Ladies and gentlemen. I'm very pleased to welcome all those who are present here and to welcome them personally, and of course, welcome to all those who are connected via the Webex conference. Well, it's quite clear that in face of the terrible war in Ukraine, that we will not only talk about the past fiscal year, but that we try to provide you with some information on our stance towards the war. This is why we've adapted the course of the press conference. Mr. Krebber will come in on that. That is our chief CEO and also Mrs. Seeger. Before we start, I would like to provide you with some organizational information. It's a hybrid event, and all those who are connected via Webex, I would ask you, if you wish to ask a question, please write your name into the chat.
Not the question, but give us your name. During the event, it would be nice if you could mute yourselves so that there will be no interferences. Those who are present here in the room for the Q&A session, please switch on your microphone if you wish to ask a question, then everybody can follow. Also those participants who are connected via Webex. With these introductory remarks, I would like to pass the floor to Markus.
Thank you very much, Steffi. Good morning, dear ladies and gentlemen. Let me say in all honesty that it feels strange to be holding a press conference today on the past financial year when we consider the events that have shaken the world since twenty-fourth February. A brutal war is in progress right in the center of Europe, just two hours away by plane.
It's just as close as Madrid or Athens. We are experiencing a blatant violation of international law, but more importantly, we are experiencing a terrible disaster for 44 million people in Ukraine. They are fighting for their country, for their freedom and for survival. I must say personally that a war right in the center of Europe today was something that I could not have imagined. I had come to take peace and freedom on our continent for granted, and that's why the shock we have all felt in recent weeks is so much greater. We all have friends or acquaintances in private and professional life who have friends, or relatives in Ukraine who are telling us about them fleeing their country with small children. Or they know Ukrainian men who stayed behind to fight for their country. This is all a true burden for us.
We all know the misery and the problems that the people are faced with there. We would like to express our solidarity and the solidarity that we also feel throughout the entire company. My colleague, Nana Seeger, will give you a brief insight into this.
Thank you, Markus. Ladies and gentlemen, of course, the war is an important topic for our employees as well. All of us are moved by the fact that people are dying right at our doorstep, that people have to leave their country to get away from the bombs. I'm from the former Yugoslavia, and for me, this even seems closer because each person who is dying, each missile is something that we experienced and never wanted to experience again. From all the countries in which we operate, we are receiving messages of compassion and sympathy for Ukraine.
Our employees feel this way no matter where they are working for us and no matter where they come from. This also applies expressly to our employees of Russian origin. They are just as horrified, saddened and worried as the rest of us and willing to help. We are all on the same side, on the side of peace, freedom, and democracy. Ladies and gentlemen, in our company, there is a huge desire to help the people in Ukraine, and that's why RWE is currently supporting the aid organizations that are looking after refugees in Poland in particular. Poland is Ukraine's immediate neighbor and is currently the main place of refuge, especially for women and children, because they are the ones who are coming to Germany. More and more war refugees are also coming to Germany, and we're going to help locally as well.
We are providing accommodation support in cooperation with the municipalities in which we operate. We are opening up our in-company job market for Ukrainian workers whom we will actively support along the way. We believe that taking a stance and taking action go hand in hand, and that applies to the situation in particular. We are in solidarity with Ukraine. We are on the side of the free world and are supporting wherever we can and as much as we can. Back to you, Markus, on that note.
Thank you, Nana. Ladies and gentlemen. Since this cannot be a normal press conference today, the agenda will be different than usual. I'll begin with a brief overview of the last fiscal year, and then Michael Müller will provide you with the details.
We would like to give you an insight into how we assess the current developments from a company perspective, with particular reference to the consequences for energy supply and what that means for our company. These are the urgent questions that policymakers, industry, and the people in Europe are focusing on right now. However, let's begin with a review of the past financial year. We already reported several weeks ago that we exceeded our targets for 2021. This was even more exceptional in light of the conditions under which our performance was achieved. We had the extreme weather in Texas last February. We had the disastrous floods in the west of Germany, and the coronavirus pandemic also took a heavy toll on us, and it still does.
We continued to make good progress on expanding our renewables portfolio over the past fiscal year, and I'd like to mention three examples from the offshore business. We were granted the rights for the Danish 1,000-MW Thor wind farm, our northern neighbor's largest project to date. In the U.K., we won the tender for two new adjacent sites for developing offshore projects. The total capacity is 3,000 MW. At the German auction, we secured sites for building more than 650 MW of additional capacity. Offshore wind is one of the cornerstones of the German energy transition, and we are thus all the more delighted with the success in our home market. RWE is taking giant steps in its development, and this has been acknowledged. The agencies, Moody's and Fitch, each raised RWE's credit rating by one notch in spring 2021.
RWE also improved on key sustainability and ESG ratings, which are particularly relevant for institutional investors. We were acknowledged as an industry mover by Standard & Poor's for showing the strongest improvement in our industry worldwide in 2021, and this is just one example. Ladies and gentlemen, RWE is in a very good condition. Everyone here, our entire staff, has worked hard to get us to this point, and it was a strong team effort. On behalf of the executive board, I would like to say a very special thanks to all our employees. I'll now hand over to Michael.
Ladies and gentlemen, I, too, have been left stunned by the images from Ukraine. Let us now take a look at our business performance in fiscal 2021. It was a very successful financial year for RWE.
