Severn Trent PLC (SVT) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning. I'm Liv Garfield. I'm joined by Helen Miles and the rest of the Severn Trent senior team. And this is our half year results presentation Q&A session, and we're delighted to be joined today by a broad range actually. We've got some analysts. We've got some of investors. We've got some regulators and some members of the national press. So we've got a full spectrum of interested parties.

Now Sarah Lester, you're up first. So we're going to go to you for the first question, if that's okay?

So I have a question that's a little bit out of left field, please. Essentially, what I'm wanting to do is strip away all the noise and just really zero in on the core of Severn Trent's operational and financial performance. So the question is, if there's only one operational and one financial metric that you would view as the best gauge for how Severn Trent as a business is going, what would they be? And then, of course, how are these metrics trending at the moment?

Very good. Hard questions first off. I shouldn't have gone to Sarah. So if you were looking for this 5-year price review, then the metrics, I would say, for AMP7, it's RoRE, I guess, for this 5 years that you should judge the sector on. That was the way this 5 years was set up was around outperformance on financing ODIs, which are customer metrics, and whether you can deliver the new totex. And the operational metric is leakage. That's the most totemic measure in the sector, consistently over a long period of time. And for this 5-year period, that's the metric you should judge every company on: do they consistently deliver the leakage targets? Ironically, if you were to have asked me the question slightly differently and said for next AMP, I think the world has changed. And I think for the next AMP, just to give you a double question/answer, I think I'd go for spills. It's the metric of the day. So I think I would judge the whole sector and ourselves on spills progress in AMP8. And I think I'd go to RCV growth because that actually successful delivery of RCV growth is around, are you delivering the investment well for the future? And are you delivering it early? So are you getting yourself ahead of the curve? Or are you back-end loading all of the river health improvements? So I'd probably go for 2 slightly different answers depending on which 5-year period you're in. And that's my answer. Very good. Right then. So we're going to go over to -- there we go. So we can -- perfect, you're on screen, Jingjie Yang.

So I've got one key thing to ask is on ODI. So obviously, you've delivered a very good ODI performance this AMP and on track to the highest year for FY '25. My question is on, how do you feel about ODI for the next AMP? And possibly a much better industry-wide performance might drag you down. How do you feel about that?

It's very interesting. So every 5 years, we change into a new reg period, and the advantage of many of the team, having been here for a long time, including myself, is that we know this becomes the big debate in year 5, is people can say to us, "Oh, you can't repeat it. You won't do well in the next 5-year period all the measures we set." And I guess what we said as a team, and I'll get Steph to give some comments on specifics, is that we are actually -- we've been the leaders every year for the last decade on ODIs. And we're competitive people. We want to still lead going into the 5 years thereafter. We're shadow-reporting every metric already. We've done some really good analysis of what every metric is likely to be and what we think the upside rewards or the penalties could be. And so we back ourselves to still perform really strongly in AMP8. But Steph, do you want talk through some of the key measures?

Yes, absolutely. So we're really excited about the opportunity for the AMP8 ODIs. And as Liv said, lots of the bespoke measures we've had this AMP are now comparative measures next year. So we're on the front foot, which is fantastic. Really excited about spills, leakage. D-MeX, we've been top 3 every year of this AMP, so that's good for us. But we are shadow-measuring. We love an ODI here, so we're really getting ready for it. And we know there are a few like water quality complaints where we still need to make step change. But we've done it before. I'm really confident we can do it again.

Very good. Thank you very much. Okay. It's all the ladies this morning. Hot off the -- out of the block. So I guess Jenny Ping, you're next.

A couple of questions, please. Firstly, just in terms of timing, you talked about the first view or first impression call on the 20th of December and then CMD on the 5th of March. I guess we will hear before the 5th of March as to whether you are accepting the CMD -- sorry, accepting the FD or not. And if you can give us a sense of timing around that. And then secondly, just on spills, given the focus for next AMP. Is this something that you're going to be updating us on a more regular basis in terms of your sort of less than 18 per year for '25 and progress as we go throughout next year? Just to show progress because, obviously, the rainfall is difficult to predict, and that may influence the results on an annual view basis. And then very lastly -- sorry, one last thing, just on the energy business. Is there an argument now that Ofwat is really looking at a pass-through? So therefore, going forward, would you reconsider the energy business as part of the core Severn Trent?

