### Ranking rationale #### 1) Entity C — TenneT Holding B.V. TenneT should be engaged first. It is the clearest hybrid-bond candidate because it already has outstanding hybrid capital of EUR 2.125bn and pays EUR 57m annually to hybrid capital holders. That creates an explicit refinancing / repeat-issuer angle, which is one of the strongest origination triggers for a hybrid transaction. TenneT is also a transmission system operator, owned by the Dutch State, with a regulated infrastructure profile and highly visible long-term cash flows. This fits the “Strongly suitable” category very well. Although reported 2022 earnings were weak, with a EUR 879m loss and negative operating profit, this is in the context of a regulated TSO with very large capex and financing needs. Balance-sheet growth is significant: assets increased from EUR 31.2bn to EUR 38.5bn, long-term borrowings rose from EUR 12.4bn to EUR 19.0bn, and investing cash outflow was EUR 4.3bn. These factors support a strong rationale for capital structure management and rating preservation. Hybrid issuance would also be meaningful for adjusted leverage and rating headroom, because the existing hybrid capital is large relative to ordinary equity and debt. The company already demonstrates capital-markets familiarity and hybrid acceptance. **Conclusion:** Strongly suitable; highest priority due to existing hybrid capital, regulated infrastructure status, state ownership, large capex needs, and leverage/rating-management rationale. --- #### 2) Entity A — EDP, S.A. EDP should be engaged second. EDP is a large listed utility with generation, transmission, distribution, electricity supply and gas activities. It has a strong infrastructure / utility profile and clear access to institutional capital markets. It is also large enough for benchmark hybrid issuance. The financial profile shows meaningful leverage and funding needs. Total liabilities increased to EUR 45.0bn from EUR 37.0bn, borrowings increased materially, and current borrowings rose from EUR 1.5bn to EUR 4.2bn. Finance costs doubled from EUR 876m to EUR 1.75bn, while capex / investing outflows remained substantial at EUR 3.2bn net. Hybrid issuance could therefore help preserve rating headroom and improve adjusted leverage metrics. However, EDP remains profitable, with EUR 1.17bn profit in 2022, operating cash flow of EUR 3.78bn, and a sizeable equity base of EUR 13.8bn. The deterioration is less acute than TenneT’s, and the facts provided do not indicate an existing hybrid call or immediate hybrid refinancing need. Therefore, while EDP is a strong strategic candidate, the transaction urgency is lower than for TenneT. **Conclusion:** Strongly suitable, but second priority due to absence of an explicit near-term hybrid refinancing trigger. --- #### 3) Entity B — A2A S.p.A. / A2A Energia S.p.A. A2A should be engaged third. A2A is also a utility / energy company and therefore broadly suitable for hybrid issuance. It has substantial revenues, positive EBITDA of EUR 1.5bn, positive operating cash flow of EUR 1.26bn, and positive free cash flow of EUR 118m after negative free cash flow in 2021. It also has clear capital-market and funding needs, with borrowings increasing and financing cash inflows of EUR 1.5bn. However, compared with TenneT and EDP, A2A appears less urgent. Its financial profile is stable to improving in some respects: EBITDA increased, operating profit increased, and free cash flow turned positive. Finance costs remain relatively modest at EUR 125m versus EBITDA of EUR 1.5bn. Equity increased from EUR 4.3bn to EUR 4.47bn. There is no evidence of existing hybrid capital or near-term hybrid refinancing need. A hybrid could still provide rating headroom and support growth or refinancing, but the rationale appears more opportunistic than essential. **Conclusion:** Marginally to moderately suitable, but lowest priority among the three due to weaker urgency and no visible hybrid-refinancing catalyst. C,A,B