Okay. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am John Dawson, Head of Investor Relations at National Grid, and it's my pleasure to welcome you here today to National Grid's first half results presentation for 2012-'13. Shortly, I'll hand you over to Steve Holliday who will kick off the presentation. But before I do, a few notices. Before we start, can I please ask you, as usual, to turn off your mobile phones, and as usual, we will have a question-and-answer session at the end, could I ask you to you to use some microphones, and please state your name and organization. In today's presentation, Andrew and Steve will refer to various profit and other measures, unless otherwise stated, these will be adjusted for timing of storms and all operating profit and interest costs are at constant currency. Finally, our presentation today may contain forward-looking statements. I need to draw your attention to the cautionary statements in the presentation and in your pack and at the start of the online presentation for those dialing in. Please refer to these when you consider our comments today. Just a reminder, you will find all of the materials for today's presentation and additional fact sheets on our website and on our Investor Relations app. Without further ado, let me hand you over to Steve.

Thank you, John, and good morning, everybody. The running order for today begins with a few comments from me, on the highlights from the first half, and Andrew will take you through the details, details of our financial performance for the first 6 months. I will share a few thoughts about the general progress that we've made and the development of our longer-term financing strategy. I'll then return to talk about our progress against this year's priorities and the outlook for the rest of this financial year. Nick Winser is with us today, as usual, but Tom King is not, for a change, and I'm sure you all understand that Tom rightly has stayed in the U.S. this week. We delivered a good financial performance over the first 6 months, excluding last year's impact from Hurricane Irene in the U.S. and the normal swing in timing. Profits before tax is up 15%. On a similar basis, operating profit from the first 6 months are up 7%. As a result, after interest and tax, overall earnings increased by 14%. These are pleasing results, and while there's more we can do in the second have to build on this progress, they clearly provide a strong platform for good full year. I'm pleased to announce that the board has approved a 4% increase in the dividend to 14.49p per share, in line with our policy for this year. As we previously said, we expect to announce a long-term dividend policy at the latest with our full year results in May, of course, subject to the U.K. RIIO process having concluded. This is an important year for our businesses in both the U.K. and the U.S. Securing appropriate regulatory arrangements, embedding down significant organizational changes, are key actions on both sides of the Atlantic.…

Thank you, Steve, and good morning, everybody. I'm going to cover 3 areas today. I, first, will look back at our results for the first half of the year then I'll look -- give you a brief update on our technical guidance for the year before finally giving you my perspectives on some of our key finance priorities over the past couple of years. First, the results. We saw consistently strong performance from all of our main businesses. Operating profit in our U.K. Transmission business was up GBP 75 million or 12%. This reflects increased revenue due to RPI and investment, partially offset by higher depreciation and controllable costs. Gas Distribution profits were up 6%, again reflecting RPI. Profitability in our U.S. operations grew by GBP 79 million or 19%. This was largely driven by higher revenue, mostly including the deferral recoveries in Niagara Mohawk and lower bad debts. These were partially offset by increases in controllable and other costs lines. Other activities saw profits reduced by GBP 63 million as a result of the sale of OnStream and costs related to our U.S. systems and finance process changes, which I'll talk about a little bit more later on. At a group level, operating profit increased to GBP 1.6 billion, which if you exclude health -- timing and the impacts of last year's storms, saw a healthy increase of around 7%. So we've had another good 6 months of operating performance. We've grown revenues, maintained really good controls over controllable costs and made selective investments for the long-term growth of the business. Minimizing controllable costs remains a priority. In the first half, the absolute increase was GBP 33 million or 1% in real terms. This movement is mostly due to increased support needed to support the capital investment program here…