Very good. I'm going to divide this up into 4 questions, I think, you've got there, Jenny. Beautifully done. I'll take the first one, which is the dates. I'm going to hand to Helen then to talk about energy. I'll hand to James to talk about what we're going to do in terms of more regular update on spills. I'm going to get Bob to jump in on the rainfall point because we're really clear, we have to manage it regardless of rainfall. We're not going to sit here in a year's time and say it's been rainier or not. It does have a strong influence, but Bob will talk about what we're doing to limit that going forward. So on the dates, 2 dates that are already set, thank you for the plug. 20th of December at 8 a.m. will be our call. So I can add a bit of extra color. So that's the time that we're going for is 8:00 a.m. on the 20th of December will be our -- effectively our first view of the price review, which we receive on the 19th. We will then do a Capital Markets Day, which will be a full-day affair in Coventry, as you say, on the 5th of March. And we've already got the -- we've got plans in place as to what we're going to cover on that day. So we look forward to that. And we'll be -- it'll be great actually to get you all together and for you to meet a whole range of colleagues and get a sense of why we're ready for the following AMP. In terms of accepting, then typically in previous AMP, it's been 6 weeks, has been the time window. So you get your plan on the 19th of December. You've typically had 6 weeks. Whether that's slightly shorter this time around, we'll find out when the plans come out. But we intend to be all over reading our plan within the first 24 hours. So there's like an army of people lined up to understand it. So we'll be all over reading it. So we'd expect to be much quicker than that 6 weeks in terms of how we feel about the plan. And as I said, we'll give you initial reactions on the 20th. So leaving off those dates, which are the exciting dates for the diary, Helen, do you want to talk about energy?

Yes. Jenny, so I think you're referring to the fact that in AMP8, Ofwat have said they will give us compensation if energy prices are higher. And it's linked to the DESNZ index, which is great. It's a real positive given what we've seen this AMP in terms of energy costs, as we all know. In terms of what it means for our energy business, I mean, our energy business, we generate as a group now 66% of our own energy, which is a massive positive for the group. It gives us a natural hedge in terms of buying and selling energy. But it's also really important for our net-zero ambitions and our environmental commitment. So I think that still makes it very, very important. But also, it's -- it generates cash. It's a cash-generative business. It delivers EBITDA to us, which is also important for the group. So from -- certainly, from my perspective, I don't see it as changing fundamentally how we see that business. I also don't think it will prevent us from hedging energy because the DESNZ index, in terms of the way it's built, assumes a level of hedging. So it won't change from that perspective, but a massive positive that we get compensated for really high energy costs.

Very good. James, can we talk about the progress on spills and how we're going to move probably to more regular reporting as well?

Absolutely. So I'm delighted with the progress we've actually made on spills this year, and delivering over 900 solutions within 5 months is incredible testament to the hard work that's gone on within the organization. It's important to recognize though that it has been 18 months of real dedicated focus on how we're going to get to this particular point. We've done lots of surveys across every single site. We've engaged our global partners to really understand what best practices across the world and, of course, engaged our supply chain, but we've been really enabled by our in-house delivery capability. The fact that we insourced our design house a couple of years ago, that's been really fundamental to us getting a fast start into this particular program. And we've also utilized a lot of in-house delivery capability to deliver many of the solutions. What that's given me confidence with, Jenny, is that we will be able to continue on that delivery run rate and, of course, allow us to hit those targets that we've set ourselves going forward. And of course, we will keep you updated on progress at every single one of these and whenever we come out on our investor road shows.

And we might actually -- I think we'll probably move to quarterly reporting on the website as well. So I think there's no benefit, we don't believe, to leaving it to be a backward-looking metric like this is something everyone's very interested in. So we're debating whether we go to monthly or whether we go to quarterly, and that's still a live debate. But you can assume, at least quarterly going forward will be something that we just issue straight on our website and just basically make it less of a kind of set piece moment, and we're really confident in the progress and the performance. So Bob, do you want to talk about rainfall and the impact it does have and how we need to manage that better going forward?

Yes, sure. So I think everyone knows that the weather is changing. We've had much more severe rainfall events. 2022 is very dry, of course. 2023 and '24 have been very, very wet. But we are really clear, our customers tell us in the space that actually regardless of that weather, we need to have a system that works properly. The good news is we've got really decent hydraulic models that help us understand that. And make no mistake about it, we're planning for the wet events.

Very good. Does that cover all the points, Jenny?

Perfect.