We are able to confirm the preliminary earnings that we published seven weeks ago. The RWE Group's adjusted EBITDA was EUR 3.65 billion, and therefore passed the upper end of the forecast range of EUR 3 billion-EUR 3.4 billion. Adjusted EBIT was at EUR 2.19 billion. Our forecast had been between EUR 1.5 billion and EUR 1.9 billion. For adjusted net income, we closed the year on EUR 1.57 billion. We had forecast a figure of between EUR 1.5 billion and EUR 1.4 billion. Now let's take a look at the segments. In the offshore wind segment, we achieved slightly higher earnings than in the previous year, with adjusted EBITDA of EUR 1.1 billion. Wind conditions were poorer compared to the previous year.
These were offset by portfolio effects due to the full consolidation of the British Rampion wind farm, and from the partial commissioning of our offshore wind farm, Triton Knoll. In the onshore wind solar segment, we achieved adjusted EBITDA of EUR 258 million in 2021. Earnings were lower than in 2020. The impact of the extreme cold snap in Texas had led to losses of approximately EUR 400 million. In addition, lower wind speeds also came to bear. Earnings contributions from new generation assets, however, had a positive effect. In the hydro, biomass, gas segment, adjusted EBITDA was much higher than in the previous year at EUR 731 million. The very good performance towards the end of 2021 played an important part here. The successful optimization of power plant dispatch paid off in particular. Supply and trading put in an exceptional performance.
Adjusted EBITDA of EUR 769 million exceeded last year's already very good result by far. In the coal nuclear segment, we achieved an adjusted EBITDA of EUR 889 million. Based on these good results, we are confirming our dividend target. We will propose EUR 0.90 per share for the 2021 financial year to the annual general meeting. Our financial position and net worth continued to improve in 2021. As at 31 December 2021, RWE posted net assets of EUR 360 million. In 2021, we continued to invest heavily, primarily in green growth, EUR 3.7 billion gross, or 12% more than in the previous year.
Almost 90% of our total CapEx complies with the proposed green investment criteria of the EU Taxonomy. We finance by far the largest part of our investments from our strong cash flows from operating activities. In addition, we successfully issued EUR 1.85 billion in 2021. We are currently building 5.6 GW of new capacity in 11 countries. Now I will come to our outlook for the current year. We expect adjusted EBITDA of between EUR 3.6 billion and EUR 4 billion in 2022. Our target for adjusted EBIT is between EUR 2 billion and EUR 2.4 billion. For adjusted net income, our target is between EUR 1.3 billion and EUR 1.7 billion. The impact of the war in Ukraine is difficult to gauge, and it's not reflected in the outlook.
You will find details on the forecast and outlook for our segments in our annual report. With that, I'll hand back to Markus Krebber.
Thank you, Michael. Ladies and gentlemen, the German Chancellor rightly spoke of a paradigm shift in his government statement on the invasion of Ukraine, a paradigm shift politically, militarily, and economically. The West, and in particular Germany, are responding by reevaluating the situation in terms of defense capability and equipment for the military on the one hand, and economic relationships with Russia on the other hand. Massive sanctions have been imposed. According to the rating agencies, Russia is now close to state bankruptcy. Many important lines have been cut. The Russian economy is on its knees. This is a consequence of the sanctions imposed by the West, and rightly so, because they are working. I understand very well the calls to extend the sanctions to the maximum. After all, the aim is to support Ukraine by weakening Russia's leadership to the greatest degree possible.
However, we must unfortunately also acknowledge that there is a strong dependence on Russia, especially in energy supply in Europe and in particular in Germany. Sanctions should be chosen in such a way that they can be sustained. Suspending energy imports from Russia would currently have massive consequences due to the high level of dependence. An immediate halt would have an unforeseen impact on household heat supply. In addition, a longer interruption of supply would do lasting damage to production facilities of industry and medium-sized companies. I can fully understand the position of the German government in speaking out against sanctions on fuel supplies at this point in time. There is no question about it, the energy market will change fundamentally as a result of this war. Therefore, it is the right course of action to make our energy supply independent and sustainable as quickly as possible.
Security of supply and climate protection are closely linked, more closely than ever. Ladies and gentlemen, what does this mean in concrete terms for the energy industry? To answer that, we have to differentiate between short-term and medium to long-term perspectives. In the short-term, urgent actions need to be taken to improve security of supply for this coming winter and the following years. The German government has already made some important decisions in this regard. For example, gas storage is to be regulated to ensure levels are high before this coming winter. Similar to the oil reserve, it is envisaged that the state may also become involved in the procurement of gas and hard coal.
In order to reduce gas consumption and to be able to ensure security of supply this coming winter, the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs is currently looking at whether and to what extent coal-fired power stations that are earmarked for decommissioning can be transferred into a temporary reserve. Unlike in the case of supply to households and industrial customers, coal can replace gas in power generation. Here, fuel switching is possible. We are therefore currently reviewing which coal-fired power stations can go back on the grid in an emergency or can stay on it for longer than planned. That will be technically feasible for the hard coal-fired power station in Westphalia. Further lignite-fired capacity would be available. Plants that have either just been shut down or are still on security standby are lined up for decommissioning this year.
