I'll analyze VERBUND AG step by step to estimate the S&P-adjusted debt-to-EBITDA ratio for 2022.

## Step 1: Identify the Relevant Industry

VERBUND AG is an Austrian electricity company. Looking at the data:
- Revenue From Sale Of Electricity: €8,747,422,000 (2022)
- Grid Revenue: €1,309,254,000 (2022)
- Significant electricity generation and grid operations

VERBUND AG operates in both **regulated utilities** (grid/transmission) and **unregulated power** (generation/wholesale electricity sales). Based on the revenue mix, it has substantial unregulated power generation activities (electricity sales) alongside regulated grid operations. Given the significant proportion of revenue from electricity sales (unregulated/merchant activities), I'll apply the **Unregulated Power And Gas** methodology, with consideration for regulated utility adjustments where applicable.

However, looking more carefully at VERBUND's structure - it's primarily a hydro-based generator with grid operations. The methodology notes that for companies with mixed operations, we need to assess which dominates. Given that electricity sales revenue (€8.7B) far exceeds grid revenue (€1.3B), the **Unregulated Power And Gas** methodology is most appropriate, though with potential medial volatility table considerations if regulated activities are significant.

## Step 2: Estimate Adjusted_Debt

### Baseline Formula:
Adjusted_Debt = (reported_debt + leases + pension_deficit + guarantees + hybrid_debt_portion + other_debt_like_items) - eligible_cash

### Reported Debt Components from Balance Sheet (2022-01-01 / 2023-01-01):

**Financial Liabilities:**
- Noncurrent Financial Liabilities 2022-01-01: €1,834,155,000
- Current Financial Liabilities 2022-01-01: €1,462,453,000
- **Total Financial Liabilities (reported debt) at 2022-01-01: €3,296,608,000**

Wait - I need to use year-end 2022 figures, which are 2023-01-01 values:
- Noncurrent Financial Liabilities 2023-01-01: €2,844,559,000
- Current Financial Liabilities 2023-01-01: €1,109,297,000
- **Total Financial Liabilities at 2023-01-01: €3,953,856,000**

### Leases (Right-of-use assets indicate lease liabilities):
- Right-of-use Assets 2023-01-01: €146,613,000
- Right-of-use Assets 2022-01-01: €103,826,000

Under IFRS 16, right-of-use assets equal lease liabilities (approximately). So lease liabilities ≈ €146,613,000 at year-end 2022.

However, looking at the cash flow statement: "Payments Of Lease Liabilities Classified As Financing Activities" 2022: €11,447,000. This confirms lease liabilities exist.

### Pension Deficit:
From Other Comprehensive Income - Remeasurements of Defined Benefit Plans:
- 2022-01-01: Reserve Of Remeasurements Of Defined Benefit Plans: -€327,822,000 (deficit)
- 2023-01-01: Reserve Of Remeasurements Of Defined Benefit Plans: -€205,455,000

The pension deficit improved. For S&P purposes, we typically look at the net pension liability. The negative reserve indicates a deficit. However, this is already reflected in equity. We need to check if there's a net pension liability on the balance sheet.

Looking at the data, I don't see explicit pension liabilities separated. The reserve in equity suggests this is a net position. For S&P adjustments, we typically add back pension deficits (when plan liabilities exceed assets). 

Given the reserve moved from -€327.8M to -€205.5M, and this is in equity, it suggests accumulated losses. For conservative S&P analysis, if there's an underfunded pension, we'd add it. However, without explicit pension liability data, I'll note this but may not have sufficient data to adjust.

Actually, re-reading: the "Other Comprehensive Income Before Tax Gains Losses On Remeasurements Of Defined Benefit Plans" for 2022 was €172,041,000. This suggests gains. The reserve moving from -€327.8M to -€205.5M (improvement of €122.4M) is consistent with this.

For S&P purposes, pension deficit = underfunded status. Without explicit plan asset/liability data, I'll use 0 or minimal adjustment given the reserve is negative (deficit) but relatively small compared to debt.