Thanks, Andrew. During the first half of this year, our focus has been centered around, as you'd expect, the main priorities that I laid out in May. Each of which have important implications, not only on the next 6 months, but on creating the platform for the future. I just want to take you through each of those in turn. On the U.K. regulatory process, I've already shared a few thoughts about the process and our progress to date and the approach we've been taking as we work towards an appropriate conclusion early next year. The next key date is the publication of Ofgem's final proposals on Monday, the 17th of December. Given the complexity of these, covering 6 large regulated businesses with current assets in excess of GBP 20 billion, we will need to study these very carefully, particularly against the context of our extensive and thorough response in early October. And you shouldn't expect to hear our conclusions until we've not only fully assessed all of those details, but we've also made ourselves comfortable with the significant amendments that are being made to the licenses. This will take some time. In the U.S., our focus in the last 6 months has been to take on Niagara Mohawk and Narragansett businesses through the rate filings, with the objective of securing outcomes with a suitable focus on efficiency and customer service and allowing us to deliver market-tested returns. If we achieve this, we'll be able to make further good progress towards raising the overall returns across our U.S. business. With the Narragansett's gas and electric case, I'm pleased that we've reached a settlement agreement. In fact, hearings start today with the Commission and our scheduled hearings today and tomorrow. Assuming a smooth process, this will result in a decision in…

Okay. I'll take a piece of that and then pass this on to Andrew. This is a good question around these costs. The capital costs of the SAP system are in the U.S., and indeed, are apportioned across rate base by rate base and the ongoing operating costs of that system are in those entities as well and are part of our filings that we've been going through during the course of this year. Somewhat exceptional one-off cost associated with all the training activities is the cost that Andrew referred to that we've kept out. That is a one-off cost to put in place the processes that we, as a company, have decided we want in place. Your second question on financing, you can pick it up, Andrew. But there isn't anything that's changed here, Mark, about the various different opportunities we have to think about and consider on how we can finance the combination of continuing to deliver yield for investors and grow the business. We've been pretty clear about it, and we really need to understand RIIO, have been through that, and all the rate processes before we can be crystal clear about that strategy in May next year.

Yes. I mean, just on the IT systems costs. That's about 1/2 of the GBP 63 million reduction in other, that is, principally, training costs. There are about 20,000 employees we're training. Under the accounting rules, that is an expense rather than can be capitalized. And the reason why we put it in the corporate center charge is because that won't be recoverable from regulators as we move forward. The regulator element, as Steve said, or the recoverable element is in the regulator business. So these are one-off charges. You should expect the costs to be lower in the second half and actually not to recur in future years, so that will almost disappear. And second item -- other items there, obviously, is OnStream. It's about GBP 12 million. It was there last year and not there this year. It's a small reduction in metering and property, which is lumpy as you can expect because it's dependent on transactions was down year-over-year. As regards to the financing strategy, as I said, I mean, I think the thing we have to maintain is the balance between the ratings, dividend policy and knowing how important the dividend is to shareholders. Obviously, that is critical from a shareholder value perspective and growth. We will look at that in the context of options around value and way -- best way we can actually finance it, be it from the debt markets, be it other financial instruments, be it from ownership of entities and so forth. So that is all part of that review. At this point in time, the portfolio has been -- actually benefits us by actually having the right mix between cash -- consuming assets, such as our U.K. Transmission business and cash generating businesses like our distribution businesses in the U.K. and the U.S. That balance is important if we are going to maintain the right level of yield going forward. So that's all part of the mix, but we'll update you again, as we said, probably no later than May next year.

Jonny Constable from Nomura. Two questions. Firstly, on the storm costs relating to Long Island. Please can you give us a bit more of a steer on how we should think about the scale of these costs? And what would the process look like to recover those costs? What kind of time scales might we be talking about? If you could give us any insight into how that maybe breaks down into the different ways that you recover those costs or expect to recover the costs. Secondly, just coming back onto the financing policy and just zooming in on the bit of your statement about an appropriate dividend policy. I was just wondering if you -- I know we're going to have to wait for the financial strategy, but it'd be great if you could give us a bit more of, I don't know, maybe your guiding principles and how you think about what an appropriate dividend would look like.

