PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A.

AGM Information • Jul 12, 2025

Answers to the questions of shareholders of PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A. ("PGE", the "Company") asked during the Ordinary General Meeting of the Company on June 27, 2025 (original spelling of questions)

1. Failures and damage to property - connected with the operation and degradation over time of energy equipment and facilities and protection of energy equipment and facilities against destructive factors (including fire, effects of weather phenomena, intentional damage) were assessed in PGE's 2024 Annual Report as a high risk; an intolerable risk requiring an immediate and proactive risk response aimed at simultaneously reducing the possible consequences and the probability of its occurrence with simultaneous mitigating actions including "Insurance of the most important production assets in the event of breakdown and property damage. Assets are insured based on an analysis of insurance costs, capabilities of insurance markets for specified risks or for particular types of assets, costs related to asset replacement and potential lost revenue."

I would like to ask the Management Board for information on the cost of insuring PGE's generation assets against breakdowns and damage to assets from all risks and loss of profit (Business Interruption) resulting from severe weather phenomena (torrential rains, floods, fires, hurricane winds and tornadoes, available water for cooling of conventional power plants as a result of prolonged hydrological droughts, etc...) compared to 2023 (has there been an increase and, if so, by how much of a percentage) and an estimate of insurance costs in 2025 and beyond?

How does PGE CG intend to mitigate the risk of a significant increase in reinsurance costs for climate risks in 2025 and beyond? Please list the mitigation actions planned by PGE's management board and the company/ companies currently providing insurance services to the PGE Group.

Does PGE CG have a plan to adapt to the increase in the cost of climate risk reinsurance in 2025 and beyond? Over what period is this plan written - how long time horizon does it cover? Based on what criteria and analyses are PGE's management and supervisory boards able to assess that the adaptation plan is optimal?

The cost of insuring PGE Group's generating assets - in terms of property against all risks, machinery and equipment against breakdown and damage, loss of profit (Business Interruption / Machinery Loss of Profit), in 2024 compared to 2023 increased by approximately 21%, and in 2025 an increase of approximately 10% is expected.

The aforementioned increase is to a significant extent due to an increase in the sums insured for property reported for insurance, caused by the commissioning of new assets, i.e. new gas-fired power plants, new CHP plants, modernisation investments in CHP plants, photovoltaic farms, and revaluations of assets already held and insured in order to update their replacement value.

Risks related to violent weather events (climate risks) are not considered by the insurance and reinsurance market as major risks threatening our assets, with the result that they do not have a significant impact on insurance premiums.

1. Operational risk Oversight of insurance policies - risks arising from the failure to tailor insurance policies to the needs or the Company's failure to comply with the terms of insurance policies which may result in lack of receiving a claim in whole or in part. Page 31

What measures 2024 have been taken by the Risk and Insurance Department of PGE S.A. to mitigate the risks described above? How significant is the climate risk component in the risks currently covered by the insurance contracts of the PGE Group?

The mitigation actions taken in this respect are indicated on page 31 of the PGE Management Board's Report for 2024.

The climate risks component remains at a limited level in view of their nonrecognition as major risks to PGE assets by the insurance and reinsurance market.

1. What is the timetable for the construction of a new gas-fired unit in the Turów complex to ensure the sustainability of heat supply to Bogatynia after the decommissioning of the last coal-fired unit at Turów power plant supplying heat to the town and municipality, and the estimated costs of building such a plant? Have PGE CG companies already applied for an environmental decision for this facility?

Conceptual and analytical work is currently being carried out and, after their completion, the PGE Group will prepare a detailed schedule for the implementation of the investment, prepare an environmental impact report and then apply for the issuance of an environmental decision for the analysed project.

1. In the PGE strategy presented on 12 June, PGE confirms that: "The evolution of social preferences, demographic and economic trends are changing the structure of energy demand and consumption patterns".

On the basis of which demographic and energy and heat demand scenarios is PGE planning its investments in energy infrastructure and what is the maximum financial payback period for the planned investments in PGE's new strategy?

Demographic projections for Poland, including population, households and migration changes, are taken from publications of the Central Statistical Office.

The demand for energy and heat is projected on the basis of the aforementioned demographic scenario, as well as in line with European Union policies (such as Fit for 55 and REPowerEU) and national strategic documents, including the Energy Policy of Poland until 2040, the National Energy and Climate Plan and the Long-Term Strategy for Renovation of Buildings.

