Good morning. Welcome to National Grid's webcast. Thank you for joining us. I'm Angela Broad, Head of Investor Relations, and it's great to have so many of you on the call today. Before we begin, please can I draw your attention to the cautionary statement. I'm here today with Chief Executive Zoë Yujnovich and our CFO Andy Agg. We'll follow the presentation with a Q&A session. Please join via the conference call to ask a question by using star one or use the tab at the bottom of the webcast to submit a written question. All of today's materials will be available on our website shortly after the webcast. Of course, if you have any further questions following the call, please do feel free to reach out to me or to a member of the investor relations team. With that, I'll now hand over to Zoë.
Thank you, Angela. Good morning, everyone. It's great to be here with you for the first time as Chief Executive. Today is an important milestone for National Grid because it reflects our clear strategy about how we deliver and how we grow in a system that is changing fast. We've announced our plan to invest at least GBP 70 billion over the next five years to modernize and expand our networks across the U.K. and the U.S. This investment reshapes the grid to sit at the center of the energy system we now need, one that is more electrified, more digital, and under far greater demand than ever before. We're connecting more new diverse generation and greater demand load faster than ever in our history.
We're building networks that underpin sectors such as data centers and AI, healthcare and defense, areas where reliability, resilience, and speed of connection are now critical to competitiveness and economic growth. Just as importantly, at a time when high energy costs are putting pressure on businesses and households on both sides of the Atlantic, our investments will support affordability over the longer term, while delivering cleaner energy and strengthening energy security. The opportunities ahead are very exciting. We're delivering for our customers and simultaneously driving long-term value for shareholders. In stepping into this role, my priority is simple, to sharpen performance, drive momentum, and continue to deliver safely and responsibly at scale. That focus and discipline underpin the two announcements we've made today, both of which strengthen visibility, confidence, and our ability to execute at pace.
Extending and strengthening our five-year framework with a much stronger alignment between underlying earnings per share and asset growth. Reaching agreement on RIIO-T3, the regulatory contract for our U.K. electricity transmission business. Starting with our extended and upgraded five-year financial framework. Multiple investment drivers support our growth trajectory, from decarbonization and energy security to accelerating demand from data centers and AI, alongside the electrification of all of our customers, whether that be industrial demand or residential. The RIIO-T3 agreement, alongside recent constructive regulatory outcomes in the U.S., gives us increased visibility on required investment levels across the group. This, coupled with our delivery capability and strong balance sheet, gives us the confidence to scale investment without compromising performance or financial strength. It's on this basis that we've extended and upgraded our five-year guidance, further reinforcing our attractive investment proposition of earnings growth alongside an inflation-protected dividend.
We now expect to invest at least GBP 70 billion between now and the end of 2031, a 70% increase relative to the prior five-year period. This will be driven by twice the amount of investment into our U.K. businesses to expand and upgrade the U.K.'s electricity networks, including a near doubling of transmission capacity across England and Wales, and an almost 50% increase in investments into our U.S. businesses as we ramp up CapEx across our gas and electricity networks. This underpins a strong TSR proposition for shareholders with around 10% annual asset growth through to FY31, an upgraded underlying earnings per share CAGR of 8%-10%, with earnings now more aligned with asset growth, and continued growth in the dividend per share in line with the CPIH inflation.
We have a strong balance sheet in place to deliver this and maintain our commitment to our investment-grade credit rating. Taken together, this positions National Grid to deliver with confidence, combining scale, resilience, and long-term value creation. Let me turn to RIIO-T3, where we're accepting Ofgem's price control, a framework that enables us to invest at the pace and scale the system now requires. We've also made considerable progress in preparing to deliver against Ofgem's new incentive regime. The new T3 price control allows us to respond to rising electricity demand and connect significantly more new generation.
Our plans nearly double the amount of power that can flow across the country, avoiding constraint costs and ensuring a resilient, clean, future-proof network that underpins Britain's economic competitiveness and growth in the years ahead. It's been a pleasure to work closely with National Grid colleagues in collaboration with Ofgem and external stakeholders to deliver this landmark agreement. In summary, we've strengthened the framework, secured regulatory visibility, and we're ready to deliver at scale. Let me now hand over to Andy to take you through the detail.
