Good afternoon. This is the oourse call conference Operator. Welcome, and thank you for joining the ERG First Quarter 2025 results presentation. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. Should anyone need assistance during the conference call, they may signal an operator by pressing star and zero on their telephone. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Paolo Merli, Chief Executive Officer of ERG. Please go ahead, sir.
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our First Quarter results presentation. As usual, it's our CFO, Michele. Let's get started with the usual overview of results over the period. I'm on page number four. As mentioned during our web test in March, the system wind routes impacted the business environment throughout the period, penalizing our financial results. The first quarter was still characterized by extraordinarily weak wind conditions across the EU, well below both the historical average and last year. The EBITDA closed at EUR 145 million, down 12% year on year. Again, there were two major effects, say, behind this performance. On one end, the much weaker production recorded during the period on a like-for-like basis.
This effect was only partially offset by the production, the contribution, I mean, from new historic capacity in Europe, with the first powering projects now up and running and the new capacity in the USA, where the asset portfolio is being, as you know, consolidated as of Q2 2024. Despite the higher prices on screens, all in all, the price scenario on a year-on-year basis was just marginally positive, as the lower production resulted in scarce availability of merchant volumes. I mean, all the volumes that were produced were already hedged with CFD, either CFD or PPA. Investments amounted to EUR 115 million, two-thirds related to an acquisition of the Brock & Cross Wind Farm in the U.K., EUR 72 million, and the remaining 1/3 allocated to organic developments, mainly greenfield and repowering in France, Germany, Italy, and the U.K.
Adjusted net profit was EUR 49 million, down 37% year on year due to the already mentioned decline in EBITDA, coupled with higher depreciation and higher financial charges associated to new assets. The net financial position at the end of the quarter was about EUR 1,850,000, slightly higher versus the end of 2024. Michele will elaborate a little bit more on the cash flow over the period. Let me now focus on the extraordinary wind route that has been persisting all over Europe since October last year, affecting our results. The map in the chart shows the deviation against the long-term average of wind speed in Europe in the first quarter. In dark blue are the regions where the negative deviation is larger. It's quite unusual to see a situation like this basically involving all the areas where we have wind farms.
In Italy, according to Terna, and these are public data, wind production on a like-for-like basis was down 24% year on year, and ERG's production was more or less in line with that trend. You can also easily read the statements in different countries highlighting the exceptional wind drought that affected the first quarter. In the chart below, we show the trends over time of our own portfolio in Italy, France, and Germany in the past, say, 12 years. Even though wind availability is quite volatile, we know that with ups and downs, Q1 2025 was unfortunately an exception so far. You see from the chart that was basically the weakest ever experience so far. It's worth mentioning that the guidance we published in March already factored in this generalized and exceptionally negative trend in the EU, at least for the first quarter.
I comment when we're talking about the guidance. Moving to page number six, here I like to underline that despite this challenging environment, we continued to deliver on our strategy over the period. In line with our value-over-volume approach, we pursued growth of our portfolio through selected M&A and organic developments, a mixture of repowering and greenfield in several countries like Germany, France, and Italy. We also made important steps towards stabilizing our revenues, particularly crucial in this volatile price environment. We signed three long-term contracts, PPA, with primary counterparts in Italy and the U.K. On top of that, three projects in Germany for a total of 40 MW were awarded with a 20-year one-way CFD tariff in the last auction.
As far as financing, Fitch has confirmed its long-term rating at BBB- with a stable outlook reflecting and recording the solidity of the group business model and the visibility of its green portfolio. As far as shareholder remuneration, the AGM approved the distribution of EUR 1 per share dividend, which will be paid next week, and renewed the authorization for a potential share buyback plan up to 10% of share capital, thus providing the company with a flexible instrument to be activated during 2025 if necessary. I now over to Michele for his comments on results of the first quarter.