1. In its strategy, PGE forecasts over 230 TWh of electricity demand in 2050? It shows a number of factors that will influence the increase in demand, but does not show the negative impact of a declining population, an ageing population and a declining number of people of working age over this period, although examples from other countries with a declining population and an ageing population show that there is a decline, not an increase, in electricity consumption (e.g. Japan, Greece). At the same time, PGE assumes a decrease in the maximum daily demand for dispatchable capacity by 2050. How much does PGE estimate the decrease in demand for electricity and heat in Poland by 2050 as a result of demographic changes ceteris paribus?

This is particularly relevant in the context of the risk identified by PGE's management board, which the company reports on page 27 of its management board's report: " The absence of a clear upward trend in electricity demand, combined with growing RES generation, may limit sales volumes achieved by PGE Group.

In PGE's opinion, despite the decrease in the population in Poland projected by the Central Statistical Office (CSO) from about 38 million today to about 34 million in 2050, the demand for electricity should increase. This is due to a number of structural and technological factors that outweigh the impact of negative demographic trends. In particular, the projected increase in electricity consumption is expected to result from factors such as the electrification of transport and heating, with only a slight change in base demand.

1. After 2030, a number of large European financial institutions are planning to terminate financing and investments in companies where coal revenues exceed 5% of the total revenues of these companies/capital groups? On page 197 of PGE's 2024 management board's report, the board reports that coal revenues in 2024 were almost PLN 29 billion (approx EUR 6.9 billion), or just under 45% of PGE's total group revenues in 2024.

2. At what level does PGE's management estimate its revenues from coal in 2030 and beyond? In the event that PGE exceeds the level of 5% of revenues from the sale of heat from coal-fired and lignite-fired power plants after 2030, does PGE assume an increase in the cost of debt service, new loans and insurance, and if so, how significant are these increases and, according to PGE's management board, will they materially affect PGE Group's ability to service its debt and pay dividends after 2030?

Joint answer to questions 6 and 7:

The PGE Group does not identify a significant risk of an increase in debt servicing costs because of the assumed rate of decline in revenues from coal-based operations. This is due, among other things, to the changing policies of individual financial institutions, as well as the possibility of financing transformation investments also under Project Finance, as evidenced by the effective closing of financing for the Baltica 2 project.

1. In its December 2024 investor presentation on page 66, PGE assumed that it would achieve climate neutrality by 2050 assuming the spin-off of coal assets and their acquisition by NABE (National Agency for Energy Security)? How does PGE's management board assess the chances of PGE Group achieving climate neutrality in the scenario of leaving coal assets in the ownership structure of PGE Group?

The scenario envisaged in the Strategy does not assume carve-out of coal assets. The objective of achieving climate neutrality presented in the Strategy is to be achieved regardless of their remaining in the structure of the PGE Group.

1. On slide 67 of this December 2024 investor presentation, PGE assumes a 15 per cent decrease in PGE Group's SCOPE 1 carbon emissions by 2030, 75 per cent by 2040 and 95 per cent by 2050 assuming the spin-off of coal assets from the PGE Group. How do the assumed levels of PGE Group SCOPE 1 carbon emission reductions change by 2030, 2040 and 2050 under the scenario of leaving the coal assets in the PGE Group ownership structure?

Due to the adoption of the new Strategy, the previous ambitions and targets are no longer valid. The binding targets are presented on slide 65 of the document "PGE Group's 2035 Strategy" available at www.gkpge.pl.

1. Analogous question to the previous one regarding the percentage compliance of the group's CAPEX with the provisions of the Taxonomy in 2030, 2040 and 2050?

The PGE Group's intention is to carry out investments that are EU Environmental Taxonomy-aligned, however, due to the likely revision of the regulations, which is also expected to include a review and update of the technical eligibility criteria, it is not possible to define precise targets at this stage.

1. In the PGE Group Management Board's Report for 2024, it is reported on page 194 that "no structured training on sustainability was conducted for the Members of the Supervisory Board and Members of the Management Board of PGE S.A. in 2024". Such training has been scheduled for implementation in 2025? What structured sustainability training is planned for 2025 and what is its scope? In particular, will these trainings cover the obligations of Member States resulting from the implementation of the European Parliament and Council Regulation on the restoration of natural resources (Nature Restoration Law) of June 2024, the impact of the European Water Resilience Strategy and the impact of the drought and the progressive disruption of the hydrological cycle in Poland on the exploitation possibilities of existing and planned infrastructure and energy projects planned by the PGE group (including the possibilities and pace of reclamation of open pit lignite mines belonging to the PGE group)?