I would like to make it clear that the decision on whether this should be done will be made by the German government. If these power stations have to be used temporarily to ensure security of supply, we will reconnect them to the grid for a limited period, or will not decommission them in the first place. However, this does not mean the coal phase-out pause will be ceded. It's not a step backwards, but at most, a step to the side for a limited period. It's not possible today to say with any certainty which specific measures policy makers will adopt, and companies do not yet have a clear picture of exactly what's going to happen either. As part of the critical infrastructure, we are aware of our responsibility and accept it. We are making preparations. Now a word about nuclear energy.
The German government removed from the table the option to have nuclear power plants run for longer than planned. Nuclear power plants will not be able to make any sizable contribution to security of supply for the coming winter. The lead time is too short for that. We too consider the hurdles for extending the operation of nuclear power plants as being too high. It is of central importance to diversify sources of supply for energy and raw materials. On the particularly critical topic of gas supply, the German government is therefore right to focus on the construction of LNG terminals and to become more independent of a purely pipeline-based gas supply, among other things. Just a few days ago, a memorandum of understanding was signed to implement the first German LNG terminal in Brunsbüttel, near Hamburg. RWE will be a strong partner in this.
Well, we put a particular focus here on the subsequent conversion of the terminal to enable the import of clean molecules. Work is currently in full swing to be able to start operations as quickly as possible. Pragmatic actions, swift planning and approval processes, short construction timelines, along with high safety standards, that's how Brunsbüttel can become a role model, also for the faster expansion of renewable energies and the ramp up of hydrogen economy. This is more important than ever. Policymakers are therefore stepping on the accelerator and stepping up the speed. As early as 2035, electricity supply in Germany is to be covered almost entirely from renewables. Expansion paths and tender volumes are to be increased once again. I'm counting on the upcoming Easter Package announced by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, leading to real acceleration and boost in the transformation process.
We need that, and we support it. Ladies and gentlemen, as part of our Growing Green strategy, we're investing EUR 50 billion gross in our green core business in this decade. That's an average of EUR 5 billion per year for offshore and onshore wind, photovoltaic, battery storage, and backup capacity in hydrogen. Now more than ever, we are forging ahead determinedly with this business. In the U.S., for instance, we were successful in the recent auction for offshore lease contracts in the New York Bight. We were awarded a site on which we can develop 3 GW of offshore wind. In India, we plan to explore with Tata Power, one of the largest energy companies in the country, the great potential for wind power projects off the coast of India.
In the Netherlands, we signed an agreement with Neptune Energy to collaborate on the implementation by 2030 of the H2OpZee offshore pilot project for green hydrogen. The targeted electrolyzer capacity is 300-500 MW. We have a particular focus for expansion in Germany, where we want to invest EUR 15 billion into renewables. Here we are aiming to implement every project that's possible. We are making good progress on expanding our local teams for developing onshore wind and photovoltaic systems throughout Germany. We are delighted that many new project developers are joining the team. Ladies and gentlemen, no one could have ever imagined the challenges we're all facing today. It's all the more important to pull together, support each other, and work as one. This is what we're doing at RWE.
Wherever our energy, our knowledge, and our experience can be of use, we will be there to provide the support. As you can see, today's event is very different than usual. This is also true for our Q&A session, in which we probably won't yet be able to answer everything. Let's make a start nevertheless.
Well, thank you, Markus. Before we start with the Q&A session, I'd like to make a comment. Those colleagues who have joined in via Webex are kindly asked to switch on their camera so that the colleagues in this room are able to see you. We would really appreciate that. Now, I would suggest that we start here. Verena Hühning, then Thomas Becker, and Patrick Staatz. Hello. I have three questions. Number one, concerning the delivery stop of gas. How long could RWE continue to operate if this came up? Lignite. You're willing to continue to operate lignite-fired power plants. What impact does this have on lignite mining and potential conflicts? Trading. Uniper had to accept or to take up a KfW loan. You said you wouldn't have to do that, but how long can you continue operating without loans?
Delivery stop of gas. We were never a company that purchased large amounts of gas from Russia. So for us, it is definitely not a problem, but it is a general problem concerning energy supply in Germany. We will have to make sure that we reduce dependence as quickly as possible, but we cannot speculate on how long individual companies are able to do without it. Opencast mining. Well, the power plants would be continued to operate just to support the energy system currently. They might still be in the standby reserve, but we're not going to change our coal exit agreement that we signed based on the negotiations. Liquidity. Well, there are two things you have to distinguish. On the one hand, our midterm investments. We have a very strong operational cash flow that will help us to spend
We were very successful in the bond market. We issued three green bonds. With regard to short-term liquidity, we have sufficient liquidity reserves. We just recently extended a credit line, so we are in a very good financial position.
Thank you, Michael. Thomas Becker, please, from Börsen-Zeitung.
Good morning. I have three questions. Mr. Krebber, you just said that you are not that dependent on Russian gas. Where do you source your gas from? And you also gave a forecast, mentioned you didn't take the war and its consequences into account in your forecast. Do you believe that RWE will benefit, that is, have opportunities from connected to the war or risks? And the LNG terminal in Brunsbüttel, how quickly can this be built? When will liquid gas arrive and there first?
Now, let me start with the consequences on the business. We do believe that the forecast that we gave is the best forecast that we can currently communicate.