Thank you, Paolo. In Q1, our market prices had been higher than Q1 2024 in nearly all countries where ERG operates. However, as you know, this trend had only a partial impact on our all-in unitary revenues due to the closely regulated nature of our business. In Italy, the wind unitary revenue is EUR 120 per MWh, in line with Q1 2024, despite the increase of the GRN incentive, which is EUR 55 per MWh, against EUR 42 per MWh last year. The higher power market price, the all-in unitary revenues remain stable, offset by shorter margin at lower prices versus previous year. In France, the increase of the unitary revenues refers to the higher market scenario captured by merchant assets, such assets which do not benefit anymore from the two-way tariff mechanism or long-term PPAs.
In Germany, capture prices in Q1 are higher than last year, thanks to the one-way CFD mechanism, which allows us to capture the higher power market price. In Poland, unitary revenues increase in Q1, primarily driven by shorter margin. Romania quoted a lower power price than previous year because the government set the quote-back cap price at EUR 400 per MWh, while during Q1 2024, the cap was EUR 450 per MWh. In the U.K., capture price is around EUR 67 per MWh, compared to Q1 2024, which benefited of higher shorter margin. Note that this figure does not include revenues from balancing services. As regarded to solar all-in unitary revenues, there is a decrease of value in Q1 in Italy due to lower hedging price year on year. In Spain, the capture price suffers the current market scenario with significant profile effect during daily hours.
In France, the all-in unitary revenues are influenced by assets acquired in 2024, which have a lower fit than the plans already in portfolio. ERG plans in the United States have unitary revenue that reflect the PPA prices, so they're stable. Now, a focus on production on page nine. Regarding the first quarter of 2025, the group's overall production has been slightly higher than previous year, primarily due to the addition of new capacity, which offset the persistently very low wind conditions in Europe, as already stressed by Paolo. In detail, Italy's 785 GWh , - 10%, mainly due to persistent low wind conditions compared to Q1 2024. This was only partially compensated by the contribution of new greenfield and repowering assets, 151 GWh in addition. In France, 330 GWh, - 15%, due to significantly lower wind conditions, partially offset by new assets.
In Germany, 125 GWh, - 38%, due to lower wind conditions. Eastern Europe, -1 7%, again due to lower wind conditions. In U.K. and Nordics, 182 GWh , + 10%, compared to last year, mainly thanks to the new asset acquired in January in Scotland. In Spain, 75 GWh, - 6%, due to lower irradiation. The newly acquired plants in the US contributed 285 GWh in Q1, of which 252 GWh from wind. Overall, increase of production out of Italy thanks to investment in new capacity, over 500 MW, that mitigates the effect of an exceptionally low wind quarter in all European countries. In the first quarter of the year, we had an overall EBITDA of EUR 145 million, EUR 19 million lower than first quarter 2024, mainly due to poor windness in Europe, partially offset by revenues coming from new assets.
In Italy, EBITDA is EUR 86 million, lower than last year by EUR 14 million, again due to lower wind conditions, partially offset by contribution from new repowering assets, in particular, coupled with a better price scenario and by the green incentive, as already commented. In France, Germany, and East Europe, a similar trend. EBITDA lower than previous year due to poor wind resources in the quarter, partially offset by higher capture price, with the only exception in Romania, where the back cap has been lowered. U.K. and Nordics, EBITDA is EUR 11 million lower than previous year, mainly driven by lower windness in the U.K. and lower capture price, partially offset by the EBITDA from new assets acquired at the beginning of 2025.
In Spain, EBITDA is EUR 1 million, lower than last year, driven by lower production and lower capture price due to profile effects in daily hours, in particular, and also shorter margin at lower prices in comparison to last year. The contribution coming from U.S. is EUR 14 million and also includes the production tax credit calculated on actual production in the quarter. Let's comment now on the investments. In Q1, we invested EUR 115 million, mainly due to acquisition of wind plants in the U.K. In addition, we spent about EUR 43 million of organic capital, out of which EUR 16 million in the U.K. for the construction of a 47 MW wind project, EUR 11 million in Italy, mainly for our Forest Storage Project, EUR 8 million in France, EUR 7 million in Germany for the completion of a repowering project and the beginning of the construction of some greenfield wind plants.
