U.S. and in our European core markets. Again, we are exploring new technologies such as kites in order to tap into further potential in the future. Ladies and gentlemen, offshore, onshore, solar, this form the foundation of a climate-friendly electricity production. Inseparably linked to these are powerful storage systems, which help to further minimize the use of conventional power stations. A fascinating technology is redox flow, in which energy is saved in liquid chemical compounds. In November, we completed the first step away from the lab into the practice by installing a test facility here at our campus in Essen. And we're also exploring whether and how we could use our underground gas storage facility to store hydrogen made from green electricity. But we also require small and short-term storage facility to offset fluctuations in electricity production and keep the grid stable. Here, the development is even more progressed. A good example are the United States, where we made a number of investment decisions in favor of large battery storage facilities by the end of 2020. We can use these to store more than 200-megawatt hours of electricity. Well, for the foreseeable future, we will still need to use conventional power stations to ensure security of supply. Modern gas-fired power stations are ideally suited to this task. They're capable of reaching quite lengthy periods with wind or no sun using green gas in the longer term. And this is where the German Federal Network Agency agrees, and it has, therefore, put out a tender for the construction of small-scale power stations, the so-called grid reserve plants. They will use only if requested by the network operators. RWE has been awarded the contract to build and operate a 300-megawatt plant of this type in Biblis. It's expected to go into service in autumn of next years. In Great Britain and the Netherlands, we're also and to play our part in maintaining security of supply. The upgraded King's Lynn gas-fired power station in Great Britain has boosted our fleet since the beginning of 2020. It has a capacity of 382 megawatts. And in the Netherlands, we put Claus C power station back on the grid last year, featuring the capacity of 1,300 megawatts. Ladies and gentlemen, well, in addition to green electricity, the second pillar of the energy transition is hydrogen. It offers a realistic opportunity to decarbonize the areas that cannot be electrified, that is industry, above all. This is the only way to achieve climate goals at a worldwide level. Also, for RWE, hydrogen features a huge potential. We have everything we need under one roof: green electricity, expertise in production, storage capacity and trading know-how. But there remains a lot to be done. Investment in green hydrogen is not really yet financially viable because there is no market for green hydrogen yet. There's no established legal framework, and we do not have the conditions in place for a fast market ramp-up. Well, it will still be some time until we see large-scale investments in this area. But here at RWE, we're already working hard. We want to be part of the activities. And this is why we created a dedicated portfolio for hydrogen within the Board of RWE generation. In this way, we're pooling our skills within the group, driving projects forward and forging alliances. And we're working with strong partners to get ourselves an edge from the start. We are currently involved in 30 innovative projects in Germany, the Netherlands and Great Britain. As you can see, the subject of hydrogen is really in everybody's lips in the energy industry. If you're interested in more details, I would recommend to watch the videos in our social media channels and our websites. Ladies and gentlemen, for me, the 2 things go together. We're building up a state-of-the-art and climate-friendly electricity production system. At the same time, we're taking our leave from the world of energy based on coal and nuclear power. We're approaching this consistently, responsibly and with great respect for our workforce. Well, we still have around 1,400 employees working in nuclear. They had to put up with a lot of public, and from my point of view, unjustified criticism in the past. Our employees have never let up. They are highly motivated day by day. They are working through to the end to maintain reliable electricity production. And just as s conscientiously to dismantle the plant, and I really take my hat off to them. Also, there's more clarity regarding the compensation provisions for the accelerated phaseout of nuclear energy. This is good. The Germany's Constitutional Court had repeatedly called for a definitive arrangement to regulate the question of compensation. This agreement is an important step towards achieving legal certainty for everyone involved, and it's also a good signal for boosting confidence in Germany as an industrial location, and thus, to encourage the substantial investments that are now needed to transform the energy system. Ladies and gentlemen, well, we're also bringing the chapter on coal to a close. In spring of 2020, we closed our last hard coal-fired power station in Great Britain. At the end of December, our last 2 hard coal-fired power stations in Germany. The Netherlands will phase out coal by the end of the decade, which we fully support. Our Amer power station is already operating with 80% biomass, and for the plant at Eemshaven that figure is 15%. Both power stations have thus succeeded in reducing their carbon emissions and help to maintain security of supply. In the process of phasing out lignite in Germany, we signed an agreement under public law with the German government in February. In anticipation of that agreement, we took our first lignite unit at Niederaussem off-line 2 months earlier. Another 3 units will follow this year. By 2030, we will have decommissioned 2/3 of our lignite-fired power station capacity, 2/3 of our open cast mines will have been closed by then. 6,000 of 10,000 positions will be cut by 2030. That is -- in the first year, we will carry the lion's share of Germany's phaseout of lignite. We will observe our responsibility toward our employees who will lose their jobs with the same commitment as our obligations to recultivate their land because we are as good as our word. You can count on RWA. No doubt, the phaseout of coal is a historic step for RWE. It's an emotional one for many of our employees. I do understand this because coal is part of our more than 125-year history. And the history of our country, whose prosperity is heavily dependent on this energy. And again, here, it's important for me to express my respect for our employees. They are working hard to provide a reliable supply of electricity, just as policymakers and societies that have expected of them for decades. Ladies and gentlemen, our carbon emissions are declining substantially. Between 2012 and the end of 2020, we reduced them by more than 60%. By 2030, this figure will be at least 75%. And by 2040, we will be carbon-neutral. That's 10 years faster than both Germany and the EU have set as their targets. That is, we really are active, and this is being acknowledged. For example, the high-profile Science-based Targets Initiative has certified that our strategy is in line with the Paris Agreement. We've also received a positive assessment from the Transition Pathway Initiative, a global initiative of financial institutions and asset management. Ladies and gentlemen, well, 2020 was an excellent year for RWE, and it was also a successful year for the energy transition. It's gaining momentum worldwide. If you look at the statistics, this is shown quite clearly. 2020 was the seventh year in a row in which global investment in renewables exceeded the USD 250 billion mark. And it did that by a clear mark, that is, at more than USD 300 billion. And so it continues. Well, the world has set new standards with the Paris Agreement. This calls for a massive transformation of industry, the economy and society as a whole. It comes with clear conditions, important milestones and a defined goal that is carbon-neutrality. And this will be the key decade in this regard. Now we're here to put everything into practice. You know that first steps are crucial in defining what happens next. The initial passes on the pitch. The first notes at a concert. And when you start your day, really to start your day at the right foot. It's no different that we work toward carbon-neutrality. The first steps are vital. Policy requirements that are both ambitious and realistic, conditions that ensure carbon-neutral products are competitive, appropriate stimuli to encourage businesses to make more green investments and meaningful financing instruments to support the transformation of the industry. When all these elements come together, then we can really take off. The green deal and the ambitious measures taken by many countries provide a very good launch pad. And assistance with economic recovery, following the pandemic may also provide a turbo boost to expand climate-friendly technologies even more quickly. The signs are already here. In Europe, capital investment renewables climbed to about USD 82 billion in 2020. This is the highest level since 2012, a plus of 52% vis-à-vis 2019. The front-runner is Great Britain with more than USD 16 billion. In the Netherlands, capital investments more than doubled in 2020 to more than USD 14 billion. In Spain, about USD 10 billion were invested, so the things are buzzing. And what is the state of affairs in Germany? Well, we invested about USD 7 billion in renewables. So this is really half as much as in the Netherlands. But even so, that's a 14% plus on the prior year. There was a strong decline even in 2019. I do hope that this marks the turnaround and the trend in Germany. We can really get better. The basic circumstances have definitely improved. Germany's policymakers reformed the Renewable Energy Act. This has been necessary and the right thing to do. Germany should not let up now. There's a huge competition for investment. This is why we are very hopeful that new areas are regulated. For example, the reduction of the [ ED ] fee. And with a view to the phaseout of energy and coal, we need a lot more dynamism in the expansion of renewables because how fast we proceed with the expansion of renewables and the grids will be one factor that determines the timing for the phaseout of coal. The coalition in Berlin has also set it up to task of gradually reducing the levy on the Renewable Energy Act, and part of this is also the CfDs. They are the best possible tool in order to hedge renewables. And this is, in particular, true for capital-intensive technologies, such as offshore wind. CfDs have now become the standard in Europe, they were developed and perfected in the U.K. It's therefore no coincidence that the largest offshore projects to date are being tackled over there. And let me repeat, Germany should do the same and also use CfDs because it makes economic sense for the country and because it keeps costs for consumers as low as possible and because it creates more certainty for the energy transition in Germany. Well, let me come back to hydrogen. We need a clear legal framework and suitable conditions in place. And quickly, those are the preconditions for being able to actually generate, transport and use green hydrogen cost-effectively. The EU has announced it will put forward the appropriate proposals by the end of the year. I'm pleased that the German government wants to lead the way in this area. However, instead of designing, regulating and financing gas and hydrogen network separately, the existing gas network regulation should be extended to cover hydrogen. This would allow for a meaningful integrated planning. And we also need to clear up uncertainties regarding [Audio Gap] time and it's now the time for renewables. Ladies and gentlemen, and really, eventually, a big thank you from me first of all to you, our shareholders. You've always supported RWE. You supported me personally. Without your support, our transformation would never have been possible. And every bit as important have been the many comments, suggestions, inquiries and constructive criticism, all this is helpful. And that way, no one thinks they can just sit back and take it easy. And I would [Audio Gap] our values of trust, performance and passion are more than just words in paper. They live them in their daily lives and in the work they work together. Our employees are a real deal. They're enthusiastic on the job with a wealth of expertise and always looking for opportunities to improve things. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the team RWE is about to get a new boss, Markus Krebber, and I'm really pleased. Together with Nanna Seeger and Michael Muller, he would see to it that you, as our shareholders, continue to enjoy your RWE. And I'm absolutely sure that this is going to be the case. So I wish you all the best, and stay healthy.

Thank you very much. Dr. Schmitz, for your speech. With [Audio Gap] accessible by a few pieces of equipment at 10:35. The reason for this was an attack on the systems. And technical measures were affected very quickly, so that the disturbance only existed for a few minutes, and the transmission was not really affected. Mr. Krebber, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Dr. Brandt. Ladies and gentlemen, the German Stock Corporation Act requires the Executive Board to expressly explain certain documents to you at the Annual General Meeting, which I will gladly do. The Executive Board made the commented -- and commented on the takeover-related disclosure required pursuant to Section 315a and 289a of the German Commercial Code in the review of operations and in a separate written report. This disclosure is not out of the ordinary. Details can be found in the commentary in the review of operations on Pages 79 and following of the Annual Report as well as in the separate written report, which has been published on RWE's website. Ladies and gentlemen, we successfully conducted a capital increase in August 2020. The gross proceeds on the issuance of approximately EUR 2 billion has given us financial headroom to make investments in the additional short-term expansion of our renewable energy portfolio, the continued development of our project pipeline and further growth opportunities arising in the medium and long term. The Executive Board has submitted an extensive written report on the detailed features and implementation, which can also be found on our website. I would like to put this report in a nutshell for you. By performing the capital increase, we exercised the authorization we were issued by the 2018 Annual General Meeting. Through accelerated book building, we issued shares corresponding to nearly 10% of the company's capital stock at the time from the authorized capital. Shareholders' subscription rights were excluded. It was necessary to exclude subscription rights in order to be able to take this measure at short notice and flexibly while generating the highest proceeds possible. As accelerated book building does not require extensive preparation or have fixed deadlines, we were able to react quickly and flexibly to a favorable window on the market last [Audio Gap] institutional investors within a few hours. It would have been impossible to react to the favorable market conditions so quickly if we had been obliged to grant a subscription deadline of at least 2 weeks. The longer period between the establishment of the price and the completion of the capital increase, triggered by granting subscription rights would also have meant that the shares could only have been placed at a high discount relative to the quotation on the stock exchange. By contrast, thanks to the structure we opted for, we managed to realize the price that was close to the then current stock exchange quotation. The uniform placement price was at EUR 32.55 per share and reflected a discount of just 4.9% compared to the closing quotation in XETRA trading on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange immediately prior to the passage of the resolution. This enabled us to minimize the commercial dilution of our shareholders' stakes in the company. In addition, shareholders who wanted to maintain the relative shareholding of the company were able to do so on the stock exchange at a price close to the placement price. Their interests were this safeguarded appropriately. In view with these issues, the exclusion of subscription rights was objectively justified on the whole. As we used part of the authorized capital to conduct the capital increase, we propose under Agenda Item 9 of today's agenda to reestablish this instrument. This will ensure that we will remain capital -- capable of reacting to future developments, and should the need arise, raise additional capital both quickly and flexibly without having to carry out a capital increase by virtue of resolution by the Annual General Meeting, which may prove impossible due to time constraints. Furthermore, under Agenda Item 10, we proposed to authorize management to issue convertible and/or option bonds, including additional capital in order to expand the company's financing options. Although we do not have any plans to use these instruments at present capital authorizations belong to every DAX company's toolbox. The proposed details of the features of these instruments are in line with customary market standards. Please refer to the complete draft resolutions in the invitation for details. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Executive Board, I ask you to approve the resolutions proposed by the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board regarding the items on today's agenda. And now I would like to hand the floor back to Mr. Brandt.

Ladies and gentlemen, this brings me to the report of the Supervisory Board for the fiscal year that just ended. I would like to focus on the main points of the Supervisory Board's work. Further details can be found in the written Supervisory Board report, which has been published on Pages 11 to 17 of the Annual Report. Ladies and gentlemen, who could have predicted at the beginning of 2020, the huge challenges [Audio Gap] have made. Lockdown measures are important to predict the health of all of us. However, they have pushed many companies and entire sectors to the brink of failure. In 2020, Germany's economic output declined substantially for the first time after 10 years of uninterrupted growth. RWE has demonstrated impressive resilience in this environment. The company maintained its course, pressing ahead [Audio Gap] gigawatts. Growth experienced an additional surge, thanks to the capital increase conducted in August 2020 and the acquisition of Nordex's European Development business. By exiting the coal business, RWE also tackled the second major challenge with resolve. Both of the company's hard coal units placed winning bids with the first shutdown auction held by the German Network Agency. They were closed at the end of 2020. At the same time, RWE is implementing the legally mandated lignite phaseout. RWE is thus right on track in terms of climate protection and is doing more than what is required by law. This course leads with broad acceptance in general and on the capital market in particular, as evidenced by our shares strong performance. Irrespective of the coronavirus pandemic, RWE shareholders received a total return consisting of the increase in share price and the dividend of 30%. It was with great conviction that the Supervisory Board endorsed these developments, which placed their mark on our business in fiscal 2020. The Executive Board kept us abreast of these events on which we advised our meetings, which have all been held via online video conferencing since last spring. Another focal point of our activity last year was the restaffing of the Executive Board. We came up with a solution which I believe is very good. I already mentioned this in my speech previously. The nomination can be focused on preparing the new elections to the Supervisory Board, which will be held today. Besides shortlisting suitable candidates, this also involved establishing the future system for staffing the Supervisory Board. As you can see from the agenda, we propose to set up a staggered Board, which entails establishing varying tenures for the Board's members. To this end, we will propose that 5 candidates be elected at this AGM with a term of 4 years, with another 5 having a term of 3 years. It is envisaged that future elections will be held for terms of 3 years in order to maintain a staggered Board. This structure will avoid having to reelect all shareholder representatives on the Supervisory Board at the same Annual General Meeting, which can cause the Board to lose valuable experience. In addition, this will increase the continuity of the Board's staffing while making it more flexible. The introduction of the staggered Board will require amendments to be made to the Articles of Incorporation, which we propose in Agenda Items 11 and 12. And another topic to which we dedicated significant attention was the remuneration of the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board. ARUG 2, the law on the implementation of the Second German shareholders Directive, obligates listed companies to regularly present the remuneration system for the Executive Board to their Annual General Meeting for approval and to pass the resolution on the remuneration of the Supervisory Board. These 2 matters feature in Agenda items 7 and 8 of today's agenda. Let me begin with the reiteration of the Executive Board. The Supervisory Board revised it in cooperation with an external consultant and decided to adopt the new version at its meeting on June 25, 2020. It has been in force since January 1, 2021 and is being presented to you for approval today. When creating the new system, the Supervisory Board's main objective was to link the remuneration of the Executive Board closely to the achievement of RWE's strategic goals. As a result, the remuneration system makes a major contribution to managing the company in a manner that is sustainable and successful over the long term, while increasing the company's value. It's a central tool for bringing Executive Board remuneration in line with the interest of the company, its shareholders and other stakeholders, while providing key incentives for implementing our business policy. The basic structure of the remuneration system was preserved, however. This means that Executive Board remuneration still consists of the fixed salary, the pension installment, the performance-related bonus and share-based payments. No additional special payments are made. The performance targets, which determine the level of variable remuneration are determined by the Supervisory Board in advance of each assessment period. The level of variable remuneration cannot be changed retroactively. Target amounts of variable remuneration, which, together are fixed remuneration results in total target remuneration, are determined for a target achievement of 100%. Maximum remuneration caps, the achievable amount of payment, it includes all remuneration components. Let me take you through the major changes reflected in the new remuneration system. Share-based payment, which is based on virtual shares, is now oriented towards the development of adjusted net income as well as 2 additional success factors of equal weight relating to RWE's sustainable and long-term development. One of them is the carbon footprint of our generation portfolio. To determine this factor, we define clear milestones on route to achieving the company's strategic goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2040. Another success factor is based on the total shareholder return, which puts the total return on the RWE share in relation to that of other European utility stocks. As before, the third success factor is the development of adjusted net income. These 3 success factors determine the number of conditionally granted virtual shares that are finally granted on expiry of a 3-year performance period. These performance shares must be held for an additional year thereafter. The vesting period is thus 4 years as before. Our share ownership guidelines are a further new element of the remuneration system. We intend to bring Executive Board generation more in line with the interest of our shareholders by obliging the Executive Board members to invest a certain minimum sum in RWE's shares and to hold these shares for the duration of their membership of the Executive Board plus an additional 2 years from the end of their membership. The personal investment is 100% for the annual gross fixed salary for the ordinary members of the Executive Board and 200% for the Chairman. A minimum of 25% of the gross variable remuneration paid must be invested in RWE shares every year until the target amount is reached. Last but not least, the old malice rule has been supplemented by a clawback mechanism, which is common practice of the market. In the event of a breach of duty, it enables the Supervisory Board to withhold variable remuneration components that have not been paid out and to reclaim such components that have already been paid. This clawback mechanism is applied also if the consolidated financial statements are found to contain errors. Special rights of termination in the event of a change of control and severance payments in this context have been abolished. The new remuneration system has been fully implemented in the employment contracts of Michael Muller and Nanna Seeger. The same will apply to the contract of Markus Krebber once he assumes chairmanship of the Executive Board on May 1 of this year. Only the contract of Rolf Martin Schmitz, which will soon expire, does not reflect the new remuneration system with the exception of the new share-based payment. This rounds off the overview of the Executive Board of Remuneration. Details can be found in the extensive presentation, the invitation to the Annual General Meeting and the supplementary information published on our website. Now let's move on to the remuneration of the Supervisory Board, which today is addressed in Agenda Item 8. Its current remuneration was established in the Articles of Incorporation by the 2013 Annual General Meeting. It envisages the members of the Supervisory Board receiving annual fixed remuneration and additional compensation for their work on the committees of the Supervisory Board. This basic structure has proven itself and should be maintained along with the level of annual fixed remuneration. The Supervisory Boards also assume a voluntary obligation to spend 25% of the remuneration they receive on purchasing shares in RWE and to hold them for a duration of their membership. However, compensation for work done on committees is to be increased to a level customary in the market, and in principle, paid for every office held on the committee subject to certain exceptions. This is because the scope of and time spent on this work as well as the associated responsibility have risen considerably in the past few years. This raise ensures that the company remains capable of recruiting highly qualified candidates to the Supervisory Board. Ladies and gentlemen, the financial statements of RWE AG and the consolidated financial statements as well as the combined review of operations of RWE AG and the group have been audited by the independent auditors, Pricewaterhousecoopers GMBH Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, which has issued an unqualified audit opinion. Furthermore, Pricewaterhousecoopers has reviewed the nonfinancial report to obtain limited assurance and certified that the Executive Board has established an appropriate early risk detection system. The Supervisory Board's Audit Committee concerned itself with the parent company and consolidated financial statements as well as the audit reports in-depth and recommended that the Supervisory Board approve them and endorse the Executive Board's proposal for the appropriation of distributable profit. The Supervisory Board has reviewed the parent company and consolidated financial statements, the combined review of operations, the proposed -- the proposal for the appropriation of distributable profit and the separate nonfinancial report that discuss these documents extensively at its balance sheet meeting. The independent auditors reported on the material findings of their audit, and we reached the conclusion that there was nothing objectible -- nothing to object. Thereupon, the Supervisory board approved the result of the audit by the independent auditors of both financial statements and adopt the financial statements of RWE AG as well as the consolidated financial statements. The parent company financial statements are therefore adopted. The Supervisory Board endorse the Executive Board's proposal for the appropriation of distributable profit, which envisages paying a dividend of EUR 0.85 per share. Ladies and gentlemen, RWE continued its impressive transformation process at full speed despite the coronavirus pandemic. This was accomplished not by individual employees, but by the entire staff. They dedicated themselves to the company tirelessly day in and day out, demonstrated substantial adaptability, considering the crisis and were disciplined abiding by the infection control rules in their daily work. On behalf of the entire Supervisory Board, I would like to say a very big thank you to all our employees. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now answer all questions submitted by our shareholders in good time and the run-up to the AGM. It's, for us, of central importance to make it the best possible use of the framework of the virtual AGM and to offer our shareholders transparent information. And this is why the company published the management group of the speeches by the Chairman of the Board of Management and the Chief Financial Officer as well as my comments on the website last Friday. We consider this transparency in advance to be an important compensation for the speeches not provided for the Virtual Annual General Meeting. Thus shareholders could ask very specific questions before the actual AGM. As further element in strengthening the shareholders' rights and for the broadening of the information base for the question process, we have created the opportunity for our shareholders to submit written comments for publication on the website in the run-up to the AGM. The question process will be moderated by Susanne Lange and Jérôme Hördemann, both of whom work in the company's Investor Relations department. Welcome. Ms. Lange and Mr. Hördemann will take on the role of shareholders today, and ultimately, in blocks, present the questions submitted, which will be answered by Dr. Schmitz, Dr. Krebber, Mrs. Seeger and Dr. Muller, on behalf of the Executive Board, and by me, on behalf of the Supervisory Board. And let me give now the floor to Dr. Schmitz.