Now, with regard to sanctions, energy supplies, and the economic consequences, we can only say that individual scenarios are possible in which the German economy and the European economy is hit even more hardly than it is already. Of course, that would have an impact on us. As an industrial company, we are quite robust, so that I do not believe that the expected results will change considerably. Because of the speed that is required, we've realized that licensing procedures concerning renewable energies might also be accelerated. That may not have an impact on 2022, but on the following years. Yes, I fully agree with you. Very often people say that we are winners in this situation because prices are rising. No, that's not the case. When we purchase raw materials for our power plants or customers, we sell them immediately.
We do not have oil resources or gas deposits somewhere. That's not the case. The raw materials or resources that we purchase are sold immediately. We have to ask ourselves what the situation will look like if we cannot purchase gas. We, like Michael said, we do not expect that we have to accept support. In the longer term, that is beyond 2023, 2024, 2025, I must agree with what you said. We hope that the debate concerning the LNG terminal will also have an impact on the activities and debates concerning renewable energies. We always had the target of accelerating licensing permit processes. Since we want to become more independent of Russian energy supplies, we want to become even more. We've seen a lot more momentum.
Our growth program, Growing Green, is in line with the strategy. At the end of the twenties, we might see a further acceleration of our growth program. I would not like to speculate on this at this stage. Of course, you have to deal with it, but what we have to achieve now is security of supply for this winter and the following years. Your second question, Thomas Becker, concerned gas. The European gas markets are very liquid. We're talking about a European market, not a German market, and we still have 25% of supplies from Russia. The remainder comes from the U.K., from Norway. We have some pipelines from Northern Africa or the Middle East that are transporting gas to Europe, so there's a mix. Unlike other stakeholders, we do not have long-term physical purchase agreements with Russia.
I cannot say how the mix is going to be structured. It's very diversified. Now, concerning the LNG terminal, it's too early to make a forecast. If you built a normal LNG terminal with a tank storage and the relevant pipelines, you would have to expect it to be finished in 2026. However, there might be an accelerated process, and it could be finished one year earlier. You also have to make sure how you build up the infrastructure step by step. For instance, without tanks, because the tanks are the limiting factor. In this case, the bottleneck might be the building of the pipeline, and I'm optimistic that we might even be able to finish earlier, that is, before 2025.
Thank you, Markus. Staatz? Next, is Mr. Staatz, and then there are some questions from the Webex conference.
Some question on gas contracts. Mr. Krebber, can you exclude, like Uniper, your competitor, that new gas contracts are concluded with Russia? Is that excluded for the future? The second question. You pointed out that there might be a risk. That is, what happens if supplies stop? Because there are of course contractual relationships with your customers. Can you then apply force majeure rules or can you comment on that? Well, on our Russia business, I've just outlined what the amount of supplies are from Russia. This is not too much, and we decided that we would not enter into new supply contracts with Russia, be it gas, biomass, or oil, or coal.
Of course, we have stopped all activities with Russian companies. That's the only business that we're conducting with Russia, is really the energy supply contract, which will continue along these lines, also with the support of the government. If the supplies are stopped, I think all lawyers in all companies are trying to comprehend the scenario. Of course, we do not hope that this scenario will come true. A stop of supplies has never been in place. Whether you can declare force majeure and who can do that against whom is not clear. Of course, physically you know where the molecules come from, but there are also financial contracts. These are hedging contracts, and buy something physically and have this compensation via the physical contract.
There's a day-ahead difference whether I buy in the Dutch market, TTF, or in the southern German markets. There are really a whole range of different contract structures. I think all the things that are necessary, and there are contingency plans that need to be looked into. But first of all, as I already said, it's really a matter of securing security of supply. All the force majeure and all the other contingency plans are really virgin land for us.
From the Webex conference, I have Mr. Müller-Arnold from the Süddeutsche and Mr. Witkop and Mrs. Weidner from dpa. Mr. Müller.
Thank you. I hope you can all hear me.
Yes, very well.
Three questions, if I may.
First question: Before the war broke out, we presumed that Germany would need further gas-fired power plants for the certain scenarios. Does that change your strategy? That is, will Germany build fewer gas-fired power plants in the future? Then the second question, the financial question: If we don't look at the surplus, the financial surplus, there is a certain decrease that we're seeing. Where does this decrease come from? And thirdly, you said that you would not move away from the coal phase out. Will you stick to the end date 2038, or do you believe that, despite all the developments we're seeing, that the coal phase out can be concluded by 2030? Mr. Müller-Arnold, thank you.
Well, the first question, it's not a question of having or not having gas-fired power plants. Of course, with the phase out of nuclear and coal, we need flexible backup capacities complementing renewables. The question is the question of fuels. In face of the current situation, of course there is a big question mark whether this is going to be gas or whether there are other alternatives, for example green a green hydrogen or a green ammonia which might be used. We're looking to all the possible options. That is, we need a flexible backup structure. This will remain the same, but the fuel used is something we will have to look into. There's always been in the pipeline that, of course, the backup capacities will be greener all the time.
I think that the second question will be answered by Michael. The third question, it's not really going backwards. Whether or not there will be an acceleration to 2030 or a different date, I think this is pure speculation. I think they do not pay off. What is the matter, and what is at stake at the moment? We need to secure supplies for the next winter and the coming years, and then to become independent from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. If this development is accelerated due to the terrible developments in Ukraine, then we can phase out coal earlier. Our strategy remains the same.