### Guarantees and Other Debt-like Items:
No explicit guarantees mentioned in the data.

### Derivatives and Other Considerations:
For unregulated power companies, S&P may consider certain derivative positions or PPAs as debt-like. However, VERBUND's derivatives appear to be largely hedging/operational.

### Cash and Cash Equivalents:
- Cash And Cash Equivalents 2023-01-01: €409,252,000
- Cash And Cash Equivalents 2022-01-01: €318,562,000

Eligible cash for debt reduction: Typically unrestricted cash. I'll use €409,252,000 (year-end 2022).

### Hybrid Debt:
No explicit hybrid instruments mentioned.

### Calculation of Adjusted Debt:

Reported Debt (2022 year-end):
- Noncurrent Financial Liabilities: €2,844,559,000
- Current Financial Liabilities: €1,109,297,000
- **Total: €3,953,856,000**

Plus Leases: ~€146,613,000 (right-of-use assets as proxy for lease liabilities)

Less Eligible Cash: €409,252,000

**Adjusted_Debt = €3,953,856,000 + €146,613,000 - €409,252,000 = €3,691,217,000**

Wait - I need to check if the financial liabilities already include lease liabilities under IFRS 16. Looking at the structure, "Noncurrent Financial Liabilities" and "Current Financial Liabilities" likely include lease liabilities under IFRS 16.

Let me reconsider: Under IFRS 16, lease liabilities are included in financial liabilities. So I should not double-count. Let me verify by checking if right-of-use assets have corresponding liabilities in the financial liabilities.

Given the data structure, it's likely that financial liabilities include lease liabilities. So I'll use reported financial liabilities as the debt figure, without adding leases separately.

**Revised Adjusted_Debt = €3,953,856,000 - €409,252,000 = €3,544,604,000**

However, I need to check 2022 average or year-end. For debt-to-EBITDA, S&P typically uses year-end debt. Let me use 2022 year-end (2023-01-01) figures.

Actually, let me re-verify: The period "2022-01-01 - 2023-01-01" represents fiscal year 2022. The balance sheet dates "2022-01-01" and "2023-01-01" represent beginning and end of year.

For leverage ratios, S&P typically uses year-end debt. So I'll use 2023-01-01 figures.

**Adjusted_Debt = €3,953,856,000 - €409,252,000 = €3,544,604,000**

But wait - I should also consider if there are other debt-like items. Looking at "Noncurrent Payables" (€563,379,000) and "Trade And Other Current Payables" (€1,035,805,000) - these are trade payables, not debt-like.

Also, "Contributions To Building Costs And Grants" (€791,160,000) - these are more like deferred income/grants, not debt.

Let me also check if there are any pension deficits to add. The negative reserve in equity (-€205,455,000) suggests a net pension liability. However, this is already reflected in the balance sheet through equity reduction. For S&P purposes, if the pension is underfunded, we might add this to debt. But without clear liability figures, and given it's already in equity, I'll be conservative and not add it separately.

**Final Adjusted_Debt = €3,544,604,000** (or approximately €3.545 billion)

## Step 3: Estimate Adjusted_EBITDA

### Baseline Formula:
Adjusted_EBITDA = EBITDA (reported or reconstructed) + adjustment_leases (if any) + nonrecurring_losses - nonrecurring_gains ± pension_adjustments ± joint_venture_proportional_EBITDA ± other_normalization_adjustments

### Reported EBITDA:
"EBITDA" 2022-01-01 - 2023-01-01: **€3,160,679,000**

### Lease Adjustments:
Under IFRS 16, EBITDA includes the depreciation of right-of-use assets and interest on lease liabilities is below EBITDA. Actually, under IFRS 16, lease expenses are replaced by depreciation and interest. EBITDA under IFRS 16 typically excludes lease-related depreciation but includes lease-related expenses... 