Before we start to answer the questions, let me give you an overview over the questioning process. Well, by the end of 26th of April, 235 questions have been received from 26 shareholders via the investor portal. Many thanks for this. By way of comparison, we received 176 at the Virtual AGM 2020. We will answer each of the questions submitted today. And this is why Mrs. Langer, there you go. Yes, good afternoon, dear shareholders. We will start answering questions from DSW. The Deutsche Schutzvereinigung fur Wertpapierbesitz represented by Mr. Hechtfischer.

And the first questions are addressed to you, Mr. Krebber. Against the background of the current infection situation, he understands that RWE AG has again invited to an online AGM. Well, is it foreseeable that you will return to a face to face AGM as soon as the pandemic situation has eased some?

Thank you, Mr. Hechtfischer, outside the corona emergency legislation, of course, virtual AGMs have not been provided at all. And however, we welcome further legal developments of the traditional AGMs in which there is a balance of interest between the shareholders and companies.

Mr. Hechtfischer also believes that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the company's economic situation. Now it's been manageable so far. But what will be the future line in view of the current development? Does the Executive Board expect a negative impact on revenue and earnings?

Mr. Hechtfischer. This is true overall, we've felt a little impact of the corona crisis on our business. They have all -- of course, there have been some delays in the commissioning of new onshore wind farms. Of course, the pandemic also has an impact on an electricity market prices and market demand, this could be observed in 2020. We have modeled possible consequences for RWE in a scenario analysis, and we do not see a high-risk for our business. This is also reflecting our earnings forecast for 2021.

Mr. Krebber, DSW refers to a press release of 8th of April in which we report on the conclusion of a CFD for an offshore wind farm in Poland. Well, why is this model not being used in Germany? How many comparable contracts has RWE concluded in the meantime?

Well, thank you, Mr. Hechtfischer. We have really campaigned for the introduction of bilateral contracts for difference as a funding regime in Germany. Well, politicians are divided on this issue. At the end of the day, details of the support model have been adjusted, but essentially, it remains with the so-called sliding market premiums. We continue to hope that politicians will reconsider the design of the support regime in order to make Germany more attractive again for investments in renewables. The second part of your question. Well, overall, the range of marketing mechanism for renewables in the different markets is very broad. Comparable contracts, the difference exists, for example, in the U.K., France and Italy. In total, we hold 1 or 2 Saudi contracts for a difference for about 1.9 gigawatts in our renewable portfolio. And this does not include the latest contract in Poland.

Thank you, Mr. Krebber. DSW would like to know the following. The picture that RWE is currently presenting is clouded by the severe onset of the winter in Texas and the resulting burden on earnings. Well, what has become of the announced reappraisal analysis of the events at the political, regulatory and legal levels? Of course, in mid-March 2021, it has been reported that was still too early to draw conclusions. And has that changed?

Well, it is indeed still too early to make a final assessment of the consequences. There are various developments in the processing of the events in AG with regard to the possible correction of the artificially raised electricity prices by the Texas lower house and personnel replacements in the Public Utility Commission of Texas. And RW, Renewables America, has initiated legal action against the actions of the PUCT and the responsible transmission system now operator, Ercot. But we keep you posted.

Mr. Schmitz, next question for you. The compensation payments for the planned lignite phase out in Germany, are being subjected to an in-depth examination by the EU Competition Authority. Well, first of all, the government will have the opportunity to provide comments. Does RWE have any possibility to exert some influence? And if so, which? And what is the worst-case scenario for RWE in this respect? According to press reports, the compensation payments, of course, involved about the same addresses. They are also taking action against the transaction between E.ON, RWE. What is the state of affairs in this release?

Hechtfischer, the EU state investigation was expected by all parties involved. Although the compensation of EUR 2.6 billion is still subject to state aid. However, it's significantly lower than the damage actually incurred and proven by expert opinions. And we therefore see ourselves in a very good position with regard to this audit. Well, the process or the procedure of formerly between the EU Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany. However, RWE as a recipient of the compensation has the opportunity to participate in the proceedings, by submitting statements and expert opinions. This is what we're going to do in proceedings against the 2 clearance decisions of the EU commission on the RWE on transaction. Pleadings have been exchanged in writing so far. And oral hearing has not yet taken place. RWE will submit its own statement as intervener. We don't see any reasons to doubt the substantive correct now self-clearance decision.

Thank you, Mr. Schmitz. In the context with the coal phase out in the Netherlands, we initiated an arbitration proceedings against the Netherlands in February 2021. Uniper recently announced that it has also initiated coal proceedings. The question is, what compensation for disadvantages does RWE hope to receive in these receivings?

Well, as you know, and I also explained during my speech, of course, RWE is committed to the energy transition, is making a significant contribution. And this is why we do understand the goals of the Dutch government, but we can except the encroachment on our property without compensation, especially since we built the Eemshaven power plant against the background of the Dutch government's express wish for a new coal-fired power plants. We remain to any constructive proposal for a solution. With the right support, those power plants, Amer and Eemshaven can play important role in the energy transition, for example, by using biomass.

Well, does RWE consider a sale or spin-off of the Fossil Energy division or according to press book, it's been off like in case of E.ON Energy. Of course, this is speculation.

Incidentally, the public law agreement on the coal phase out defines narrow limits for such matters, which would have to be achieved. So in any case, we do not plan to difference ourselves completely from fossil fuels in the future. Gas as an energy source will temporarily play an important role in security of supply due to its lower CO2 emissions and flexible application.

Well, last number of DSW, that is on hydrogen. Mr. Schmitz. How does RWE see itself in the field of green hydrogen, one of the last -- or most recent press release and on this topic, an electrolysis project, the Heligoland was presented according to this, the project is to make a decisive contribution to the German European hydrogen strategy by 2035. Are you in a leading position? Or is there a danger that others will get there faster?

Well, we are currently gathering experience in over 30 hydrogen projects in order to be at the forefront when the hydrogen economy becomes established. We basically operate along the entire value chain. We can generate green electricity from renewables as well as green hydrogen via electrolysis. We bring the expertise for riding a market, and we have a very good network consisting of business customers and potential project partners. The project you're referring to is AquaVentus. This is one of the many projects, some of them international, in which we are involved. But first of all, the regulatory framework conditions and suitable funding programs need to be placed in order to have the possibility to implement electrolysis projects. And then we are convinced that we can position strongly in the hydrogen economy as an experienced company that operates along the entire value chain and hold our own against competitors. Okay. Now the first block of the SDK, the [Foreign Language] Mr. Krieger asks about the effect that corona will have that is there's -- are there different effects? Is there different -- differences between the infection rates in Germany and abroad? Have there been any casualties? And he would also like to know to what extent are home offices used in administrative functions. Are masks and testing facilities available to employees in sufficient numbers. Can vaccinations be given by RWE company doctors. Mr. Krebber, can you answer that?

Yes, of course, dear Mr. Krieger. Well, we very well started to introduce measures to contain chains of infections at work including very stringent hygiene measures, distance rules and the obligation to wear masks. And in addition, wherever possible, we've created rules and regulations and actual possibilities for comprehensive and largely mobile working. Thus, the affection rated RWE is below the average infection rate of the markets in which we operate. So far, infections have almost, without exception, originated in the private sphere. Unfortunately, however, 2 of our employees have died as a result of the COVID disease. We offer mass and self-test all workers across all companies and carry out rapid tests. We have already completed preparations for possible vaccinations as soon as vaccine is available, our occupational health and self-help medicine is able to vaccinate employees.

And Mr. Krebber, working conditions, can you explain what workplace conditions apply to employees abroad. If internal RWE rules are more stringent than national law, what's about the OECD initiatives and UN initiatives on worker's rights abroad?

Dear Mr. Krieger, national law is only really ever a minimum standard for us. If internal RWE rules and regulation deviate from the national law applicable abroad that is to the benefit of the employees there, then the more favorable RWE regulations are applied, of course. Your question regarding the OECD and UN initiatives, the following. Since January 2004 for RWE has been a member of the United Nations Global Compact. By signing the underlying 10 principles, RWE undertakes to respect human rights and labor standards. As part of our social charter, we're also committed to the core labor standards of the International Labor Organization, ILO.

Some questions to Mr. Krebber, Mr. Krieger would also like to know whether RWE already meets future requirements for implementing the EU taxonomy. If this is not the case, he asks what measures still need to be initiated. The SDK is also interested in the rating within the framework of the global reporting initiative. What has been the result?

Well, according to the current interpretation of the EU taxonomy regulation, RWE has introduced all necessary measures to meet the future reporting requirements. The delegated acts on the reporting requirements of the taxonomy regulation is still being reviewed following a consultation phase. And therefore, certain adjustments or amendments might be in place in the future. Then regarding rating within the framework of the global reporting initiative, GRI, our sustainability report was prepared in accordance with the international standards of the GRI, compliance with GRI criteria was audited and confirmed by the auditing firm PwC. Likewise, GRI has confirmed our compliance with the GRI criteria in the so-called Materiality Disclosure Service.

Mr. Krebber, talk about the profitability of lignite power plants, against the background of rising prices for pollution rights as from 2030 onwards. What is the analysts view the RWE share with regard -- of the RWE share? When does the share become interesting for sustainability falls because it has a very good ESG rating?

Regarding your first question, such a long-term outlook is associated with great uncertainty, it gives us with regard to the expansion of renewables and the development of commodity prices. In the mid-run, that is after phasing out nuclear energy in 2022 we expect that the EBITDA and the coal and nuclear energy will be around 0 and EUR 200 million, our CO2 hedging strategy will also benefit -- will also be beneficial there. Then the second question, overall, RWE's transformation into a climate neutral company is being positively received by the capital market. For example, with the certification of the science-based target initiative, we've shown that our goals are demonstrably in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. This has been reflected in the share price. The RWE is already included in some sustainability funds instead of taking hard limit into account on our RWE's transformation. In our rule, this is really the only possible and correct approach.

The next question is posed by the SDK against the background that Germany will not only have to replace electricity from nuclear, but also from oil, due to the rapidly growing demand from e-mobility. What quantities of electricity will have to be provided nationally by 2030. What share will RWE take? And what investments will be necessary on your path?

Well, the central chart in the future will be to ensure security of supply under the above-mentioned circumstances. The expansion targets for renewables must be raised considerably. And we need reliable plants such as gas-fired power plants that can step in whenever there's no wind and no sun. The extent to which RWE participates in tenders in Germany also depends on the support regime.

Thank you, Mr. Krebber. The following question to you. Well, how can EUR 322 million in external sales in the offshore wind segment become an EBITDA of [ EUR 1.69 trillion ]. What prices does electricity from offshore achieve?

Well, offshore segment is not marketed to external customers. And this is why a -- low toll over because it's really marketed to sister companies. The electricity generally sold within the group at arm's length conditions so that the profit from external plus internal sales is generated directly in the offshore segment.

Transactions in the renewables business, what benefits does RWE expect the takeover of Nordex development business? Have rather small-scale projects in 4 countries with onshore wind and solar have been brought. What risk do these projects carry? Are there many opportunities similar to the construction sector, but also a lot of risk in product development? Why has Nordex sold the product pipeline? Is offshore with more promising? What needs to be invested for the commissioning of the 2.7 gigawatts less than EUR 2.3 billion. Partially, it's also announced that it has sold sales in various wind farms.

Mr. Krieger asked what the business idea was behind the sale of the shares in Hamburg and the 4 onshore wind farms in Texas? What management fee will RWE received for operating the wind farms? If only 25% are still owned, will the 25% be sold in the midterm? And is there a put or a call option?

Thank you very much for the questions, Mr. Krieger. The acquisition of the Nordex development pipeline enabled us to enter the onshore wind market quickly and broadly in France. Project risk can rise primarily in the construction approval process, for example, as a result of specific environmental requirements, but also due to inadequate wind conditions, high development costs or local opposition or limited grid capacity in the respective regions. I can only speculate as to why Nordex has jettisoned the project pipeline and would ask you to address this question directly to Nordex. RWE has not yet decided which of the projects in the entire 2.7 gigawatt pipeline are to be built by RWE renewables itself. With the given technology mix, investment costs of around EUR 1.1 billion per gigawatt would theoretically be incurred, that is about EUR 3 billion which would extend over a period of several years into the second half of the decade. Now the question on sales rotations in the plant portfolio are primarily about diversification, technologically, geographically and also from a risk management perspective. This was also the case with the profitable sale of the shares in Hamburg and 4 onshore wind farms in Texas. RWE will continue to take over the operational management for these wins. Wind farms within the framework of a service contract that includes maintenance, servicing, operational management at standard market conditions. However, confidentiality was agreed on the specific terms of contracts.

Mr. Krieger has another question concerning the situation in Texas. Please explain the electricity integrative system in the United States compared to Germany. Why is RWE obliged to supply electricity in the United States despite the lack of wind, unlike in Germany? Does this also apply to the collapse of power lines. What costs were incurred due to the loss of wind power generation in Texas and the need to purchase spot market electricity at short notice? How can such a high-risk be insured? Were there bilateral agreements with other electricity producers, including capital wins to compensate for blackouts or similar risk situations?

Well, while the European electricity markets are interconnected, Texas is not connected to the surrounding electricity systems of the other U.S. states. This is a special feature here. Whether there's an obligation to deliver electricity despite the lack of wind feed-in depends on the individual contract design. In fact, for certain quantities, we also have no obligation to deliver. In this case, the damage has essentially risen for the part of the production for which we have undertaken price hedging transactions via bilateral trading transactions, OTC, or the NGX ICE trading platform. We enter into delivery commitments to the production quantities that are expected within the high degree of probability means of liquid that is relatively low-risk products in order to hedge against long-term price risks and to achieve long-term predictability in sales. The damage caused by the Texas icing event amounts to around EUR 400 million. Property and business interruption insurance is in place or to be in North America. So there was no insured property damage in connection with the winter events in Texas. And consequently, there were no business interruption losses requiring conversation. There are no bilateral agreements with other electricity producers in Texas to compensate the one-off weather effects, such as the Texas icing event.

Mr. Krieger also asks in which other countries in which RWE is active with renewable energies? Do hedging strategies have to be implemented as there is no automatic match of supply and demand at the extent of traditional electricity suppliers? What additional costs will RWE incur annually from 2022 onwards in order to hedge a Texas risk in the future?

Within the framework of a detailed investigation, we will analyze whether and in which other markets similar situations as the Texas could arise. It is still too early to estimate the additional costs that may be necessary to avoid this before the investigation is completed.

And let's continue with questions from SDK on investments and the capital increase. Mr. Krebber, to what extent does RWE plan to invest in renewable energies especially offshore wind power in the next few years? Will further capital increases be necessary to refinance renewable energy growth. Does the existing leverage that is equity to debt ratio also apply to the EUR 2 billion equity RWE raised through the capital increase of last August? How can the surprise effect of carrying out a capital increase in the middle of the holiday season, with the exclusion of subscription rights for existing shareholders be eliminated next time? Why wasn't the money invested as of '21 -- 31 December '20, tangible assets are down, but cash is up?

Well, in March last year, we announced that we want to expand renewable energies to over 13 gigawatts per -- by 2022. To achieve this, we are planning net investments of EUR 5 billion or EUR 8 billion to EUR 9 billion gross. Around 45% of this to be in the offshore wind segment alone. But the capital increase in August -- of August of last year, we have strengthened the necessary financial flexibility for additional accelerated expansion of the renewable business. The timing of the capital increase was good. But it is true that we were only able to invest part of the capital directly, namely to acquire the Nordex pipeline. But the reason for the capital increase are not short term, we will make additional investments beyond the previous target in the medium and long-term expansion of the renewables portfolio and the further development of our project pipeline. However, there are no currently no plans for a further capital increase. Now concerning the leverage question, we have defined the leverage factor, that is the ratio of net debt to adjusted EBITDA of the core business and not the ratio of equity to debt. Our goal is for net debt not to exceed 3x the adjusted EBITDA of the core business. We have met this target for the 2020 financial year. And incidentally, this would have also been the case without the capital increase.

With regard to hydrogen, Mr. Krieger would like to know what contribution to turnover are to we expect from hydrogen technology in the next 5 years? Will RWE itself engage in hydrogen production? Or will it only make its gas networks available? Mr. Schmitz, are there already first results from the pilot project with Thyssenkrupp for the conversion of steel production from coking coal to hydrogen.

Well, at the moment, Mr. Krieger, our goal is to gain as much experience as possible to be at the forefront when the hydrogen economy becomes established. We are involved in a number of projects, but it will certainly take a few years before money can be made with green hydrogen. Until then, we need a supportive regulatory framework and appropriate subsidies. As I explained earlier, we are basically active along the entire value chain. We can generate green electricity from renewable energies as well as green hydrogen via electrolyzers. We have the expertise for trading and transport, and we have a good network consisting of business customers and potential project partners. On the project with Thyssenkrupp steel, we are in partnership to supply the Thyssenkrupp site in Duisburg with green hydrogen. This green hydrogen is then to replace coking coal in the blast furnace route and/or natural gas in newly built direct reduction plans in steel production. However, the testing of the technologies is up to Thyssenkrupp Steel, we're not involved in this.

Thank you, Mr. Schmitz. And the last question of SDK goes to Mr. Krebber. Mr. Krieger would like to know why no video and audio -- videos and audio statements and no follow-up questions are allowed during the Annual General Meeting.

In our view, the legal framework of the COVID-19 Act, which is amended in December 2020, does not make it possible to allow questions during the general meeting in a legally secure manner without jeopardizing the legal validity of the resolutions. In particular, there's secure means of limiting abusive use of the right to ask questions at the AGM. Similar considerations apply to video and audio recordings. We also do not consider it permissible to offer this option only to individual shareholders for reasons of equal treatment. Instead, we have strengthened shareholder rights in advance for various measures. Our shareholders had the opportunities to submit written statements in advance from publication on the website and the Executive Board and Supervisory Board also published their speeches in advance. In this way, we created the broadest possible information basis for the questioning process in advance.

Ms. Schmitz, let us now proceed to the questions from the VIP, that is the Association of Institutional Private Investors represented by Mr. Bullman. His first question regard the general situation of global trading and the impact on RWE. Schengen, he said, would no longer be applied at home retroactively. The borders would be creatively and selfishly erected for global trade, a set of supply chains autarchy would return to our value system and displace insights from free global trade. How would this affect RWE's organizational business model in the short-term and medium term? Are we capable of acting in self sufficiency? And do we need to evaluate the situation, not only, but especially in Russia? He also wants to know the following: Deglobalization is everywhere. Decoupling coupled with sanctions, is more dramatic and faster. For instance, if Russia leaves SWIFT. How much does this -- to what extent does this affect us?

Well, for me, global trade is something very positive and the basis of our prosperity. Our business model in power generation is robust. And can fend off trade protections because our business is global, but then it's mainly local. In Russia itself, we do not have local business, but we do have Russian trading partners. If Russia were to leave or be excluded from SWIFT, the entire European gas industry, including the gas business of our subsidiary, RWE Supply and Trading, would be affected. So it is, therefore, a political issue for us.

Mr. Bullman reported a press release from the federal network agency according to which 3 fine proceedings market abuse and electricity trading had been initiated in Q3 2020 as a result of an imminent large-scale blackout on 6, 12 and 25 June 2019 in Germany. Mr. Müller, to what extent is RWE affected here?