We've always said that also on the basis of our strategy, that is Growing Green, investing into green technologies, it is possible to switch earlier, that is, from fossil fuels to green technologies. Then we're quite optimistic that we really can start earlier than 2038. To be quite clear on that, it's pure speculation at the moment. The adjusted EBITDA, there are incidents which are included which are of extraordinary character. For example, the results on derivatives on the following year. When realizing the derivatives, they are compensated, and thus they correct the overall result. The second driver is fiscally based, that is, tax based.
For example, when it comes to the results in the U.K., this will be compensated, and we have a normalized tax rate of 15%, which corresponds to the average tax rate paid by major companies. These are the two effects which lead to this difference.
Yeah. The next question.
The next question by Mr. Witkop from Montel.
Mr. Witkop, have you unmuted your microphone? Mr. Witkop, unfortunately, we cannot hear you. Let us hear Mrs. Weidner first, and I will call on you later on. I hope you can hear me, Mrs. Weidner. Hello, Mrs. Weidner. I refer to what you're stating in your annual report on the contracting partners, and that you expect that some of them might run into bankruptcy, for example, Novatek, for example. In what areas might this take place, and what the implications will be, and what is the state of negotiations with these contracting partners?
Well, in principle, we have to say that many of our relations or our contracting partners really have contracts with us on energy supplies and the exposure vis-à-vis the contracting partners has risen, thus the risks are increasing. I would not relate this to specific contracting partners and the business partners. For example, we do have partners or supply contracts with Russian partners, but this is not a specific Russian portfolio. This is general risk because the price level is very high, and we manage it in a normal structure way that there are limits. If they are exceeded, then we would stop the interaction with the business partners, and we try to reduce the number of risks.
May I come in on that? The Russian counterpart of the two supply contracts, which we've already published on natural gas and hard coal. Apart from that, our business relationship with Russian partners is nonexistent. That is, a complete default would not have any major financial implications. Okay? Well, I hope that answers your question, Mrs. Weidner. Let's try to contact Mr. Witkop again. Mr. Witkop apparently dropped out of the conference. Mr. Meinke from WAZ. I'd like to talk about electricity prices that are already at a very high level. Do you believe that they will rise further because of the war in Ukraine? Are you expecting a scenario in which the government will take regulatory action? Another question is related to jobs.
If you continue to operate hard coal lignite-fired power plants, that's an area where you normally want to cut jobs. Are you now going to keep people in the company longer or on standby? Could you give us an update on the current job or staff reduction situation? I'd like to understand how much earnings are related to Russian business. How many earnings, sorry, are related to Russian business? Oh, Nana will talk about job reductions. Electricity prices are related to two factors, the gas and the carbon price. The carbon price has recovered after a decline, and it is developing in line with the expectations of climate policy in Europe. It depends very much on the gas price. Markets are operating well. More LNG is being delivered to Europe. That has a positive impact.
We have more expectations, higher expectations, more gas is coming than planned. The gas price has declined slightly, but that's what it will depend on. The probability of how much gas will be supplied from Russia will have an impact on gas and electricity prices in the medium term, until we become more independent from gas deliveries. Now, the current energy price level is very high, and it will have considerable implications for many households. For many SMEs and industrial companies, the energy price level is a true challenge. I'd like to suggest that when you talk about, well, not interventions, but cushioning, I would suggest that market mechanisms should be retained. People are now thinking about saving or switching or maybe just turning down the radiators. Where could other energy sources come from?
Of course, when you have price caps, less energy will be delivered to Europe because it's not that attractive. You'd have to think about how taxes can have an impact, how social hardships are cushioned or alleviated, and that you see where this can be done. I would not be in favor of market intervention because the market is working well, and when prices are high, more supplies are delivered to Europe at the same time. Now, with regard to sales and earnings, sales is almost irrelevant. But we probably don't know how high the sales are because they depend very much on the price level. However, the margin is what is relevant. That's the margin. That's what you earn between purchase and sale. The portion related to gas and coal contracts is negligible. It's almost zero.
You said that you wanted to understand. Well, we purchase and then we sell to customers, and there's a small margin for the trader because he has counterparty risks, default risks. I do believe that our contracts will take these risks into account and that this business will not be positive. We will not benefit from the situation. Well, I'd like to answer the question concerning jobs, especially in the area of coal and nuclear energy. Compared to 2020 and the end of 2021, about 1,150 employees were made redundant, and that's associated with the coal exit and the timeline. Another leaving is planned for April and associated with hard coal, the hard coal exit.
We are also investigating into whether staff will be required from partner companies, from contractors without questioning the outcome of the coal termination law. Nana, thank you. At the same time, while expanding renewables, we are building up jobs in the area of renewable energies. We're growing here considerably. The next person is Mr. Baumer and Mrs. Nasar from S&P. Mr. Baumer, you have the floor. I have two questions. Number one, how do you evaluate the, or assess the proposals of the government on filling gas storage facilities as a gas storage facility owner? The second question is related to coal energy. Could you give us a comment on the result or the earnings in connection with coal production and coal-based power production? Thank you. The government would like us to have high fill levels in gas storage facilities, and that's correct.
Some gas storage owners who are Russian are not able to use their gas storage facilities, and we'll have to see how much intervention is required and how to what extent the market should be able to operate freely. All the details are in the law, and what is important now is to achieve the target quickly, and then you can do some fine-tuning. The general gist is known to us, and this law should be adopted as quickly as possible. Now, coal and nuclear energy, the result from this division is higher than the previous year, but that's related to hedging. The electricity production of our power plants is normally sold two years in advance, and the electricity price level was higher last year than in the previous year, and that's why the result was higher.