Actually, looking more carefully: Under IFRS 16, operating lease expenses are no longer in operating expenses. Instead, we have depreciation of right-of-use assets. EBITDA under IFRS 16 would not have lease expenses deducted (since they're replaced by depreciation and interest, both below EBITDA line or in different lines).

Wait - let me reconsider. Under IFRS 16:
- Lease payments are split: principal repayment (financing) and interest (finance cost)
- Right-of-use asset is depreciated (in depreciation line)

So EBITDA under IFRS 16 is actually HIGHER than under IAS 17 because lease expenses are no longer in operating expenses. 

For S&P purposes, we typically add back lease expenses to make EBITDA comparable (or adjust debt to include leases). Since I've already included leases in debt (via IFRS 16 financial liabilities), I should check if EBITDA needs adjustment.

Actually, looking at the data: "Depreciation And Amortisation Expense" 2022: €462,694,000. This includes depreciation of right-of-use assets.

For S&P-adjusted EBITDA, if we're using reported EBITDA under IFRS 16, we typically need to subtract the lease-related depreciation or add back lease expenses to normalize. However, the standard approach now with IFRS 16 is to accept EBITDA as reported and include lease liabilities in debt.

Let me check if there's explicit lease expense in the income statement. Looking through the data, I don't see "lease expense" separately - it's embedded in the IFRS 16 treatment.

For conservatism and standard S&P practice with IFRS 16 companies: Use reported EBITDA and include lease liabilities in debt. The EBITDA already benefits from not having lease expenses.

However, some S&P methodologies for certain sectors add back lease expenses to EBITDA and include lease liabilities in debt. Let me check if this applies.

For Unregulated Power and Gas, the methodology mentions: "For unregulated power and gas companies that enter into long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs), we make adjustments to account for those obligations."

For leases specifically, it's now standard to include lease liabilities in debt and not adjust EBITDA (since IFRS 16 already puts leases in debt and EBITDA excludes lease depreciation).

### Nonrecurring Items:

Looking at the income statement for 2022:
- "Impairment Loss": €197,761,000
- "Reversal Of Impairment Loss": €125,973,000
- Net impairment: €197,761,000 - €125,973,000 = €71,788,000 (net loss)

These are typically nonrecurring. For S&P purposes, we add back impairment losses (nonrecurring) and subtract reversals of impairments (nonrecurring gains).

However, looking at the cash flow statement:
- "Impairment Losses On Investments Net Of Reversals Of Impairment Losses": -€11,833,000 (negative means net reversal)

Wait, this is different from the income statement. Let me re-read:
- Income statement: Impairment Loss €197,761,000; Reversal Of Impairment Loss €125,973,000
- Cash flow: "Impairment Losses On Investments Net Of Reversals Of Impairment Losses" -€11,833,000

The cash flow item says "On Investments" specifically. The income statement impairments may include PPE impairments.

For S&P adjustments, we typically normalize by adding back impairment losses and subtracting reversals. But we need to be careful about what's already in EBITDA.

Looking at the structure: EBITDA is given as €3,160,679,000. This is before depreciation, amortization, and impairments. So EBITDA already excludes these items.

Actually, wait - EBITDA typically excludes impairment losses on PPE (they're below EBITDA). But impairment losses on investments (equity method) may be treated differently.

Let me reconstruct EBITDA to verify:
- Profit Loss From Operating Activities: €2,626,196,000
- Add back: Depreciation And Amortisation Expense: €462,694,000
- Add back: Impairment Loss: €197,761,000
- Less: Reversal Of Impairment Loss: €125,973,000

= €2,626,196,000 + €462,694,000 + €197,761,000 - €125,973,000 = €3,160,678,000

This matches the reported EBITDA of €3,160,679,000 (rounding difference). Good.

So EBITDA is already "clean" of impairments and reversals (they're below EBITDA line, so added back). Actually no - impairments are added back to get from operating profit to EBITDA. So reported EBITDA is after adding back impairments and subtracting reversals.