As declared in the Management Board's for Report 2024, cross-cutting training sessions on sustainability/ESG for both the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board have already been conducted in April and May 2025.

1. How do PGE Management Board members assess their level of knowledge on the impact of the demographic crisis on the forecasting of demand for and national consumption of heat and electricity in the coming decades? In the opinion of the Management Board members and of the Supervisory Board members, based on the current level of knowledge of the members of these bodies of the PGE Group, is there a risk of overestimation of demand for electricity and gas in 2040, 2050 and in the following decades, which will affect financial results and return on investments planned by PGE in the new strategy of the PGE Group presented in June 2025? What steps is PGE's group management taking to mitigate the risk of underestimating the impact of the decline in the working-age population, Poland's declining population and the ageing population on future national electricity consumption at the national level and thermal energy consumption at the local level? In this context, PGE's management report on page 210 mentions "a detailed analysis of the potential for changes in demand for district heat and the adjustment of the future scale and structure of the generation portfolio at individual locations in relation to demographic changes". What conclusions do PGE investors and shareholders draw from this analysis and the expected future financial performance of the District Heating segment?

PGE's Management Board periodically monitors macroeconomic and demographic developments in the Group's environment. Conclusions in this regard have been adopted as assumptions for document "PGE Group's 2035 Strategy" available on the website www.gkpge.pl.

1. PGE's Management Board's Report for 2024 on page 198 reports that the PGE Group "periodically organises stakeholder dialogue sessions in line with the AA1000 standard (open to all stakeholder groups). Based on the information and suggestions gathered during the meetings, the PGE Group assesses the feasibility of implementing the proposals and incorporating them into strategic planning processes. Following each session, all participants receive a formal response from the organisation regarding the matters raised during the discussion. The most recent session was held in 2022, with the next planned for 2025. This three-year cycle allows time for the fulfilment or planning of previous commitments and the identification of new issues of particular importance to stakeholders." When is the 2025 meeting planned - if there is no specific date yet, the quarter of 2025 is sufficient, as well as information on how much earlier information about the meeting will be published and through which channels? Does the company's management also intend to invite the group's stakeholders from the Czech Republic and Germany, who were actively involved in the court-administrative dispute with the PGE group regarding the Turów open pit mining concession until 2044 and the impact of the Turów open pit operations on their groundwater and property values?

Dialogue sessions with representatives of the Company's key stakeholders were held on 16 and 21 May 2025 with both Polish and international stakeholders.

Invitations were addressed through direct channels to the identified key stakeholder representatives in order to cover the entire PGE Group's activities as evenly as possible.

Taking into account the broad scope of the Group's activities, irrespective of the issue of organising the dialogue session itself, the need to structure the process of ongoing dialogue with stakeholders at the level of local communities was identified.

With this in mind, PGE implemented three stationary dialogue sessions with representatives of communities affected by the Group's operational activities. On 21 May 2025, the session was held in Bogatynia (the area of PGE GiEK's operational activities, including the Turów Mine and Power Plant).

The meeting was of a cross-border nature and invitations were extended to representatives of the Czech and German sides and were received by, among others.

• Martin Půta Regional Office of the Liberec Region (Czech Republic),
• Stephan Meyer District authority of Görlitz (Germany),
• Thomas Zenker Zittau City Council (Germany).

The Czech side participated in the meeting. The German side reported that they were unable to attend due to time unavailability of the delegated representatives.

During the session, participants did not raise the issue of the mining concession for the Turów mine or the impact of the mine's operations on property values. However, the topic of the impact of mining activities on groundwater was raised.

Invitations to the dialogue sessions were extended to approximately 40 representatives of local communities in each location. Participants were nominated by experts, directors and management boards of PGE Group companies with operations in the area. Invitations by name were sent by email, well in advance at least 3 weeks before the planned meeting date.

1. On page 309 of the PGE CG Management Board's Report for 2024, the company states that: "Transparency and social dialogue are key elements of this approach, enabling the local community to obtain detailed information about the investment projects of the PGE Group." According to information from the Czech Geological Survey, a new hydrogeological model for the Turów open pit has already been drawn up other than the one that was communicated in the public consultation related to the proceedings for the environmental decision necessary to obtain a mining licence for the Turów open pit until 2044. When is the PGE management board going to publish this document in Poland so that Polish civil society, the inhabitants of the Zgorzelec district and independent experts can use it as a basis for discussions with PGE on the optimum directions and pace of the planned reclamation of the Turów open pit, pursuing an approach in the spirit of transparency and social dialogue, and to demonstrate that mining activities in the open pit will not threaten water relations either in Poland or in neighbouring countries and will not lead to the risk of another international dispute?