Very good. John, we're going to get to you next, John Campbell.

So you delivered 8% real RoRE in the first half of this year. I had a quick look at your presentation. Could you maybe provide a breakdown of where your outperformance came from relative to your 4%, I think, base returns? And then given where we are in the year, I'd be really interested to know what you expect to deliver in terms of RoRE for the full year? That's the first question. Second thing, if I look through your representations, one of the things you asked for was -- in addition to lots of things, but one of the things you asked for was slightly higher rates of RCV runoff. So have Ofwat indicated in any way in your conversations with them, whether they agree with this or not? And the other thing, I think, you asked for was a reverse halo effect on the cost of debt -- on the new cost of debt. Anything that you've had a conversation with them on that? Last question on ODIs. Again, what have been the mood music from the regulator, particularly around your greenhouse gas ODI, which, I think, you made some representations on to Ofwat? What is your view even, Liv, on the end-of-period outcome adjustment mechanism that Ofwat came up with?

Very good. So we've got 3 chunks of questions there. So Helen will give us the fact on RoRE. So let's start there.

Yes. John, so RoRE, just to be clear, the 8% that we -- the over 8% that we're quoting in the RNS is year 4, so that's cumulative to year 4, not the first half of this year. I'm not going to give you guidance for the rest of the year, but thank you for asking, and we look forward to sharing that with you in May. And in terms of how we've outperformed and been able to more double the base return, it's a combination of things. Number one, financing. We have benefited from inflation, but I think it's worth reminding ourselves that even in low inflation environment, we've outperformed on financing for each of the last 8 years. So -- but we have benefited from inflation without a doubt. Of course, ODIs, we're on track to deliver GBP 420 million this AMP. We're the sector leader in terms of delivering ODIs, and that is a huge contributor to our -- contribution to our RoRE performance. And the one area where we're not happy with is on our totex where we have guided to being 1% over on our totex, primarily as a result of energy, which is why it's great that we're going to have protection for that going forward into AMP8. So that's the RoRE summary.

Very good. And specifically on the other 2 areas, then, so I'll just cover the last little bit. I mean on ODIs, we won't know much now until we get to the 19th of December. So it's only 3 weeks away, so it's not long. But effectively, the way it works is you get a series of queries and you respond to the queries. Now the queries can give you an indication, but they only give you an indication. Now specifically on the one you -- so I'll get Shane to comment in a second on OAM because we do support that going into place for the sector. But on greenhouse gases, whilst we don't know what will happen on the 19th of December, we do know that there were a couple of double counts in there, and it didn't -- it was always going to be updated for the most recent data for the '24, '25 data. So I guess it's one of the ones that we just needed to lay out very clearly why ours was different to other people's, but we don't know anything through to the 19th of December. But I'm pretty confident when you look at the evidence that, that would move from where it was in the draft determination. So Shane, do you want to cover off reverse halo, the kind of question on the levers and also the question on OAM?

Yes. So in terms of the levers and the reverse halo, I'll pick that up together, which is we've had good engagement with Ofwat, so both through the queries and bilateral meetings. What that translates to in the 19th of December, clearly, we have to wait. But I think what's important is they've understood the representations and sought clarification, and we provide them additional data. So we feel like we've made our case strongly there. But I think just on the levers, it was levers or a modest increase in the cost of equity. So it wasn't -- you need to view in the package in the round, I guess, John. And then in terms of OAM, so we support this. So when you're introducing new targets and new incentive rates, there's always a degree to which they might be slightly miscalibrated. We saw that in the DD, and Ofwat's trying to fix that. I think what the OAM shows is that Ofwat is listening to the feedback from all the companies that it was weighted to the downside and there's a level of backstop protection. I think if it had been in place in AMP6 and in AMP7 to date, we would have been beneficiaries. So clearly, we support the OAM in its current form.

Very good. James, we're going to you next, James Brand.

A couple of questions from me. Firstly, you may not want to be drawn on this, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Lots of vibes going around, around the final determinations and what might happen, generally kind of positive. But I want to ask you specifically on the cost of equity, if you had any thoughts on whether you think Ofwat will move in that area because I think they made it fairly clear they'll move on totex, ODIs and the cost of debt. And do you think they move on the cost of equity? And also, as I understand, the measurement period was in September. But since then, we've seen quite a material increase in bond yields, whether you think they would take any account of that. So that's the first question, so kind of 2-part question. And then secondly, I just want to ask you if you had any early thoughts on the water commission.