For S&P normalization, we want to exclude nonrecurring items. The net impairment of €71,788,000 (197,761 - 125,973) was added back to get EBITDA. Since this is nonrecurring, should we adjust EBITDA?

Actually, for EBITDA, impairments of PPE are typically added back (as they're non-cash). But for "Adjusted EBITDA" for credit purposes, S&P may want to normalize by excluding truly nonrecurring items.

However, impairments are generally considered part of ongoing operations in some sectors. For utilities, large impairments may be nonrecurring.

Looking at 2021: Impairment Loss €9,869,000; Reversal €115,009,000. Net reversal of €105,140,000.
2022: Net impairment of €71,788,000.

The 2022 impairment is higher and may include one-time items. However, without clear evidence, I'll use reported EBITDA.

### Joint Venture Adjustments:

"Share Of Profit Loss Of Associates And Joint Ventures Accounted For Using Equity Method" 2022: €4,293,000 (profit)

For proportional EBITDA: This is already equity-accounted and below operating profit. Since we're using reported EBITDA which starts from operating profit, this is already excluded. 

Actually, let me check: Operating profit is €2,626,196,000. This is before share of JV profits. So EBITDA of €3,160,679,000 is also before JV profits.

For S&P, if we want proportional EBITDA, we'd add our share of JV EBITDA. But we don't have JV financials. The equity method profit is €4,293,000, which is after their tax and interest. This is relatively small compared to total EBITDA.

### Other Normalization Adjustments:

"Valuation And Realisationof Energyderivatives" 2022: -€857,961,000 (negative = loss)

This is a significant item. For unregulated power companies, energy derivatives can be:
- Hedging instruments (operational)
- Trading/speculative

Looking at the cash flow: "Adjustments For Decrease Increase In Derivative Financial Assets" and "Adjustments For Increase Decrease In Derivative Financial Liabilities" - these are working capital changes.

The "Valuation And Realisationof Energyderivatives" in the income statement suggests mark-to-market or realized gains/losses on derivatives. This is likely part of operating activities for a power company.

For S&P purposes, if this is mark-to-market volatility, we might normalize. But for unregulated power companies, hedging is part of normal operations. The 2022 figure of -€857,961,000 is a loss.

Is this already in EBITDA? Let me check the income statement structure. The item appears in the list of expenses/revenues, likely as part of operating activities.

Looking at revenue reconstruction:
- Revenue: €10,346,088,000
- Less: Expenses For Electricity Grid Gas And Certificates Purchases: €6,802,383,000
- Less: Fuel Expenses: €522,109,000
- Less: Employee Benefits: €428,446,000
- Less: Other Expense By Nature: €403,487,000
- Plus/less: Valuation And Realisationof Energyderivatives: -€857,961,000

This seems to be part of operating profit calculation. So it's in EBITDA.

For normalization: This is likely mark-to-market on hedges. S&P may view this as nonrecurring or volatile. However, for unregulated power companies, this is part of normal operations. The 2021 figure was -€269,667,000.

Given the volatility, and that 2022 was an extreme year for energy markets, we might consider normalizing. But without clear guidance on what "normal" is, I'll use reported EBITDA.

### Final Adjusted_EBITDA:

Using reported EBITDA: **€3,160,679,000**

However, I want to check if there are any clear nonrecurring items to normalize. The "Wertminderungen" (write-downs/impairments) and "Wertaufholungen" (write-ups) in the finance section:
- Wertminderungen 2022: €46,455,000
- Wertaufholungen 2022: €0

These are financial impairments (likely on investments), already below operating profit.

Also "Other Finance Income Cost" 2022: €1,642,000 - small.

I think reported EBITDA is reasonable to use, with minimal adjustments needed.

But wait - let me reconsider the derivative valuation. For 2022, this was -€857,961,000. Is this a cash or non-cash item? The cash flow statement shows:
- "Adjustments For Decrease Increase In Derivative Financial Assets": €548,678,000 (positive = decrease in assets, or source of cash)
- "Adjustments For Increase Decrease In Derivative Financial Liabilities": -€1,360,527,000 (negative = decrease in liabilities, or use of cash)

These working capital changes suggest derivative valuations affect working capital but the "Valuation And Realisation" item may include realized and unrealized components.