The second thing that we realized last year was that we did not have very much wind. The wind yield was low, and we also had high gas prices because of gas scarcity, which led to the fact that coal-fired power plants were used more frequently. The main impact resulted from the higher hedging result. Thank you, Michael. Mrs. Nasher from S&P Global, please. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. A question concerning supply chains and the production of renewables. The dependency on gases out of Russia is to be reduced. Due to concerns on forced labor, imports from China were reduced, and that's why it's hard to get panels. Is Europe now running a risk of exchanging one type of dependency against another? Should production, indigenous production be focused on...
Would you like to invest in local production just like Italy, Enel is doing? Thank you, Mrs. Nasher. The current situation has shown us how interconnected the economic world is. In the area of working conditions, we always had a strong focus on how they were developing, and now dependence on specific countries is an issue. However, if you have time to plan, you can sort things out, rearrange and reorganize things, and it's important to deal with topics such as domestic production. Of course, this is also associated with economies of scale, and green energy should be affordable. We're going to have to pay a lot of attention to where our supplies come from.
Of course, we always want to be aware of the social standards in the respective countries, and we would like to purchase good.
Working conditions. Whether we are going to invest in this area? Well, no, we are technology users. We purchase technology that is available in order to produce electricity, hydrogen, and deliver it to the customers. We have close partnerships with suppliers, with contractors, and I cannot exclude that we might cooperate with individual companies that would like to have certainty with regard to their purchase. We might sign strategic agreements, but we're not going to invest. Next question from Mr. Artinger and then from Mr. Meininger. Artinger from Platow Brief. Against the background of the debate of having coal-fired power plants as reserves, how far has the idea progressed to set up a foundation under public law? What is your attitude and your opinion? Well, in the past weeks, months, there's nothing new. I can only repeat what we've said.
There is no new dynamic development. We know the coalition agreement, only two statements about this. At the moment, in the current situation, I don't think that anybody is thinking about major structurings of the coal phase out. Really at the focus of all deliberations, we see the short-term securing of supply, so no new developments. Mr. Meinke, and then Mr. Witkop has joined us again. Mr. Witkop, following Mr. Meinke. Yes. Let me come back to coal. You said, there are no new structuring deliberations, and is this also true for the idea of the investor group stating that the coal business should be spun off? What do you think of that? And second question, if you say really extend the operation of coal-fired power plants, what does that mean?
They are written off, of course, and if they run longer, then of course they would yield a very positive result for you. How would you use this additional earnings? That is as a, for example, a part of solidarity fund and operate them on neutral operational results. Well, at the moment when it comes to the spin-off of the coal industry, this is not clear, and it's a matter of politics. To have reserves available, they do not operate profitably. It's really a security backup. We make this available, and that incurs additional costs. That is, for example, they need to be revamped when it comes to technology. We need more people, so we will not earn that much money.
As soon as they are operational, we need to think about how long they will be operated. Our opinion is that we would like to adhere to the transformation. Our focus is renewables, and for coal, we adhere to the phase-out plan. If this phase-out period is prolonged, then it's a political decision and that we earn more money on that. No. There's a question on the E.ON. Well, in principle, we need to say the interests of the investor to increase the value of RWE, that well, we do agree on that. The real claim to accelerate coal phase-out, again, here our strategy's unchanged, and we wish to expand renewables, the use of renewables. We do agree in this respect as well.
We are really convinced of our position. If we look at the share price development of the past years and to date, you see that the trend is very positive, and I think that our investors really appreciate our strategy. Thank you, Michael. Then Mr. Witkop from Montel. Thank you. Sorry that I was thrown out of the meeting. No problem. Nice to have you here now. Perhaps you might have addressed it. Perhaps you may come in on the capacity. Normally you would have less in terms of coal gigawatt capacity and reserve in this respect because of the coal phase-out, and lignite coal-fired power plants are reserve and backup, and they need some time to be ramped up again. Is that a problem for you?
For example, that you need a week in advance and now you have a very scarce power market? So really what is the scarcity level in the coal market from your point of view? Well, of course, we're in the middle of the discussion, and we're waiting for the measures, which are called upon by politics. We are really preparing the measures. We're looking to the different power plants and what can be done. You asked about the capacity and to the. The coal-fired power plant which can be extended in operation is really the Westphalian power plant in lignite coal. This concerns units which have just been decommissioned or which are in the process of being decommissioned or which are supposed to be decommissioned in the months to come.
This brings us to an amount of 3.5 GW. If all of this is possible, we don't know yet. We are getting ready. The politics needs to decide whether this is a capacity reserve or will they be used to reduce the level of gas employed. This of course is the basis for our planning, which power plants will be operational or which will be in the backup. We will support the government in every respect possible. Do you see any possibility to save gas? To use less gas? Well, we're at the end of the price curve for gas because the gas prices are very high.
I think 80% of our demand is coupled to industry and to heat consumption. Could we reduce the demand for gas supply? I think this is a very good question, Mr. Krebber says, and this also is a matter for politics. Whether we first need to decide whether this is a question for Germany or for Europe. We have very few gas-fired power plants and don't use very many for electricity generation. Mostly they're coupled with district heating. You explained it quite rightly, that is the gas-fired power plants are at the end of the merit order. But if I leave more coal in the system and I can use them and I can save gas.