Thanks, Mr. Bullman. Neither RWE nor RWE employees are affected.

The VIP would also like to know where we stand with regard to the energy transition. What payments have we made and which are still to come? Specifically, Mr. Bullman asks about the compensation for the nuclear and coal phaseout and the capacity market in the U.K. Mr. Schmitz, please.

I will start with the compensation for the nuclear phaseout. In March of this year, we reached an agreement with the federal government on compensation for the accelerated nuclear phaseout. In our case, this concerns unusable generation quotas amounting to 25.9 million terawatt hours and investments that have become worthless, amounting to around EUR 40 million. The federal government has promised us a compensation of EUR 33.22 per megawatt hour for the electricity quotas. In addition, we are to be reimbursed for half of the devalued investments. The agreement with the federal government had no impact on the 2020 consolidated financial statements, but approval of the draft law by the Bundestag is still pending. We have agreed on compensation of EUR 2.6 billion with the federal government for the phase out of lignite. The EU commission's examination of the coal phase out agreement understate a law is still pending. Only after approval will compensation payments begin. We were successful with our last 2 German hard coal-fired power plants and the first nationwide decommissioning auction last year. In the tender process, we were able to secure compensation of EUR 216 million for them. As soon as the responsible transmission system operators confirm that the units are not necessary to maintain grid stability, we will decommission them. Regarding the last part of your question concerning capacity payments in the U.K. and which is still expected, the following can be said. In 2020, we were successful in several auctions.. Details can be found in the annual report on Page 45. In 2021, we were also successful at the auction in March. In total, RWE secured contracts amounting to 6,544.1 MW for delivery in 2024, '25 at a price of GBP 18 per kilowatt hour -- per kilowatt per year, sorry.

Mr. Krebber, is Polish wind power is struggling with the Polish hard coal or competing with Polish hard coal? Or why do projects like F.E.W. Baltic II take 5 years to prepare? What is the impact of the so-called CFD mechanism on the risk reward portfolio of the RWE earnings?

Polish regulation has granted us a bilateral contract for difference for the F.E.W. Baltic II offshore wind projects swiftly after the National Energy Plan and the Offshore Wind Act came into force at the beginning of this year. The EU Commission's examination of the offshore subsidy understate a law is still pending. Experience shows that a project decision can take up to a year. The planning of an offshore wind farm is much more time-consuming than setting that for than for wind farm on land, especially since the responsibility for planning and implementing the sea- and land-based grid connection also lives with the investor. We welcome the support based on its bilateral difference compensation mechanism at the market price.

Mr. Krebber, another question on the icing events in Texas. Trade -- trading and Texas is the cause of 1 -- of a balance sheet total, which is -- was reduced by 1/3 in 2021. Please be more specific. Is nothing insured?

Well, I already answered this question, a similar question that was raised by Mr. Krieger. The financial damage caused by the events in Texas amounts to about EUR 400 million. The business interruption insurance covers loss of earnings as a result of an insured property damage, which did not occur. So consequently, there were no business interruption losses for which compensation is payable. Supply and trading with its trading business did not suffer any negative effect from the events in Texas.

Mr. Bullman's question on hydrogen. Mr. Schmitz. Until the end of the last decade, hydrogen was only the subject of, well, games or strategy of Lynden Air Liquid. Now RWE is involved in the North H2 project alongside oil and gas companies, where green hydrogen is to be produced. What is the project goal and what is RWE's long-term hydrogen strategy? If green electricity produces hydrogen, will the missing electricity perhaps also be substituted by coal-fired electricity in the future?

Well, the last option would not be a good one. The project goal of North H2 is to make the north of the Netherlands, the hub for the supply of green hydrogen to the northwest of Europe. To this end, the system of offshore wind farms and electrolyzers will be built and gas storage facilities and gas pipelines will be converted for the use of the hydrogen. As already explained, in the DSW and SDK questions, we want to be involved along the entire grain hydrogen value chain from renewable electricity generation to the production of green hydrogen down to trading and marketing. The coal phase out in Germany and in the Netherlands' lens has been decided. We, therefore, do not see coal power compensating for electricity shortages in the long term.

Next question goes to Mr. Seeger and relates to our new RWE campus. Working from home is modern and not only because of the coronavirus pandemic. It's pity about the beautiful new office space around the RWE flat. Are areas now going to be converted into housing, then employees could move in there and also work from home there.

That's a very nice idea, but even if mobile working will remain an integral part of everyday working life, some tasks are then still better done from the office. Therefore, we will certainly use the office space more again in the future, like last summer, for example, when the infection figures are very low. The infections rates were very low. Let's continue with the question about dividends.

Mr. Krebber, dividends are a burden on cash unless RWE distributes E.ON shares, is that conceivable, advisable from a tax point of view? Or does the management see rapid price increases coming from E.ON?

Well, to a certain extent, together with the lignite compensation claim against the federal government, we're going to use our E.ON shareholding to cover mining provisions. A reduction of our E.ON share would lead to the loss of tax benefits and is currently not planned, especially not via a dividend in time.

Mr. Bullman also has questions concerning the elections to the Supervisory Board. Mr. Brandt, this is your question. The explanatory statement on agenda Item 6 states that the members of the Supervisory board are to be elected for 3 years. But the articles of incorporation continue to speak of 5 years. Why is there no corresponding amendment to the articles of incorporation on the agenda? Was it forgotten? And in addition, the explanatory memorandum on agenda Item 5, states the only reason for the staggering of members, a staggered system is to avoid the risk of loss of experience. Does the administration consider the entirety of its shareholders to be stupid? Do they think this risk can occur? Isn't it rather just the opposite -- the supervisory boards are applying for -- or going to build up a fortress against shareholder majorities? Why does the supervisory board protect itself with formalities instead of convincing through performance?

Mr. Bullman, thank you for this provocative question. The current articles of incorporation already makes it possible to elect the shareholder representatives for only 3 years. So this opportunity already exists today. You also heard that the employee representative will be voted -- will be reelected, and that's for a period of 5 years. And that's why we're not proposing a general amendment of the articles of incorporation. A staggered system is -- also ensures flexibility of the body. The composition of the shareholder's side can be adapted more flexibly to a changing environment, incidentally, even more so in combination with the shorter terms in office than 3 years. These reasons, staggered boards, are also seen by many investors as a positive factor for good corporate governance.

For the last question from the VIP, were about the remuneration system, Mr. Brandt. Mr. Bullman asked about the purpose of discussing the remuneration system. There would be unlimited opening clauses as well as the target adjustments during the year, which can turn the result upside down. Moreover, even agreed upper and lower limits can be skipped. What use is the resolution of the AGM, really, and Mr. Bullman goes on to say that so far, only very few companies have linked the achievement of the ESG targets to the remuneration of top management. If this is changing, will the target still be clear? Hasn't environmental and social always been an intrinsic part of the goals, which only finds greater appeal in the current marketing?

Well, Mr. Bullman on your first question, the Supervisory Board sets a performance at the degree of achievement of that determines amount of remuneration is binding for the upcoming assessment period. As I said, a subsequent change of the target that is excluded. And I do not see an unlimited opening clause. What we see in the Page 17 of the invitation is a reference with you to Section 87a, paragraph 2 of the Stock Corporation Act, and it says that if this system can be deviated from under quite extraordinary developments. For example, in case of a national disaster, or special criteria, and this would not only affect RWE, but all other companies. And the way we described it on Page 17 of the invitation, this is the way it should be interpreted. And then on the ESG criteria, our remuneration system is designed to provide incentives for the sustainable successful development of RWE and to align the interest of the company, its shareholders and other stakeholders. I think this is only possible if financial performance indicators and sustainability or ESG objectives are taken into account equally and explicitly and this is what we've done in terms of the long-term remuneration.

Now let us turn to the union investment, Dr. Pontzen. Ahead of sustainability of portfolio management as we continue, under what conditions can we export RWE to bring forward its current target of becoming CO2-neutral by 2040? A question for you, Mr. Krebber.

Thank you, Mr. Pontzen. Our goal of climate neutral electricity generation by 2040 is ambitious. Even compared to other companies in the energy industry, setting targets and transforming companies are always embedded in a social political discussion. In order to phase out coal from electricity generation even more quickly, the main task is to create the necessary conditions. This includes, among other things, further retention of renewables and transmission grades, or the sufficient availability of long-term electricity storage and CO2-neutral fuels for gas-fired power plant.

Another question. Well, what criteria and an investment alternative would have to meet -- to be met to justify the sale of 15% stake.

Mr. Müller, a sale of our 15% stake in air will be conceivable in order to fund further growth in our core business at attractive returns.

Thank you, Mr. Müller. Next question from Mr. Schmitz. Mr. Pontzen asks in what time RWE will announce details of the hydrogen strategy, in particular, the investment requirements, the planned scope and the profitability development?

Mr. Schmitz, hydrogen and primarily green hydrogen will contribute significantly to reducing global CO2 emissions. Decarbonizing industry and part of transit such as aviation or heavy goods vehicle will not work without hydrogen. And we at RWE, wish to play an important role in this. I mentioned earlier that we are currently working on certain projects in Germany, the Netherlands and the U.K. We have established a board department at RWE generation. And we are continuously expanding our activities and we're constantly sharpening our strategy. We're only at the beginning of the development. And we must admit this, and this is why we cannot come in on your questions that is on profitability and scope and strategy.

The next question for Mr. Brandt. What are you doing to further improve corporate governance and diversity at RWE?

Well, thank you, Mr. Pontzen, responsible management and sustainable value creation when managing a company is very important for us. RWE fully complies with the recommendations of the Corporate Governance Code. Governance statutes only work well if you have the right peoples who stand up for them. This starts with the Supervisory Board for which we have adopted a profile of skills and competencies and requirements that we are constantly refining in line with our development at RWE. Most recently, for example, we've added expertise in the field of renewables and digitization. Well, the profile also includes diversity on supervisory boards. The proportion of women on the Supervisory Board currently meets the statutory quota at 30% with the candidates for posts for election today, we would achieve a share 40%. The proposed staggering of terms of office is intended to contribute to the continuous and flexible development of the composition of the Board. Diversity is also an important element for the Board. In addition to professional and life experience, appropriate gender representation is also important. With the latest replacements on the Executive Board, we've lived up to our claim. The proportion of women on the new Executive Board from May 2021 is 33%. Incidentally, the feedback of our investors is very important to me in the further development of corporate governance as a feedback. Really, that is really to enter into qualified dialogue with you throughout the year. Dr. [ Pontzen ] also says that Dr. Schipporeit as Chairman of the Audit Committee is not independent. He would like to know whether it's conceivable that he will give up the chairmanship of the Audit Committee before the end of his term in order to meet the demands of investors and proxy advisers for an independent Audit Committee Chairman. We consider Dr. Schipporeit to be an independent representative of the shareholders, Dr. [ Pontzen ]. This also applies according to the criteria of the German Corporate Governance Code. It's particularly important for us during these times and also in the interest of the company to maintain the outstanding financial expertise of Dr. Schipporeit in the Audit Committee, so that the personnel change in the Executive Board and the upcoming -- the rotation of auditors can still be accompanied or prepared by him with the respective continuity. And this is really a very good reason to suggest and prepare Mr. Schipporeit to be a member of the Supervisory Board.

Deka Investment is the next group. Mr. Krebber, in which of the 3 segments, Offshore Wind, Onshore Wind/Solar and Hydro/Biomass/Gas, will most investment be made in the next 3 years? How will the decline in earnings from 2023 onwards be offset by the discontinuation of the nuclear energy segment? Is the continuous increase in the dividend also planned in the light of the decline in earnings in 2023?

First of all, the question on investments, we wish to further grow in the field of renewables. So the investment volumes are distributed over the midterm in the following order: first, Offshore Wind; second, Onshore Wind/Solar; and third, Hydro/Biomass and gas. Well, it's correct, at the end of 2022, we will shut down the last nuclear power plant. As from 2023 onwards, the current coal and nuclear segment will experience a considerable decline in earnings. However, the delta will gradually be filled by growth in renewables. Then on the dividend, our dividend policy is based on the growth of our core business, and this is critical.

The next questions concern the wind and solar business. In detail, the following questions: What proportion of the 34-gigawatt project pipelines or projects that are most likely to be realized? In which regions will RWE grow the most in the future? What risks do you see in respect of the new offshore projects in terms of raw material prices, inflation rates as well as expenses for maritime rights? What precautions will be taken to avoid high losses in the future such as those caused by the cold snap in the -- in Texas this year? With the oil majors, new competitors for wind projects are entering the scene. What means will RWE use to keep up? And what are RWE's advantages over the oil majors?

Thank you for the rather detailed questions. Let me start on the pipeline. The 34-gigawatt project pipeline includes 10 gigawatts in Offshore Wind. The remaining projects are in Onshore Wind/Solar and, to a smaller extent, batteries. And our distributed was almost 16 gigawatt in North America and 8 gigawatt in Europe. The likelihood of realization depends on the individual project and can, therefore, not be answered in general terms. However, we continue -- we've seen growth momentum such as the new power plants in the United States. These developments positively influence the chances of our projects in many ways, as additional projects are naturally needed in the market for the more ambitious decarbonization plans. Then the project risks, we update our risk assumptions regarding commodity price development, inflation and other costs for each individual auction and generally price our expectations and possible risks into our bids. In addition, we continuously monitor price and inflation developments. Then the losses suffered in Texas, it is important to remember that the extreme cold snap, it really was a once-in-a-century weather event, combined with exceptionally high electricity demand and an unprecedented number of icing-related power infrastructure outages, including outages at natural gas pipelines, conventional power plants and wind turbines. It remains fundamentally difficult to prepare conclusively for such extreme scenarios. We are currently working through the incident in full also in order to get insights for the entire power generation fleet of our group. All aspects are being covered, including not only our hedging strategies but also asset management and our investment decisions. This review is not yet fully completed. On the question of the competitive situation in the wind energy market, we believe that there are sufficient opportunities in the market for market participants. We consider ourselves to be very well positioned in the conversation for new renewable energy projects and have sufficient financial strength. RWE has a strong presence in many important growth markets, has a diversified technology portfolio and can draw on a wealth of experience of our employees from -- of successful project implementation, especially in the offshore wind sector. We are, therefore, very confident that we can continue to compete successfully for the best projects and ideas.

Mr. Muller, the following questions concern the energy trading segment. Supply & Trading achieved an outstanding result of EUR 539 million in adjusted EBITDA in the 2020 financial year. What were the reasons? In the current financial year, the target is again EUR 150 million to EUR 350 million. What factors speak for such a range of results?

Well, the past financial year, the trading business showed an above-average performance across all trading desks. The gas and LNG business also made a very strong contribution to adjusted EBITDA. The trading business is a volatile business by nature. Against this background, the outlook for the current financial year 2021 is in line with the long-term average earnings expectation.

In the following, it's about the dismantling activities in the field of nuclear. Mr. Schmitz, please explain, where does RWE stand with the dismantling of old nuclear power plants? How much money will this dismantling cost in total? When will RWE receive the compensation payment agreed with the federal government in March? And can the experience regarding costs in dealing with employees be transferred to the dismantling of the coal-fired power plants?

Well, the Atomic Energy Act provides for the immediate dismantling of nuclear power plants after the end of operation. We're implementing this. We've created the technical and licensing requirements or are currently doing so for the plants in Gundremmingen and Emsland. The dismantling work, it's in the area of large components, is running at full speed in Biblis, Mülheim-Kärlich and Lingen. RWE Nuclear is undergoing a major transformation from a reliable operator to a successful dismantling company. The cost framework for dismantling is covered by the provisions formed. The payment of total compensation of around EUR 880 million for RWE is expected at the end of November 2021. The experience from nuclear can only be transferred to the coal phaseout since in contrast with the shutdowns of lignite, many employees are still needed for dismantling in nuclear energies. It's much more complicated. Also, in the course of the dismantling process, we will reduce the workforce, and we've already agreed on arrangements with the social and industrial partners.

Analogous to nuclear energy, the demand for a status update is in lignite. What is the state of affairs in dismantling of opencast lignite mining? And what options are there for the employees in the affected power plants?

Following the agreement between the federal government and federal state on the coal phaseout in January 2020, RWE submitted an opencast mine plan adapted to the agreed decommissioning plan. The Northern Australian state government has on the 23rd of March 2021 published a new guiding decision that sets guidelines for lignite planning. On this basis, the existing permits will now be adapted to the agreed decommissioning path. Within the framework of the existing permits, opencast mine development has already been aligned with the new planning in many places. Then the employees. On the 28th of August 2020, RWE reach an agreement with the trades unions ver.di and IG BCE on the collective agreement for the socially acceptable implementation and support of the coal phaseout in the RWE Group. With the collective agreement on the coal phaseout, special regulations for the socially acceptable accompaniment and implementation of the personnel adjustment measures are made for companies affected by the Coal Electricity Termination Act. So nobody will be left behind.

Thank you, Mr. Schmitz. And now Mr. Krebber, what risk does RWE face from the EU lawsuits filed by the municipal utilities against the payments for the lignite phaseout?

Well, we're not aware of any legal action and would not be admissible at this point because there is no approval yet. At the moment, the perfect and normal state aid investigation procedure on the coal phaseout between the federal republic and the EU commission is simply underway. The procedure was expected and is already reflected. Anyone who feels affected by the negotiated coal phaseout under state aid law can submit their own comments. Some municipal associates have done so, and the press has pointed that out. And we will do the same.

Next questions range around hydrogen. At RWE's subsidiary, RWE Generation, a separate Board department for hydrogen has been established. What are the next steps in this area? When do you estimate that hydrogen will be used on a large scale?

Well, I've already explained a few things about this today. The hydrogen department is working on the hydrogen strategy for the RWE Group in driving forward the various projects, and that's trying to position RWE in the hydrogen sector. Well, as things stand today, green hydrogen will become relevant on an industrial scale in the second half of this decade. So it will take some extra time.

Mr. Krebber, the next question to you, concerning net debt. At the end of the financial year, it was around EUR 4.4 billion, resulting in a net debt factor, that is net debt in relation to adjusted EBITDA of the core business, of 1.7. The goal is not to exceed 3x the adjusted EBITDA. Is the high level of debt planned in order to finance future investments?

We already had the target of a debt factor of 3 for 2020. So lower net debt in 2020 was, among other things, largely determined by the capital increase in August. As for further developments, with further investments in renewable energies, the debt will also increase.

So let us continue with questions concerning sustainability. Firstly, the management report should already contain information on the basic premises of the structural change resulting from the Paris Climate Agreement in order for investors to assess the future viability of the company. To what extent are RWE's financial forecasts already based on the climate -- Paris climate targets? Which RWE business units benefit from programs to combat climate change, such as the green deal or the sustainable finance initiatives? Secondly, with the EU Taxonomy Regulation coming into force -- which came into force in mid-July 2020 and a possible new Supply Chain Act, the Supervisory Board will also have to deal with this in the future. How is the Supervisory Board preparing for the automation of certain key figures on sustainable economic activities at -- of the new EU taxonomy? Which persons or committees are dealing with this issue? And how is RWE prepared for the possible new Supply Chain Act? How are the supply chains already controlled today?

Now let me start by answering these questions. Part of our corporate strategy is to meet Paris climate targets. Last year, the recognized Science Based Targets initiative acknowledged that our targets are in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, especially with regard to carbon emissions reductions. For this reason, they're, of course, part of our financial forecasts. On the green deal and sustainable finance, basically, the wind onshore and offshore and hydro/biomass/gas sectors can benefit from the programs of power generation. Mr. Brandt is going to talk about the questions related to the Supervisory Board. I could give you some information on the supply chain control of the operational business. For RWE, the respect for human rights in our own company and in the supply chain is an important concern. Since signing the UN Global Compact in 2004 at the latest, we have also made a public commitment to this. We have implemented risk assessments for our own activities as well as for the auditing of suppliers and are implementing the necessary measures. One example for this is Bettercoal. RWE is well positioned for the introduction of Supply Chain Act. Mr. Brandt?

Thank you, Mr. Krebber. The Supervisory Board is already preparing intensively for the audit according to the EU Taxonomy Regulation. Among other things, this was the subject of an information forum for the Supervisory Board held on the 26th of August 2020 on the topic of green finance. In preparation for the audit obligation that will apply from 2022, the members of the Audit Committee dealt with the Taxonomy Regulation and its implementation at RWE at their committee meeting on March -- in March 2021. This year, further dates are scheduled in which sustainability, and thus, also the requirements of the Taxonomy Regulation, will be addressed. So this will be an additional information forum in June, a meeting of the Strategy and Sustainability Committee in late summer of this year and the Supervisory Board meeting in late summer.

The last question of Deka relates the aspect of good corporate governance and the composition of the Supervisory Board. Deka says the Supervisory Board's industry expertise for the global wind energy market is hardly represented. And therefore, they're asking, how is the plan to expand or to build up this expertise in the Supervisory Board?