For S&P-adjusted EBITDA, we typically want sustainable cash-generating ability. The large derivative losses in 2022 may be offset by gains in other periods. However, without more information, I'll use reported EBITDA.

Actually, let me check one more thing: Is the derivative valuation already included in EBITDA, or is it below?

Looking at the ordering in the data, "Valuation And Realisationof Energyderivatives" comes after "Other Expense By Nature" and before "EBITDA". This suggests it's part of the EBITDA calculation.

Let me verify by reconstructing:
Revenue €10,346,088,000
- Grid purchases €6,802,383,000
- Fuel €522,109,000
- Employee €428,446,000
- Other expense €403,487,000
- Derivative valuation -€857,961,000 (this is a loss, so subtracting a negative = adding?)

Wait, I need to be more careful. The item "Valuation And Realisationof Energyderivatives" with negative value suggests it's a loss (expense). So:
Operating income before this item would be higher.

Let me try: €10,346,088,000 - €6,802,383,000 - €522,109,000 - €428,446,000 - €403,487,000 = €2,189,663,000
Then minus derivative loss of €857,961,000 = €1,331,702,000... but this doesn't match operating profit of €2,626,196,000.

Hmm, that doesn't work. Let me reconsider - maybe "Valuation And Realisationof Energyderivatives" is actually a positive contribution when negative (i.e., it's a gain/loss line where negative means loss).

Actually, looking at 2021: -€269,667,000. If this were added, it would reduce EBITDA.

Let me try another approach. EBITDA = €3,160,679,000. Operating profit = €2,626,196,000. Difference = €534,483,000.

This difference should equal: Depreciation (€462,694,000) + Impairment (€197,761,000) - Reversal (€125,973,000) = €534,482,000. Matches!

So the derivative valuation is already included in operating profit and EBITDA. It's part of the operating activities.

Given this, and that it's a normal part of power company operations (hedging), I'll include it in adjusted EBITDA.

**Adjusted_EBITDA = €3,160,679,000**

However, I want to consider if S&P would make any specific adjustments for this sector. For unregulated power with significant regulated activities, they might use medial volatility table if criteria are met.

Actually, re-reading the methodology: For unregulated power and gas, if they have "strongly protected unregulated revenue" or significant regulated activities, they might use medial volatility. But for the ratio calculation itself, the EBITDA adjustment is what matters.

One more check: Should we add back proportional EBITDA from JVs? The equity method profit is €4,293,000. If JVs have EBITDA margins similar to VERBUND's (~30%), their revenue might be around €14,000,000, EBITDA around €4,300,000. This is immaterial. Skip.

## Step 4: Calculate Adjusted_Debt / Adjusted_EBITDA

Using:
- Adjusted_Debt = €3,544,604,000 (or more precisely, €3,953,856,000 - €409,252,000)
- Adjusted_EBITDA = €3,160,679,000

Wait - I need to double-check my debt figure. Let me re-examine.

Actually, I realize I should check if there are other debt-like obligations. For unregulated power companies with PPAs, S&P may impute debt. But VERBUND's main obligations seem to be reflected in financial liabilities.

Also, I need to verify: Are "Current Financial Liabilities" truly debt? They include:
- Current portion of long-term debt
- Short-term borrowings
- Possibly current lease liabilities

Looking at 2022-01-01: Current Financial Liabilities €1,462,453,000
2023-01-01: Current Financial Liabilities €1,109,297,000

And money market transactions in cash flow:
- Cash Inflow From Money Market Transactions: €1,049,727,000
- Cash Outflow From Money Market Transactions: €1,430,000,000

These suggest active short-term borrowing/repayment. The net is outflow of €380,273,000.