Let's now move on to the financials, commenting on other items of the profit and loss. In Q1, amortization and depreciation are EUR 69 million, higher than Q1 2024, mainly due to perimeter effect. Net financial charges are EUR 10 million versus EUR 2 million in Q1 2024. In detail, financial charges versus banks and bondholders, net of liquidity remuneration, stand at EUR 5.5 million, plus EUR 3.6 million versus last year, due to perimeter effect and lower remuneration on cash. To complement, of the EUR 10 million, EUR 4.5 million are non-cash accounting items, such as effects coming from tax equity partnership in U.S. portfolio and figurative lease interest expenses according to IFRS 16. Tax rate in the quarter is 23%, lower than 25% of last year, due to a different contribution of various countries to taxable result.
The adjusted net profit of the quarter amounts to EUR 49 million, lower than last year, mainly driven by the already commented extremely low windness in Europe. Finally, let's take a look at the cash flow statement and the net financial position. The net financial debt closed at EUR 1.9 billion, EUR 0.1 billion higher than the end of 2024, mainly driven by the cash generation from EBITDA, netted by the recommended investments of the period. The cash financial charges for EUR 6 million, tax cash out for EUR 9 million, and networking capital for EUR 65 million, mainly due to ordinary networking capital dynamics. Thank you for your attention. Now I leave the floor to Paolo for his final remarks.
Thank you, Michele. Now let's see our guidance for 2025. As you know, the EBITDA guidance given during the last week webcast already took into account the low winds in the first quarter. Fortunately, this trend continued in April throughout most of Europe, although to a lesser extent than in the first three months of the year. Nevertheless, assuming windiness in line with the historical average from now on, we are still confident that we can approach the midpoint of the guidance range. Let me be clear, to reach the upper part of the range, however, we would need windiness above the historical average, basically assuming at least a partial recovery in the second half of the year of what was lost in the first. With this caveat, we confirm our EBITDA guidance within the range of EUR 540 million-EUR 600 million.
CapEx is also confirmed within the range, EUR 190 million-EUR 240 million, as well as net financial position at year-end that is expected within the range of EUR 1.85 billion-EUR 1.95 billion. So, thank you for listening, and we are now ready to take your questions.
Thank you. This is the course call conference operator. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touchstone telephone. To remove yourself from the question queue, please press star and two. We kindly ask you to use handsets when asking questions. The first question comes from Enrico Bartoli of Mediobanca.
Hi, good afternoon, and thanks for taking my question. Actually, I have three. First of all, I'd like to start with your comment on the guidance. You mentioned that in April, and we are seeing also beginning of May that the wind resources continue to be weak. I was wondering what kind of level of load factor you are assuming for the second quarter in your guidance, and particularly what you said that the middle of the range would imply average wind resources going forward to the end of the year. I also was wondering if you can elaborate a bit on, let's say, what are the main drivers of the two, the top and the bottom of the range, if you mentioned wind resources, but if there are also different subjects in terms of prices.
Second question is regarding the upcoming auctions for the FERIX decree, which, if I'm right, should be maybe in June. I was wondering what is going to be your policy for the participation to the auction, as you have 300 MW more or less of wind repowering project already authorized, if you expect them to participate all to the auction, and what kind of level of competition that you are anticipating. The third one is related to the U.S. If you can provide some, let's say, your approach to the one gigawatt pipeline that you have in the U.S., considering the recent evolution with tariffs, the proposal that was made in the Congress recently for the modification of the RIA, if you are actually freezing those projects, or what you are planning for that portfolio. Thank you.
Okay. Okay, Enrico, I tried to answer your questions in the order you posed them. The first, I confirm that in our guidance, already took it already into account the first quarter, the lower production in the first quarter. To come clean on this, April and the first days of May were maybe at a lesser extent than the first quarter, but anyway, well below the historical average. I think you can find, you all can find a lot of news headlines showing this trend. In particular, this morning, on a German newspaper, there is an analysis conducted by the German Weather Service showing that over the last six months, the wind speed was very low in the area of 5.5 meters per second against an average over the last eight years in the region of six and seven meters per second.