Well, with the candidates nominated for this year's Supervisory Board election, we are very well positioned. One of the candidates is Hans Bünting, who also introduced himself today, who for many, many years gained international experience in the renewable energy business. So that's a real stroke of luck for us because you should not forget that the wind energy business is still a fairly young business which is growing quickly. The experts in this field are still active in the operational business and are urgently needed there worldwide, and we now have a member of the Supervisory Board who is -- has a lot of expertise and experience in this area.

Thank you, Mr. Brandt. Back to you, Mr. Schmitz.

Our investor Amundi is currently concerned with RWE's coal phaseout path. It is acknowledged that RWE has taken some important steps towards decarbonization in 2020. However, RWE's full coal phaseout is not scheduled to take place until after 2030, which is not really in line with the recommendations of the International Energy Agency for achieving the goals of the Paris agreement. Hence, the question whether RWE would consider a phaseout of thermal coal-fired power generation and coal mining by 2030. RWE has undertaken to gradually reduce coal-fired power generation in accordance with the coal phaseout path agreed with the German government. Security and supply for Germany was also a precondition when designing the coal phaseout path. Should the federal government want to bring the date forward, we are ready for talks with the federal government. And the market will develop further. But we'll have to see. We have -- we'll have decreased capacity by 2030, and the few power plants that will still be online will probably not be operating very much.

Another question from Amundi goes in a similar direction. In 2019, 11 million tons of lignite produced by RWE were destined for external customers. Is RWE considering stopping all sales of coal-based products to external customers?

Currently, we've refined lignite into brackets: lignite dust and lignite coke. Bracketing will be discontinued at the end of 2022 in the course of the coal phaseout. Pulverized lignite is primarily purchased by small and medium-sized industries, which used in the distributed CHP plants. Production will continue in line with demand. The same applies to hearth furnace coke, which is used for effective flue gas and wastewater purification and has proven itself in environmental technology.

Let's continue with questions from DWS Investment GmbH, which is represented by Hendrik Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt praises RWE for its success in an extraordinary year of 2020 and congratulates on the closing of the transaction with E.ON. In this context, he would like to know how extensive the business relations between RWE and E.ON or the respective subsidiaries were in the past financial year and will be in 2021. He also asks about mandates on the Supervisory Board of E.ON. Last year, it had been pointed out that there had been no decision to date as to whether Mr. Schmitz will continue to hold this mandate, this membership. Is a replacement being considered here? How will RWE's interests be represented on the E.ON Supervisory Board in the future?

In addition to the conclusion with the transaction with E.ON in 2020, we maintain business relationships primarily through RWE Supply & Trading, which has extensive trading relationships with E.ON. In addition, marketing contracts for renewables existed in 2020 and still exist today, some of which were continued as existing contracts after the transaction was completed. The same applies to service contracts in the areas like IT, HR and financial services. In addition, E.ON held a 20% stake in the Rampion project, which was and is being operated by RWE Renewables until 31 March 2021. And with regard to the Supervisory Board membership, Rolf Martin Schmitz will continue to be a member of the Supervisory Board of E.ON.

DWS believes that -- DWS considers the 5-year term of the proposed capital authorizations to be too long and asks why the proposed capital measures -- what they're for.

Well, I already elaborated on that. But the authorizations to hold capital and reserve are part of the standard toolbox of DAX companies. They enable us to react quickly and flexibly to future developments that are not yet foreseeable. But currently, we have no plans to use these authorizations. The details of the structure corresponds to today's usual standards, as does the term. We consider 5 years to be an appropriate time horizon for reserve capital, which is also the basis for the -- in the German Stock Corporation Act.

We're going to continue with questions on the remuneration system of the Executive Board by DWS. You highlighted that a carbon emissions reduction target is now anchored in the long-term component, but that adjusted figures continue to be adhered to as targets for the short-term and long-term remuneration components. The questions are, what is the CO2 target for the first performance period? And in which order of magnitude were adjustments made in the past few years -- 2 years? And what resulted in the 3 largest items in each case?

Mr. Brandt, could you elaborate on that?

Thank you, Mr. Schmitz. The Supervisory Board has set an average, that is for the period from '21 to '23, to achieve a carbon intensity of 366 grams of CO2 per kilowatt of installed capacity for a full load hour. That's the target value -- the average target value. The 366 grams is the -- our average value for the 3 years. Now concerning the adjustments, we transparently presented or present the adjustments to adjusted EBIT and adjusted net income in the remuneration report. In 2020, adjusted EBIT was raised by EUR 29 million, which corresponds to 3%. And adjusted net income was reduced by EUR 170 million, equivalent to 14%. These adjustments resulted primarily from time shifts in investment income, impairments in 2019, the subsequent effects of which were not taken into account in the target value and technical allocation of the dividend from the 15% stake in E.ON. Another adjustment is related to the flat tax rate used to calculate the adjusted net income. In 2019, adjusted EBIT was reduced by EUR 205 million, which corresponds to 15%, and adjusted net income was reduced by EUR 263 million. That's equivalent to 30%. The main reasons were that no income from a possible reintroduction of the U.K. capacity market had been planned for 2019 in the EBIT target. Furthermore, impairments on power plants in 2016 and the valuation results from provisions for impending losses and earnings effects from the acquisition of minority interest in the Lingen and Gundremmingen nuclear power plants had to be taken into account.

DWS criticizes the omission of a deductible for the D&O insurance and that the independence of the Audit Committee Chairman is no longer given due to the now intensive business relationships due to the fact that the intensive business relationship between RWE and E.ON no longer exists. In addition, the term of office of the partner responsible for the audit was too long. How did the Audit Committee deal with this issue after the last AGM? Mr. Schmidt went on saying that DWS was critical of the accumulation of mandates -- memberships of several members of the Supervisory Board. Specifically, this concerns Dr. Brandt, Dr. Schipporeit, Mr. Schartz, Ms. Kircher and Ms. Valentin. The questions are, how is the Nominating Committee dealing with this issue? Will the aforementioned candidates resign mandates in the course of the next 12 months? And if so, which ones?

This is Schmitz. Thank you for your questions. First of all, we do not share your assessment of -- let me start with the deductible. We simply followed the statements according to the Corporate Governance Code. And now with regard to Dr. Schipporeit, Dr. Schipporeit is independent because this was -- has already been mentioned earlier. At Supervisory Board level, we believe that Mr. Schipporeit is independent. He's also an independent member according to the criteria of the German Corporate Governance Code. Furthermore, he has not worked for E.ON since 2006, which is why 15 years later, we see no evidence of dependence if RWE now maintains business relationships with E.ON. Of course, when appointing the auditor -- of course, we also talked about overboarding and other issues at Supervisory Board level. I talked to all candidates which are up for reelection or are available for new appointments. And if you look at the documents included in the invitation, you will be able to see that all the candidates have enough time to carry out this membership. Now with regard to the appointing of the auditor, we comply with the statutory regulations on external and internal rotation. The Audit Committee or the Supervisory Board did not see any reasons not to exhaust the legal framework for auditor rotation. We are aware of the fact that the topic that I just mentioned, so-called overboarding, is being appreciated differently by various investors. The Nomination Committee cannot consider all requirements equally. It -- that is, we wouldn't get the candidates that we think we require for the future of the Supervisory Board. When Supervisory Board members resign, mandates, memberships or stand for reelection of the bodies is solely up to their decision and communication. As far as I am concerned, I can only say that I will make decisions in due course in consultation with my colleagues on the respective boards. But let me repeat, all Supervisory Board members who are up for reelection today or for election in the first place said that they have enough time for this very important membership at RWE.

And let us continue with the last question of DWS. And they go to you, Mr. Schmitz. How many questions did you receive for today's AGM? How many questions will you answer? According to which criteria will the answers be given?

We received 235 questions, and we will answer all of them, broken down by the questioner.

Now let us start with the questions by private shareholders. Mr. Krebber, we have received a question from a shareholder asking whether we can avoid overlapping dates of AGMs, such as today with Munich Reinsurance Company, in future by making appropriate arrangements with the other DAX companies.

Well, when planning an AGM, various legal deadlines and key dates have to be taken into account so that not every day is equally suitable. In such a regulated framework, overlaps can unfortunately occur. However, we try to avoid conflicts of dates where possible.

The same shareholder suspects that the recording of images and sound of the Annual General Meeting is prohibited. He asks whether this is a legal prohibition. And if so, how a violation will be punished? And what the purpose of such a law is or order is and how you would even come to know about any violations of it? Mr. Krebber, could you answer that?

We have not prohibited recordings of the livestream of our Annual General Meeting, and they could not be avoided given the state of technology. And there's no corresponding legal prohibition either.

Then I would like to read out the following question from the same shareholder. "It is a fact that quite a few general meetings are extremely protracted due to questions that seem to me personally as if their only purpose is to damage the reputation of the company, in some cases in a very lasting way. I am referring to the general behavior of the so-called Dachverband der Kritischen Aktionärinnen und Aktionäre. Is it -- is there any way to expropriate such shareholders of their shares and thus counteract the anticorporate efforts? I mean, every employee will face some kind of consequences at some time for disloyal behavior towards their company."

In -- well, thank you for this question. In conducting the Annual General Meeting, we strictly adhere to the legal requirements. However, we would welcome legislative reforms that would reduce the misuse of the AGM as a publicity platform for individuals in favor of a broad and objective information process. We would be in favor of that, that is certain.

The Supervisory Board or the Board of Directors can arrange for the auditor to present his report in detail and provide his risk assessment at the 2022 AGM because I think this would be more credible and whether a resolution can be passed by the shareholders at the AGM.

Well, the auditor reports extensively to the Supervisory Board. And the Supervisory Board takes this into account in its reporting to the AGM. According to the law, the auditor himself has no right to speak and no duty to provide information and cannot be dismissed from his duty of confidentiality by a resolution of the general meeting.

The next questions comes from Mr. [ Kurtz ]. He also asked about the purpose of filing an opposition. An objection under record opens the power of challenge under the company's act in conjunction with the provisions of the COVID-19 act. An objection does not prevent the resolutions from taking effect. So Kurtz asks the following question: Why is there such a large number of countermeasures? What is wrong in our society?

The possibility to oppose certain resolution proposals of the administration is a quite regular shareholder right. We can see nothing unusual in the fact that 5 shareholders of our company have also made use of it in the context of this AGM. We have commented on the content of the measures and recommend their rejection.

The next question by Mr. [ Kurtz ] on the dividend. Why does RWE not pay a dividend of more than EUR 1, which is considered as more appropriate?

Mr. [ Kurtz ], we've announced that we will increase the dividend in line with the growth of our core business. For the 2020 financial year, we have raised the dividend by EUR 0.05 per share. The payout ratio of about 45% corresponds to a level that still allows us to make growth investments. For the 2021 financial year, we've set ourselves a goal of increasing the dividend by a further EUR 0.05 to EUR 0.90 per share.

Then he also asked about the remuneration system, and I would like to ask you, Mr. Brandt, to answer the question. Why is RWE presenting the extensive new remuneration system, [ presenting ] at the virtual AGM? And no questions are allowed during the AGM.

Well, thank you for the question. Well, after the [ RF 2 ] came into force, a resolution on the remuneration system must be passed at this year's General Meeting. Of course, we cannot meet in person, unfortunately, because of the pandemic. And this is why we need to decide upon it on the basis of the virtual General Meeting. Questions on the remuneration system, of course, could be asked in accordance with the regulation applicable to the virtual General Meeting.

Mr. [ Kurtz ] would like to know why the remuneration of the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board does not correlate much more pronouncedly with the dividend payments.

Mr. [ Kurtz ], the remuneration of the Executive Board is linked in several dimensions to the operational success of the company. In our opinion, the absolute amount of the dividend is not a suitable parameter for measuring the remuneration of the Executive Board. For the Supervisory Board, dividend-based remuneration does not, in our opinion, do justice to the both independent control function and should not be done. We get a fixed remuneration as adjusted by the German Governance Code and then, of course, a nomination fee when working -- committee fee.

Okay. Final question by Mr. [ Kurtz ] for Mr. Krebber. When does RWE produce more than 50% of its electricity from new renewables? And by when do they only and exclusively generate electricity from renewables?

Thank you, Mr. [ Kurtz ], for your questions. I can't give you an exact date, of course, when this will be the case permanently. But it's quite clear that even today, in individual hours or days, more energy is generated from renewables and from conventionals. We will continue to drive forward the expansion of renewables in a targeted manner and will, therefore, continue to invest in the growth of these technologies in the coming days. In accordance with our strategy, we are pursuing 2 pillars. In addition to renewables, security of supply is the second guiding theme. Flexible gas plants will become increasingly important in the future. And for this reason, we have made a conscious decision not to exclusively be a pure renewables player but also to be able to offer security of supply through low CO2 plants.

Mr. [ Zieger ], a shareholder, raises the issue of a discrepancy between the level of remuneration of the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board, on the one hand, and the salaries of the employees. He asked for an explanation as to why no measures are taken to increase the remuneration of the employees.

RWE offers all employees at all levels and in all function groups very attractive framework -- financial framework conditions. This includes not just wage and salary components but also a wide range of social benefits. The appropriateness is systemically ensured by means of market and industry comparisons. And again, RWE is perceived as an extremely attractive employer in the job market.

The next question is from Mrs. [ Wolfe ]. She asked for information on the remuneration of the Executive Board. Mr. Brandt, firstly, with reference to the proposed remuneration regulation for the Executive Board, please tell us the following figures for the Executive Board and its composition as of 31st of December 2020: Overall the lowest, then the highest possible value of remuneration for the financial year as well as the pro forma value of remuneration in 2020 under the previous system and according to the new system. And Mrs. [ Wolfe ] also wonders why the remuneration system is so complicated. Is it true that managers spent hours, even days, addressing the details of the system and its design and then need the expertise of expensive consultants to put this all into practice? How much does all of this cost?

Well, Mrs. [ Wolfe ], thank you for your question. The remuneration of the Executive Board for the calendar year 2020 can be found in the annual report for each member of the Executive Board individually. And this is why I'm not giving any exact figures. But let me point out that the lowest remuneration corresponds to the monthly basic remuneration. The bonus can amount to a maximum of 180% of the target value, and the long-term incentive is limited to 200%. The change in the remuneration system is not accompanied by an increase nor by a reduction in remuneration. The structure of the Executive Board's remuneration system is linked to various legal requirements and expectations of our stakeholders. In order to meet all these requirements in the best possible way, an external consultant of -- has been consulted, in particular, to have market comparisons made and to be able to properly take into account legal and code changes. The cost for the external remuneration consultant amounted to approximately EUR 200,000.

Thank you, Mr. Brandt. The remuneration of the Executive Board is now followed by questions regarding the Supervisory Board's remuneration. Mrs. [ Wolfe ] asked for information on how much the Supervisory Board would have cost in total after today's election 2020. And with the same number of meetings, how much it will cost in 2021? In addition, what is the highest possible remuneration for the Chairman of the Supervisory Board, for his deputy and for a normal member? Mrs. [ Wolfe ] asks why is the range so high? Would a ratio of 1 for Supervisory Board members, 1.5 for the Deputy Chairman and 2 for the Chairman to suffice? At least, this is how it is regulated in many -- how it is done in many other AGEs -- or stockholding companies.

What you can see from the remuneration report on Page 33 of the annual report that the total remuneration of the Supervisory Board for 2020 ranged around EUR 2.9 million. Based on the higher remuneration for committee's activities now proposed, the total remuneration 2020 would have been around EUR 3.5 million, if -- with the same constitution of the Supervisory Board. The figure for 2021 is similar. The increased committee remuneration is intended to take into account the increased time and professional requirements. The highest possible remuneration is a purely theoretical figure, which is calculated by simply adding the statutory remuneration for work on all committees to the statutory basic remuneration. In terms of the actual time spent, however, the Supervisory Board members will naturally not be able to serve on all committees. And in fact, we will try that each and every member of the Supervisory Board will participate in one or the other committee on -- and the ratio of the basic remuneration for Chairperson, Deputy and other members of the Supervisory Board of 3:2:1 is customary in the market.

Furthermore, the shareholder would like to know when selecting candidates to the Supervisory Board, also consider the age that proposed persons will reach by the end of the election period. The shareholder is of the opinion that persons who were older and 70 at the time of taking office would be better off doing quieter work than performing new duties for the Supervisory Board. And another question in this context: does RWE have age limits for Board members in the articles of association? What are they? And if no, why not? This is a follow-up question. Do RWE Group companies have such limits? In which countries and in which companies? Mr. Brandt, Mr. Schmitz?

Well, when selecting candidates for the Supervisory Board, we naturally also look at the age of the candidates. Supervisory Board has set itself a standard age limit of 72 years. But in individual cases, there may also be good reasons for proposing older candidates, as is the case for Mr. Keitel and Mr. Schipporeit at this Annual General Meeting. We have explained in the invitation to the Annual General Meeting the specific reasons for the renewed nomination. There's also a standard age limit for Executive Board members. It is 63 years. After that, reappointment is possible for 1 year at a time, but at most, until the age of 65. And Mr. Schmitz now.

Well, then may I supplement the answer with the information on the group subsidiaries. No age limits have been set for Executive Board members in the subsidiaries of RWE AG and recently have been -- no appointments have been made beyond the age of 63.

Well, Mr. Brandt, next question from shareholder deals with the resolution modalities for the discharge. Why did the Supervisory Board not provide for individual discharge for the members of the Executive Board and for the members of the Supervisory Board, although there has been a lot of criticism about this in the media, also in the business press, NGOs and shareholders? This shareholder request that items 3 and 4 of the agenda be voted on individually by person.

According to the statutory model, the discharge of the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board is decided uniformly in each case. This corresponds to the principle of joint responsibility, according to which all Board members are jointly responsible for the actions of the Board. The discharge modalities are not accessible to any motion in the virtual General Meeting. However, in the interest of the further development of our corporate governance, we are examining the extent to which it might be sensible and appropriate to propose individual discharge from the outside in the future.

Thank you very much now. Now more questions and Mr. Krebber, this is for you. How many companies are mentioned in the annual financial statements? And why are they not numbered consecutively? Mrs. [ Wolfe ] suggests that the respective parent company should be given a number, as other tax companies do. This would increase transparency and make it easier for shareholders to assess RWE's investment policy. Would it be feasible to implement this in the next annual financial statements? Mrs. [ Wolfe ] further asks whether RWE does not have too many subsidiaries and second-tier subsidiaries. What do the administration, auditors and tax and legal advisers cost? Isn't it possible to achieve sustainable cost savings by mergers, discontinuations, et cetera? Furthermore, she asks for a list of the companies that made a loss of more than EUR 5 million in the business year. She would also like to know where the loss of EUR 455 million at RWE Eemshaven Holding B.V., Geetruidenberg, which has almost completely lost its equity capital of EUR 503 million, comes to. Finally, what business is PEARL PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD doing in the British Virgin Islands, saving taxes? Who are the great partner companies?

Well, Ms. [ Wu ], let me take the first question. A total of 703 companies are named in the list of shareholdings. The presentation of the list fulfills the legal requirements of the German GAAP and IFRS presentation. When designing the annual report, we regularly review the preparation of the individual sections and always strive for improvement. Regarding the second question, the number of companies depends, among other things, on country-specific legal requirements. Approximately EUR 15.7 million were incurred in the 2020 financial year for the audit of the fully consolidated companies and for other services provided by the auditors, PwC. The other calls for the administration of the company's consistent availability of cost items. A total amount of cost is not charged. The necessity of companies is regularly reviewed. Also against the background, of course, if possible, companies are merged or liquidated. 40 companies without profit and loss transfer agreement made a loss of more than EUR 5 million. On the third question, the main reason for the loss of RWE and Southern holding is the unscheduled depreciation of the Eemshaven power plant as a result of the Dutch coal phaseout. Now to the last question. Coal petroleum, in which we hold a 10% minority stake, is active in the business of gas exploration and production. The company is incorporated on the laws of the British Virgin Islands, but does not do business there. The coal shareholders are Dana Gas, Crescent Petroleum as well as the Austrian OMV and the Hungarian MOL.

Okay. Next question for Mr. Schmitz, the last question of Ms. Wu . What donations have been made and what amounts to political parties, foundations, lobby organizations and NGOs? Is it possible to publish a list of these in the sustainability report as of next year?

Well, a simple answer here. Nothing. We don't give anything. So RWE is impartial in terms of party politics and does not make donations to political parties or to foundations that have a close relationship with political parties. Nor does RWE make donations to NGOs. Consequently, we do not disclose any such information. RWE is a member of associations who remit -- whose remit includes participation in exchange of public opinion in their respective countries. RWE pays annual contributions to these organizations with total in the mid-single-digit million range.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the Management Board for the answers given thus far. And at this juncture, I would like to thank our host or hosts and the Executive Board, and I will call for a 15-minute break. The AGM will then be continued with the next block of questions. Thank you very much for your understanding, and we are going to resume at 5 minutes to half past 1. [Break]

Ladies and gentlemen, our short break is over, and we can continue the AGM as announced with the next block of questions and answers. Mr. Hördemann, you have the floor.