No, Johnny. I'm not being facetious here. I think we've given more than enough guidance. And Andrew just reiterated in terms of -- we know who our investor base is. We understand how important the dividend is for an equity investor in this business. This is about getting the balance right between how much that dividend should move in the future and how much opportunity we've got to invest in very attractive businesses, of course, to grow the equity value of the business and how those things are financed. That's all in a post RIIO. We'll come back and make that very, very clear in May, at the latest, as I said. That's providing that the RIIO process, of course, is complete by then. In terms of the storm, and I am very clear this morning, what we've been worried about, and the reason why Tom is not here with us today, is making sure that we are helping people. And we are going way beyond helping people get the electric system up. We have employees of ours whose homes are destroyed. We have over 40 of our employees whose homes are destroyed, and they're coming to work. They've been working 16-, 18-hour days helping with the storm response. So the absolute focus has been rightly, and continues to be, on restoration. Now actually, we're moving from restoration into repair now. Because you restore power, some of those restorations are temporary, so now under LIPA's guidance, we will go back and put repairs in place. And there's a difference that Andrew was talking about earlier, of course, we own -- our investors own the assets in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Upstate New York and those gas businesses downstate. There are businesses and there are costs, and they get actually recovered through regulation as you know. We're a contractor on Long Island. The assets are owned by the Long Island Power Authority, LIPA, and we're contracted to provide a service to LIPA, and of course, we lost that contract. So our focus is very much on a couple of things right now. First of all, getting from restoration to repair, and doing more than our job, helping people who are in serious trouble, who've lost all their possessions, all their homes, and that's working with lots of other authorities, and then we've got to get back to the day job as well of helping transfer that contract during the course of 2013, because it actually ends as far as we are concerned at the end of next year. And we've got to do a really good job in the course of next year in transferring that contract, so the ball is not dropped between us and PSEG, who picked up the contract. Even your people, Andrew, have been involved.

Yes. I mean, at this stage, it is far too early for us to put an estimate together, we are still actually working out and through the process of restoration. We have people out in the field, even the finance staff, so it's hard for us to do an estimate. We are -- I don't have enough clarity around that to be able to give you a number today or any confidence that, that number will be right. We've given you an indication in the release, the number of crews on site and the length of time which indicates it will be a multiple of what we incurred as a result of the Hurricane Irene last year. As far as recovery is concerned, those are mechanisms which we have in place of LIPA, and we don't expect any difference from prior periods relating to those.

Which is not the focus. The focus just has to be right now in doing everything we can. It's very hard. We're in London right now. This is a war zone almost on the south coast of Long Island. Out on the Jersey Shore as well, people's homes are gone. There are stories that are going to come out over the coming weeks, I think, just going to be heroic stories, actually, of what many of our employees have been involved in, many of the contractors who have been working for us. People came down from Nova Scotia and have been sleeping in tents on Long Island for 2 weeks and working 18-hour days. It's just an incredible event, it really is. I'm very proud of what -- all people who have been helping us have been doing -- 15,000 people on the island that's where the focus is, at least, to be at the moment. Bobby?

I have a couple of questions. The first one, I appreciate you don't want to get into this cost issue in Long Island, but just so I understand the mechanism clearly, it's a -- you have a contract with LIPA, and therefore, there are clear contractual closes and mechanisms to pass costs onto the owner of LIPA. Is that the right way we should understand it?

We are the contractor for LIPA, very clear. Hurricane Irene last year, you can see how those -- how those mechanisms work, but just shouldn't be talking about this right now frankly. I'm not trying to be awkward. I think it's important -- when people have lost their homes and we still got today -- we still got 8,000 people who haven't got power back. We've got 30,000 homes and businesses that power is there, and we've got to work with lots of authorities, something that would dry their homes out, and dry their businesses out, so they can get back to normal. And that's what we really need to think about today, Bobby, I think.