If you consider that the production of a wind farm is moving proportionally to two times the speed of wind, you can simply understand that speed, which is 15% less than the historical average, translates into 30% reduction in terms of volumes or load factor. The positive outcome of this analysis, this is I'm quoting, say, the head of department of this German Weather Service, there is nothing related to climate change because similar cases were experienced very back in the past in 1963 and in 1972, 1973. When climate change was not yet on the agenda, say, of everyone, say. It is a very unusual wind route, stronger than the one we have experienced so far.
Still, this analysis, and it's an independent analysis conducted by an institution, a third-party institution, is giving confidence that that could happen, has already happened in the past, but is not or shouldn't be correlated to climate change. For three simple reasons that are mentioned in this article, you can ask Emanuela, our investor related to share this article because it's public. The three simple reasons are, first, as I already said, there have been other two cases in the past, in the 1970s and in the 1960s, so when climate change wasn't there. Secondly, because no more than 18 months ago, I mean the third quarter from September 2023- April 2024, we had seven months of very good and strong winds. Okay, you can remember the results in those quarters. We are not talking about an age ago.
We are just talking about one year, one year and a half ago. Third, which is a more scientific reason, analyzing the data of these eight years because the analysis, as I remember well, the article started to cover, say, the period from 1950- 2024. There have been many swings in these months. For instance, April, there was a long series of data showing very good April and very bad April. This is normal. Your question is more concrete on the guidance. What could be the case for the floor? What could be the case for the cap, say, of the range? As I said, very honestly, now we are slightly below the midpoint because of April, but we have some buffer, say, in our guidance.
We are still confident that if from now on, wind is going to be, let's say, in line with the historical average, I mean the P50, it's very difficult to give you a load factor because it's the sum of mixture of hundreds of plants. But let's say if it's in line with the historical average, and you can measure this with all these institutions that provide this kind of information publicly, then we are confident to approach the midpoint of the guidance, even including maybe some efficiency we can reach from a cost point of view and blah, blah.
To go in the upper part of the guidance, we would need a wind speed that is not at the cap, I said before, of the range, but slightly above the historical average, which basically means assuming a partial recovery of what we have lost during these four months of the year. Very difficult to predict because wind is unpredictable. Still, I repeat, it's normal. This kind, and there is a chart in the presentation showing, and it was the same chart for the fourth quarter showing the fluctuation of our portfolio and production. This graph is on a like-for-like basis. There is no weird comparison. I mean, we are just comparing the same assets, and you can see that there are up and down all over the wind of time analyzed. FERIX, yes.
FERIX, we expect the first and unique, the only, I mean, auction for 2025 to take place before summer. Probably the last bid should be submitted within June or July, something like that. We expect to take part of the auction with three projects for around 150 MW. It's not said a little bit less, but it's not said, I mean, that we are going to win and award the tariff because we expect a competitive auction because remember that we have been waiting for three years. I mean, the sector, all the operators have been waiting for three years this auction. There is a long queue of already authorized projects. Second, you probably have seen the Decreto Ministeriale, the ministerial decree that followed the FERIX through which the ministry set the amount of the curve, I mean, the offer curve.
They expect to assign, apparently, a limited amount of megawatts for wind. The target is 300 MW, even though the national plan would ask the country to install 4 GW of wind in 2025. Let's see. I don't know if it's a strategic approach to stimulate operators to keep the bidding prices as low as possible. Let's see. We don't care, I mean, about the approach. We have our value over volume approach. We will submit those projects at a level, I mean, a CFD level, which is consistent with our target return. Of course, within the range of the FERIX that I remind everyone is from EUR 70- EUR 95. This is the range in which operators can offer their capacity. Let's see what's going on. For the time being, we are quite happy with the construction undergoing.