In the spirit of transparency and social dialogue, I would like to ask for information on when the Management Board of PGE intends to publicly announce the schedule for the transformation of the Turów complex, including precise dates for switching off the old units in the Turów power plant?

In the light of the statement made by PGE GiEK President of the Management Board Mr Kaczorowski in April this year at the Economy Committee in the Polish Sejm, from 2030 onwards, new units in Turów power station will be switched on every year. Could the management board confirm this information officially, as the company's shareholders will not read such information either from PGE's management board's report for 2024 or from the new CG strategy published in June 2025?

The model in question is an update of the model that was subject to Polish-Czech cross-border consultation in 2019 (to which the subsidiary PGE GiEK was obliged according to the environmental decision). The results of the model were handed over to the Czech side in November 2024 at the Polish-Czech commission established to analyse water issues in the Polish-Czech borderland. To date, the Czech side analysing the model has not submitted any comments to PGE GiEK. The model itself, due to company secrecy and copyright, is not made available.

Due to the changing characteristics of the National Energy System, the operation of coal-fired units will be significantly influenced by, among other things, support mechanisms adapted to the new role of these units. Ultimately, potential shutdowns of individual units will be agreed in particular with the Transmission System Operator, the Ministry of State Assets and the Government Plenipotentiary for Strategic Energy Infrastructure. Therefore, there is currently no detailed plan for communicating the schedule for the transformation of the Turów complex, including, in particular, the dates of possible shutdowns of individual units at the Turów power plant.

1. On page 309, PGE's management board asserts that " The heat generation business affects residents and companies operating within local heating networks. Without available alternative heat production sources, PGE remains responsible for guaranteed heat supply." In view of the fact that the units in Turów power plant also supply heat to residents and businesses in the municipality of Bogatynia when is PGE going to inform residents and the authorities of the municipality of Bogatynia about the timetable for the construction of a new heat source that would ensure heat supply to the municipal network of the municipality of Bogatynia after the end of the operation of units 1-6? The sooner the better the chance to avoid the situation of not having an operating heat source for one heating season as will be the case in the Gryfino municipality in the heating season 2026/2027 after the last coal-fired unit at Dolna Odra power plant has been decommissioned...

It should be noted that the statement regarding the location of PGE GiEK's Dolna Odra branch in Gryfino is incorrect. The PGE Group does not identify any risk that the possible decommissioning of coal-fired power units at PGE GiEK will ever have any negative impact on the supply of heat to customers.

1. Page 263 of PGE's Management Board's Report for 2024 states that: "At the moment, at the level of the PGE Group's Strategy 2030, there are no precisely established objectives relating directly to the management of water and marine resources." In view of the fact that the company will be one of the business entities with the greatest impact on water relations in Poland in the coming decades (planned reclamation of the Bełchatów, Szczerców and Turów open pit mines in the water direction, construction of new gas-fired power plants with a capacity of up to 10 GW, construction of gas-fired combined heat and power plants and analysis of the possibility of building nuclear power plants at the Bełchatów and Konin sites) and in view of the fact that the international dispute with the Czech Republic was a de facto dispute over the impact of the Turów mine on water relations on the Czech side does the Management Board and Supervisory Board of PGE CG not believe that the lack of precisely defined objectives relating directly to water management increases the risk of conflicts with local communities and nongovernmental organisations, which may have a negative impact on the company's image and indirectly on the perception of the company by investors and financial institutions for whom respect for E in ESG aspects is an important element of investment decisions?

The definition of precise targets in the field of water management, including those concerning the Turoszów region, will be the result of decisions concerning the further timing of the operation of the coal assets. Making greater use of gas-fired capacity at today's coal sites will contribute to a reduction in water consumption in cooling and technological processes. In this respect, it will contribute to reducing PGE's risk to the availability of water resources.

1. Why do the new gas-fired units at the Dolna Odra power plant still use old, decades-old open cooling systems? Why, in light of the emerging water shortages in the Oder River, has no decision been taken to build a closed cooling system that would allow a significant reduction in the volume of water intake and thus avoid the future risk of power curtailment due to limited access to water?