If I look at the European perspective, that is, for example, U.K. and the Netherlands use more gas-fired power plants, and there the savings potential is even higher. They are not dependent on the scarcity of the very last gas-fired power plants in the merit order, but they have more flexible structures. Mrs. Hühning is next. Then Matt Oliver from The Daily Telegraph. A question to Mrs. Seeger. You said at the beginning that employees have gone back to Ukraine to fight there. How many Ukrainian employees work for RWE? To Mr. Krebber, the political question, don't you think that something is going wrong in Germany? That is, the Greens are pragmatic and all the others are moral? Yeah. No, let me correct you.
Our employees have not gone back to fight in Ukraine, but they do everything to help Ukrainians. There are 15-50 colleagues coming from the area that is Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, and they are very committed to help people. We do not have anybody there locally. We are trying to support them in their humanitarian efforts, but nobody has gone back to fight the cause. Well, with a view to the crisis, that is what I'm seeing is with regards to the Greens and Reds in the government, what I'm seeing, it's not politics alone, but the society is really faced with major challenges. We see the necessity to get rid of the dependence on Russia.
There are many topics. That is, what about the next winter? How can we accelerate the energy transition? How can we diversify gas supplies? How can we cushion the social repercussions? This is really a workload which is overwhelming. We see a government at the moment seeking dialogue, working really in a very concentrated way, trying to set the right priorities, and really take the respective decisions. Thank you, Markus.
From Matt Oliver from The Daily Telegraph. We were asked to read the question out here. Is RWE holding any discussions with the U.K. government about how it can help reduce reliance on gas next winter? This is the first part of the question. The second one is, are there renewable projects that can be built faster or power stations that can have their capacity increased?
Yeah, Matt, good morning from Essen. Our U.K. team is in constant dialogue with the government. As you probably know also, the U.K. is discussing bringing back coal plants. Our old coal plants are all in the mode of being demolished, so we cannot bring back other capacity than we currently have. Of course, there's an ongoing discussion to also accelerate the renewable build-out in the U.K., and what can be done. Here, especially the focus should be on offshore. I mean, the U.K. is a perfect location with a huge offshore pipeline, and the current bottleneck is a grid connection to the grid on land.
If that can be accelerated, and there are ongoing discussion, there is a newly established working group, as you probably know, to look into acceleration options to connect the offshore wind farms faster to the grid. That would definitely help in reducing the dependency on gas, probably not within the next two years, but the time after.
Thank you, Markus. I have the next question from Tom Keckeno from Reuters, and then Kara Jaeger, Nikkei. Two questions: What do you expect from the Easter Package of Robert Habeck? And when will you decide whether you want to build the offshore wind farm with BASF in the North Sea? Thank you, Mr. Keckeno. What do we expect from the Easter Package? Well, an increase of growth capacities. There are clear figures for onshore, offshore PV, and we also expect the tender procedure, the auctions for the critical part, which is offshore. You have to apply for that. How can this be designed in a way that it's secure, that we can deliver as quickly as possible, and that includes topics such as quick interconnection to the grid.
The third part that we are expecting is a decoupling or specific measures in order to accelerate the procedures and legal actions. Many of the licensing processes are municipal, and it's about pooling competencies, pooling activities, and that's what we expect from the Easter Package. We know the tender and auction conditions. We want to deal, we want to tender for this project together with BASF, and we believe that we are in a good position and might even win this auction in this structure. Many expect that you will be doing this year. Is that correct? That is, take the decision on the offshore wind farm with BASF. Well, that depends when the next auction or tender rounds will take place. We always expected that the project will be connected to the grid in 2030.
Whether it will be tendered for next year or this year is something we do not know yet. From Nikkei. Could you tell us RWE's plan to restart offline coal-fired power plants for energy security? And how much additional generating capacity could you add, and how much would it cost to restart those plants?
Yeah, Kira, thanks for the question from Japan. As we have said, the decision finally will be with the government what they intend to do to increase security of supply in the German, the European energy sector. What we are currently doing, we are looking into the option how much capacity, which specific plans we could bring back into the system or where we could extend the planned lifetime. That is approximately up to 3.5 GW for RWE, but as said, the decision will be with the government. It's too early to say how much it would cost. It would also depend on what kind of regime they want. Is it just for reserve, or do they actually want to run it to replace gas?
I mean, first things first, we need to look into the technical situation, but also look into how many more people we would need to run it, and that goes into the potentially thousands. Then we have a clear understanding what we can contribute, and I think the government will start the discussions immediately and then take a decision in the next weeks.
Yeah. Thanks, Markus. Next question comes from Vera Reuters. This is Eckert from Reuters. Stefanie Eckert. Can you hear me? Yes, very well. I have two questions, one concerning gas, one electricity. Pipeline and storage data are one thing, but it's important to know whether your customers have sufficient resources. Have you received any impressions or data from your customers and whether the industry and the municipal utilities are prepared for winter? And with regard to electricity, my question would be, you sold your electricity for 2022 to a great extent, and has your strategy changed of selling forward for two years? Could you tell us about the quantities that you will be selling in 2022? Now, Stefanie Eckert, I'll start with the second question. But Michael, you probably have more data on hedging.