Thank you, Zoë. Good morning, everyone. Let me start with RIIO-T3, where Ofgem have made a number of changes to the incentive frameworks. Firstly, they have de-risked TOTEX delivery with improved protections over the recovery of project costs, including agreeing allowances in parallel with supply chain engagement and made adjustments to cost-sharing mechanisms. Secondly, they have introduced more powerful Output Delivery Incentives or ODIs. These include new incentives for on-time delivery and innovation, as well as the constraint cost incentive. This ODI performance will be recognized as it's delivered, reflecting that the innovation incentive is assessed and awarded in years 2 and 4, and the performance against the new on-time delivery incentive will be recognized as projects are delivered, ramping up over the price control and into the next regulatory period.
We're confident that this price control enables delivery of an overall return on equity above 9% across the price control through a combination of operating and ongoing financing performance. Turning to our five-year framework, which assumes a pragmatic set of regulatory and performance assumptions, including updating to a $1.35 exchange rate and reflecting the latest inflation and interest rate expectations. Under this framework, we expect to maintain comfortable headroom against our current rating thresholds, in line with our commitment to deliver a strong overall investment-grade credit rating. With assets and earnings growth now more aligned, this will support shareholder returns and balance sheet capacity. Looking beyond the next five years, we see continued balance sheet strength and retain the full suite of funding options, including significant levels of unused hybrid debt capacity should it be needed.
This, combined with higher earnings growth, will allow us to confidently deliver this step-up in investment and provide the ability to deliver attractive levels of growth for shareholders over the long term. As Zoë set out earlier, we anticipate that the increased investment of at least GBP 70 billion will drive group asset growth of around 10% per annum over the next five years, and a strong underlying EPS CAGR of 8%-10% from an FY26 baseline. In FY26, the group's performance remains in line with our expectations. Looking to FY27, the first year of the new frame, we expect underlying EPS growth of between 13% and 15%, reflecting higher allowed revenue as we step up delivery from T2 into T3.
Our framework is underpinned by a supportive regulatory and policy backdrop, a significant level of certainty over our multi-year investment program, a track record of delivery, both operationally and financially, and a strong balance sheet. Looking ahead, with expected group assets of around GBP 115 billion by FY31 and with funding clarity, we further enhanced our compelling investor proposition. It will underpin our ability to deliver a strong double-digit total shareholder return through continued strong asset growth, higher earnings per share growth, and attractive dividend yield. In May, we look forward to sharing more detail on how we'll execute our plans to deliver long-term value, how we'll continue to raise the bar on performance, harness innovation, and work in true partnership with regulators, policymakers, and stakeholders. With that, we welcome your questions.
Thanks, Andy. Let's open up the Q&A line, and start with Sarah Lester from Morgan Stanley, and then we'll go to Dominic Nash at Barclays second. Sarah, go ahead.
Thank you. Thanks, Angela. Good morning, thank you for the nice, albeit very straight into it, start to the week. I've got two questions, please, both are related to the drivers and the assumptions of the plan. Firstly, as you spoke to, there is now a better alignment between the asset-based growth and the earnings growth. Even when you account for that EPS step-up in FY27, the implied CAGR FY27-FY31 is still an improvement on the prior 6%-8% range. Is it regulatory DNA, useful lives in the U.K., assumed fast and slow money for ED, semi-nominal WACC in ED?
Just any further details you can please provide on how that better alignment is flowing through would be super helpful, please. Secondly, on the U.S. power generation fleet, just wondering, please, what your assumption is there? From memory, I think there was something about contracts being up in 2028. Thanks very much.
Thanks, Sarah. Let me pick up the first one on, you know, what we've assumed as we look forward. Yeah, I think, as you'd expect, we've made a set of what I describe as pragmatic and balanced assumptions as we look over the five years. I think on ED3 specifically, you know, we've taken some input from what Ofgem have already said in the SSMC around using T3 as the jump-off point. That's given us sort of a good degree of visibility in terms of the, the overall parameters of the financing framework that we're likely to be working with.
Yes, I would expect that things like the semi-nominal cost of debt, which they've signaled, as part of you know, that sort of starting gun, we would expect that to continue. Beyond that, I think it's too early to say, and I think overall on ED3, we've included what we believe is a sensible but pragmatic set of assumptions at this stage.
I think maybe if I could, answer, Sarah, your question on U.S. power generation. I think we are currently engaging in conversations with both the Long Island Power Authority and also working collectively, with the government partners to understand how best to, look at what the best longer-term strategy is for our, generation suite.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Let's go to Dominic next, and then Deepa Venkateswaran at Bernstein after that.