Okay. So swapping back to the U.K. then. Can you talk us through in a bit more detail the operational changes, the reorganization is seeking to put in place and some of the benefits that we should expect from that?

I'm looking forward enormously to doing that, and I think that, that is going to be the subject of a seminar next year. What I wanted to do today was flag 2 things, I think. One, it's clearly this RIIO process is not finished. Until we have the final proposals, there is still a lot of uncertainty. But the structure of RIIO, the incentives and the way that TOTEX is treated is very clear. And that has been -- that principle is laid down and is clear. So we've already began to make some adjustments about how we think about that in the future, how the alignment of the organization is on the future. There's another piece in here, of course, is that our role as a system operator has been evolving over recent years considerably. We no longer just operate the system in England, Wales and Scotland, we operate the offshore as well, and we have a design authority role in terms of thinking about long-term transmission strategy. So we've got to think about how we get our focus organizationally on that, and then of course, those EMR and how we ensure that all the separation is appropriate in EMR. So there are lots of threads that have come together that cause us to adjust the U.K. organization, and we will come back, I assure you, during the course of early 2013 and run people through a lot of detail about that.

So maybe I can try for the third time if I'm lucky then. If you get the settlements that you're discussing in Rhode Island and New York, the difference between your position and the staff's position in all of these cases does not appear to be anything like the difference that we've seen in prior rate cases, when we were talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of difference on OpEx, for example. Does that mean that if these settlements were agreed, and I appreciate that they haven't been agreed yet, you're more confident that -- or you are either confident or more confident that you can deliver those allowed returns?

I think that's what I said in my remarks. This is a settlement agreement that I believe and Tom and the team believe has got the balance right between what we need to invest for customers, the cost of running those businesses for customers and our ability to deliver those allowed returns. If we do all those things well, you're exactly right, those are what we expect. But they are settlement agreements at this stage, they still have to go through the process of getting final approvals. Dominic?

Dominic Nash, Liberum Capital. Two questions, please. Firstly, on RIIO, what would you like to see changed from the interim proposals to the final proposals? And second, on the debt rate on the EUR 1.2 billion this year, what was the marginal cost of debt? And is that a trend that we could succeed -- see continuing in the medium term as you refinance your existing debt and add new debt in?

Obviously, I'll let Andrew pick up the second part of that, although, there's a very important part of that because that feeds into your first question. RIIO is 8 years. There's a huge implicit risk in 8 years clearly about the ability anyone has to have a crystal ball. So I'm not going to go through our October 1 submission to the consultation of the initial proposals, that would keep us here for the bulk of today, because there's an enormous amount of detail in there, frankly, because there were a -- number of areas that we felt very strongly we needed to ensure that Ofgem -- we think they misinterpreted or perhaps, we haven't done as clear a job, we drew out our -- these were big complex plans. We're on the huge complexity on a number of areas yet again on the 1st of October. But there are kind of 3 big headings really. The first of those is financeability. So that’s the linkage in here. We need to finance these businesses so they can deliver for customers and we can invest for customers. Andrew's remark on the Maple bond was very important. That bond could not be issued if those businesses weren't single A. So the financial strength of these businesses through this 8-year period is a huge part of our consultation response on the 1st of October. So a lot around the financing. Second area is around some cost allowances. As we said in July and we said in our response, we found very hard to understand. We have been building gas transmission pipe in the U.K., we've built the Milford Haven pipeline, we've built the pipeline across the Pennines. We know what it costs to build pipe in the U.K. We know where steel prices are, we know labor costs and actually, et cetera, et cetera, and the complexity of some of the planning requirements in the U.K. as well that are very stringent. The allowance that Ofgem came back within those -- in those initial proposals was 47% below our experience. So there's a lot in the consultation therefore about evidence around the world about the cost of building pipe. And there's a similar story actually around compressor cost to replace gas compressors on the system. So there's some -- a particular area around the cost allowances and then there are a whole bunch of things around efficiency. In our original plans, we proposed a series of initiatives and delivering efficiency for customers taking costs out of our businesses, and we believe we've had some gaps in understanding, I think, of what was embedded in the base plan. So those are the 3 major areas. I'm sure you've read our consultation. It was very fulsome. There's a lot in there. We've been engaged with Ofgem. We now need to wait for the final proposals. Finance, Andrew?