We have 130 MW that should enter into operation in 2025. We have some MW, 30 MW that are already in construction that will enter in 2026. On top of that, we recently approved investments about three projects in Germany, 40 MW that were awarded a CFD between EUR 80 and EUR 100 per MWh . Those are the real CFD in Germany. You will probably read on the screens 69, 68, but then there is the correction factor that is always positive, raising, say, the tariff in Germany. In France, the same. We have a couple of projects that were awarded a tariff, and the tariff, again, 20 years CFD are in the region both of EUR 90, something like that. We want to move step by step. I mean, value is coming first, then volumes. This is the approach, which is exactly the same for U.S.
You ask for U.S., our approach hasn't changed. We want to buy assets that are fully secured, in particular in this uncertain environment. I mean, the administration moves up and down or back and forth, and we still are trying to understand the direction in the U.S., even though we believe the U.S. is a great market where to be because it's a market not based on CFD, but based on private negotiation, all made of all PPAs. It's a nodal market. Whenever you have a longer supply in no time, I mean, industries and consumption will rise around that nodal because it's convenient to buy energy from that nodal. We believe it's a true geographical diversification, the U.S. We still are looking for growth there, but at our conditions. We are not in a hurry, so we will wait for the right conditions.
Thank you very much.
Pipeline, Enrico is still there. I mean, we have this partnership with Apex. We share that there is still room to work together. We have to find the meeting point between supply and demand, but we are working on it.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
As a reminder, if you wish to register for a question, please press star and one on your touchstone telephone. Once again, if you wish to register for a question, please press star and one on your telephone. The next question is from Francisco Sala of Banca Akros.
Good afternoon. Thank you for taking the question. I just have a question and clarification on slide number 14, especially I wonder how we should model the networking capital for the rest of the year.
If we should assume a similar trend for the remaining three quarters of the year or if we're going to see some kind of stabilization on possibly a lower level. Thank you.
No, no. This is something that is very specific of this quarter. We had some movement at the end of the year related to the CapEx of some project in construction. So we do not expect to have this kind of movement for the remaining part of the year.
Thank you.
The next question comes from Davide Candela of Intesa Sanpaolo.
Hi, good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for taking my question. The first one is related to Italian regulation and the fact that the regional ministry court expressed a negative view with regards to the area done. So I was wondering what's your view on that.
Basically, I believe that the region should have less autonomy in deciding where are these areas. I was wondering if this could change the things about authorization and so on. Just a view on that. The second question was related to the load factors in wind, and I was interested in the slide number five you showed. Of course, the CEO already talked about that, but I was wondering if also there are the possibilities for the wind production to keep up there, let's say, May from the data you are seeing. I do not know if there are some effects on the prices with regards to this low wind production in the sense that the low wind, the low supply could drive the prices up and so compensate a little bit this negative effect you are having.
Thank you.
Okay. Let's start with the Italian regulation.
You had been some pronunciation about the Arizona in favor of the operators because the operators were complaining exactly what you said about the fact that the ministerial decree gave too much power to the regions to set the go/no-go areas for renewable installations. Take, for instance, the example of Sardinia that basically issued a regional law that basically prevents operators from installing any megawatts whatsoever and wherever. There has been a lot of claims appeal against this decision and this regional law. We are happy of the decision because they ruled in favor of the operators supporting what we were saying. We are not happy because we are losing time. This creates a big mess in the courts from a judicial point of view, juridical, sorry, point of view, expenses for lawyers, a lot of time spent in reading all the documents and blah, blah.
Still, it's a process for us. Permitting in this moment is not the main priority. The main priority is to find the right business case to yield the right return on our project. Of course, we have one project and probably has been mentioned over time many times, a very nice project in Sardinia, which is a quite big one, 100 MW of onshore wind. It's powering. I mean, there is already another plant there with towers lower for sure than the new ones. There is a big fight, let me say, from ourselves supporting the quality of the project and the region that still hasn't issued the authorizazione unica. Again, the administrative court ruled in our favor imposing the region to issue the authorizazione unica.