Well, thank you very much indeed Mr. Brandt. Mr. Krebber, when shareholder asks about the 2020 capital increase, why do the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board carry out the transfer from the share price to the clearing account, meaning the dividend, which is taxable for shareholders and at the same time, make a capital increase? Why is the centrally administered dividend payment not offset? Will shareholders continue to finance the centrally managed and taxable dividend through capital increases in the future?

No. The dividend is an important cash flow for many of our investors and is oriented towards the operational development in our core business. The equity from the capital increase clearly and purposefully serves additional growth and is not distributed as a dividend. We currently have no plans for a further capital increase.

Another question from the same shareholder concerns the remuneration system of the Executive Board. Literally, he submits, in the proposed remuneration system, there are some elements that seem to misinterpret sustainable corporate value enhancement and thus, leads to a trade-off between sustainable corporate value enhancement and employee motivation, CSR and CO2 intensity. Why do these components get so much weight and are not anchored where they belong, that is, in the corporate values? So Mr. Brandt, would you answer this question?

Yes, of course. Our Executive Board remuneration is equally linked to key financial indicators, which is EBIT and adjusted net income, and rewards whether we live up to our corporate responsibility claim. Key words here are ESG and CSR as well as employee motivation and pays into RWE's sustainable and long-term development, especially via the reduction of CO2 intensity and the development of total shareholder return. This is not a contradiction, but a balanced harmony to align the interest of the company, its shareholders and other stakeholders and to set important incentives for the implementation of our business policy.

Mr. Brandt, the same shareholder would like to pose a question regarding the remuneration system. Why does the -- is the Executive Board compensated according to adjusted EBITDA not according to profitability ratios, e.g. return on invested capital or return on capital employed? How is it adjusted? And how is creative accounting prevented from being used to manipulate it? Against the background of dilution, how is it ensured that the Board does not enhance adjusted EBIT through capital increases?

Well, thank you very much for that question. Of course, let me say that creative accounting does not take place with RWE. Of course, profitability ratios play a role in investment decisions . To determine the adjusted EBIT, the nonoperating result is deducted from the EBIT. In order to determine the remuneration-relevant EBIT, adjustments are then made in exceptional cases for special effects, e.g. results from disposals, changes in provisions and unscheduled depreciation. We -- then the adjustment values and reasons for them are transparently in the remuneration report. And I did so for the years 2019 and '20. Regarding capital increases, these are not recognized in profit or loss and therefore, have no impact on EBIT. Dilution only occurs in earnings per share due to the increased number of shares in circulation.

Let's move on to the last question of this shareholder. Why did RWE distribute profit by means of a tax-inefficient and misallocated dividend, while the Group seems to have positive NPV projects? Mr. Krebber, please.

Well, Mr. Bogush , in our view, our dividend proposal fulfills both the desire of our shareholders for an attractive dividend yield and the preservation of sufficient capital to secure further growth.

The 2 questions of the next shareholder concern impairment tests in the context of future electricity consumption development. Mr. Krebber, I'm addressing this to you. Please state which parameters were used to calculate the discount rates for the offshore wind segment of 4.25% and 4% in the previous year. Specifically, this concerns the value for the following parameters: base rates, beta factor, market risk premium and the cost of equity calculated from these parameters: the equity ratio and the share of the cost of equity in the discount rate resulting from the multiplication of the cost of equity and the equity ratio. The cost of debt, the debt ratio, the tax rate, the share of the cost of debt and the discount rate calculated from the multiplication of these 3 parameters. The discount rate, WACC, should result from these values. Furthermore, the shareholder asks for information on the peer group that is the basis for the beta factor as well as information on the beta factors both levered and unlevered of the individual companies in the peer group as well as the method for deriving the beta factor that is the median or arithmetic mean. If you do not provide the details for the previous year, the shareholder asks at least for an explanation why the discount rate has increased compared to the previous year, while it has decreased from 5.5% to 4.25% for the energy trading unit.

Well, Mr. Buchele , I will go through your questions one after the other, although we have to go into detail. The calculation of the cost of capital for the offshore wind unit in fiscal 2020 was based on the following data: base interest rate, 0.2%; beta factor levered, 0.8%; market risk premium, 7.25%; cost of equity, 6.29%; equity ratio, 59%; equity discount rate, 3.71%; cost of debt before tax, 1.87%; tax rate, 23.64%; cost of debt after tax, 1.43%; borrowed capital ratio, 41%; borrowed capital discount rate, 0.59%, which reads out in a WACC of 4.3% rounded to -- rounded from 4.25%. For the offshore -- the wind offshore cash-generating unit, an unlevered beta factor of 0.61% or leverage beta factor of 0.8% was derived for the 2020 goodwill impairment test. The arithmetic mean of the last 5 years was used for the calculation. The following peer companies were taken into account in the 2020 fiscal year: Falck Renewables S.p.A.; EDP Renewables S.A.; ERG, S.p.A.; PNE AG; Acciona, S.A.; Energix Renewable Energies Incorporated. The average unlevered betas of the individual peer companies ranged from 0.49% to 0.95%. The unlevered beta factor of the offshore wind generating unit was then converted into the levered beta factor taking into account the debt situation of the peer companies. In the RWE annual report 2020, a discount rate of 4.25% was reported for the cash-generating unit energy trading. Compared to the previous year, the discount rate of 5.5% decreased by 1.25%. The decrease is mainly due to the sharp decline in the base interest rate compared to the previous year. For the offshore wind cash-generating unit, a discount rate of 4.25% was reported for the 2020 financial year. In the previous year, there was no explicit discount rate for the offshore wind cash-generating unit.

The shareholder also refers to an article in the Handelsblatt newspaper, which compares the federal government's forecast for electricity consumption in 2030 with a forecast by the Institute of Energy Economics at University of Cologne, EWI. In contrast to the federal government, EWI assumes a significant increase in electricity consumption from 576 terawatt hours in 2019 to 685 terawatt hours. He asked whether, in your view, the forecast of the federal government or that of the EWI is preferable. After the growth assumptions in RWE's impairment test, he has the impression that, at best, the forecasts of the federal government are used as a basis if a growth rate of 0% is generally assumed for the cash-generating unit offshore wind of 0.5% after 3 years. And if realistic assumptions are made, the capitalized earnings value of the cash-generating unit is far more than EUR 0.2 billion above their book value. Why do they not apply a business-approved 3-step planning model that takes into account their long-term strategic planning up to 2030 with differentiated growth trends. In a valuation according to IFRS, the principle of prudence does not apply, but estimates should correspond to the expected value. Mr. Krebber?

Please understand that we cannot publish our market assumptions because this is competition-relevant information. It is true that there are many different views of expectations regarding the future demand for electricity, the groups you mentioned, i.e., the federal government and the EWI are far apart, but our expectations lie within this range. The impairment test for the goodwill includes a detailed planning phase and a continuation phase. The duration of the detailed planning phase varies depending on the segment and is up to 11 years. Due to the long detailed planning phase, a 3-phase model with an additional rough planning phase does not lead to a more reliable data situation for the purposes of the impairment test.

Thank you. Mr. Schmitz, another shareholder is concerned about the future security of supply in Germany citing the lack of adequate storage solutions and high conversion losses when using hydrogen. Is the group preparing for the possibility that the energy transition could fail? If so, to what extent?

Well, the energy transition is by no means child play. But for it to succeed, particular things need to be done. So for example, we have to have respective support schemes to make investments in renewable energies plant in Germany with -- while the expansion of the grid infrastructure and the construction of gas-fired power plant and electricity storage facilities have contributed to good stability and security of supply are, in our view, further important aspects for the energy transition to succeed. But as an engineer, I would say you can do that. And we will not fail because on the other hand, water is the alternative, which is not an option if you ask me. So it's all doable, and we will be able to manage.

And there is Mr. Leboda , and he is asking the following question and a question about the future profit development of RWE through the use of renewable energy and the stuff of minimization of CO2 emissions and the end of nuclear power generation. How will profits develop in the new business areas in the short, medium and long term? What opportunities can be realized nationally and internationally? What are the prospects for the shareholders? Mr. Krebber?

Thank you, Mr. Leboda . The business with renewable energies invest in CO2 technologies for power generation, i.e., security of supply is the very focus of our strategy. And we will grow in this area nationally as well as in our international-focused markets. A detailed forecast for 2021 can be found in the annual report on Page 66. For 2022, we expect an increase in EBITDA in the renewable energies business. Earnings from coal nuclear energy, however, will decline significantly in the next few years, on one hand, due to the end of electricity generation from nuclear energy in 2022. And on the other hand, due to the agreed shutdown planned in lignite. We have not published long-term forecast. For our shareholders, we intend to keep the dividend stable at today's level over the next couple of years.

Well, Mr. Schweik comes to the situation in Texas and wants to know from you, Mr. Krebber, why does RWE give electricity supply guarantees in Texas? Why is there no risk management system? Why is there no insurance cover against consequences of business interruptions? Why are there no backup suppliers? How is provision made today against the consequences of blizzards and tornadoes?

As in all other markets, it is perfectly normal in Texas to sell electricity forward in order to hedge against market price fluctuations in the long term. It is precisely part of the existing risk management system also for Texas to hedge highly probable expected generation volumes against long-term price risks by means of liquid, i.e., relatively low-risk products, and to achieve long-term predictability of sales. The usual insurance cover, which we also have in Texas, covers business interruptions and loss of earnings as a result of insured property damage. During the winter event in Texas, however, there was no such property damage. The plants simply froze and were now temporarily unable to produce electricity. On the question of backup supply, in principle, RWE has wind, solar and battery capacities in Texas. However, the solar and battery capacity is currently too low to compensate for the entire outage on the wind side. A whole range of measures are being taken. And precautions against such natural events such as blizzards or tornadoes are already taken into account in the design of the wind farms. There are emergency plans for extreme weather conditions, which are also the subject of the practical trainings and exercises.

And now there is a question about Texas icing event. Do you not have the operational risk under control? And what are your countermeasures?

Thank you very much for asking. And please allow me to refer to me -- to my detailed explanations in advance. I would like to emphasize once again that the Texas event is due to a weather condition that we have not seen in this scale for over 100 years. It is simply not possible to fully hedge against singular events of this magnitude. We have stable and established risk management processes, which, on the other hand, have protected us from even greater losses in this case, but which, on the other hand, are constantly revised and improved if we see need for improvement. And this is what we are going to do in this case as well.

Thank you, Mr. Krebber. Could you please also explain to us at what capacity utilization an onshore wind farm plant from RWE becomes unprofitable?

It is difficult to give a general answer to this question as this is determined to a large extent by local and technical conditions but, in particular, by the respective revenue level in the country where the wind turbine is located. This revenue level in turn is, in many cases, also determined by the regulatory framework conditions. The utilization rate of our onshore wind turbines averaged around 20% to 35% in 2020.

And then, Mr. Muller. Referring to Page 132 of our annual report, this shareholder asks for the discount rate for onshore wind.

For the cash-generating unit onshore wind/solar, the discount rate was 3.5%.

Thank you. Now back to you, Mr. Krebber. Shareholder asks, why was a sale of shares to E.ON not an option for financing the Nordex transaction in addition to using the authorized capital with the exclusion of subscription rights?

Well, in principle, a partial sale of the shares in E.ON would also have been a possible option for financing the Nordex transaction. However, a significant tax advantage would have been lost as a result of the sale. And the drop in the shareholding ratio to below 15%, based together with the favorable market environment, made the capital increase appear more favorable than the sale of shares in E.ON.

Mr. Muller, can you please explain whether the E.ON shareholding is hedged against price fluctuations.

We are watching the price development of the E.ON share very closely. The share price has not yet been hedged due to the internal cost risk assessment.

Thank you very much. The last question of that shareholder refers to RWE's view on the following statements. Greenpeace calls RWE a bankruptcy and takeover candidate crushed by CO2 prices. Mr. Krebber, can you please comment on this?

We have strategically realigned the group and are successfully on a growth path with our core business. We know the exit path for the coal and nuclear energy business area and adapting to it in a cost optimal way. With regard to rising CO2 prices, we are hedged against the market. All in all, the figures speak for themselves, and there is nothing more to say.

Another shareholder is interested in the emission certificates. Mr. Muller, how does RWE see the development of trading in CO2 certificates over the next 5 years? What earnings opportunities will result from this?

Trading in CO2 certificates will intensify due to the development of the political framework conditions for CO2 emitters. Please understand that we cannot make any statements on individual trading strategies. With the CO2 certificates we already have, we essentially hedge the operative business.

The same shareholder asks about RWE's business areas in the year 2070. What future scenarios has the Executive Board drawn up? Mr. Krebber?

Well, it's difficult to predict exactly what the market will look like in 50 years. However, we are certain that power generation from renewable energies, efficient storage solutions and green hydrogen as a sustainable energy carrier will still play an important role 50 years from now. Our future scenarios consistently see a significant global increase in demand in these business areas in the coming decades in order to be able to achieve the global climate protection goals.

Thank you very much. Mr. Schmitz, another shareholder would like to know what economic potential the subsequent use of the opencast mining areas in the Rhenish mining area has for the company, especially with regard to the tourist use of the planned opencast lakes? As of when do you expect to make a positive contribution to the balance sheet with the subsequent use of the opencast mining areas?

Well, we already see a high potential of the recultivated areas. This applies both to the use as a local recreation area and to the use as residential, commercial, industrial areas. We expect positive impacts for the economic development of the region from the tourist use of the opencast lakes. The extent to which land will be developed in the future directly by RWE together with partners is not yet foreseeable, but I don't think that we are going to turn into kind of 2 and develop in this direction.

Well, thank you. In addition, the shareholder asks how high RWE estimates the burdens arising from severance payments for employees in opencast lignite mining until 2028. Ms. Seeger, can you say something about this?

We currently assume that the job cuts to be made by 2028 will be carried out in a socially responsible manner, mainly through the adjustment allowance provided for in the coal exit act, including compensation for the disadvantages in the statutory pension. Severance payments will therefore play a subordinate role until 2028. We expect this to result in a burden in the single-digit million range.

Let us now turn to the questions from Mr. Dufner, who, as you know, is the Managing Director of the Umbrella Organization of Critical Shareholders. Mr. Dufner has submitted a large number of questions, some with several subquestions. The first set of questions concerns Urenco, in which RWE is a minority shareholder with 1/6 of shares. First of all, he has some general questions about RWE's shareholding. Mr. Krebber, you can certainly answer the following question. How high was the dividend in 2020 that RWE received for the Urenco stake? Where in the balance sheet can this be read? And addressed to you, Mr. Schmitz, who currently represents RWE on the Board of Directors of Urenco and in which capacity? How often did the RWE representative at Urenco in 2020 informed the RWE Executive Board about Urenco activities? And what were the specific topics discussed?

Well, RWE received the dividend of EUR 50 million for the 2019 fiscal year and an advanced dividend of EUR 25 million for the 2020 financial year from Urenco. We report the dividend as part of the result from investments accounted for using the equity method, and you will find that on Page 126 of our annual report.

I would like to continue. I would have missed your questions unless you had mentioned Urenco. Dr. Frank Weigand, CEO of RWE Power AG, is a member of the so-called Board of Directors, where he has the function of a nonexecutive director. The Executive Board of RWE AG is looking at Urenco when RWE's role as a minority shareholder of Urenco is concerned. Operational topics and issues are the sole responsibility of Urenco itself.

Thank you very much, Mr. Schmitz. The next question, what knowledge does RWE have about talks between Urenco and representatives of the U.S. Pentagon and Urenco and representatives of other U.S. ministries or government agencies in 2020 and -- or 2021? Who was involved in these talks? And on what topics were they held? In addition, what is RWE's assessment of Urenco's announced entry into the EDF-led consortium for the possible construction of the Sizewell C nuclear power plant in the U.K. and its entry into preparations for the construction of a nuclear power plant in the Netherlands? Does RWE see itself on the way back to the nuclear age through the new construction plans and the involvement of RWE-led companies here in North Rhine-Westphalia?

Well, regarding the first part, dear Mr. Dufner, you had already asked similar questions last year referring to an article in Physics Today. Therefore, we ask you again for your understanding that we do not comment on individual press articles concerning Urenco. In general, like every year, let me tell you, please directly contact Urenco's communications department if you have any questions of this kind. We are only a minority shareholder and not involved in the operational business. Regarding the second part, RWE is neither involved in the development nor the construction of new nuclear power plants. We do not want to go back into the nuclear age. Due to its minority shareholding of 1/6, RWE has only a very limited influence on Urenco's strategic decisions.

And now Mr. Dufner has a large number of questions concerning Urenco's operational business. What is the current status of the construction of the HALEU production with up to 19.75% enriched uranium-235 in the United States? What concrete preparation is Urenco currently making to build so-called mini reactors? To what extent is the Urenco subsidiary, Central Technology Group in Gronau and the subsidiary enrichment technology company, Julich, involved in the development of these mini reactors? How many tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride left the Gronau uranium enrichment plant in 2019 and 2020, respectively, bound for Russia? How does RWE assess the study by Professor Dr. Wegener from the University of Erlangen that these exports violate the EU's dual-use export sanctions against Russia? Are there any current plans for continued exports from Gronau to Russia in 2021 or beyond? And if so, what are they? Has this uranium from Gronau reached Russia via France and/or the U.K. and/or the Netherlands in recent years? If so, when and how much? Are there any plans for such uranium transports via the transit countries mentioned? According to a list of export licenses on the website of the Federal Environment Ministry, enriched uranium is also exported from Gronau to Russia, although enriched uranium is also mentioned on the dual-use EU sanctions list. What actually happens to this enriched uranium in Russia? And how does RWE assess the well-founded suspicion that these exports are also illegal? Are there tangible plans for the commissioning of the uranium oxide storage facility at the Urenco site in Gronau? If so, what are these plans? With which power plant operators in Europe has Urenco concluded supply contracts for enriched uranium? Mr. Schmitz, these questions go to you again.

Well, Mr. Dufner, with pleasure. But please, let me pull in front of the parenthesis. Urenco is committed to the peaceful use of nuclear energy for inter-governmental agreements and is closely monitored by governmental and international institutions. This, of course, also applies to its enrichment facilities in the U.S. Recording -- or regarding the mini reactors, together with Urenco, several international active companies are developing a small modular gas-cooled reactor with the framework of U-Battery. Please contact Urenco's communication department if you have any questions about who's actually involved in the project. With regard to your questions about the exports to Russia, Urenco's site planning and its supply contracts, we can only keep clarifying. The operational business is the responsibility of Urenco. Please contact them. Then you asked about our opinion on the expert opinion of Professor Wegener in connection with exports. We can only say from here that all transports have the necessary permits from the competent authorities. Your question regarding the list of export licenses from the Federal Ministry for the Environment should be self-answering. It lists, as the name already indicated, exports that have been approved by the competent authority according to the law.

So then more questions on Urenco, Mr. Schmitz. When did RWE last talk about Urenco with the federal government and when with the North Rhine-Westphalian state government? What were the specific topics discussed? Are there currently talks or negotiations for the sale of Urenco shares? If so, with whom and with what results?

Well, generally speaking, please understand that we cannot comment on any talks with the federal government or the state for reasons of confidentiality. Regarding our divestment intention, RWE is still interested in selling its minority stake in Urenco. However, this process will still take some time, and we will keep you informed about the progress in due course. And so we've been looking for a buyer for 10 years and unfortunately, it has been impossible to divest the company.

Well, Mr. Schmitz, the follow-on questions are about our nuclear power plants in Lingen, Emsland and Gundremmingen. First of all, I would like to ask you a number of questions about the refueling outage at both power plants. During the refueling outages in 2019 and 2020 at the Lingen and Emsland nuclear power plant, all weaknesses were found and according to RWE, have been repaired in Gundremmingen. Defective fuel assemblies were discovered in 2019 and 2020, which led to a temporary shutdown of the nuclear power plant. How has the situation developed in each case since the last general meeting? Are there any new findings? When will this year's nuclear power plant refueling outage take place in Lingen and Gundremmingen? What restrictions will there be during the refueling outage in view of COVID-19 with fewer skilled personnel? And if so, why? How many and which originally planned refueling outage assignments with the NPP in Lingen will be canceled all together or only carried out in a restricted or shortened form and why? Are inspection orders also being cut in Gundremmingen? And if so, why? What work was not carried out or only carried out to a reduced extent during last year's refueling outage in Lingen will be made up for this year? What percentage of the steam generator tubes at Lingen nuclear power plant will actually be inspected during the year's refueling outage? How many steam generator tubes are there in absolute numbers? And according to what criteria is a selection made here?