The use of the existing infrastructure in the construction of the gas/steam units was one of the factors that enabled them to be realised and the project to be placed in the Capacity Market auction. The open cooling system is also characterised by a higher achievable efficiency of the units, compared to a closed system, and consequently less fuel consumption.

The use of river water does not 'consume' it - the water, after passing through the power plant's heat exchangers and reducing the temperature in the hot channel (through heat exchange with the environment), returns to the Oder River. Hence, water abstracted for the cooling system cannot be treated as intake as commonly understood. Furthermore, to date, the water levels of the Oder River have generally not posed any problems/restrictions for the operation of the power plant.

1. How does the management assess the increased likelihood of climate risks? Where do PGE management board and PGE CG staff get their data from - is it from climate models or from "black box" data providers? Does management board have the competence to assess the reliability of the climate data that is used to identify and forecast the risks (both physical and transition) to which PGE CG and its infrastructure and employees will be exposed?

2. Do management board members analyse cumulative and/or cascading climate risks? If so, are they able to give an example of such risks, specify how the PGE CG approaches their analysis and how it estimates the financial consequences of the materialisation of cascading risks in the PGE's strategy?

Joint answer to questions 18 and 19: Since 2024, the PGE Group has had an ESG risk assessment and financial materiality analysis process in place, fulfilling the requirements of the CRSD. The process (that also relates to climate risks) takes place on an annual basis and aims to support decision-making processes in terms of sustainability and meeting stakeholder expectations.

Risks are assessed in 3 time perspectives, in terms of probability of occurrence and expected financial impact, in terms of costs as threats and revenues as opportunities. Staff involved in the process of assessing physical climate risks use climate models from, among others, the Klimada 2.0 portal.

The results of the process are approved by the PGE Management Board and information on identified significant climate risks is presented in the Management Board Report.

1. What granularity of physical risk assessment is used by the PGE CG management and staff - is it asset by asset, checking the sensitivity of individual elements of the system/operations at a given location - e.g. threshold of sensitivity to high temperatures of the atmosphere affecting lower process efficiency, more frequent failures, faster wear and tear of components? Or do they aggregate assets and thus risks to a high level of generality?

Staff involved in the physical climate risk assessment process assess the impact of physical hazards from the perspective of the asset and its location. This data is then aggregated to estimate the level of financial impact on the Group.

1. Is PGE planning to convert coal-fired units to biomass or build new biomass units? If so, which units are affected and what capacities are planned? Does PGE have forecasts of wood biomass consumption until 2035? What share of heat production from bioenergy is envisaged after 2035 as part of the decarbonisation strategy of the district heating segment?

PGE currently has no plans to build new biomass units or to convert units fully to biomass which is particularly evident from the lack of availability of large volumes of sustainable biomass and the unsatisfactory profitability of such solutions.

1. The PGE Decarbonisation Pathway document of December 2023 assumed zero-emissions in the heat segment by 2040, where 80% of heat sources would be renewables and electrical and 20% would be green fuels and CO2 capture (CCS). It also assumed a move away from coal in heat generation by 2030. Please provide a rational reason for the lowering of ambition in this segment.

PGE's ambition is to move away from coal-based heat production in a rational and investment-justified manner, and the objectives set out in the Strategy include a realistic schedule for the implementation of investments transforming the heating assets of the PGE Capital Group. The schedule for the implementation of this programme will depend not only on the financial and operational capabilities of the PGE Group, but also on the execution potential of contractors and the availability of technology in the context of the scale of the planned investments.

1. The PGE Group Strategy to 2030, which was in force until recently, assumed the phasing out of natural gas-based generation in the power industry by 2042 at the latest (page 10). Does PGE maintain this target?

This target has not been sustained. The new PGE Group Strategy assumes that 10 GW of flexible gas capacity will be achieved by 2035. For all gas units, the possibility of switching to decarbonised fuels, such as hydrogen or renewable fuels of non-biogenic origin (RFNBO), is being analysed for the future.

1. PGE's Strategy 2035 states that one of the arguments for the expansion of gas capacities is the suitable locations for investments in large units in the PGE Group, locations next to existing power plants. Please clarify whether PGE is considering the impact of gas units on water resources in these locations

Yes, PGE also takes into account the water resources in these locations, among other things, in the process of applying for environmental decisions. In doing so, it should be noted that the water consumption of gas units is much lower than that of coal units, and in the case of open-cycle gas turbines (OCGT), the water demand is marginal due to the absence of the steam part.