Hi. Yeah, thank you. It's Dominic here from Barclays. Thank you for the presentation this morning. Two questions from me, please. You've painted a positive picture of the RIIO-T3 incentives, and clearly you've accepted it. Could you give us some color on where there were any sort of points of concern or debate that you had internally, where you thought that the RIIO-T3 was maybe a little bit harsh or gave you a suboptimal sort of outcome? The second one is on financing. I guess it is fair to say that there's been a material improvement in your sort of narrative.
I think previously you had said that you were financed until 2031. Now you're saying you are, you know, you've got finance beyond 2031. I believe there's a slight shift in tone on the hybrids now being on top of that. Could you just give us color on what debt to RCV ratio you're now looking at as we get to 2031, please? Thank you.
Thanks, Dominic. How about I take the first and then Andy can take the second. I think in the first, we're pleased that Ofgem have addressed many of the critical points that we had raised in our due diligence response or our draft determination. We had two things that we were working closely with them on. One was around the clarity on incentives, and the second was in the improvements of what we described as workability, 'cause of course, many of the projects are transitioning across the T3 to T2 to T3 plan. We're now confident that this price control does enable delivery of an overall ROE above the 9% across the price control, and that is through a combination of both the operational and the financial outperformance.
I think we're also pleased to see that the outperformance is actually helping us to drive on-time delivery incentives. There'll be a little bit of lumpiness related to some of the innovation incentives which come out in years two and four. Overall, I think we've got much better clarity around how we will ensure that those incentives pay out and are shared between our benefit and the customers' benefits as they manifest themselves.
Okay. Dominic, thanks. On the financing question, yes, you're right that we've deliberately signaled this morning that we now expect, you know, the strength of the balance sheet to extend beyond the current five-year period. As you said, we've also signaled that we expect to exit FY31 with a significant amount of unused hybrid capacity, and we don't now expect to be deploying hybrids within that period. Actually, today, we have only a very small amount left in the existing debt stack at this point in time as well. That's all correct. You know, we think that clarity of the long-term strength of the balance sheet is a very strong element of our overall proposition.
In terms of your question, specifically, I think on leverage, yes, we continue to expect leverage to grow over the 5 years, we continue to expect, you know, overall balance sheet leverage to be up to the high 60s towards the end of the five-year frame.
Thank you.
Thanks, Dominic. We'll go to Deepa next, and after that to James Brand at Deutsche.
Hi. Thank you for taking my question. Congratulations on this new plan. I think my question, I just wanted to deep dive a bit more on the greater than 9% ROE that you're targeting for RIIO-T3. In the past, you've been very explicit about the operational performance. I think in T2 you said 100 bits. Can you at least give us an idea of what you've assumed in this greater than 9%? How much is operational? How much is financing? And you know, where this stacks versus RIIO-T2? I think that's the key question. Thank you.
Okay. Thanks, Deepa. Yes, I think we've looked to give a simple, you know, all-in achieve return. I think that we believe that will be a, you know, a helpful signal. In terms of how you get to that, clearly you've got the base return, as you know, 5.7, out of the final determinations. We continue to assume long run inflation of, you know, around 2%, just over 2%. Then I think in terms of, you know, the breakdown between operational and financing performance, I think we would continue to expect a similar level of operational performance.
You've probably heard from us before, we would expect that to be more evenly split, between TOTEX performance and ODI performance than it was in T2, where it was much more, significantly coming out of TOTEX performance. Then we would expect, you know, continued financing opportunity on top of that. All of that, you know, comfortably gets us above 9%, as we head into this next price control. That's how we're thinking about it.
Okay, thank you. Very clear.
Thanks, Deepa. Let's go to James next at Deutsche and then Mark Freshney at UBS.
Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. Congratulations on the plan. I was also gonna ask. Had two questions for me. The first one was gonna be kinda similar to Deepa's question, seeing as you kind of answered that a little bit already, I guess. I'm particularly interested in, s ee, there were some very strong incentives under the new plan for getting infrastructure built on time. I guess my question is kind of how much of that have you factored in at this stage, and how optimistic are you about those incentives?
Because they could be very high powered, but obviously very dependent on you actually getting the infrastructure built early or on time. How much of those fall within this current period, or do we start to kind of slip into the next five-year regulatory period when you would be getting, I guess, a significant amount of the infrastructure constructed? That's kind of the first question. Maybe if you could just flesh out your expectations in that area a little bit more.