Also "Proceeds From Borrowings": €632,871,000
"Repayments Of Borrowings": €117,716,000

These are financing activities.

I think my debt figure is reasonable. But let me also consider: should I use average debt or year-end debt? S&P typically uses year-end for leverage ratios.

Let me recalculate more carefully:

**Debt at 2023-01-01 (year-end 2022):**
- Noncurrent Financial Liabilities: €2,844,559,000
- Current Financial Liabilities: €1,109,297,000
- Total: €3,953,856,000

**Cash at 2023-01-01:** €409,252,000

**Adjusted_Debt = €3,953,856,000 - €409,252,000 = €3,544,604,000**

**Adjusted_EBITDA = €3,160,679,000**

**Ratio = €3,544,604,000 / €3,160,679,000 = 1.1214...**

Wait, I want to double-check if I should include or exclude anything else.

One important consideration: For regulated utilities and unregulated power, S&P sometimes makes specific adjustments. Let me re-read the methodology...

For "Regulated Utilities" - "Where substantial seasonal working capital requirements...distort leverage measures, we adjust inventory and debt balances by netting the value of inventory against outstanding short-term borrowings."

For "Unregulated Power And Gas" - "For unregulated power and gas companies that enter into long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs), we make adjustments to account for those obligations, as we do for regulated utilities under our ratios and adjustments criteria."

Does VERBUND have significant PPAs as offtaker or offtaker? VERBUND sells electricity, so it may have PPAs as seller. As a seller, these are receivables/contract assets, not debt-like obligations. As a buyer (for fuel or grid purchases), it may have obligations.

However, the data doesn't show explicit PPA liabilities. The "Expenses For Electricity Grid Gas And Certificates Purchases" of €6.8B suggests significant purchase obligations, but these are likely spot/short-term.

Also, I should check if there are any "debt-like" items in the derivatives. The company has significant derivative positions:
- Noncurrent Derivative Financial Assets: €437,341,000
- Current Derivative Financial Assets: €1,833,683,000
- Noncurrent Derivative Financial Liabilities: €1,069,177,000
- Current Derivative Financial Liabilities: €1,491,588,000

Net derivative liability position: (€1,069,177,000 + €1,491,588,000) - (€437,341,000 + €1,833,683,000) = €2,560,765,000 - €2,271,024,000 = €289,741,000 net liability.

These are mark-to-market positions, not necessarily debt-like. For S&P, derivative liabilities that are hedging may be treated as working capital, not debt.

However, if there are "embedded debt" derivatives or speculative positions, they might be considered debt-like. Given VERBUND is a utility using derivatives for hedging, I'll exclude from debt adjustment.

Let me also verify my EBITDA figure one more time. Is there any reason to adjust it?

Looking at the methodology for Unregulated Power and Gas: "When assessing companies engaged in trading activity or more-frequent, event-driven activity...we generally use the ROC." This suggests trading activity may require different treatment.

VERBUND has "Valuation And Realisationof Energyderivatives" of -€857,961,000. This suggests significant trading/derivatives activity. However, for a power company, this is likely hedging of generation output.

For 2022, with extreme energy market volatility, this loss may be offset by higher physical power prices. Indeed, revenue increased from €4.8B to €10.3B.

Should we normalize EBITDA by excluding derivative gains/losses? If we exclude the -€858M derivative loss, EBITDA would be higher by €858M, making the ratio lower.

But this would be inconsistent - the derivatives are part of normal operations. In 2021, the loss was -€270M. The increase to -€858M in 2022 reflects market conditions.

For S&P, the key question is whether this is "nonrecurring" or "non-operating." Given it's annual and recurring (though volatile), and part of the business model, I'll keep it.

However, I want to check one thing: Are the derivative losses already netting against revenue? Or are they separate?

In some presentations, power companies show "physical" revenue and "financial" hedging separately. The "Revenue From Sale Of Electricity" is €8,747,422,000. Total revenue is €10,346,088,000. The difference includes grid revenue and other.