1. Page 52 of the Strategy states that the planned gas-fired capacity for 2030 is 5.1 GW of completed projects and 2.7 GW of projects under construction. In 2035, the capacity of completed projects remains the same (5.1 GW) while projects under construction are 4.1 GW but a note is added that their implementation is dependent on new capacity mechanisms. Do the 2.7 GW projects remain under construction until 2035 and does their completion also depend on capacity mechanisms or does this only apply to the additional 1.4 GW? Please clarify this inaccuracy.

The chart on page 52 of the Strategy shows that 10 GW of installed capacity in flexible gas sources is planned by the end of 2035, and the commentary indicates that the construction of 4.9 GW will depend in particular on new capacity mechanisms.

1. PGE's strategy assumes an increase in demand for gas fuel in a variable consumption profile. What is the projected gas consumption in the years to 2035 by the gas-fired generation segment vs. the district heating segment? Please provide the data and assumptions on which these forecasts are based.

Gas consumption up to 2035 will depend on the timing of ongoing investments and on the situation on the energy markets and the balance of the National Electricity System, which will determine the degree of asset utilisation.

The detailed assumptions in this regard developed in the Strategy model remain a Company's secret.

1. PGE has adopted a target to reduce CO2 emissions by 75% by 2035 but only in scope 1. What target has been adopted for all scopes combined? Please provide the criteria used for each scope 1, 2 and 3. Please also clarify whether only CO2 emissions are considered or also other greenhouse gases expressed as CO2eq (including CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3). What CO2 vs. CO2eq reduction target and targets for individual gases does PGE adopt? Please provide values in % and in absolute terms.

The target indicated in the Strategy refers only to CO2 emissions in scope 1 for fuel combustion. The other scopes remain strictly dependent on changes in the National Electricity System and it therefore seems premature to set them in the Strategy.

1. The PGE Decarbonisation Pathway document of December 2023 states that PGE has adopted targets to achieve the following emissions levels expressed in [kgCO2/MWh]: less than 200 in 2030, 100 in 2035 and 50 in 2040, while the current Strategy lowers these targets to: 415 in 2030, 230 in 2035 and 0-90 in 2050 (depending on the NZ vs BAU scenario). Please explain the reason for this change and provide a pathway for PGE to achieve emissions reduction.

The PGE Decarbonisation Pathway document did not include the Coal Generation segment and therefore the decarbonisation levels are not comparable. The emissions reduction pathway is presented in the Strategy.

1. PGE's Strategy to 2050 repeatedly refers to the net zero 2050 scenario, but PGE's investment plans and other goals undermine the credibility of this declaration. PGE's policy is not in line with the IEA Net-zero 2050 pathway, which requires, among other things: - 68% of installed RES capacity worldwide by 2030 (PGE's target: 21% in 2030 and 42% in 2035) and 75% of solar and wind power by 2040, - an end to fossil fuel investment funding after 2030, - emissions-free electricity generation in OECD countries by 2035 what means removing fossil fuels from that sector, - closing of coal-fired power plants by 2030, - zero-carbon heat production by 2040 at the latest. Moreover, the IEA net zero 2050 scenario is in line with the 1.5 °C target, while 'PGE has not adopted targets in line with the Paris Agreement in its strategy'. Please explain the reasons for this decision and on what basis PGE claims that its strategy leads to net zero emissions in 2050.

PGE Group's strategy declares the achievement of climate neutrality by 2050, but does not follow a pathway consistent with IEA Net Zero 2050. There is a reference to a "Net Zero 2050 scenario" in the document, but this is not the same as adopting the IEA's assumptions.

1. Has PGE Group adopted achieving net zero carbon in 2050 as a target or is it an aspiration?

Achieving net zero carbon in 2050 is an aspirational goal for PGE.

1. On page 42 of the Strategy, there is a graph showing the share of RES in two scenarios. One of these is the net zero 2050 scenario. Please clarify what the other scenario this graph represents. Is it a BAU scenario? Which is the scenario that PGE's 2035 Strategy is in line with?

The Strategy adopts a 2035 horizon and in this period the scenarios are identical.

1. PGE's Strategy in place prior to the update stated on page 13 that the company's long-term strategic aspiration was to achieve by 2050 "100% renewable energy for PGE customers and to balance retail sales with RES generation by 2050 at the latest". This declaration is also found in the PGE Decarbonisation Pathway document of December 2023 (page 10). Does the Company maintain this aspiration and if not, please provide reasons for this change?