Very good. I mean the first one, as you say, it's not that we don't want to get drawn to it. We just don't know. So effectively, it would be -- it'd be conjecture. Until the 19th of December, then you just don't know, right? So Ofwat does take the very latest data into account. We've seen that in previous price reviews. So I'd be confident that they're looking at every piece of analysis, but it is in the round. So net-net, the way that we're going to look at this on the 19th of December is going to be in the round. Do we think we've got a price review that is good for our customers? And that's going to be -- the only conversation happening on the 19th of December is going to be that. But which subparts that contribution comes from, I think, is less of a focus to us. It's whether in the round, this makes sense for our customers to move forward with. That's the point. On the second part then, the water commission. So early days, but I can give you a bit more insight on it, which is good news. Otherwise, you'd be feeling quite depressed about your 2 questions. So Jon Cunliffe is obviously a class act to have been appointed into the role, massively strong experience, got a good manner working with people. And what I love is that he's clearly taken incredibly seriously. So he's committing all of his time to this for the next, I guess, 7, 8 months. So we've been told that we can expect conclusions, some kind of early readout on the first thoughts maybe in April and then proper kind of like detailed analysis leading through to any follow-on changes needed towards the summer. So end of Q2, but calendar Q2 rather than our financial years. He's going far and wide in terms of lots of meetings. So he's had a series of roundtables. And I love that because when you look actually at the energy that exists publicly on the sector, some of it quite rightly is firmly squarely aimed at specifically us, the water companies. But actually, a lot of it is aimed at river quality. And the water sector as a whole is responsible for a very important part, but about 14% to 16%. So to really improve river quality in the U.K., we need Jon to be doing exactly what he is doing, which is talking to all the sectors that have a much bigger impact than just us on those key metrics. So I think we can expect lots and lots of consultation data that we can expect to be given lots of evidence for us to look at and for us to provide lots of evidence, and it will play out over that 7-month period seems to be the perspective that he certainly indicated to us in the early conversations he's had with us. Very good. Okay, Bartek, we're heading to you next.

Two questions on cost and one kind of a curiosity. Just pushing on those energy costs you discussed before, I just wonder if the first half level of energy cost is sort of the one reflecting the current power prices or there is still a way to go up or down in the future. And on that one as well, I think in the press release, you said you are going to build a couple of solar power plants. I just want -- would like to ask you, what do you think is the sort of return on those solar power plants versus, for instance, your water activities? So that's the first one. Secondly, on your employment costs and quite a material increase in employment costs, if you can tell us where is sort of the cap or where is -- I mean how much is going to peak going forward? And then if you compare your employment costs forecast versus what Ofwat has embedded into the draft determination already, is it fully reflecting your trajectory of employment cost increase going forward? And then the curiosity, it's referring to the video you published this morning on the water tanks attached to households. I just -- again, curiosity, are people somehow incentivized to use those things? I mean do they get some tax incentives? Do they get some subsidies? Do they get some, I don't know, lower wastewater costs so that this kind of thing could be going -- moving and increasing in the future?

Very good. So I'm going to hand -- I'm going to get Helen to answer the energy and the solar. I'm going to let Shane to talk about how we work in terms of the models and the link into the models because there's a really good answer there in terms of Ofwat. And then we'll pick up your curiosity at the end. Okay, so Helen.

Yes. Bartek, so on energy costs, we are hedged. So we're more or less completely hedged this year, and we've hedged into next year as well. And if you look at some current energy prices, the curves are coming down over the medium to long term, so our costs will reflect those curves as we hedge out. We're also hedging beyond the next 2 years but to a lower degree. So you'll see that play out. On solar, we are -- we already have solar. We're investing more in solar. That won't be online yet, but you'll see that come online, and it will impact -- obviously, our generation will impact our net zero and our generation percentage. So -- but that's not coming online for a while yet. And we'll probably update you on that at our Capital Markets Day.

And the reason we think that's good spend is because it's a non-reg situation, and we get good returns. So it's not confusing, the 2 amounts of money. We're not trying having to work out, shall we invest more money in spills with the same amount of money as we're doing on the non-reg, which is solar? So it's 2 different pots, if that makes sense. Good. So I mean you have seen employment costs go up. But it is insourced activity, and it is delivering ODIs, and it's delivering improvements. Shane, do you want to reference...