The derivative valuation line is separate from revenue, suggesting it's an expense/gain line.

Let me try one more reconstruction:
Total Revenue €10,346,088,000
Less: Expenses For Electricity Grid Gas And Certificates Purchases €6,802,383,000
Less: Fuel Expenses €522,109,000
Less: Employee Benefits €428,446,000
Less: Other Expense By Nature €403,487,000
Plus/less: Valuation And Realisationof Energyderivatives -€857,961,000 (loss)

Subtotal = €10,346,088,000 - €6,802,383,000 - €522,109,000 - €428,446,000 - €403,487,000 - €857,961,000 = €1,331,702,000

But operating profit is €2,626,196,000. So this doesn't work. There must be other income or the derivative line is actually positive contribution.

Wait - I think I misread. Let me re-check: "Valuation And Realisationof Energyderivatives" with value -€857,961,000. In some accounting presentations, negative values in expense lines might mean "expense" (i.e., it's already negative, so subtracting it would double-count).

Actually, looking at the data format: these are likely signed values where negative means expense/loss. So when I say "Less: Fuel Expenses €522,109,000", the value is positive 522,109,000 representing an expense.

For "Valuation And Realisationof Energyderivatives" with value -€857,961,000, this is negative, meaning it's a loss/expense.

But my calculation doesn't reach operating profit. Let me check if there's "Other Income" of €113,055,000 included.

Actually, I missed "Other Income"! Let me recheck:
"Other Income" 2022: €113,055,000

Also, the revenue items:
- Revenue From Sale Of Electricity: €8,747,422,000
- Grid Revenue: €1,309,254,000
- Other Revenue: €289,412,000
- Other Income: €113,055,000
Total = €10,459,143,000... but reported Revenue is €10,346,088,000.

Hmm, discrepancy. Maybe "Other Income" is not in revenue? Or there's netting somewhere.

Actually, looking more carefully: "Revenue" is €10,346,088,000 while the components sum to more. This suggests some items are not in revenue or there's a different classification.

Let me just trust the reported EBITDA of €3,160,679,000 and Operating Profit of €2,626,196,000. The difference is D&A and impairments, which I verified.

So **Adjusted_EBITDA = €3,160,679,000**

And **Adjusted_Debt = €3,544,604,000**

Ratio = 3,544,604,000 / 3,160,679,000 = 1.1214...

Rounded to two decimal places: **1.12**

But wait - I want to double-check one thing. Should I use beginning or average debt? Some S&P methodologies use average debt for certain ratios, but debt/EBITDA typically uses year-end debt.

Also, I want to verify: Is cash always deducted? S&P typically deducts "available cash" or "excess cash" not all cash. For utilities, they may not deduct cash if it's needed for operations.

Looking at the methodology for Regulated Utilities: "Where substantial seasonal working capital requirements...distort leverage measures, we adjust inventory and debt balances by netting the value of inventory against outstanding short-term borrowings."

This suggests S&P does make working capital adjustments, but not necessarily deduct all cash.

For conservative approach, if we don't deduct cash:
Adjusted_Debt = €3,953,856,000
Ratio = 3,953,856,000 / 3,160,679,000 = 1.2509... ≈ 1.25

But standard practice is to deduct available cash. Let me check if €409M is "excess" cash for a €10B revenue company. It's about 4% of revenue, which seems reasonable as working cash.

I'll stick with deducting cash.

Actually, re-reading the baseline formula: "Adjusted_Debt = (reported_debt + leases + pension_deficit + guarantees + hybrid_debt_portion + other_debt_like_items) - eligible_cash"

So eligible cash is deducted. I'll use total cash as a proxy for eligible cash.

**Final calculation:**
Adjusted_Debt = €3,953,856,000 - €409,252,000 = €3,544,604,000
Adjusted_EBITDA = €3,160,679,000
Ratio = 3,544,604,000 / 3,160,679,000 = 1.1214...

<answer>1.12</answer>