The essence of PGE's aspiration remains unchanged, but we have chosen to communicate in a simpler way and to take greater account of the fact that our customers can increasingly - through prosumer installations and energy storage become more energy independent.

We consistently assume an increase in the share of RES in the energy sold by PGE, and assuming, among other things, the continuation of the offshore wind programme beyond 2035, the Group will be on a good path to achieve the aforementioned 2050 aspiration.

1. PGE's Strategy to 2030 (prior to update) states a target of >90 TWh cumulative renewable energy production from RES by 2030. Please provide a value for the equivalent target according to the current strategy for 2030 and 2035.

The projected cumulative electricity production from RES by 2030 is 33 TWh and 109 TWh is projected by 2035.

1. The IEA net-zero 2050 pathway requires a reduction in methane emissions, including the deployment of all available technologies by 2030 to removing methane emissions in the gas sector. What were PGE's methane emissions in 2024 by segment? Does PGE include methane emissions across the entire coal and gas supply chain and across all Bands 1,2 and 3? Has PGE adopted a methane emission reduction target? If yes - what, if no - please provide reasons for these decisions.

PGE GiEK S.A. has the largest share of methane emissions in the PGE Group, where methane emissions result from mining activities (Bełchatów Lignite Mine and Turów Lignite Mine) and are taken into account when calculating the carbon footprint as CO² equivalent.

Due to its nature, mining from lignite deposits generates significantly lower amounts of methane emissions than coal-fired underground mines. In 2024, methane emissions amounted to - 41.63 Mg CH4.

In contrast, in the case of the District Heating Segment, methane emissions in 2024 amounted to - 31.02 Mg CH4.

The PGE Group did not present a specific target for methane emission reduction in the Strategy. Methane emissions from lignite mining belong to the so-called fugitive emissions - there is no possibility of targeting them, as they occur in a surface manner during mining through the entire excavated material, and thus reducing and setting targets in this respect. These emissions will ultimately be reduced to zero due to the closure of the complexes and the reclamation of the post-mining areas.

1. Has the company established Management Board level responsibilities for achieving climate targets and provides evidence of such oversight by the Board? If yes, please provide details of plans for established Management Board-level responsibilities and oversight disclosure mechanisms.

PGE's Strategy sets out the Group's climate and transformational goals directly contributing to the progressive decarbonisation process, and the Board of PGE is responsible for the implementation of the Strategy.

The Board's roles in the context of oversight of sustainability issues, including climate, are described in PGE's Management Board's Report 2024 on pages 164- 165.

1. Question on PGE's move away from coal combustion. Coal-fired power plants remain a major burden for the company - in terms of finance, ability to raise finance, and high greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. The company did not succeed, as announced, in spinning off its coal assets to NABE or as part of another solution. PGE's report does not present a specific date to move away from coal combustion, let alone one that is consistent with climate science. Does PGE have a plan to move away from coal combustion that includes a specific year of cessation of coal combustion and decommissioning dates for individual coal units? If so, when does PGE intend to make such a plan public?

The answer to question 14 covers the scope of the above question.

1. Question on investments in gas: on the basis of PGE's reports and, above all, on the basis of PGE's strategy, one can conclude that PGE is planning large investments in gas infrastructure. The planned capital expenditure for gas-fired generation in 2025-2035 is PLN 37 billion, and PGE states that a key strategic aspiration is to have 10 GW of gas capacity. How does PGE assess the risk of the PLN 37bn becoming the basis for impairment charges on fixed assets in the future and the impact of these charges on the company's results - as has been the case with coal assets in recent years? Given the technological advances, especially those related to energy storage, the ability to control demand and the dynamic development of RES exceeding previous forecasts and expectations, does the company believe that investments in assets that burn another fossil fuel are in the company's economic interest and are in line with climate protection expectations?

We do not anticipate write-downs on new investments under way, and it is in the Company's economic interest to make these investments. Investment decisions for the construction of new gas capacity are based on obtaining support, primarily from capacity mechanisms that guarantee revenues over a 17-year period. The gas units will also participate actively in the energy and balancing services market, generating a margin on production and providing flexibility services to the National Electricity System, where the use of coal units is significantly limited.