We are waiting, for instance, in this case, we are not taking part with this project to the next auction of FERIX because even though the administrative court ruled in our favor in the Italy case, we still need to gain clarity on this. As I always said, repowering is like a good wine. The more you wait, the better the return is because right now we are running on the existing asset that is performing well. The area done is still an issue to be settled. That is our opinion. It is very important. In particular, one of the points in the ruling, which is very positive, is about the areas so-called, I do not know how to say, but we call them excellage. I mean, areas where there are already plants up and running. In these areas, new installations should be allowed by definition.
But for instance, according to the regional law in Sardinia, this is not the case. They changed retroactively the destination of those lands. This is an important point to be clarified because if it's all, I mean, all the powering projects would be possible. Let's wait and we think and hope that this matter should be cleared, I mean, in the next months because if not, there is a stupid slowdown of the deployment of renewable. Which is the other one? The load factor. The load factor. And possible impact on prices. Prices are strictly correlated, in particular in countries like Germany where 60% of production comes from renewable, strictly correlated to the. Say when there are no resources, prices tend to go up. Actually, we couldn't benefit from higher prices since we have 80% of our volumes basically covered either through PPAs or CFDs.
If the volume's contraction is higher, the first production that you are going to lose, given the lower presence of resource, is the merchant volumes. The ones that are exposed to the merchant price. Whenever the volumes aren't there, it's difficult to benefit from higher pricing. In fact, in the first quarter 2025, prices were high, but we didn't have merchant volumes in order to reap the benefits of those higher prices. Yes, in May, wind can come back, if I remember well, a point you touched because one year ago happened exactly the same. I repeat, from October 2023- April 2024, incredible wind. Continuously all over this window of time. Then abruptly disappeared, and we are still there. Long period of strong wind, long period of weak wind. Can change without any alerts, let's say.
I hope to have touched all your points.
Yes, thank you. Maybe if I can ever follow up, that is a high-level question, very difficult maybe, but I was wondering which are the conditions for you for the renewal market to change in the sense that likely you will need more stability in returns and so on, but which are the conditions to move for that stability in returns? Related to that, if a competing market like a pure renewal company in your view, of course, from ERG point, but is less remunerative than rather being integrated, or is it just a perception and just about how you compete in the market and how you close the volumes and so on? Thank you.
Thank you for your question. Based on the current environment, for sure, being integrated can provide an edge against this volatility having retails.
We decided to go this way because we believe in the energy transition in the medium-long term. The main element you asked me, which is the most important element to get all the energy transition story a good one, is the electrification of consumptions. I mean, the end. If Europe, also from a regulatory point of view, will be able to push in that direction and other areas of the world are going in that direction because the electricity demand all over the world is growing at a pace which is double compared to the GDP, except Europe. If Europe, as continuously stated, will manage to electrify through electric vehicles, heat pumps, hydrogen, data rooms, crypto coins, all data centers, and so on, as it is happening in other parts of the world, for instance, China, Asia, and also the U.S., absolutely, the energy transition is there.
At some point, I think some adjustments from a regulatory point of view in terms of price mechanisms should be found because the renewable got the investments, the capital intensity, but then they haven't got, say, variable costs because wind and solar is for free, fortunately. We have to, I think the regulator should adjust this price mechanism either through CFD and PPA, but extend it not just to the new asset, but also to the existing assets in order to obtain what everyone is asking for, the coupling. The coupling is possible just if made at European level because Europe should be a single market, but with the right mechanisms. This is not yet there, but I think we need to go there. That for us is the game changer of the energy transition. Sooner or later, it should come.
Thanks.
The next question is from Emanuele Oggioni of Kepler Cheuvreux.
Good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation and for taking my question. The first one is on acquisitions. The general high-level question on the current situation. If you consider the current situation more interesting for you as a buyer of assets in renewables, in brownfield existing assets compared with one year ago, a few months ago, what is the situation and update? Some players, for example, said that it is a buyer market, so favoring the buyers more than the sellers, so could be a positive environment or not? What is your opinion on that? Second point is a clarification on the auction in Italy. What is your expectation about the number of auctions? Probably only one auction will be called before summer, probably, or do you expect also a second auction?