Yes. So I guess employment costs are largely reflected in your base cost allowance. And so historically, we've been very efficient on base costs, and when Ofwat assessed us for AMP8, again, we were super efficient. So 3 of the 4 price controls, we set the efficiency benchmarks. So I don't think there's anything to worry about in that front.

And then on water butts, there are no tax breaks in the U.K. for water butts, I can confirm. So -- and I'll get Bob to explain why it makes such a big difference on a range of our different metrics. But fundamentally, this is about us educating our customers on the fact that everyone's got a part to play. And that's the interesting thing for us has been going through that process, whether that's on using water during hot weather or whether that's actually on protecting the waste network. But Bob, do you want to bring it to life?

Yes, sure. So I guess we think about fundamentally in terms of reducing spills, there are 3 fundamental ways. You either stop water getting into the network that shouldn't be in there, rainwater or infiltration. You either store more storm water, or you treat more water. And I guess what we're talking about here in terms of water butts is the first one of those. And our customers want to do the right thing, don't they? So they want to be able to store water, both for use in their garden. But the clever thing about these water butts is they've got a hole drilled halfway up. So effectively, it always remains slightly empty to allow some space for that storm event to come in. And our customers are telling us they're keen to help us in that respect.

Very good. Okay. Dominic, we're over to you now.

I enjoyed the presentation, by the way. That was fun. But I missed the first 2 questions this morning. So I was in -- I was obviously focused elsewhere. So apologies if I ask something that's been asked before. I've got 3 questions. Firstly, I'd just like to ask a question about the follow-up on how you're going to accept the FD or not? And you made it very clear that in the round, what's good for the customers, what's workable for you will be accepted. But can I ask, is that going to be the same debate that your Board will have? And do they have a sort of fiduciary duty to accept what's better for shareholders rather than necessarily what's good for whether you can beat it? In particular, if you think you can get a better outturn by going to the CMA, even if the FD is fine, should you not do it? And kind of the extrapolation on that is, particularly with the OAM issue, if there's a, say, material relaxation from sort of a mass referral from your peers, that would have a negative impact on your performance. So is it a little bit more complex than just looking at it and saying, can we beat it? Yes, let's do it. There's some other issues. That's the first question. The second one is probably a bit more simple, so -- which is could you -- I think, one for you, Helen. I think the debt-to-RAB numbers, I'm just sort of intrigued. You've thrown like sort of 3 debt-to-RAB numbers in your presentation, and that's 58.6%, 60.6%, 62.8%. Can you just quickly just go through exactly what -- which one corresponds to what? And then the final question I've got, again, is that when you meet -- so Jon Cunliffe, what are the main areas that you think you're going to tell him that he should be focusing on as part of his review?

Very good. So you're right that, of course, we have to have detailed Board conversations. So that takes place at the January Board meeting. So we've received the price review. We read it straight away. We then read everybody else's. We cross-compare, and then we go to the Board in January. And the conversation, and I've done this -- this is my third such conversation with the Board. The conversation, it isn't different. It isn't as you describe it, I don't believe, because they're quite big decisions to decide that you either think this is the right thing. And it is customers and your investors typically have the same desires, right? So I don't think you can get much between them in a listed company situation. So for our long-term listed company situation, they're going to be the same thing. If the price review is good on the 19th of December for customers and we as a team feel confident that we've given enough money to deliver what we know customers want us to deliver and we're being fairly recognized through the ODIs, so they're fair, then it's going to be the right answer for investors as well. It's going to be our sense. So when value is created in this organization through RCV growth and through long-term outperformance, and that's also typically best created through a constructive relationship with regulators. And all of that will factor into decision-making. But I do think it is different, but you are right. It needs to go through that conversation. I'm going to get Helen to run you through why the gearing numbers come across as slightly different in different moments.

Yes. So I guess, yes, there are a few gearing numbers. I guess the key one to look at, and the one that we talk about is the economic regulated gearing, which takes into account all of the midnight adjustments that we've earned to date. And we've got about GBP 1.4 billion of midnight adjustments in total for the AMP, and the 58.7% reflects what we've earned to date -- sorry, the 58.6%, what we've earned to date. We then got shadow-regulated gearing at 60.6%, which is the Ofwat gearing, which doesn't take into account all of those midnight adjustments, mainly just Green Recovery. And those are the 2 important ones, I would say, Dominic.