Well, this is not really our business so I can give you very detailed answers here and it's not wall thickness weaknesses. The cause has been eliminated. Safe plant operation continues to be fully ensured. The refueling outage in Emsland will take place scheduled between the 30th of April to 19th of May due to the COVID-19 situation, and comprehensive hygiene concept for the deployment of the required specialized personnel was agreed with the competent health authority. None of the plant test assignments required by the Atomic Energy Act for 2029. The refueling outage will be shortened or played out in a restricted manner. We have already got quite a lot of experience with that. The Emsland nuclear power plant has carried out all the work and inspections required by the German Atomic Energy Act 100% in 2020 refueling outage. For this reason, follow-up inspections are not required since, of course, the wall thickness weakening has been demonstrated and eliminated and confirmed by the supervisory authority. And the expert consulted no further inspection of steam generated tubes will be performed. Containing there are no -- currently, no indications of defective fuel assemblies in Gundremmingen C. No refueling outage for Gundremmingen in this year.

And then Mr. Dufner is interested in various figures regarding the loading and unloading of the reactors in Gundremmingen. Will fresh fuel assemblies is to be loaded in the reactor -- into the reactors in Lingen and Gundremmingen this year? And if so, how many? How many will there be in Lingen in 2022? How many CASTOR containers have been and will be loaded with spent fuel assemblies in Lingen and Gundremmingen in 2020 and 2021? How many will be loaded in Lingen in 2022? How many CASTOR casks will still have to be loaded after the end of operation due to the removal of last fuel assemblies? How many tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste will be produced by the operation of the Lingen and Gundremmingen nuclear power plants in 2021? How many in Lingen in 2022? In addition, Mr. Dufner wants to know what the current plans are for the start and scope of demolition work in Lingen and Gundremmingen after the end of operation? And particularly -- in particular, he is interested in the following aspects. When is demolition work at the Lingen NPP and at Gundremmingen C NPP to begin in concrete tubes? What is the current situation regarding the demolition of Gundremmingen B nuclear power plant? How many tonnes of medium and low-level radioactive nuclear waste does RWE expect to produce during the demolition of respective reactors? Which nuclear waste processing facilities will RWE build for this purpose on the respective operating sites of Lingen and Gundremmingen NPPs? What will happen to the processed intermediate and low-level nuclear waste in Lingen and Gundremmingen? How much nuclear waste will probably not be processed and stored in Lingen or Gundremmingen but elsewhere? Please state the reason and the expected processing and disposal site. To which landfill sites is the free measured nuclear waste to be taken that will be produced during the demolition work?

Well, Mr. Dufner, I mean, you have given us all these specific questions. And you handed them in early so we can give you a fully fledged answer because we had the time to do our research because, at the end of the day, those are figures that are not always at your fingertips. So in Emsland, 52 fresh fuel assemblies will be used this year if not next year. In Gundremmingen C, no reloading is planned in 2021. In Lingen, no CASTOR casks were or will be loaded with spent fuel elements in the years 2020 and 2022. In Gundremmingen, 11 CASTOR casks were loaded in 2020. In 2021, 23 CASTOR casks are planned. After decay, the decay tank after the respective end of operation, about 40 CASTOR casks will still loaded for Lingen at about 75 CASTOR casks for Gundremmingen C. Regarding the amount of highly radioactive waste in Lingen. A nuclear power plant of this size produces an average of about 20 tonnes to 25 tonnes of spent fuel -- nuclear fuel every year, which corresponds to 2 to 3 loaded CASTOR containers. And for Gundremmingen, since we no longer plan to use fresh fuel assemblies in 2021, the operational reactor in 2021 will not increase the amount. And now let me talk about the dismantling of the plant. The preparatory work, such as the licensing procedures, are already underway. It is planned to start the dismantling immediately at the end of the respective power operation that is beginning 2022 in Gundremmingen C at the beginning of 2023 for Emsland. This is provided for by the Atomic Energy Act. And it is in our interest to do it as fast as possible because it is going to save costs. The dismantling of Gundremmingen B is proceeding as planned, with the framework of the license granted on the 19th of March 2019. We expect approximately 11,500 tonnes of medium and low-level radioactive waste for Gundremmingen B and C together, approximately 4,250 tonnes for Emsland. At the Gundremmingen site, we operate a technology center in the former unit A for processing and treating residual materials and waste. In Emsland, the necessary facilities will be set in the existing buildings. The radioactive will be packaged by experts and will then be handed over to the federally owned company for interim storage. Radioactive waste can be conditioned on the site of the external service providers. Whether or how much use is made of this depends on the availability. Radioactive waste is intended for final disposal and is not sent to the landfills. Radioactive waste cannot be measured free. Nonradioactive materials intending for disposal, actually building rubble, are disposed of at suitable and acceptable landfills in accordance with the German Circular Economy Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Schmitz. Now the last question submitted by Mr. Dufner in our nuclear power plants. What sales revenues and net profit does RWE generate from the operation of the Lingen nuclear power plant and Gundremmingen NPP, respectively, in 2020? Is RWE considering taking the Gundremmingen C nuclear power plant and the Lingen nuclear power plant off-grid if necessary before the legally agreed maximum dates, the end of 2021 and 2022, respectively, in order to support the energy transition towards the renewable energies and avoid further nuclear waste production? If so, what is the shutdown date? Mr. Krebber, Mr. Schmitz, can you both answer that?

Well, our operation -- our nuclear power plants are laid down in the Atomic Energy Act. We adhere to this. And as said, we are not loading the system any longer. And therefore, the changes of the ways of that is emitting radio activity . And then let me talk about Kraftwerk ]. GMBH reported sales revenues of EUR 227 million and earnings after taxes in the amount of EUR 18 million as part of the cost allocation from electricity generation to RWE Nuclear. And confirming was made -- merged with RWE Nuclear in 2020. So revenues can, therefore, no longer be seen in the financial segments. Since the electricity from the all -- from all German power plants in the portfolios marketed, the associated electricity revenues on the wholesale market are not reported separately. And we will get a question on hard coal from the organization of critical shareholders. Well, from which countries does RWE currently obtain hard coal for it's own coal-fired power plants? How many tonnes of hard coal did RWE import in total for its own coal-fired power plants in 2020? And how many, as an intermediary, how many tonnes came from Russia, Colombia? And how many tonnes from other countries? Which countries would that be and how many in each case? How much hard coal was imported for the intra coal-fired power plant and from which countries specifically? Second part. Russian environmental organizations like Ecodefense have been criticizing the extremely poor environmental production condition in the Russian coal mining areas in the Siberian Kuzbass for years. Similar criticism has come from Colombia, for example. How does RWE monitor compliance with environmental and human rights standards on site?

Thank you very much, Mr. Dufner, for the question. We currently purchase hard coal for own coal-fired power plants from the U.S. and Russia. 2020, we burned 2.2 million tonnes of domestic and international hard coal in our coal-fired power plants. Of this, 1.5 million came from Russia, 0.1 million from Colombia, 0.2 million from the U.S. and 0.3 million tonnes was the domestic coal from Germany. The remaining part of the total input came from the United Kingdom and other countries. The Hamm power plant used 0.58 million tonnes of hard coal. The quantities came mainly from the U.S. and Colombia. We also traded about 30 million tonnes of hard coal as an intermediary. Now regarding the second part of your question. RWE founded the Bettercoal Initiative back in 2012, together with other large hard coal consumers. The aim of Bettercoal is to continuously improve the conditions under which hard coal is extracted and transported. Among other things, Bettercoal has developed a globally recognized standard for coal mining and uses this as basis for audits. And so you can find more information in the suitability report published in our home page and also on the Bettercoal's home page. Thank you very much. In the following block, various questions are asked on coal and gas-fired power generation. These questions go to you, Mr. Schmitz. What is the current status of the 2 decommissioning procedures for the coal-fired power plants in Hamm and Ibbenbüren that had to be taken off the grid? Is RWE currently still involved in any other hard coal-fired power plants? If so, in which ones? Is RWE also considering unscheduled closures of lignite and hard coal-fired power plants in order to drive forward its transformation into a green RWE and at the same time, guarantee compliance with national and international climate protection targets? Are there already concrete plans for this? What is the current status of the legal dispute over the binding purchase of coal-fired electricity from the Datteln 4 coal-fired power plant? And finally, what is RWE's assessment of the economic situation for the group's own gas-fired power plants? Are there closure plans there as well? If so, what are they specifically?

Well, regarding Hamm and Ibbenbüren. The federal grid agency is currently still reviewing the system relevance of the hard coal-fired power plants that were awarded contracts in the first tender round. As soon as it confirms that the power plants are not required to ensure grid security, we will finally shut them down. These are the 2 large coal-fired power plants. But our sales there in Germany, RWE has a 40% stake in the Grosskraftwerk Mannheim AG, which operates hard coal-fired power plant units. In our 2 power plants in the Netherlands, where we are increasingly using biomass, hard coal co-firing is still required for technical reasons. On further closures, we shut down the Niederaussem D lignite unit at the end of 2020, thus removing 1.9 gigawatt of power plant capacity from the grid right at the start of the German coal phaseout. We are implementing the grid and legally anchored lignite phaseout as planned. We also shut down the last hold hard coal-fired power plant in the U.K. in 2020. The validity of the contract for the purchase of electricity from the Datteln 4 power plant was legally established in 2020. Uniper declared in May 2020 that it would commission the Datteln 4 power plant on the 30th of May 2020. The right of obligations resulting from this and other contractual points are in dispute between the parties. Regarding gas as an energy source, as already explained today, gas will play an important role in future security of supply due to its lower CO2 emissions and flexible use. Closures are not planned at present.

Thank you very much. Mr. Dufner ask further questions in connection with the arbitration proceedings on the Dutch coal phaseout. RWE blames the democratic decision of the Dutch parliament to phase out coal-fired power generation for alleged loss of EUR 1.4 billion, he says. When could RWE management have foreseen that limits on coal-fired power generation could become a state policy option? When did RWE realize that the era of coal-based energy was coming to an end? And why did you then continue to expand your coal investments? How do you justify EUR 1.4 billion in future lost profits, given that the economic value of coal-fired power plants in the Netherlands will fall dramatically over the next decade due to increasing demand for sustainable energy and rising carbon prices? More specifically, do you also estimate the carbon price for greenhouse gas emissions for 2030 in this forecast to be also around EUR 65 to EUR 70 per tonne CO2 equivalent? Several studies, including ]? Or do you calculate it lower and at what rate, with a consequence that the projected loss would increase? What is the amount of subsidies RWE has received or been awarded and will receive from the Dutch government to finance the conversion of the Eemshaven power plant to biomass, will receive at least until 2027? How much of this was deducted from the claimed future lost profits? And the last question. What were the specific promises made by the Dutch government to RWE regarding the investment in the Eemshaven power plant, which are contradicted by the law on the phaseout of coal-fired power generation?

Mr. Dufner, on your first question. The Paris Climate Agreement of November 2016 and the global communities first ever goal of limiting warming to below 2 degrees and if possible, below 1.5 degrees, was a milestone in international climate policy, together with a quantitative basis that the IPCC has drawn up on the remaining budgets for greenhouse gases. The concrete transformation path is, of course, very different in the individual countries because the preconditions and the framework conditions are also very different. Now to the current phaseout in the Netherlands. We are not claiming lost profits, to make that very clear. But the loss of market value of the Eemshaven power plant caused by the coal phaseout, that is the standard to be applied under international law to the calculation of damages. We have commissioned a recognized independent expert to determine this loss of value. Since the forecast period relevant year extends far into the future, namely, until the end of the at least 40-year lifetime of the Eemshaven power plant, the expert used a wide range of possible prices, including CO2 prices as a basis. Therefore, in the context of the legal dispute against the Netherlands, it would not be accurate to give a tangible figure for the year 2030. The subsidy for biomass in the Netherlands is primarily based on the high production costs of biomass. It is essentially paid depending on the amount of electricity produced and the electricity price on the wholesale market. For the in Eemshaven power plant, the maximum subsidy amounts to around EUR 800 million. In 2020, we received a low-to-mid double-digit million euro amount. Subsidies for biomass operation until 2027 are irrelevant for the damage calculation, yet the claims compensation amount results from the fact that the Eemshaven power plant can no longer be operated from 2030 onwards due to the coal phaseout. The Dutch government has deemed the construction of new hard coal-fired power plants necessary for the security of supply and competitiveness of Dutch industry. The investment decision for the power plant was then taken on this basis back in 2009. Until 2017, the government repeatedly emphasized that coal-fired power plants would be needed until around 2050.

Mr. Schmitz, moment refers to a podcast from April this year with the business editors of ], in which you explain RWE has succeeded in detaching itself from coal as a resource and directing the company towards renewable energy. Mr. Merriman goes on to say, almost at the same time, RWE is suing the Netherlands under the Energy Charter Treaty, ECT, because of its decision to phase out coal-fired power generation by 2030. In view of the new strategic orientation of the group, is it not wiser to withdraw this lawsuit in order to prevent Dutch business partners from turning their back on RWE in the long run?

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Merriman . The decision to go down this road was not an easy one for us. We fully accept the Dutch government's decision to end coal-fired power generation. What we cannot expect -- accept is the interference with our property and business activities, especially since we made the investment decisions against the background of the Dutch government's explicit wish to build new coal-fired power plants. To our regret, the Dutch government has so far not proposed any solutions. It is our corporate duty and responsibility towards our shareholders to request compensation. However, we remain open to any constructive proposal to reach an amicable solution with the Dutch government. Let me remind you that we have succeeded in doing that in Germany concerning nuclear energy in March this year, where Vattenfall was in a similar situation, and Germany has been an example in this respect.

We come to the questions from Johannes Steffens . Mr. Schmitz, we would like to know how many lobbies are currently employed by RWE and what costs are incurred annually for lobbying and advertising. He also asked about the Executive Board's assessment of whether this money could not be better invested in an early coal phaseout and the resulting improvement in reputation.

Well, Mr. Steffens , we do not have lobbyists. We have employees, and they are all the same. They have different activities. We have offices in Berlin and Brussels, each with 4 employees in the group and other floor employees are also involved in lobbying, in addition to other tasks, expenditure on offices and lobbying totaled around EUR 1.65 million in 2020. Expenditure on advertising measures in the core markets of Germany, the Netherlands and the U.K. as part of the new RWE image campaign amounted to about EUR 12 million in 2020. Mr. Steffens , we have agreed a clear shutdown road map with the German government for essentially acceptable coal phaseout. We currently see no reasons why we should deviate from this road map.

Mr. Steffens also asked how high RWE estimates, the yield losses resulting from the disappearance of fertile lost soils and to what extent these are taken into account in the overall economic analysis.

The restoration of productive soils has a very high priority for us. In this way, we have already been able to return more than 10,000 hectares of recultivated agricultural land to farmers because that is the system that we will return land. The yield capacity of the land depends primarily on the good rootability and the high water storage capacity of the soil. It is comparable, often even higher, than on the old land. Any remaining additional expenditures, mainly due to the increased nutrient requirements of young cultivated soils, however, this additional expenditure is not recorded separately, but is compensated for within the framework of existing guarantee agreements with the farmers.

Next question also addressed to Mr. Schmitz. There have been several reports in the media in recent weeks about the EU Commission's examination of billions in compensation for the coal companies. What risks are associated with this point of view? And how does the Executive Board mitigate these risks?

The EU State aid investigation was expected by all parties involved. This is just a normal daily business. The compensation of EUR 2.6 billion for RWE is significantly lower than the damage we actually incurred, which has been proven by expert reports. The Federal Ministry of Economics has also stressed that this is a normal step and that the coal phaseout will continue without delay. The contract also contains clauses in the event that the commission has doubts about State aid law. However, we are optimistic about our damaged position, as you can tell from our balance sheet. Then another shareholder refers to a project in which storage power plant is currently being tested in the Port of Hamburg. Let stores heat with the help of volcanic rock.

Well, Mr. Schmitz, RWE's decommissioned coal-fired power plants also suitable for this. What plans are there for the power plants? And couldn't the opencast lakes also be used as pump storage?

Well, we are currently conducted -- conducting studies on the technical and economic feasibility of the technology you're mentioning. Our existing coal-fired power plants in the Rheinland. And I mean, as I mentioned, yes, I must say it is not really very lucrative or profitable. So I don't really think that we are going to do that anyway. Internally, we strive to find a sustainable and structurally effective use for the facilities and land at the power plant side, as it has been decommissioned, using it as a storage is probably the best option anyway. Regarding the opencast mining lakes. The use of the opencast mining lake is as a pump storage power plant is not possible from a technical, economic and regionally compatible point of view. The horizontal distance on the drop height between the opencast lakes are not sufficient for this. The construction of upper and lower reservoirs with regularly fluctuating lake water levels is not geotechnically feasible in a loose rock opencast mine and would also have a considerable negative impact on the ecology of the same .

Shareholder would also like to know whether the operation of lignite-fired power plants are still profitable at all, taken into account rising CO2 prices and whether the substitute stake is on the stock exchange would not be more profit? To what extent is the decision guided by the RWE code of conduct. The shareholder here refers in particular to the third principle of environment. We are committed to the responsible use of natural resources and promoting use of environmentally-friendly technologies. This is what it says there.

The profitability of lignite-fired power plants does not depend solely on CO2 prices, whether the combination of electricity price and CO2 price, in particular, must be considered. Put simply, if a combination of these variables is positive, the lignite-fired power plants will be used. The decision is continuously reviewed and optimized. The CO2 certificates, we already have secured the operational business. The progress we have made in recent years in reducing CO2 speaks for itself, and we think of our motto, our new company purpose. When we commit ourselves in our code of conduct to the responsible use of natural resources and the application of environmentally-friendly technologies, this does not mean CO2 reductions for decommissioning at any price. As nice , we are dependent on the fossil fuels to ensure security of supply. It also means that we reduce emissions of pollutants as much as possible and compensate as far as possible with the interference with nature associated with the extraction of fossil fuels. For example, through recultivation measures. So it is very important that we get as much renewables as possible because then the residual amount required will be reduced. And that, of course, will reduce CO2 emissions.

Thank you very much. And now we will continue with a more comprehensive block of questions from a shareholder referring to the annual report. Well, Mr. Krebber, can you explain in which income statement item or subgroup and in which balance sheet item or subgroup the compensation claim for the decommissioning of the Ibbenbüren and Westfalen hard coal-fired power plants of EUR 460 million is included?

In the income statement, the compensation claim is included in the other operating income in the subgroup. Other in the balance sheet, the compensation claim is included in the receivables, in other receivables and other assets in the subgroup, miscellaneous of the assets.

And then the shareholder also notes from the explanations on the nonoperating result on Page 55 of the annual report 2020 that this includes charges from impairments on power plants and opencast mines as well as the Dutch power plant park of EUR 1.8 billion. Of this amount, EUR 1.579 million is likely to be due to the value adjustments, which are explained in more detail on Note 5 on Page 124 of the annual report. This leaves EUR 221 -- that is EUR 221 million, for which it is not explained to what extent these are due to nonoperational or aperiodic effects of special circumstances. Which facts with which amounts are hidden behind the EUR 221 million that are not explained further? In which income segment, items or in which subgroups thereof as well as in which balance sheet items or in which subgroup level are the EUR 221 million not further explained, included?

Impairments on power plants and opencast mines totaled EUR 1.77 billion in the of 2020 financial year, rounded to EUR 1.8 billion in management report. The difference between the impairment on property, plant and equipment explained in the notes on Page 124 and the impairments on power plants and opencast mines, including a nonoperating result in the amount of EUR 191 million, relate, on the one hand, to impairments of EUR 135 million on current assets that had to be written down in connection with the local coal phaseout. On the other hand, as a result of the coal phaseout, further unscheduled write-downs on investments in the Hamburg opencast mine and on buildings amounting to EUR 55 million were made.

And then the results reported under other in the nonoperating result was minus to EUR 2.02 billion in the reporting year. The items, explicitly explained on Page 55 of the annual report, adds up to a result of minus EUR 1.584 billion. This includes write-downs on power plants and opencast mines of minus EUR 1.8 billion, less compensation claims of plus EUR 216 million. For a further EUR 436 million, there are no explanations as to what extent these are due to nonoperational or aperiodic effects or special circumstances. Wage tracks with which amounts are hidden behind the EUR 436 million that are not explained further, in which income statement items or in which subgroups thereof as well as in which balance sheet items or in which subgroups thereof are the EUR 436 million not further explained, included?

The items in the other category, on the nonoperating result, which are not explained in the management report, relate, on the one hand, to additions, provisions in connection with the coal phaseout in the amount of EUR 422 million. These are included in other operating expenses. On the other hand, the nonoperating result includes IT and project cost in the amount of EUR 166 million, which are also posted as other operating expenses. An additional provision for regulatory risk in the amount of EUR 173 million were also released in other operating expenses. The remaining difference is attributable to a large number of individual items.