The second question is on the U.S., where obviously, you know, affordability has been quite a big issue recently, and potentially more of a constraint than it has been in the past. You don't appear to have pushed the CapEx plan too far in the U.S., so it's a little bit below my expectations. Is that because you're thinking hard about the affordability constraints? Maybe you could just flesh out a little bit how that's influencing how you set your CapEx plan in the U.S. Thank you very much.
Thanks, James. I think if I distill your first question, I'd sort of look at this more through our confidence around how we can execute against the plans that we have before us. I think it's worth describing as we look to, particularly under the U.K.ET and both with our ASTI projects, but also across our electric transmission projects. I think we've got a significantly enhanced delivery engine that's now been created. Of course, we've got six of our ASTI projects in construction, six more that have been submitted this year, and the remainder in the latter stages of public consultation with some planning reforms that of course are coming in as well to try and help to de-risk the planning aspects.
You will have seen that we have announced quite some considerable progress around de-risking the supply chain, whether that be things like the HVDC or converter station framework that we have in place. You will have seen Sumitomo now announced a factory in Scotland, which was done on the back of the confidence that we could provide for the forward-looking expenditures. We've also got the Great Grid Partnership, where we have a substantial access to contractors and capabilities, things like Murphy's, who have just announced a training facility in the Midlands around overhead lines. We've now got greater confidence that we've got access to the contractor capabilities that we're looking for.
Perhaps I'd finally describe the internal capability in the establishment of our SI Organization apprenticeships, and I think our continuous looking externally around best practices to challenge how we can deliver. I think we've got long-established relationships, both with NYISO, that can help us to manage outages that might be required to do the investments. With Ofgem in helping ensure that the times that are selected for each of these projects is robust and well justified. Pivot to the question around the U.S. There is perhaps just one subtle thing to draw your attention to, which is really around the FX that's been used, which sort of gives a sense that there's a little bit more of a reduction in the U.S. expenditure than I think is right.
We have a number of rate cases that are live before us at the moment, both with Massg as across New England, but also KEDNY and KEDLI in the New York State. I think at the moment, we still see that there's quite some significant drivers of investments that's required. We've also had quite some strong recent rate cases that have landed. I wouldn't take this as a thematic concern around the capital that will still be required. Of course, we will make sure we're efficient in our deployment of that to make sure affordability is well navigated.
Thank you. We'll go to Mark next.
Very much.
To Pavan Mahbubani at JP Morgan.
Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. Firstly, Andy, I note it seems that broadly over the period, you'd have to be issuing new debt or refinancing existing debt to the tune of about GBP 10 billion per year. My question is, what is the interest rate you've assumed on that issuance? Secondly, planning. I accept the bill is about to be passed by the House of Lords, but, you know, my understanding is on the ground, it is in the communities very difficult to get, you know, some of these projects through. Can you talk about how certain you are with regards to that?
Further to that, I found it interesting that you, in the results statement, you spoke about the GBP 115 billion group assets in 2031, but caveated it to regulatory approval, demand and similar factors. I'm wondering if there's any sensitivity or scenarios around the GBP 115 billion that you would raise. Would you expect it to be, you know, GBP 100 billion and GBP 130 billion, for instance? Thank you.
Thanks, Mark. Let me pick up the first one, then I'll hand over to Zoë for the others. Yes, sir, you're right. Just doing the math, absolutely. If you look at the level of new financing required, plus the refinancing, then you get to sort of high single digits up to towards GBP 10 billion a year of debt raising. Since we've given we've updated the five-year frame, we have also updated for our expectations around macro, including also the inflation and interest rates. We have seen therefore a bit of a shift in the curves since we gave the frame a couple of years ago.
I think, you know, I'm not gonna be specific on that as you'd expect because the curves do move over the timeframe, but I can assure you know, we've absolutely looked to use the curves with a sensible assessment of spread performance, and of course recognize that there might be some delta between OpCo and HoldCo financing. Although there has been a shift in the curves as you'd be aware, you know, those get reflected through our regulatory frameworks at operating company debt level, so the impact of those slightly higher rates will gradually feed through just on our HoldCo debt debt element. Just one quick. I'll pick up the GBP 115 billion as well.