From a climate protection point of view, these units are expected to replace coalburning units - the system's unit emissions will therefore decrease. In the future, depending on fuel availability, it will also be possible to adapt them to burn decarbonised gases.

1. Question about the Turów power plant: The 2024 Management Board Report does not provide a schedule for the closure of the coal units at the Turów power plant. Meanwhile, on 23 April 2025, during a meeting of the Sejm Committee on Economy and Development, the topic of which was the transformation of the Turów region, the President of the Management Board of PGE GiEK Mr Jacek Kaczorowski declared that starting from 2030 the company plans to shut down 2 units per year. Does PGE confirm this information provided to the parliamentary committee?

The answer to question 14 covers the scope of the above question.

1. Question about PGE's approach to environmental and climate protection. For the last 5 years, PGE GiEK - a subsidiary of PGE with emission levels comparable to those of many countries in Europe - has been a party to court proceedings as part of the largest climate lawsuit in Poland's history. The company, has been sued for contributing to climate change. As part of the proceedings, the company recently stated in an official letter to the court that "The negative impact on the climate caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases does not depend on a factor that can be shaped on an ongoing basis by entities burning fossil fuels, for example, i.e. the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The decisive factor in this regard remains outside the control of these entities, i.e. the concentration ("build-up") of these gases in the environment due to emissions made since the beginning of the industrial age, including those made today by other entities." I wanted to ask if this is PGE's official position and approach to the subject of environmental and climate protection?

Due to the ongoing court proceedings in the dispute between PGE GiEK S.A. and an environmental organisation, PGE will not refer to the content of the pleadings of the parties to the proceedings. PGE is not a party to this litigation. Taking a position and presenting one's own arguments in the dispute is the prerogative of each party to the litigation.

1. Unambiguous information about the date by which coal will be mined and burned by PGE in Turów is to be or not to be for the employees of the power plant and mines and the companies and municipalities dependent on lignite mining such as Bogatynia and Zgorzelec where the complex operates. The question is: until when will coal be mined and burned at Turów and what is the timetable for the closure of the various coal units at Turów?

The answer to question 14 covers the scope of the above question.

1. PGE's strategy is to operate the Turów power plant beyond 2035 and to transfer the units to the cold reserve if subsidies for coal-fired generation are maintained by government decision. The question is: in connection with the possible transfer of the coal units to the cold reserve and starting them up only during sudden demand, how will the extraction of lignite at the Turów mine develop and to what level is coal extraction at the mine planned to be reduced?

The answer to question 14 covers the scope of the above question.

1. In the Management Board's Report for 2024, the company included the provision: "...the PGE Group has adopted procedures that meet the standards set out in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights." At the same time, the report also reads that "Two notifications relating to PGE CG companies have been received by the OECD National Contact Point established in accordance with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, as of disclosure has not been completed." I wanted to ask what these notifications relate to?

As of the date of the responses to questions, PGE remains committed not to make public information regarding the notices indicated. As the investigations are completed, information in this regard will be provided by the OECD National Contact Point and PGE will also refer to it in the PGE Group's 2025 Sustainability Statement.

1. How will the decommissioning of coal-fired units increase the price of energy? Because I recently listened to such a programme by Professor Mielczarski, who claimed that energy from lignite is the cheapest. Consequently, renewable energy is more expensive. It was 230 to 312 there. So if we do away with this coal, which is in Poland, which is our national wealth, because we don't have gas, the wind blows, once it blows another time it doesn't blow, and therefore how will electricity bills go up?

It is not possible to refer unequivocally to the numbers indicated, and the implementation of the PGE Group Strategy is aimed at a comprehensive transformation of the energy sector that will reduce the costs incurred by end users.

Company's shareholders' questions to the Supervisory Board

1. How do the members of PGE's supervisory board assess their level of knowledge on the impact of the demographic crisis on the forecasting of demand for and national consumption of heat and electricity in the coming decades?

The Supervisory Board is kept informed on issues relevant to the Company's competitive position, which is also affected by macroeconomic and demographic developments in the Group's environment.

1. Do the members of the Supervisory Board analyse cumulative and/or cascading climate risks? If so, are they able to give an example of such risks, how the PGE CG approaches their analysis and how it estimates the financial impact of the materialisation of cascading risks in PGE's strategy?

Analysis of cascading risks takes place at the Company level and not at the level of the Supervisory Board, which, however, is informed on all material issues, including risks to the Company's operations. Information on the PGE Management Board's approach to the analysis is presented in the answer to question no. 19.