Let me continue. Income taxes amounted to EUR 363 million, which in view of RWE's taxable profit situation, corresponds to a relatively high tax rate of 30%, as can be read on Page 56 of the 2020 annual report. Write-downs on deferred tax assets were the main reason for this. How high will the burdens from write-downs on deferred tax assets in the year under review? For what reasons were write-downs on deferred tax assets necessary in the reporting year?

The charges from rentals on deferred tax assets amounted to around EUR 350 million in the year 2020 financial year. Deferred tax assets are recognized. If the realization of future tax benefits is probable , the tax benefits can be used with sufficient certainty. Due to the group's tax result situation, deferred tax assets were written down because they are not expected to be utilizable.

Mr. Muller, next question comes your way. The other financial result deteriorated by EUR 202 million in the reporting year from EUR 16 million to minus EUR 186 million, which can be read on Page 56 of the annual report 2020. One reason for this was that losses from securities investments were realized. On the other hand, the explanations under Note 8 on Page 127 show that a profit of EUR 11 million resulted from the disposal of securities. Furthermore, the unfavorable developments of interest rates and exchange rates led to changes against earnings from financial transactions. What explains the different presentation in connection with the disposal of securities? How high was the impact on earnings from financial transactions in the reporting and how can they be differentiated?

The decline in the other financial result is mainly due to expenses from market valuation of securities, which increased by EUR 193 million compared to the previous year. These relate to securities whose realized and unrealized changes in market value are recognized in the income statement in accordance with IFRS 9. They include the realized losses from securities, investments mentioned in the management report on Page 56. In contrast, the gains from the disposal of securities in the amount of EUR 11 million mentioned in the notes on Page 127 results from debt instruments whose changes in market value are recognized and equity under other comprehensive income in accordance with IFRS 9 and only recognized in the income statement after realization.

So Mr. Krebber, the reconciliation to the adjusted net result on Page 57 of the annual report 2020 shows that the adjusted financial result in the reporting year amounts to minus EUR 350 million. Adjustments of EUR 139 million were thus made. Unfortunately, no corresponding explanations could be found in the annual report. Which facts with which amounts are hidden behind the not further explained adjustments of the financial result?

Well, on the one hand, the financial result was adjusted in the amount of EUR 108 million for the expense from interest rate changes in the mining provisions and the Dutch nuclear energy provisions. On the other hand, expenses of EUR 89 million from the currency translation of positions with Innogy's renewable energy companies that could not be secured until the legal acquisition were eliminated. In addition, the financial result was adjusted for the income from the reversal of the tax provision for tax interest in the amount of EUR 58 million.

In connection with the sale of the installation vessel Seabreeze II, which is shown on Page 113 in the 2020 annual report, there was a profit in the mid double-digit million euro range. How high was the specific capital gain from the sale of the installation vessel? And why did RWE not include this capital gain in the nonoperating result under result from disposals?

The sale of the installation vessel Seabreeze II resulted in a capital gain of EUR 49 million, which was already recognized in the nonoperating result under other in the first quarter of 2020.

Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Krebber. The shareholder also addresses the unscheduled depreciation of property, plant and equipment, which is explained on Pages 123 to 125 in the annual report. Impairment losses on property, plant and equipment amounts to EUR 1.712 billion in the reporting year. From the explanations given, however, only scheduled depreciation on property, plant and equipment of EUR 1.579 billion can be reconstructed. This leaves EUR 133 million, which are not explained further. What are the reasons and what amounts are hidden behind the nonscheduled depreciation of property, plant and equipment that cannot be traced?

The other unscheduled write-offs in the amount of EUR 54 million are attributable to various projects in the renewable energy sector. Reasons included lower market prices, delays in completion and low prospects of success. In addition, as a result of the coal phaseout, unscheduled write-downs of EUR 55 million were made on investments in the Hamburg opencast mine and buildings. The remaining unscheduled depreciation of EUR 24 million is attributable to a large number of individual items.

Mr. Krebber, under Note 6 on Page 125 of the annual report 2020, the expenses from leasing are stated at EUR 30 million and EUR 42 million in the previous year. In contrast, RWE reports leasing expenses on Page 137 totaling EUR 101 million and the impact of leases on earnings and cash flow compared to EUR 32 million in the previous year. The shareholder would like to know how this difference between the year-end review and the previous year can be explained.

The difference is due to the fact that expenses for leasing are recognized both in other operating expenses, which are presented on Page 125 in the annual report and with the cost of materials.

The same shareholder asks, Note 7 on Page 126 of the 2020 annual report shows that the result from nonconsolidated subsidiaries deteriorated significantly from EUR 1 million to minus EUR 82 million. How can the significant deterioration of the result from nonconsolidated subsidiaries be explained? Which nonconsolidated subsidiaries contributed to this and to what extent?

The decline on the result from nonconsolidated subsidiaries essentially result from write-downs on affiliated companies, which were EUR 72 million higher in the 2020 fiscal year than in the previous year. They were primarily attributable to projects of supply and trading, EUR 62 million, and companies in the renewables division to the tune of EUR 8.2 million.

Let's continue with questions from the same shareholder on accounting details in the 2020 annual report. In Note 12 on Pages 138 to 139, RWE explains the investments accounted for using the equity method. Based on the information presented, the shareholder has calculated a result from investments accounted for using the equity method of EUR 435 million and EUR 322 million for the previous year. In contrast, the result from investments accounted for using the equity method is shown under Note 7 on Page 126 of the annual report at EUR 375 million; in the previous year, EUR 321 million. Except for Kelag , can be the difference in terms of reporting year be explained?

In the 2020 financial year, the equity result from Amprion was EUR 124 million, Kelag, EUR 46 million. In the previous year, the equity result for Amprion was EUR 131 million; for Kelag, EUR 44 million. These amounts cannot be derived from the table in the annual report on Page 138 as the equity valuation is based on other earnings figures than those stated in this table. With the above-mentioned results for Amprion and Kelag, the results from investments accounted for using the equity method is EUR 375 million for 2020 and EUR 321 million for 2019.

A look at the other receivables and other assets detailed in Note 15 on Page 140 of the 2020 annual result shows a significant increase in miscellaneous other assets from EUR 3.22 billion to EUR 3.7 billion. The shareholder would like to know what are the facts behind the miscellaneous other assets and what is the reason for the increase.

Significant items reported under miscellaneous other assets are alternative energy certificates, investment in research grants, loans, receivables, tax receivables and prepaid expenses. The major reason for the increase in miscellaneous other assets is the compensation claim for the German coal phaseout, which was recognized under this item in 2020 in the amount of EUR 260 million. In addition, in the area of renewable energies, prepaid expenses increased by EUR 65 million and miscellaneous other assets by EUR 170 million due to various individual items. The remaining change in miscellaneous other assets is attributable to a number of other individual items.

Thank you. In Note 27 on Page 179 of the 2020 annual report, RWE explains the gross carrying amount of the financial instruments within the scope of the impairment model. The gross carrying amounts of trade receivables are reported at EUR 3.068 billion compared to EUR 3.465 billion in the previous year. The net carrying amount of trade receivables shown in the balance sheet on Page 103 amount to EUR 3.007 billion; in the previous year, EUR 3.621 billion. Accordingly, the provision for risks on trade receivables should amount to EUR 61 million and minus EUR 156 million for the previous year. However, RWE shows the risk provision on Page 178 at EUR 42 million and for the previous year, EUR 32 million. Mr. Krebber, how can the difference in the year under review and especially with regard to the previous year be explained?

Well, trade receivables in the balance sheet and in the context of the notes reporting on the impairment model cannot be reconciled in the manner presented. For example, in the notes reporting contract assets within the meaning of IFRS 15 are included, which are shown in the balance sheet under other assets. In the case of trade receivables in the balance sheet, certain advanced payments received are deducted, unlike in the notes.

And now the last question of this shareholder. In the segment reporting under Note 29 on Page 183 of the 2020 annual report, RWE reports impairment losses of EUR 1.819 billion, and in the previous year, EUR 2 billion, of which EUR 1.73 billion is attributable to property, plant and equipment and intangible assets. In the prior year, it had been EUR 1.968 billion. Thus, unscheduled depreciation on investments accounted for EUR 89 million in the reporting year and EUR 33 million in the previous year. Why did the unscheduled depreciation participation increase so significantly in the reporting year? Which companies had to be written down in the year-end review or in the previous year, for what reasons and in what amounts?

Possibly, this is the last accounting question that I may enjoy answering in this AGM, so I really enjoy it. In the 2020 financial year, impairment losses on investments mainly related to projects of RWE Supply & Trading that were EUR 62 million due to deteriorating business prospects and to companies in the field of renewable energies, that was EUR 8 million. They were written off due to a lack of prospect of success. In the previous year, too, mainly projects of RWE Supply & Trading in the amount of EUR 19 million were written off due to operational risks or project cancellations and companies in the field of renewable energies in the amount of EUR 8 million were written off due to a lack of profitability.

Right. Now let's continue with questions from the Umbrella Organization of Critical Shareholders that deal with climate protection, the coal phaseout and the energy transition. First, the Science Based Targets initiative has confirmed that RWE's climate protection targets are in line with the Paris Climate Agreement and the goal was set there of limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius. Does this also apply to the actually desirable goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees? This is precisely what the initiative does not seem to [Audio Gap] own gas-fired power plants in its little carbon dioxide. But how high were the greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 if they also include the entire gas supply chain, including the problems of methane? And can you compare the total life cycle climate balance of your 2020 lignite, hard coal and gas consumption? And if so, how does this comparison turn out? Mr. Krebber, these questions are for you.

As you correctly state, the Science Based Targets initiative has confirmed that RWE's climate protection targets for 2030 are in line with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. The initiative based its assessment on scenarios with climate pathways that limit global warming to well below 2 degrees. RWE regularly reviews the setting and adjustment of targets and participation initiatives. This includes the business ambition for 1.5 degree Celsius. RWE publishes a detailed overview of all direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions in the Sustainability Report Scope 3, also includes upstream emissions from the gas supply chain, including methane leakages. Even if the entire value chain is included, the comparison of the emissions of the energy sources, lignite, hard coal and gas, does not show a significantly different picture.

Now questions about electricity prices and yields and CO2 price hedging. What exactly was the yield from coal-fired power in 2020? How is the future development estimated? How high were the negative electricity prices that had to be paid in 2020? And for which electricity generation processes did they occur and in what proportion? How many CO2 certificates does RWE hold in reserve? Up to what year is lignite-based electricity generation hedged against rising CO2 prices? What does this hedging cost RWE every year? What hedging transactions for lignite have you made for the period after 2030?

Our financial reporting is done on a segment basis. And the adjusted EBITDA for coal nuclear energy amounted to EUR 559 million in the financial year. For the current financial year, the outlook is EUR 800 million to EUR 900 million for '22, EUR 550 million to EUR 650 million for the years from 2023. The adjusted EBITDA will be between EUR 0 million and EUR 200 million. The periods of negative electricity prices only impacts spots are steadily increasing due to the increasing feed in or the renewable energy sources. it uses all the way to manage its power plant portfolio in a commercially optimal way without violating technical restrictions of the plants or contractual agreements with third parties. The commercial effect remains not only on the power plant deployment decision and depresses EPAC spot on the previous day, but also on previous hedging decisions. A quantification of the associated costs as well as the allocations to sources of energy cannot be meaningfully presented stand-alone as there are opposing effects from contract agreements and hedging transactions. Regarding this year to position, RWE is financially hedged against the effects of CO2 price changes and to 2030. For the competitive reasons, we cannot publish a statement on the CO2 inventory and thus, also not a statement on the annual hedging cost.

Now lots of questions concerning the lignite phaseout. With reference to EU State aid investigation into compensation payments, they ask to what extent has RWE included the compensation sum of EUR 2.6 billion in its balance sheet or is planning firmly with this amount? How does RWE intend to prove that it would make a profit by operating lignite plants until 2051? What arguments does RWE put forward against the commission having doubts about the reliability of the assumptions on useful life, both from a technical and an economic point of view? Environmental Minister Svenja Schulze expects coal-fired power plants to be phased out in 2030. As a result of the EU stricter climate targets of minus 55% in 2030, what studies does RWE have of its own on the EU stricter targets for lignite-fired power generation? How do you expand the discrepancy between Ms. Schulze's statements and the calculations involving billions in compensation? Regarding the BT report of consequential cost of the lignite-based electricity generation, what information on opencast mine planning did RWE provide to the experts from BT Energy and EU ? By what influence did RWE exert on these scenarios in the report?

Regarding your first question and ], This is now really getting exciting. And I will now give my last answers as a CEO. The compensation claims recognized in consolidated financial statements of the operating income and other assets, these can be read in the annual report. In our internal corp planning, we see a financially viable lignite-based power generation in the future as well. These internal assumption is confirmed by external expert opinions. Our power plants have been modernized through extensive measures on a regular basis. With regard to the electricity generation from lignite, RWE Power, therefore, has extensive experience with plants that have been in operation for almost 50 to 60 years. And of course, we have also got a cost savings program in the lignite segment. Otherwise, we could not make it. With regard to Mrs. Schulze's statement, I can say that the national climate target for 2030 was already 55% before the tightening of the EU climate target and the reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector was 61% to 62%. The target is also the basis of the coal phaseout road map grid in Germany, which we will follow. We were not involved in the preparation of the report by BT and EY on opencast mining scenarios. Therefore, we could not and did not provide any information for the preparation of the report, and thus, does not exert any influence on these scenarios.

Okay. Thank you. Now we would like to talk about resettlement. Mr. Schmitz, so how many court proceedings against ex-population and forestry settlement of residents or villages near opencast lignite mines are currently pending? How many more procedures does RWE expect in the years 2021, '22, '23, '24, '25 and '26? How high were the cost for the compensation of resettled persons in the area of the area of the Garzweiler opencast mines, in the area of the Hambach opencast mines and Inden? In view of the EU climate target for 2030, how is the obtaining of a land concession order against a farm in justified? In addition, Mr. Schmitz, the Umbrella Organization wants to know in various questions whether and when you have once made yourself a picture of the situation on site, have a picture of the working conditions of the RWE employees there and have spoken with people affected.

Well, the legislature has explicitly confirmed the energy economic necessity of regards whether opencast mine and thus, the necessity of the resettlement in the Garzweiler opencast mine and the coal electricity termination act. This is also confirmed by the new guiding decision published by the NRW state government on 23rd of March 2021 on the basis of the current meta study. We are getting a comprehensive picture of the resettlement localities and are in constant and lively exchange with people throughout the entire resettlement process. They are involved in many ways from planning to implementation. They receive comprehensive support from the lead authorities, municipalities and our companies. Your concerns also play a central role in the necessary approval. The average cost of acquiring residential properties in 2020 in Garzweiler and Hambach opencast mines were around EUR 500,000. In the Inden opencast mine, the resettlement program has already been completed. For the ongoing resettlements in Hambach and Garzweiler mining areas, a land transfer procedure had to be initiated for reasons of imminent mining claims after many years of negotiations with comprehensive compensation office. At the same time, we continue to be available for talks on an amicable settlement. For the coming years, too, we assume that most individual land transfer procedures for the development properties will become necessary. And just to reassure, yes, I was on site, and I had a look at the new places and the old places. And of course, I always talk to people.

And then the Umbrella Organization also has got loads of question about the main operating plan for the Hambach opencast mine. On Page 10 of the main operating plan for the Hambach open mine, various water management requirements are listed. When will they be made available to the public? Regarding Page 15 of the main operating plan, when specifically will the current cost for Atlas be used as the basis for providing a retention area? Page 18, why are the opencast mine boundaries from 1977 being continued? NRW Prime Minister Laschet promised a reduction. Page 18, the PO proceedings of BUND NRW or i.e. [ REST ], how did this [ REST ] come about? Who decided this? When will the proceedings be resumed? When can a decision by the court be expected? What exactly are the relevant legal requirements for the main operating plan approval according to Section 55(1) and 48(2) of the Federal Mining Act? Were they examined in full independently or -- it says on Page 13, take a note of. The examination on the mining law is only a note and not an examination. How can the contradictory statement be explained? What was the actual procedure?

Well, thank you very much for giving us the time to prepare the answer to this question, and I'm very glad that we've got such wonderful staff who researched it. So the water management requirements addressed and referenced to Page 10 of the main operating plan deal, among other things, with issues of marshing. The water law permit for the marshing of the Hambach opencast mine can be viewed on the website of the Anspach district government. The question of the possible publication on the open government portal would have to be addressed with the responsible authorities. Any current [ Castro ] Atlas that refer to Page 15 of the main operating plan will be used as a basis for all future proofs of the retention area. There can be no question of continuing with the opencast mine boundaries of 1977. For example, this spatial boundary of the main operating plan of Morschenich area and with the exclusion of Hambach, of course, has been significantly reduced. The forest area at the go cut track adjacent to [ Steiner ] is also retained. The new main operating plan takes full account of the requirements, the coal-fired power generation termination act and the new guiding decision. The state planning framework will be adapted to the coal phaseout in the lignite plan procedure that is now beginning. All pending litigation by the plaintiff BUND concerning the Hambach opencast mine has been settled or suspended. It's remained to be seen whether the BUND's lawsuits will be reopened despite the now legally stipulated coal phaseout, including the preservation of the Hambach Forest. The conditions for approval, which must be examined by the competent authority, are specified in the above-mentioned provisions of the Federal Mining Act. They were actually examined by the mining authority and deemed to be fulfilled. As a result, the mining operator was entitled to be granted the permit.

Okay. Now there is a second block of the umbrella organization regarding the main operating plan for Hambach opencast mine. The water law permit for Hambach opencast mine have so far only been ordered, apparently, not yet granted. How could the main operating plan still be approved? How exactly will the requirements of the European Water Framework Directive be implemented in the water law permit? How and when will the requirements of the European Water Framework Directive be met? How exactly will compliance be ensured? And what measurement method will be used to back this up? Which monitoring procedure does RWE use to document the situation of surface and subsurface water changes? Is the modeling of regionalized emissions model system favored by the Federal Environment Agency used? If not, what conditions would have to be met for it to be used? Does the drinking water supply of the affected population had priority over the use of the water by RWE? Unlimited value set for this? In what way has RWE AG take the dry years into account in its planning? What precautions are being taken for the future? How measurable?

Well, first things first. Permission under water law has been granted in the meantime. Within the framework of the approval procedure, a technical expert report on water law is being prepared, which comprehensively assesses the compatibility of the project with the objectives of the Water Framework Directives. This is part of the application documents submitted to the authorities. There are defined management objectives for the mining-related status of the water bodies. The basic principles and the background are described in detail in the background paper in lignite, which is part of the management plan on the state of North Rhine–Westphalia. The changes in the water bodies are predicted by the district-wide officially agreed groundwater model. Furthermore, monitoring exists for the individual opencast mines under the offices of the responsible authorities or ministries. In principle, if the ground water level is affected by mining activities, the additional expenditure for water extraction is compensated in accordance with the legal provisions. In the use of the pumped water purchase given, among other things, to the provision of substitute water, in particular, public drinking water supply in the provision of eco-water. Climatic developments are also taken into account in the planning process. For example, expert opinions on climatic developments are part of the planning process. The use of around about 20,000 hectares of arable land is offset by a corresponding reclamation of about 12,000 hectares. The overall land development is continuously measured and reported. In addition, within the framework of quality management, it is monitored whether the reclaimed arable land meets the yield capacity of the arable land taken up. Finally, the new land is officially valued within the framework of the standard valuation on the tax law. The intervention characteristics of the land take -- are determined within the framework of the legal provisions. The redesign of the landscape also makes it possible to include new and additional aspects via the compensation measure for use, protection of recreational function or the landscape. Furthermore, we are engaged in exploring new utilization and yield opportunities in agriculture or implementing our own biodiversity strategy.

And now to the third block of questions concerning the Hambach opencast mine. What methods are used to measure and record the damage to the arable soils in the [ UniSuper ]? How are the damages or destructions accounted for? Where can such balances on ecological damage be found? What measures are being taken by the group to repair the damage caused? What provisions have been made or will be made for this purpose until the opencast mines are phased out? Are these provisions legally secured? In what way? Is the type of protection crisis proved? What CO2 storage capacities have been lost in the area of the landscapes used by the opencast mines? Please list CO2 storage capacity separately by forest, soil and other.