No, Mark, we weren't trying to signal anything specific with that language. I think we just recognized that a forecast five years out, there's an element of uncertainty in that, and I think we were just signaling that, like everything else in this world, things can change, but at this point, we believe, you know, 115 is very much our best view of where we would expect group assets to rise to.
Mark, if perhaps I can pick up on your question on planning. I think the way I would recommend we look at this is, of course, planning is one key component of ensuring that the projects are delivered. What is most important for us is to make sure that we can deliver the projects at pace, which ultimately means navigating through them through the entire chain from planning, supply chain contractors, and then of course, execution.
The reason I say that is because, of course, one of the greatest important roles that we will now play is ensuring that the grid that we have in place, given the changes of generation and of course, the increasing demand growth that we're seeing from things like the data centers or hospitals like Royal Cornwall down in Truro, requires that we make sure we deliver the electrification networks. I think, planning, of course, is one key component. I mentioned a moment ago that we are navigating those processes quite well at the moment with six in construction. Six more will be submitted this year, and as I mentioned, the remainder are in the latter stages of public consultation. Any additional planning reforms would come on top of that in terms of accelerating our delivery.
I would like to just reinforce that one of the reasons why it's so important that we look at things like the early opportunities to secure supply chain is that's one of the things around advanced procurement that enables us to de-risk what are some of the longer-term time frames of getting equipment on-site. The way that we're structuring access to a broader group of contractors allows us to more flexibly deploy resources across different projects as they may encounter various planning or implementation bottlenecks. There's a broader opportunity for us to look at this on a portfolio basis around how we make sure we deliver the entire suite of projects that we have.
Thank you. Let's go next to Pavan at JPMorgan, and then we'll go to Harry at BNP Paribas.
Hi, team. Good morning. Thank you for your time and for taking my questions. I have two, please. Zoë, I wanted to pick up on a comment you made around efficient deployment, particularly in the U.S. Can you give a bit more detail today about what you've assumed for any cost efficiencies or any sort of plans, or would anything that comes out of that be additive to the guidance? My second question is on cost inflation. Can you talk about how you're seeing cost inflation in your CapEx, particularly in the U.K.? It would be great if you could give that in terms of the context of the previous GBP 60 billion, five-year frame to FY29. On a like-for-like basis, would we have seen an increase there, or would that guide have still been. Does that guide still stand? Thank you.
Thanks, Pavan. Perhaps I take the first, I'll allow Andy to take the second. I think both in the U.S. and in the U.K., we are seeing opportunities that the regulator are of course encouraging for all efficiencies to be deployed for the projects that we're implementing in the T3 regulatory regime, because of course, we're announcing the acceptance of that today. There is in the incentives, opportunities for efficiencies that we deliver to be shared between our customers and ourselves, which I think helps to ensure the orientation around ensuring that we're delivering enhanced opportunities and efficiencies are well codified. I think in the U.K., we see exactly that same mindset.
The team typically work on a slightly different basis because of course, they don't work with the same outperformance incentives, but the portfolio of projects that we're deploying are established on the basis of what we can efficiently deploy, and the teams have a very strong track record against that.
Thanks, Pavan. On the CapEx question and cost inflation, the reality is no, actually. When we set our original guidance a couple of years ago on the GBP 60 billion, we did work very hard to look forward and project where we saw the significant shifts in supply chain costs. When we look at the move now from the GBP 60 to the GBP 70, it's very much driven by the extra two years, the volume that's come in in those two years, obviously partly driven by the clarity we've got this morning from the T3 decision. We've tweaked here and there for sort of supply chain adjustments, but it hasn't been a significant driver of the increase at this point.
Thank you. Let's go next to Harry Wyburd, and then looks like final question from Marcin Wojtal at Bank of America.
Hi. Thanks. Hi. Good morning, everyone. It's Harry Wyburd from BNP Paribas. Just one question, and it's on the cash components, if I've understood correctly and based on the answer you just gave on CapEx. You know, a lot of, I think, the EPS kind of upgrade or bump has come from the cash components, so semi-nominal WACC and the fast money. I wonder if you could just help us understand how much of these cash component changes are sort of fully permanent forever? Obviously semi-nominal WACC move, and you're kind of assuming that happens in ED3 as well, is it feels permanent. You know, the fast money and the capitalization rates could change in future regulatory periods.
Is there any color you can give us on the sort of roughly 120p of EPS that you're effectively guiding to by FY31? How much of that could be at risk if there's another change to fast money rates in FY31? Can you give us any color on, you know, the breakup of the kind of implied EPS upgrade today into the different cash effects for semi-nominal WACC, fast money, et cetera, versus what you'd previously assumed in your previous frame? Thank you.