And then on Jon Cunliffe for a minute, I did meet with him on Friday, along with the other chief executives in the sector, and the 2 main points that, I think, were discussed on the day is for this sector to be successful to deliver what customers and the public wants, we need certainty, more certainty than maybe we've had, and we need a long-term lens. And I think that means more clarity from government as to what they want as the long term for the sector with more direction. We have strategic policy statements, but they're not particularly specific in this sector. They are more specific in other sectors in terms of targets and ambition. I think we need to move more to that kind of world, and then we need more certainty on a range of aspects. And there was a really good conversation linked to that desire. Very good. Okay. So Ajay, over to you next.

Mine is more about the philosophy when we think going forward for like dividend. I know it's a bit early, and I don't want you to preempt your dividend policy here, but it's more to just understand what's the right level of leverage for Severn Trent going forward? And the last 10 years, RAB growth was smaller, and we had a dividend that was of a certain level. But as we move forward into this more accelerated period of investment, does the dividend need to take that into account that there's more growth, and therefore, just work we've seen in the rest of the sector, say an SSE or a National Grid, there is that kind of debate between income and growth as the opportunities change? I'm not looking for exact numbers there. Just more sort of, how do you think about it? How do we sort of put that into context? Because obviously, we're all going to be making dividend forecast for next year, and the most up-to-date logic would really help.

So you're definitely not going to get exact numbers because I'm not going to get drawn on it, right? So you know that the dividend policy is one of the Board conversations that takes place after the final determination. So that's when it will take place. So there'll be a conversation in January. The only one point I would make is that RCV growth is important as part of that decision-making, but equally, equity raises are very important. So we knew a long time ago that our RCV was going to be a very, very high-growth situation. And that's why as a team we decided to get ourselves fully equity funded for this AMP by doing the equity raise last year. So it's the only insight I'll give you to mull over. But other than, I'm afraid you have to wait until January for us to consider the dividend policy. But again, it's not long. Christmas is frighteningly close, and January is shortly after that.

Okay, so can I just -- sorry, can I maybe add just one slight add to that, which is, would this be like that logic would be that as we get additional growth in CapEx in future AMPs that we just raise equity as we go along for that? Or would dividend be part of that discussion to fit that picture? I'm just trying to understand what do we expect as shareholders when we look at the water sector. Is it sort of every 5 years, we have equity issuances for new CapEx opportunities as they arise? Or do we set the stall out with a more sustained capital structure that then -- that fills for that?

Again, you're asking me to comment on hypothetical situation in 5 years' time. Remember what happens over the course of the next 5 years. High inflation helps us. It degears the business. Really strong outperformance helps us. It degears the business. And excellent totex management helps us. It degears the business. So you can't have a sector view because you've got very different performance in the sector. Not everybody outperforms in ODIs. We do. We carry over a really nice war fund chest, again this AMP. Not everybody has a non-reg business. We do. That again, gives very nice dividend cover. In some years for this AMP, the dividend cover from non-reg has been about 1/3 of the dividend. So again, don't forget that. Again, inflation really helps. When you do your capital in that cycle really helps because you grow early. That effectively degears you as well. So it isn't -- it genuinely isn't possible for me to give you guidance like that. You need to look at each individual company. And if you've got a strong outperformer, which I guess, we traditionally are and we're confident we should be going forward, then that's going to have a very different story as to what those management teams need to do to other management teams that start with a heavily geared situation and maybe a strong track record of average or underperformance. So I honestly can't give you more than that, but I promise you from the Severn Trent perspective, we will be clear on our dividend policy when we get into January. Very good right then. So Martin, I've got a wonderful -- sorry, Thomas, I've got a wonderful detailed question here from yourself. So are you going to read it out? That'd be lovely for me. I've been looking at it in slight horror thinking, this is quite a lot of words. So I'm very happy now that you dialed in, I guess, on screen, and you can share the question in person.

Okay. Sorry about it. So you increased the enhancement totex spending by about 20%, I think, versus the business plan in the response to the draft. And it looks like that's above the rate of increase for, I guess, your listed peers in the sector more broadly. And I was just trying to understand a bit more around what's driving that. Was it driven largely by statutory requirements, which were confirmed post the original business plan? And then secondly, how should we think about that relative increase versus peers? I'm wondering, did the statutory requirements impact you more significantly than peers? Are you perhaps effectively targeting more investment during AMP8, reflecting future statutory requirements AMP9 and beyond and bringing it forward more? Or are there other drivers that explain why yours went up so much more than peers in the sector?