Financing. I mean, obviously, financing. I mean, the index that will be -- going to be given under RIIO is broadly a 10-year index, so it depends where you are on the curb against that. So if you're issuing short-term money today, and you look at the spot on that index, you should do slightly better. But obviously, you are then taking the risk that over the 10-year period or 12-year period, you're going to have some catch-up later on, and it's going to hurt you in the longer end. We do a mix of financing, so it's not comparable, but we do measure ourselves against the spot. And that's the focus for Malcolm and the treasury team, to make sure that we're not in a situation, as we balance out the financing, where we're above the spot on the index, because that's obviously the critical strike point against the allowance. So that's the focus we do.

And the absolute rate?

The absolute rates -- the Canadian bond was unattractive and at the lower end of the scale, but that's a 5-year-money, so therefore, it's not directly comparable. So we're not comparing like-for-like.

Jamie first, then Iain.

Jamie Tunnicliffe from Redburn. I was interested in the comment about the surprises that you'd seen during the RIIO process. I think you said that, Steve. Is that mainly related to those sort of cost allowances where you're just saying it doesn't match up with your experience on the gas pipeline costs and compressor costs and on efficiency? I'm just interested in sort of what those surprises during the RIIO experience have been for you.

Yes, we -- I think, we were quite clear weren't we, at the end of July. We were surprised the initial proposals. We recognized they were initial proposals. But there's been a dialogue, and we've -- we were challenged by Ofgem, but this expression well justified business plan, which I think is a great expression actually. And that required us to consult extensively with consumers about what they wanted from the networks, as well as the customers who directly pay the bills to us, all the other energy companies. And we built our plan around their requirements and around a scenario of investment in the U.K., and often very early on said they were very good plans. So there was a mismatch in some ways than with some of the differences in the initial proposal, so that's where we were surprised. I've touched on a couple of those areas, and there are good examples there, appear to be quite a gap there. That's clearly why we responded in the consultation in the way that we did. And we've been working with Ofgem over recent months to try and bridge those understandings and make sure we get to an answer that works. This is about both of us getting to an answer that works, isn't it? It's a long time, 8 years. Investments we need to make are very important investments for all of us in the U.K. We have to finance this big investment program, as well. We've got to get the balance right, and that's, I think, a duty that Ofgem and us share and take very seriously. Iain?

Yes. Iain Turner from Exane. You've more or less broken the back of the regulatory process, I guess. It is much -- but I mean, you nearly finished it in New York and Rhode Island. I just wondered what's on the regulatory agenda in the U.S. after those 2 deals are concluded.

It's a lovely expression, because I don't think we'll ever broke in the back, actually. And rightly so, we've got 14 entities in the U.S., and I think we've talked before, haven't we, about getting ourselves on to a drumbeat, almost, where there will inevitably be filings year on year on year on year. We had a -- clearly, a lot of filings at the same time because we'd enter into 10-year plans that all ended up ending around the same 18-month period. As Andrew says, the challenge on his team, the challenge on the organization to go through those filings is just enormous. So we want to get ourselves into position where we do have a couple each year when you've got 14. Exactly, what we do next? It's subject to our thinking during the course of the next 6 months, and subject to some pressures from the outside, as well as some challenges from the outside. Where do we feel people want to invest more? Particularly in the gas businesses. We have clearly got with low gas prices, a lot of people who want to burn natural gas in their boilers at home today. So one of the things that was announced yesterday, actually, was permission to build an interconnector between Brooklyn and Queens, which had to get federal authority. That actually went through the Senate yesterday, pursued by Senator Schumer, get its final approval. That's a big investment to increase the capacity of gas to get into Brooklyn and Queens. So when do we need to think about upping the investment level in those businesses. It's those sort of things that will drive the priorities on filing in.