Thanks, Harry. You're right that if you look at sort of the impacts of the different regulatory levers that we've worked through with Ofgem as part of the T3 price control, there's elements flowing through. As you said, the semi-nominal adjustment, Ofgem have been keen to look at the fast-slow money split rather than maybe a sort of a fuller review of asset lives this time. And then as I said to the earlier question, yes, I think given what Ofgem have already signaled in SSMC about using T3 as the jump-off point, I think it's a reasonable planning assumption to assume that the sort of the semi-nominal debt will continue.
Beyond that, I think, you know, it's too early to get drawn into specifics about what ED3 will look like. I think it's very early days. As you'd expect, we've made what I would describe as pragmatic and prudent assumptions around where we expect that price control to outturn. As we have with, you know, the U.S. rate cases, Zoë mentioned we've got Massachusetts Gas, we've got KEDNY, KEDLI coming, and obviously there'll be more rate cases towards the latter part of the frame as well.
I think, you know, it's too early to try and sort of get into specifics or to try and break down the elements. Overall, I think we are comfortable. Everything we see before us that the 8%-10% EPS CAGR is our best view. You know, we look forward to working hard and as Zoe said, you know, to deliver efficiently, to make sure we can deliver that in the years to come.
Okay. Thank you.
Thanks. Let's take the final question from Marcin at Bank of America.
Yes, good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. The first one, you are providing obviously a fully updated funding plan to 2031, I do not see any mention of incremental asset divestments. Should we assume that you have conducted a review of your portfolio, at this stage you have concluded that there aren't really any material assets that could be sold or should be sold, or this is still perhaps an ongoing process? Question 2, you are keen to highlight that the company retains balance sheet capacity under this funding plan. I believe on the last full year results call, there was a mention that potentially National Grid could look into some new projects in the U.S., I believe in transmission.
Is there any update on that? Are you still open to potentially go into some new assets and new areas of operation? Maybe question number 3, very quickly, if I might to go back on this review for RIIO-T3 regarding fast money allowances. I mean, if you look at what was initially proposed by Ofgem in the draft determination versus the final determination then the very final iteration that they published, it looks like that there has been quite a significant downsizing of fast money allowances. Could you maybe just tell us why in your opinion, let's say, that final iteration that is now in place is the right one for National Grid and why perhaps the initial proposals were not what you were looking for? Thank you.
Thanks, Marcin. Why don't I take, I think, what I would describe the first two conversations, which are a bit more related to sort of portfolio and funding, then perhaps leave the last question for Andy. I mean, I think firstly, in the FY31, you're right, we haven't as made assumptions around any significant asset disposals. You would expect us to remain prudent in forever looking at the portfolio so that we look to optimize as appropriate. There is nothing in the funding plan at the moment to assume any further portfolio optimization. I think to your point around National Grid Ventures, that is an area where we have demonstrated strong competitive advantage in our interconnectors across Europe.
Indeed, we're looking to extend the opportunity to apply that into the U.S. context, particularly around the federally regulated electricity transmission. We have gone into a number of bids with partners to evaluate whether there are opportunities for us to pursue that. Maybe to you, Andy, for the last question.
Sure. Thanks, Marcin. Yes, I think it's fair to say that we've always focused our guidance and our look forward on what we believe is likely to come out of the determinations and based on our CapEx projections. I know that in December, I think, there was a PCFM model put out in draft which was then amended, which is maybe what you're referring to. I think we said at the time that we should be cautious about utilizing some of that. For us, we're very clear, and we've been modeling based on what we expected to come out, and that's what we're very confident about including in our guidance this morning.
I think, with that, I think I'd like to sort of recap by saying I think we offer a high quality, low risk growth that's ever more valuable in a volatile market. National Grid pairs long life assets, which are the backbone of energy and economic growth with the stable, predictable, and attractive returns. We're in an era of extraordinary opportunity reflected in our new five-year framework, which is underpinned by a business that's already delivering with discipline and ambition.
The growth we're delivering has purpose. It supports the policy goals of our regulators and governments by strengthening security of supply, delivering the backbone of industrial innovation, and ultimately providing better outcomes for the customers and the communities that we serve. Thank you all for listening this morning, and I look forward to seeing many of you again in May.