Very good. So I'm going to hand to Shane to talk through this. It's brilliant. Really good question. So I hand to Shane to talk about the specifics of what percentages or what -- how it splits out.

Yes. So in terms of our DD representations, roughly 2/3 related to providing Ofwat with new evidence, so whether it's on our optioneering or cost robustness because they approved every investment case, but where they couldn't assess the costs easily through benchmarks, that's where they wanted new evidence. So that was 2/3. 1/3 related to new requirements or new information, which we analyze and then develop new business cases or update the business cases. And this is typically in areas such as PFAS, where we had new standards or dry weather flow and growth, where we've got new information in data from another year or WINEP. So the Environment Agency kept updating WINEP, and so we had to respond, and we also had some newly designated bathing rivers in our regions. So a whole host of statutory requirements and information. I can't comment on others because I don't analyze the other companies' information, data and stat requirements, but ours is driven from those areas.

And before I ask James, just to comment on the deliverability, we expected it to be at these kind of range of levels, which is why we geared up the organization from a capital perspective to get ready. The one thing worth remembering is that we are slightly further ahead with some of the statutory stuff because of Green Recovery. You'll remember that we won about 70% of the sector's Green Recovery money a while ago. That basically accelerated the whole WINEP on an ongoing forward-looking basis by 5 years because we've effectively done the AMP8 WINEP in AMP7, and that gave us time critically within the reg teams and the environment teams to prepare the evidence for what would have originally been AMP9 WINEP into AMP8. So I think -- and that actually, as you get further on with WINEP, the scheme is more complex, so I guess there is an element where they are larger. So there's probably a little bit of a natural element of some of the outcome from Green Recovery is an increased WINEP program for us, once again, this AMP, if that makes sense as well. Good. James, do you want to just give a few lines on deliverability because that's the key question. And if we've got such a large capital program we've asked for, can we definitely deliver it?

Of course. Great question, Thomas. I guess from our perspective, we're looking at this program, and our sole aim really is to really prevent this feast-famine approach you can sometimes get across AMPs. We want to be able to -- we've got the workforce mobilized, both from supply chain and internally. And we want to keep that workforce chugging along to make sure that we can deliver our AMP8 program. Now we're already at the run rates that we need for AMP8, so sustaining that makes a lot of sense. So in terms of how we're progressing, we've already sort of been discussing with our supply chain and allocate around GBP 3.5 billion of our forward-looking program, much of that driven by the statutory requirements, which you just referenced. And we're already actively working on around GBP 2.5 billion worth of that investment. Now that has been enabled by a lot of the stuff that I've certainly talked about previously in terms of insourcing our own design team, making sure that we diversify our supply chain. But we're augmenting that now with a few other changes. So for instance, you will have seen today, we've announced our mains renewal program, and the fact that we're going to be insourcing or creating a huge team to deliver that program, that will help ensure that we can continue through the AMP and have that capability in-house to deliver that uprated program. So that's just one of the things that we're focused on.

Very good. Dominic, I think you've chosen to come back in. So is it a new fresh question?

Apologies, yes. Just a couple of questions for me. First question, are you happy with how the Special Measures Bill is progressing? And is there anything in particular that we should be -- or you as a senior manager should be sort of worried or pleased about? And the second question is on the CSOs. I think you said it's GBP 450 million of CapEx in your CSOs over the next 18 months. You're going to get down to 18 or less than 18 spills. Can you remind me again what your longer-term targets are for spills? And is your engineering program sort of asymptotic in the -- it's kind of like gets you to that level quite quickly and cheaply maybe and another massive increase is need? Or do you think your current sort of 900 that you're doing and then getting to the rest of your 2,500 will get you to the long-run targets?

