Our projects are at a very early stage. We have only secured sites and started development work for the projects. We have reduced this work to a minimum so that we can obtain the right for development. The leases for the areas run until 2060. The current US administration is critical of offshore projects. However, we believe that offshore wind will also be needed in America in the future to meet the high demand for electricity.

The advantage of these leases is that there are no time limits for the start of construction. You have to prove that you are pursuing the development. We do that, but with very manageable effort. We are convinced of the intrinsic value of the projects and do not see any depreciation.

The legislative process is still ongoing, so it is too early to conclusively assess the impact on our US business. On the positive side, the bill proposed by the US Senate does not provide for any interference with the tax credits for existing plants and those under construction. This means that our entire existing portfolio and the 3.9 gigawatts (GW) that we are currently building will not be affected. In addition, we have secured capacity for further projects that will enable us to receive tax credits for onshore wind, solar and battery projects that will go into operation by 2028.

In the USA, there is a so-called safe harbour provision in tax legislation. If a project has already started, then the tax regulations in force at the start of the project apply. Let me give you an example: If you can prove that the construction of the main transformer for a wind farm project is already well advanced, then the project is deemed to have started. In that case, the project qualifies for tax credits. For us, the question is therefore rather what will happen to projects when the tax incentives expire after 2028. We see a high demand for green electricity in the USA. Many of our customers are willing to pay more and take additional risks. We therefore expect that the market will adjust in the future and that the profitability of projects will be ensured through higher purchase agreements.

…we believe that the value is still intact.

We are in a business that is very investment-intensive and has a long-term cash flow. Today, we invest in plants with a service life of 20 to 30 years. The best environment is one with long-term stable framework conditions. The current discussions are causing uncertainty. We have therefore scaled back our investment programme and at the same time raised our return requirements. Fundamentally, however, the demand for green electricity has not changed and the business model is therefore also working in America.

These are other risk factors that need to be taken into account when making investment decisions. As part of our risk management, we evaluate possible developments for individual projects and take precautions to minimise the risks. We closely monitor the issue of customs duties. The fact that we started working closely with our suppliers and securing components two or three years ago is paying off here. We also have many local suppliers. The USA is already our most important procurement market for projects there. The risk from customs duties is therefore manageable for us.

Katharina Reiche is addressing the right issues and is reprioritising. She is focussing more on security of supply and cost efficiency. That is a good thing.

We are talking about the energy triangle of decarbonisation, security of supply and affordability. The previous government focused on decarbonisation and thus gave the expansion of renewables a noticeable boost. We also expect the new government to focus more on security of supply and affordability. The expansion of renewables will continue, as they have long been competitive.

We still think it is realistic, but something has to happen quickly now. We have consistently pushed ahead with preparations for the construction of new gas-fired power plants. This includes the fact that we have already optioned contracts for projects with a capacity of 2.4 GW. This means that if we were awarded a contract quickly, these plants would be ready by 2030.

The Ministry of Economic Affairs has announced that the first tenders will be issued this year. The construction of a gas-fired power plant will then take three to four years once everything has been planned and prepared.

…six years means from the start of project development. For us, the development and approval planning is already in progress. This is something we take on ourselves.

The project must be economically viable. Otherwise we won't invest. The gas-fired power plants will not be economically viable without a capacity premium because they will not have many operating hours. That's why it's important to finally introduce a capacity market after the power plant strategy. Incidentally, you don't have to look far for good models. Belgium already has a centralised capacity market that has been approved by the EU. This market also works in the UK.

Yes.

I'm sure you're referring to the plan to convert gas-fired power plants to hydrogen at a certain point in time. This brings us to the issue of cost efficiency. We have the emissions trading system in Europe. This ensures that the prescribed decarbonisation path is adhered to. There is therefore no need for additional requirements such as fixed conversion dates. This is double regulation that only makes everything more expensive. The only way to reduce CO₂ emissions is to adjust the decarbonisation pathway. All additional measures have no effect on CO₂ emissions, but they make the energy transition more expensive and thus reduce public acceptance.

Green financial instruments are still of interest, as are companies that are going green. I compare this with the energy transition in general. While renewables were at the top of the priority list five years ago, the emphasis is now shifting towards security of supply and affordability. However, this does not mean that the issue of decarbonisation is disappearing. The same applies to investors. They still want to invest in green equities and bonds. But they also realise that more attention needs to be paid to the issue of returns.

One of our major investors, who has changed his wording, explained to me: When I evaluate investments, I naturally still look at opportunities and risks. The issue of CO₂ poses a risk. A company that doesn't care about decarbonisation has a higher risk and that affects the investment decision. Green shares and bonds therefore have a lower risk profile and are more attractive investments.

The picture is colourful. Investors have very different interests. There are investors who are in favour of share buybacks. There are other investors who want us to prioritise investments in attractive projects. It is clear that the valuation of the RWE share is low and there is potential for value appreciation. It is therefore important that we only invest in projects if they are economically viable and sufficiently robust.

The investment environment has changed since the end of 2024. We have significantly more uncertainty in the US and this has led us to look at our pipeline and its risk profile differently.

We have taken this development into account in our planning. We knew that results would normalise after the energy crisis. We will probably reach the lowest earnings level in 2025. From there, earnings will grow again due to the commissioning of new plants. In terms of gearing, I expect that we will continue to adhere to our self-imposed upper limit and move towards 3 by the end of the year.

The financing of the current programme is covered by the fact that we will invest less than originally planned in 2025 and 2026. If we decide to extend the buyback programme in 2026, this would mean that we would further reduce our investments. But we'll wait and see how the market environment develops between now and then.

We put the Eon stake up against the brown coal provisions. That's a wonderful asset-liability match. The stake is not available for share buybacks.

The grid expansion in the coming years will indeed require a high level of investment and we are looking at how we can finance this.

As I said, in view of the high capital requirements for the grid expansion, we are examining various financing options. This process has not yet been finalised. The corporate structure of our shares is a purely technical issue and has nothing to do with this.

That is a political decision. I am taking a look at Amprion only. It is a very efficient and profitable company. We like the stake in Amprion.