Well, the use of about 20,000 hectares of arable land is offset by a corresponding reclamation of about 12,000 hectares. I already mentioned that. The overall land development is continuously measured and reported. In addition, within the framework of quality management, it is monitored whether the reclaimed arable land meets the yield capacity of the arable land taken up. Finally, the new land is officially valued within the framework of the standard valuation and the tax law. The intervention characteristics of the land take are determined within the framework of the legal provisions. The redesign of the landscape also makes it possible, that was mentioned before, to include new and additional aspects via the compensation measure for the use, protection, and we are also committed to biodiversity according to the legal requirements. Mining-related provisions have been set aside for all recultivation obligations. They are readily audited by the auditor. This will be continued to an adjusted extent until the opencast mines are phased out. The provisions are secure, rest assured of that. RWE is liable for the mining-related provisions with its entire group assets. The mining authority regularly reviews the adequacy of the mining provision as well as its financial coverage. Carbon storage potentials are not lost as a result of the land reclamation that goes hand-in-hand with the land claim. For example, most bodies are transferred from the opencast mine fields to newly created forest and arable land. The forest cover on the recultivated forest areas -- the forest cover on the recultivated forest areas also provides an additional carbon store. The balance of forestry land in the area is already valuable. So far, a good 7,300 hectares of forest have had to make way for the opencast mines, and more than 7,300 hectares have been newly planted.

Thank you. The following are questions on political talks. According to information from Greenpeace, there were 30 meetings between RWE and the Ministry of Economic Affairs, EnBW between May 2018 and June 2020. Can you confirm this number? And are you prepared to provide full transparency about the meetings? What specific agreements or arrangements have been made between the Ministry of Economic Affairs and RWE with regard to the coal phaseout? Are you prepared to publish a complete list of all appointments and talks with politicians, especially with Minister President, Armin Laschet? What meetings have taken place with Armin Laschet? What agreements have been made between the 2 of you? How often and on which days exactly have RWE representatives met with the North Rhine-Westphalia Minister President?

As a large energy supply company, as we are, we are always in dialogue with ministries and politicians at the state and federal level on issues that are important to us. This naturally also applies to the Ministry of Economic Affairs at the North Rhine-Westphalia state government. For example, on issues such as the expansion of renewable energies, market design, the ramp-up of the hydrogen infrastructure and of course, the coal phaseout. We do not publish any information on the content of individual talks. The agreement with the federal government of the coal phaseout is publicly available. And I think that was the last question I ever answered on an AGM.

That's true we continue with Mr. Krebber concerning human rights due diligence. Can you already ensure that the requirements of the planned Supply Chain Act for risk management to identify and proactively reduce human rights risks in your own supply chains are met? What specific grievances were identified in supplier audits in 2020? Please name countries or regions. What do you specifically do in these cases? Are you in direct contact with the companies concerned? And by when must you have remedied the grievances?

Well, RWE is well positioned for the introduction of the Supply Chain Act. After the law has been passed, we will identify any need for action. In 2020, RWE again audited its business partners before entering into and doing a business relationship. If grievances are discovered during audits and do not lead to termination of the business relationship, concrete measures are developed with the respective partners in individual cases and implementation deadlines are agreed.

And finally, a few questions about various stakeholders, Mr. Krebber. The French asset manager at RWE investor Amundi criticizes RWE's coal phaseout strategy as incompatible with the 1.5% target of the Paris Climate Agreement and demands that RWE phase out lignite-fired power generation in Germany earlier than 2038. What coal phaseout plan will RWE present to Amundi that is fully in line with the recommendations of climate science? The insurance group AXA has announced that it would exclude services for RWE until the end of 2022 because of criticism of the coal phaseout plans. Which insurers still want to cover RWE AG's risks? How much more expensive will it now be for RWE to take out new insurance? Please give us an absolute sum in euros. And how have the exclusion by AXA and the announcement by Amundi affected RWE AG's rating?

Well, first of all, on Amundi, you were able to hear our answers to Amundi today at the Annual General Meeting itself. We are also in constant dialogue with our shareholders outside the AGM. This also applies to our insurance. We have a large international group of insurers who provide a wide variety of insurance services for our businesses and with whom we have long-standing and trusting business relationships. Our insurers understand and support the comprehensive transformation of RWE. And regarding the rating, we are pleased with the recent upgrades by both rating agencies, Fitch and Moody's. This is a real success and fully reflects the strategic and financial cause of the company.

Well, thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much also to the facilitators. Thank you very much to the members of the Executive Board for answering the questions in such detail. I assume that my answers also conclusively address the questions to the Supervisory Board. This concludes the part with the response to the question.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to announce that voting by postal vote and voting -- proxy voting via the Internet-based InvestorPortal will be closed shortly after I have explained to you the agenda items to be voted on today and the resolutions proposed by the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board and when I will start to determine the voting results. If you still wish to cast, change or revoke your vote via the InvestorPortal, please do so promptly. Before we come to the vote, I would like to once again inform you about the current attendance, which is as follows. The voting proxies represent a total of 400,544,190 shares with just as many voting rights. This corresponds to an attendance of 59.23% of the registered share capital. In addition, we have absentee votes of another 18,234,140 no par value shares. Of these, a total of 480,778,330 votes are represented in the AGM, which corresponds to 61.93% of the registered share capital. Now we will proceed with the vote. I will once again call the agenda items and the proposed resolutions of the Executive Board and Supervisory Board as announced in the notice convening the meeting. No resolution is required on agenda item 1. Item 2, appropriation of distributable profit. The Executive and Supervisory Board propose that RWE Aktiengesellschaft's distributable profit for fiscal 2020 be appropriated as follows: distribution of a dividend EUR 0.85 per dividend-bearing share, which is EUR 574,787,040.80; profit carryforward, EUR 25,220.47; distributable profit, EUR 574,812,261.37 (sic) [ EUR 574,812,261.27 ]. Agenda item 3 reads, approval of the acts of the Executive Board for fiscal 2020. The Executive Board and the Supervisory Board propose that the acts of the members of the Executive Board in the 2020 financial year be approved for this period. Agenda item 4 reads, approval of the acts of the Supervisory Board for fiscal 2020. The Executive Board and the Supervisory Board propose that the acts of the members of the Supervisory Board in the 2020 fiscal year be approved for this period. In this connection, I would like to draw attention to Section 136 of the German Stock Corporation Act. According to this, members of the Executive Board may neither vote themselves nor on behalf of another person nor be represented by a third party in the resolution on their own discharge. The same applies to members of the Supervisory Board when their acts are approved. The corresponding shareholders are, therefore, not entitled to vote on the respective agenda item. Agenda item 5 reads, appointment of the auditor for fiscal 2021 and the auditor for the audit-like review of the half year financial report and of the interim financial report. Based on the recommendation of the Audit Committee, the Supervisory Board proposes that PricewaterhouseCoopers GmbH Wirtschaftsprufungsgesellschaft Frankfurt am Main Essen branch be appointed as auditor for fiscal 2021 and as auditor for the audit-like review of the condensed financial statements and the interim management reports as part of the half year financial report and the interim financial report as per June 30, 2021, September 30, 2021 and March 31, 2022. The audit committee has stated in its recommendation that this is free from undue influence by third parties and that no selection limiting clause within the meaning of Article 16 Paragraph 6 of the statutory audit regulation has been imposed on it. Agenda item 6, election of new Supervisory Board members. As I explained at the beginning, the term of office of the shareholder representatives on the Supervisory Board will end at the close of today's Annual General Meeting, so new elections are necessary. The new elections are intended to introduce a staggered structure on the Supervisory Board. Five candidates will therefore be proposed for election for a term of 3 years and 5 further candidates for a term of 4 years. Based on the recommendations of the Nomination Committee, the Supervisory Board proposes that the following persons be elected by individual vote with the effect from the end of this Annual General Meeting as shareholder representatives on the Supervisory Board: under item 6.1, myself; under item 6.2, Dr. Hans Bunting, self-employed management consultant; under item 6.3, Mrs. Ute Gerbaulet, personally liable partner of Bankhaus Lampe KG; under item 6.4, Professor Dr. Ing. E.h. Hans-Peter Keitel, self-employed management consultant; under item 6.5, Mrs. Magister Dr.h.c. Monika Kircher, self-employed management consultant; under item 6.6, Mr. Gunther Schartz, County Commissioner of the Trier-Saarburg District; under item 6.7, Dr. Erhard Schipporeit, self-employed management consultant; under item 6.8, Mr. Ullrich Sierau, self-employed management consultant for newly found companies; under item 6.9, Mrs. Hauke Stars, member of various Supervisory Boards; and under item 6.10, Mrs. Helle Valentin, General Manager, Global Business Services, Nordic of IBM Corporation. The suggestion is that the election of Dr. Bunting, Mrs. Magister Dr. Kircher, Mrs. Stars, Mrs. Valentin and myself is to last until the end of the AGM that decides on the approval of the act for fiscal '24. Mrs. Gerbaulet, Professor Dr. Keitel, Mr. Schartz, Dr. Schipporeit and Mr. Sierau are to be elected for the period of time until the end of the AGM that is to decide on the approval of the act for fiscal 2023. For further detailed explanations of this agenda item, please refer to the invitation. Agenda item 7 is the approval of the remuneration system for members of the Executive Board. Based on the recommendation of its Personnel Affairs Committee, the Supervisory Board proposes that the remuneration system for the members of the Executive Board described in the invitation and resolved by the Supervisory Board with effect from January 1, 2021, be approved. Please refer to the invitation for a detailed presentation of the compensation system and further details on this proposed resolution. I will only briefly mention agenda items 8 to 13 below, each of which contain very detailed resolution proposals. Here, too, you will find all the details in the invitation. Mr. Krebber has already given you some explanations this morning on the capital authorizations proposed under items 9 and 10. Agenda Item 8, passage of a resolution on the remuneration of the members of the Supervisory Board and corresponding amendment to the Articles of Incorporation. Agenda item 9, renewal of authorized capital and corresponding amendment to the Articles of Incorporation. Agenda item 10, authorization to issue convertible and/or option bonds, formation of conditional capital and corresponding amendment to the Articles of Incorporation. Agenda item 11, amendment of Article 8 Paragraph 4 of the Articles of Incorporation, that is by election to the Supervisory Board. Agenda item 12 reads, amendment of Article 9 Paragraph 1 of the Articles of Incorporation, election of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Supervisory Board. Agenda item 13 reads, amendment of Article 15 Paragraph 2 of the Articles of Incorporation, proof of authorization to participate in the Annual General Meeting. The countermotions sent prior to the Annual General Meeting and requiring disclosure were published on the company's website. The Executive Board has commented on these and recommended that the countermotions be rejected. The statement is also published on the website. The Supervisory Board dealt with the statement at its meeting today and concurred with the recommendation of the Executive Board to reject the countermotions. In accordance with the amended legal concept of the COVID-19 Act, the published countermotions will be considered as having been submitted during the virtual Annual General Meeting as they were sent by shareholders who registered for the Annual General Meeting in due time and provided proof of share ownership. As Chairman of the meeting, I order that the proposals of the Executive Board and Supervisory Board be voted on first. If these are approved by the required majority of votes, the countermotions will be disregarded. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to announce once again that in a few minutes, I will close the voting via the Internet-based InvestorPortal. The resolutions of the Annual General Meeting on agenda items 2 to 13 require a simple majority of votes. The resolutions on items 8 and 11 to 13 additionally require a simple majority of the capital stock represented when the resolution is adopted. And the resolutions on agenda items 9 and 10 additionally require a majority of 3/4 of the capital stock represented when the resolution is adopted. The voting results are determined using the so-called addition method, that is both yes and no votes are counted. Abstentions have no influence on the results. Ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to start determining the voting results and announce that I will close the voting by postal vote. And at 3:38, I will finally close the postal vote and the authorization of the company's proxies via the Internet-based InvestorPortal. Until then, we will interrupt the transmission of the Annual General Meeting. [Voting]

Ladies and gentlemen, it is 3:39, and we can resume the meeting. The absentee ballots and proxy holder voting is no longer possible, as announced previously. I would like to ask the support staff to take that into consideration. Via the InvestorPortal, however, you still have the possibility to raise objections with the notary public. The proxy holders will now release the votes in the system in line with the instructions they have been given. The voting has just come to an end, and we will start counting the votes. And we will take the votes, the proxy holders and the absentee ballot votes. And as soon as I've got them my availability, I will announce them. I'll interrupt the AGM up until then, asking for your patience. And the notary public will supervise. [Break]

Ladies and gentlemen, we've now got the voting results concerning agenda items 2 to 13. I would like to announce the voting outcome. Let us first talk about appropriation of distribution -- or distributable profit. Here, we had valid votes for 421,244,128 shares, which is 62.29% of the stock capital. The resolution proposed by the Management Board and the Supervisory Board as far as the appropriation of distributable profit is concerned was adopted with 421,197,875 ayes and 46,253 nos, which is 99.99% of the votes cast. And I would like to communicate that the dividend of EUR 0.85 per dividend entitled share certificate will be paid on the 3rd of May 2021. Then agenda item 3. This is approval of the acts Executive Board of fiscal 2020. Here, we have votes for 419,627,724 shares, which is 62.05% of the stock capital. The members of the Management Board in fiscal 2020 have been approved for their activities on the Board with 419,420,778 ayes and 206,946 nos. This is 99.95% of the votes cast. So the acts of the Executive Board have been approved. Thank you very much for your trust, ladies and gentlemen. And I'd like to take the opportunity and express words of thanks on behalf of the Supervisory Board. Thanks for your hard and dedicated work for fiscal 2020. At the same time, please pass these words of thanks on to all the employees who made important contributions to our success. Now agenda item 4. This is approval of the acts of the Supervisory Board for fiscal 2020. Here, we have votes for the 419,093,465 shares, which is 61.98% of the stock capital. The members of the Supervisory Board in fiscal 2020 were granted approval of their activities for fiscal 2020 with 404,189,935 ayes and 14,903,530 nos, which is 96.44% of the votes cast. So I would like to express my gratitude for the trust expressed also on behalf of my colleagues. And I would like to take the opportunity and thank my colleagues for all their support on the Supervisory Board. Now agenda item 5. This is the appointment of the auditor of fiscal 2021. Here, we have votes for 419,631,249 shares, which is 62.06% of the stock capital. So the proposed resolution submitted by the Supervisory Board as far as the election of the auditor for fiscal 2021 is concerned including the audit-like review of the half year financial report and of the interim financial report was adopted with 384,175,029 ayes and 35,456,220 nos. And that is an acceptance of 91.55% of the votes cast. Now elections of the members the Supervisory Board, 10 individual ones. 6.1, for me, we had valid votes for 416,589,100 shares, which is 61.61% of the stock capital. And the proposal submitted by the Supervisory Board to elect [ my person ] was adopted with 385,031,284 ayes and 31,557,816 nos. That is an approval rate of 92.42% of the votes cast. And then the vote on 6.2. Here, we have valid votes for 419,928,429 shares, which is 62.10% of the stock capital. And the proposal submitted by the Supervisory Board to elect Mr. -- or Dr. Hans Bunting as a member of the Supervisory Board was adopted with 418,628,261 ayes and 1,300,168 nos. And that is an approval rate of 99.69% of the votes cast. Now the vote on 6.3. Here, we've got valid votes for 420,865,291 shares, which is 62.24% of the stock capital. And the proposal submitted by the Supervisory Board to elect Ute Gerbaulet into the Supervisory Board was adopted with 416,935,989 ayes and 3,929,302 nays. And that is 99.07% of the votes cast. And then item 6.4. Here, we've got valid votes for 414,602,526 shares, which is 61.31% of the stock capital. And the proposal submitted by the Supervisory Board to elect Professor Hans-Peter Keitel to become a member of the Supervisory Board was adopted with 413,941,166 ayes and 661,360 nays. And that is an approval rate of 99.84% of the votes cast. So 6.5. Here, we've got valid votes for 419,097,633 shares, which is 61.98% of the stock capital. And the proposal submitted by the Supervisory Board to elect Dr. Monika Kircher to the Supervisory Board was adopted with 408,445,621 ayes and 10,652,012 nays. And this is an approval rate of 97.46% of the votes cast. So 97.46% were in favor of her membership. Now 6.6. We have valid votes for 420,336,984 shares, which is 62.16% of the registered stock capital. And the proposal submitted by the Supervisory Board to elect Gunther Schartz to become a member of the Supervisory Board was adopted with 397,947,863 ayes and 22,389,121 nays. This is an approval rate of 94.67% of the votes cast. Now 6.7. Here, we've got valid votes for 420,887,426 shares, which corresponds to 62.24% of the stock capital. The proposal submitted by the Supervisory Board to elect Dr. Erhard Schipporeit to become a member of the Supervisory Board was adopted with 398,207,136 ayes and 22,680,290 nays, which corresponds to 94.61% of the votes cast. Now 6.8. Here, we've got valid votes for 420,811,130 shares, which is 62.23% of the stock capital. The proposal submitted by the Supervisory Board to elect Ullrich Sierau to become a member of the Supervisory Board was adopted with 411,481,089 ayes and 9,330,041 nays, which represents 97.78% of the votes cast. Now 6.9. Here, we have valid votes for 419,936,631 shares, which is 62.10% of the registered stock capital. The proposal submitted by the Supervisory Board to elect Hauke Stars to become a member of the Supervisory Board was adopted with 419,462,254 ayes and 474,377 nays, which represents 99.89% of the votes cast. And then finally, 6.10. Here, we've got valid votes for 419,739,462 shares, which is 62.07% of the registered stock capital. The proposal submitted by the Supervisory Board to elect Helle Valentin to become a member of the Supervisory Board was adopted with 398,761,014 ayes and 20,978,448 nays, which represents 95% of the votes cast. And all the candidates elected have already given us their acceptance of the election. And I would like to again thank you very much for the trust that you have placed in us, and I look forward to committed and constructive collaboration with the existing and newly elected candidates in the best sense of the company. Agenda item 7. Here, we have valid votes for 418,244,593 shares, and this is 61.85% of the stock capital. So the proposal submitted by the Supervisory Board to approve the remuneration system for the members of the Executive Board was adopted with 389,762,812 ayes and 28,481,781 nays. And this is a majority or an approval rate of 93.19%. Now agenda item 8. Here, we have valid votes for 416,615,828 (sic) [ 416,615,823 ] shares, which is 61.61% of the registered stock capital. The proposal submitted by the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board as far as the resolution is concerned concerning the remuneration of the members of the Supervisory Board and the respective Articles of Association's amendment was adopted with 415,159,654 ayes and 1,456,169 nays. And this is 99.65% of the votes cast and is adopted also by the represented stock capital. Agenda item 9. Here, we've got valid votes for 421,136,121 shares, which is 62.28% of the registered capital. And the proposal submitted by the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board as far as the renewal of the authorized capital and the respective management to the Articles of Association was adopted with 409,308,556 ayes and 11,827,565 nays. And this represents an approval rate of 97.19% of the votes cast, and this also represents the stock capital presented. Agenda item 10. Here, we have got valid votes for 421,010,482 shares, which is a representation of 62.26% of the stock capital. The proposal submitted by the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board when it comes to the authorization to issue convertible and/or option bonds, formation of conditional capital and corresponding amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was adopted with 407,567,602 ayes and 13,442,880 nays, which is an approval rate of 96.81% of the votes cast. And at the same time, the stock capital representation approved of the resolution. Agenda item 11. Here, we've got valid votes representing 418,963,361 shares, which is 61.96% of the registered stock capital. And the proposal submitted by the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board as far as the resolution concerning the amendment of the Articles of Association, i.e., by elections under Section 8(4) was adopted with 413,803,130 ayes and 5,160,231 nays. And this is an approval rate of 98.77% of the votes cast, and also, the respective stock capital representation approved of the resolution. Then agenda item 12. Here, we have valid votes for 421,195,596 shares, which is a representation of the stock capital of 62.29%. So the proposal submitted by the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board when it comes to the resolution of the amendment of Section 9(1) of the Articles of Association. Here, we're talking about the election of the Chairperson of the Supervisory Board and his or her deputies. We have an approval rate of 416,032,074 ayes and 5,163,522 nays, which is an approval rate of 98.77% of the votes cast. And there is also respective stock capital representation that supports the resolution. And then agenda item 13. Here, we have got valid votes for 421,183,000 -- I repeat again, 421,183,564 shares, which is a representation of 62.28% of the stock capital, so 62.28%. So the proposal submitted by the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board when it comes to the resolution of the amendment, Section 15(2) of the Articles of Association, this is here the proof of authorization to participate in the Annual General Meeting, was adopted with 421,115,851 ayes and 67,713 nays, which is 99.98% of the votes cast. And at the same time, the represented stock capital approved of the resolution as well. And that means that all the countermotions are dealt with and that they are rejected. So ladies and gentlemen, we are done with the agenda. I'm going to close the AGM in a minute. And then, of course, it's the end of the possibility to lodge objections against the resolutions of the meeting with the notary public via the InvestorPortal. Thank you very much for your attendance via the screens. I would like to thank all the employees who helped prepare and execute the AGM. Without your hard and dedicated work mostly from your home offices, this event would not have been possible in this particular fashion. I would like to say thank you so much for that. The next AGM meeting will be the 28th of April 2022. I would now like to say goodbye. I wish you all the best, and stay healthy. I conclude today's AGM of the RWE AG. And once again, thank you very much for participating.