There's about 18 questions in there, Dominic, by the way. That is not 2 questions. Let's divide up the 18 questions. So when -- I mean the King's bill is a well-trodden path, right? It's been there through the manifesto. It's been there all summer. There's a series of consultations. I mean I think we've applied to probably 30 consultations a year. So it's just another one of those journeys. So we're just working through that. And there were some good things actually coming out of that. I think more focus on the consumer representation, I think, is a really good thing. So yes, that's fine, just working its way through the process. On spills, which is my favorite topic of the day. So I'll always answer 18 more questions on that. I'm going to get James to bring to life one example of one spill, which is Wanlip, and just shows -- it's probably the most expensive of all of them, but I think it shows you that caught up in getting down to a very low number, and I'll tell you what the targets are in a second. You have got a full range. And you have some of which are relatively good value, and you've got some which are very expensive. And the only way to get us down to our real long-term ambitions, which is to match global best practice of 8, then the only way to do that is to get after all of them. You can't just get after the 923 more complex sites, the trickier sites. You actually have to get after every single site obsessively every single day. So the key numbers you asked for, it's GBP 450 million this year. It's then well over GBP 1.1 billion, GBP 1.2 billion next AMP, some of which will be front-end loaded. So we'll spend next year. So we haven't divided the capital out quite yet ourselves in that sense. So I couldn't give you next year's number. Even if I wanted to give it to you, I couldn't. But we'll be looking to try and spend the CSOs number in the early part of the AMP. If we could, of course, we would. That would be our desire. But I guess I'll get Bob to give you a couple of examples of slightly easy ones, and then I'll get James to give you the Wanlip example, which is not easy. James, do you want to go first with Wanlip?

Yes, can do. So I'll let Bob do the easy ones definitely. Now in terms of Wanlip, Wanlip is one our largest waste treatment works that we've got. It serves Leicester. And if you think about the volume of water arrives at that site every day, not only from the customer base, but of course, from any sort of rain event, we're talking huge, huge quantities of water. In order for us to enable that, we're obviously making a lot of interventions across the catchment itself. But we are fundamentally going to have to make that treatment works bigger to cope with the growth that we're seeing within the area going forward. So we are going to be spending around GBP 250 million, GBP 300 million upgrade in that sewage treatment works. And that's probably going to be the largest program that we do have in AMP8 itself.

Very good. And Bob, and the short-term stuff?

Yes. And the small stuff, I guess, we've got more than 1,000 sewage treatment works, haven't we? So I guess if you think about the Pareto that, a large number of those are at the smaller end. And so that means we can take some innovations that we've had. So we looked at where you can get tanks that you can put out quite quickly and quite cheaply, and we looked at the agricultural sector, actually. So we've been putting out tanks somewhere in the region of 50 cubic meters right up to 500 cubic meters. And we can put those in at a small site, and that will make a massive, massive difference in the near term in some of those small sites.

So I think what we've said in terms of target is long-term ambition is to get to global best practice, which is 8. We've said that we've broadly doubled during the course of the AMP. So I guess we were about 25 when we said that. So 12.5 by the end of the AMP is our ambition to try and get to. The Ofwat target is 14. So take a pick from those targets. But effectively, it's any one of those. And I think what Ofwat set us in their base is to go down 2 a year during the course of the AMP. So to go down from 20 down to 14 over the 5-year period, that feels reasonable to us. So we'd be looking to definitely match and beat those targets. Very good. Okay. Back to Jingjie. Very good. You've come back as well. Excellent, another question.

A couple of things on the government. So presumably, you must have met the Water Minister, Emma Hardy. And what's your conversations with her and the new government team? Can you give us some color on that? And what's the #1 concern for the industry? And secondly, there is -- the government has taken back the contribution of the GBP 50 for the South West Water customers. What do you think this might signal for the whole industry?

So I definitely can't give you any insight on the second one. That's -- I'm here to talk about Severn Trent's result. So Severn Trent's bill is second lowest bill in the land by the way, just to remind you, so I guess it's excellent value across the country, but I can't give you any more insight on that. One the first question, so we have obviously met Steve Reed and members of his team. And I think if you think about a new government, it's partly about getting up to speed to the topics of the day. It's partly about the fact that there is clearly a number of strategic reviews going on. So I think the conversations have broadly been leading into the Cunliffe report, the big commission. It's been in that space. And then sharing with them some of the kind of focus areas that we're working on. We're a wonderful employer in the country of the water sector. So bringing to speed all the stuff we do on apprentices, the activities that we do in terms of training and education has been a key topic. And as you can imagine, spills has been the other big topic because it's the area that the public wants real progress on. And so kind of understanding what the opportunities are and how we can accelerate and fast-track has been an interesting dialogue. Thank you very much. So I think that is all the questions. I haven't got any more on the screen either. So we'll give it just 2 seconds just to see if anybody has got something and they were trying to frantically press the button. And if not, then we're going to call it a day. So thank you very much to my team for all of their hard work over the last 6 months as well as answering all the questions today, and thank you to all the stakeholders for dialing in this morning. Have a wonderful day.