In any case, your approach, value over volume, means that you could attend the first one in which the competitive level pressure could be probably higher, but the second one or next year, etc. I have another question on the U.S. market, an update on this market. Basically, you've stopped the CapEx, the development in the US. If there is an update compared with a few months ago, what is your outlook on this, when you could restart the greenfield project, the list, or acquisitions in this case? Finally, a question on the supply chain. Due to the current trade war, what could be the implication on your cost, CapEx per megawatt for both photovoltaics, solar panels, and wind turbines? If there is some implication, do you expect it in the coming quarters? Thank you.
Okay. If I counted well, there are five questions.
I tried to follow in the order you touched them. M&A, I think you noticed that we became a little bit more selective, not because before we weren't, but because we have completed the, I mean, the transformation. We reallocated the proceeds coming from the disposals of the gas plant and the hydro plant. Now we still have firepower from our balance sheet, but we are not in a hurry to replace the EBITDA we lost from the disposals because we did it. To be honest, now we have a higher EBITDA than we had before or we were supposed to have before. We are quite happy, and we are just looking for the right opportunities.
You said, if I remember well, you mentioned the bid-ask and the bid-ask is getting larger, for sure, market, because, as you said, we are moving from a seller's market to a buyer's market or anyway, something in the middle because the buyers would like to be a buyer's market and the sellers the other way. There is always a midpoint in between demand and supply. We are trying to find the right one, the right one, and this is valid in Europe, but as well in the U.S. In the U.S., we are not now, I'm moving to your last point. We are not developing greenfield. We have a co-development agreement with a developer in the U.S., and the developer is in charge, say, of developing greenfield and closing the business case with PPA and tax equity partner, tax equity scheme, and blah, blah, blah.
And our model is as simple as that. We are buying at the commercial operation date. We are not bearing any construction risk, regulatory risk, and blah, blah, blah because our strategy, and we were very clear since the beginning in the U.S., is grow and learn, or if you want to change or learn and grow. Growing safely and in the next few years, be focused on knowing the market, all the knowledge and competencies to become then an independent, say, asset owner in the US. Auction, I've already said, we expect just one single auction in 2025. It's a matter of technical times. Probably the bid-ask will be closed within the summer. The awarded projects will be announced probably in September or late September.
There is no technical time to manage another auction within the end of December 2025 when the current FERIX decree is going to expire because this is a provisional temporary decree. We are quite confident that based on the same rule, a couple of auctions will be taken in 2026. Honestly, as I already said, it's fair enough to expect the first auction to be oversubscribed because there are a few projects that have been waiting a lot of time for this auction. Maybe the right tactic is to wait for the second auction. I remind all of you that the previous scheme, so-called Decreto 2019, the RES Decree 2019, the first auction was super oversubscribed and then undersubscribed all the following. This is a trend we could expect similar.
I mean, we do not expect all the auctions oversubscribed as the first for the reason I said before. Supply chain, I don't know, Michele, if you want to say, but still, we are not experiencing a reversal in the capital intensity in wind, solar a little bit, storage a little bit, but not something that can change the picture for the time being. No, in Europe, we don't see any material disruption of the supply chain for the trade environment. Consider that more and more relevant percentage of our CapEx is made by local content. So the DOP part of our investment is becoming more and more relevant, and so it is less influenced by this kind of dynamics.
Having said that, we see an environment in terms of CapEx per megawatt quite stable in solar and wind, still decreasing in storage, but in storage, we do not have any additional projects in construction right now, just the first battery project that is in construction in CC, but that was contracted one year ago.
Okay.
Gentlemen, at this time, there are no more questions registered.
Thank you very much for attending, and next time will be before summer for the six months' results. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining. The conference is now over, and you may disconnect.