[indiscernible] from CF Partners. Part of the drive of the CapEx in the U.K. is renewables build out and also no nuclear, I believe. At the moment, it looks like renewables build out is a bit of a question mark because of planning permission I've heard on some comments recently. Also, no nuclear is not really sure if it comes because there's a big discussion about the prices the companies get. Could that influence CapEx? And how do you look at it and how do you deal with this uncertainty?

Yes, you're absolutely right in your comments, and of course, it influences our CapEx. But this is something that we've known about from the very beginning of RIIO, which is what the principles of RIIO. Principles, when they are originally set out, were and remain very good principles because it creates a base scenario around investment and then the mechanisms to flex capital up and down, why customers don't pay for things that they don't need. Likewise, if more capital is required to connect more in a short time, then investors also have the opportunity to make sure that they collect returns and revenue to that. So those mechanisms that are part of RIIO, which will be detailed in the licenses, actually, so that's one of the things, although, we've looked at the principles of those and agree with them, the detail will be in the licenses will work. It is very clear, if you sit here today and look at the scenario that we submitted in our original plan, that some of the investment in the early years has gone back a couple of years, exactly right, but it will move again probably as well. This is a very moving feast around when -- because it goes back to EMI, when do people have the incentives and build the nuclears, how much wind is onshore, how much wind is offshore. What we do know is the government targets are very, very clear. We know that's shutting in this timeframe, so we know there will be an enormous investment in generation. We know we have to connect to all of those, and we're very clear through the big transmission planning where the big pieces of reinforcement are required. And as Andrew mentioned in his remarks, the Western Link is one of those, the offshore Western Link already. There's an Eastern Link in our plan as well and there are other reinforcements that we will have to do in this timeframe, but RIIO does have the mechanism there to protect everyone in terms of the flexibility.

Is there something like a minimum or maximum CapEx per annum that you can envisage under different scenarios, like if everything comes OnStream that needs a lot of investments and if a lot of the staff is coming very late or is not coming in at all? What's the range of CapEx [indiscernible]?

That's actually on our website. We have the base scenario and we have a very slow scenario and we had an accelerated scenario. I think the accelerated scenario looks unlikely today, but somewhere between our base and the slow is where we will be. And we need to flex our CapEx on things like replacement as well. You can't work in a business like this, with the supply chain in particular, by taking it up and then up and down. That will increase prices for customers over time. So we need to make sure that we manage a program here and we're not smoothing things literally, we're trying to make sure that we don't get huge jumps ups and jumps down. That's the job that we already do. We will continue to do that in the future. John? And back down to Jamie.

It's John Musk from RBC. It's just a very simple one. Can -- you signaled you want to take the time on the RIIO response. Can you just let me know the timetable and what the deadlines are for when you have to respond?

Sure, yes. Would you repeat the question? I'm not sure everyone might be aware. I mean, we tend to think don't we? I put myself as I'm saying that in that bracket as well about the old process. RPI minus x, the way the price control process works, because RIIO is very different, the process is fundamentally different. One of the differences is actually is at the end of the process, both the time and also the appeal of mechanisms have changed as well. So in the old world, 30 days. In the new world, it's 75 days. That's the precise answer to your question. And there's a reason for that quite clearly, and I think I've outlined why. There's a lot for us to look at. We're confident about the thought that board can be happy with those proposals. One in the back row, please. I can't see who it is. It's Martin, is it?