We sold a lot of our electricity to the industry, to our municipal utilities, and we always sell that in advance. That's correct. Now, whether the strategy has paid off, well, if we hadn't sold this position, we would probably earn money more today. But that's probably the wrong question because at the end of the day, the result is stabilized by selling forward and the high prices. It makes sense for the companies to buy early. They have lower prices now than the market level, and that stabilizes the entire system, and that's why forward buying and selling is the right thing to do. Now, gas, well, here we have a quite mixed picture. The majority of those demanding gas, and that applies to final consumers and industry, SMEs, they mostly purchase two to three years forward.
You have large industrial corporations requiring high amounts of energy that have long-term contracts. For the majority, that is for our final consumers and SMEs, the rising prices will be noticeable over the next two years and might not be that noticeable yet currently. Now, with regard to the hedging rates, we could provide you with more details, but for 2022, we are fully hedged. For 2023, mostly we hedge in two steps. In the first hedge step, we hedge against the essential gas price level that has been fully hedged for 2023 already. In the second step, we hedge against price spreading spreads, setting spreads. The open positions tend to rather be in the later years. Does that answer your question?
Yeah.
Stefanie Eckert? Or do you have another question? I still see your hand. I'm sorry. Price setting hedges, is that what you said? Or spreads? Well, the rationale is as follows. We compare our portfolio to the market. In a first step, we bring ourselves to the level of the electricity market in the first hedging step, and then we sell electricity according to the market level. We've hedged for 2022. With regard to the second step, we still have some open positions for 2023, but not too many. What is the percentage rate for them, the proportion of each? We would have to check that. We'd have to provide you with the details later. Now, we still have one question left from Ingo Meinke. Now, thank you for giving me a chance to ask another question.
You're warning against an immediate suspension of gas supplies from Russia. Would an immediate suspension be dangerous? And if we prepare now and stock up on gas through LNG and longer lifetimes of other power plants, would you believe that we could do without Russian gas if we make provisions and prepare ourselves? Well, Ingo Meinke, it's always a question of the consequences that you accept. An immediate suspension is difficult. That is really hard to cushion, especially concerning the delivery of gas for heating purposes and for the industry. And that will lead. If they are not able to operate, it will have a huge impact on the government, on the economy. The government wants to be independent by 2027, and that includes Europe and Germany.
What we've seen is that you have to distinguish between the energy sources. In the area of coal and oil, it can happen much more quickly, and you can see that the market forces are having an effect. We decided that we would not sign any new contracts, and now diversification starts. With pipeline-based gas, it's more difficult, but this includes questions like how quickly will we be able to build up an LNG terminal, not only one, potentially two. Will our neighbors be building some as well? How can the production be ramped up in Europe? Are the Dutch willing to produce more gas? There's a discussion concerning a gas deposit, gas field off the Dutch coast, which is being blocked by the Lower Saxony, the government of Lower Saxony. If you get...
If you mobilize all these reserves, we might be successful. Everybody's working in the same direction. We're trying to achieve independence more quickly. If we all close ranks, we might be able to achieve the situation more quickly than we believe today. Another question by Thomas Becker from Börsen-Zeitung. Thank you.
Well, the discussion why we're so dependent on Russia and Russian gas supplies and is also due to the fact that Russian gas supplies were cheap. That is for the time being or in the long run. Will we be in for higher prices in general, higher energy prices? Or what is your point of view in this respect?
That's a very interesting question. I would like to take two different perspectives. That is independent of the war situation. If you want to become more independent of, from some suppliers, and this does not mean automatically higher energy prices. You need a contingency plan if the one major supplier is not the one you would like to buy energy from. Of course we would have loved to build storages in Germany, LNG terminals in Germany, but we didn't do that. For example, the storage facilities in the Netherlands or in Italy, they were not fully used. What is missing at the moment is really the extra gas reserves because we're so dependent on Russia.
If we look at the current situation, I just cannot imagine that in the shortest blink of time we would say everything's back to normal and everything runs smoothly. If you presume that we want to get away from Russian supplies, then this means
That this means for Europe, higher energy prices. Once we've concluded the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, this might change the situation. If we could build the renewable facilities much quicker and much more quickly, then the renewable energy generation is much cheaper than the generation of electricity on the basis of fossil fuels. This is a totally different situation today in contrast to what we saw 10 years ago. What we need is a maximum expansion of renewables. It's going to be more secure, it's going to be safer, and it's going to be more cost effective. Now a question from Jean- Philippe Lacour from AFP. Could you comment on the significance of the Gazprom contract?
Well, two weeks ago, we really looked into our relationship with, well, we have a contract ranging around 15 TWh supplies from Russia. We're not going to talk about contracting partners. These are confidential issues in which we would also like to adhere to. But from all gas suppliers, 15 TWh are not too much, and the other major Gazprom contract has been stayed already and there are no supplies, and there are no open positions in terms of any obligations that we might have. Yeah. Thank you very much, Markus. I don't see any further questions neither in the room nor in the Webex conference. Then I would like to thank you for your questions.
Of course, if you have additional questions after the press conference, please contact us, the press office of RWE. I wish you a safe trip home, for those who are here in person and all those who are connected, thank you for watching and asking questions, and have a good day. Thank you, and hopefully see you soon. Thank you.