No, it's Peter Bisztyga from Barclays. There's going to be a lot of new incentive mechanisms on the RIIO for you to sort of over outperform or underperform on. Can you give us some indication of how different layers of management within your business will be themselves incentivized to make sure they hit each of those metrics as best you can?

You are getting way ahead of yourself here. But you're right in terms of the things that we will be thinking about and putting in place. And as we think about how we reward people inside the organization, like any business, those rewards need to be totally aligned to things that are valued by the businesses' customers, and indeed, its investors. And there will be some tweaks around those things. There are more incentives in here but the incentives around outputs, that's one of the good things about this process. There are issues around the financings as I said. There are issues around some details and some efficiencies, but the philosophy of rewarding outputs that customers value, reliability, connection service and so on and so forth, are crystal clear. And so they are already aligned in many of our plans, but there is no question that it will be even more crystal clear in the future. Jamie?

Just a question -- sorry, Jamie Tunnicliffe from Redburn. Just a question on U.S. CapEx. You mentioned how your -- you sort of repeated the GBP 1.1 billion to GBP 1.2 billion per annum, but when I hear the comments about the impact of the lower gas prices and what that does for demand, and also, there's clearly a debate about serviceability of these assets, given everything that's going on and the shocks, and what sort of level of, I suppose, endurance and stability in the system do you want. So I just -- is it right to still talk about EUR 1.1 billion to EUR 1.2 billion? Is it more likely that we're going to have a debate do you think in the U.S. where it sees that number going up from where we are? Is the risk more on the upside from here? Just any sort of thoughts on that are interesting.

It is right to talk about EUR 1.1 billion to GBP 1.2 billion today. That's what we've signed up for, if you will, through our rate plan. So the number that Andrew was referring to encompasses the capital that's enshrined in the Narragansett agreement and the Niagara Mohawk agreement, which are -- which is a lot more capital than we used to invest in those businesses, by the way. That's a -- in the first half of this year, U.S. CapEx, as Andrew said, is up 24%. That's all part of the regulatory arrangements. We're placing more gas pipe investing in those assets. And there's nothing more than that today. You're sort of into do we believe that in the future there is a need to invest more in those assets. So I think Natural Grid's been saying ever since it's been in the U.S. that there is a need to step up investment and replacing assets. We have been doing that progressively, but if you look at the engineering sense of the lifecycle times and the investment, there is a period of investment in networks across a lot of the older U.S., not so much the south, but certainly in the northeast to replace assets. And that is a conversation we'll continue to have with our customers and our regulators, and when that becomes part of the plan, then that number will change, but until that's part of the plan, Jamie, then the GBP 1.1 billion to GBP 1.2 billion is what we can see for the next few years.

And just to add a comment, actually from financeability perspective. U.S. CapEx is more financeable than the U.K. CapEx today, because it's nominal, so therefore, and you get a higher return, cash return straightaway than you do in the U.K. So marginal investment in the U.S. actually will not be harmful to overall financeability and actually will be better than what we're currently seeing under the RIIO proposals.

Bobby?

Have you given any input either from a regulatory perspective or a financing or treasury perspective to the CPAC committee and your views on the change in formula for RPI and kind of try to narrow the RPI, CPI wedge? I'm just interested in generally how you approach it because it could affect you in so many different ways or.

Well, first of all, obviously, one of the good things that Ofgem are doing is they are consulting about the potential impact of any RPI in the exchange and the impact on revenues in particular. We obviously also have to put in about what implications are for our RPI index bonds. Because in the financeability metrics, they have used, obviously, the assumption around the bonds and how those -- obviously, the accretions on those, how that works, and if that changes as a result, how does that impact our overall financeability. So that's open. As far as consulting, I think obviously, we are a relatively small player in this area. We are considering a response. But to be honest with you, Bobby, I think there are other people like major holders of gilts who are far in advance in the queue than we are, but we will consider putting in something.

Okay. Any remaining questions? Good. Okay. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. Appreciate your time.