Ascopiave

Investor Presentation • May 18, 2016

INVESTOR MEETING

Milan, May 19th 2016

B i O i s n e s s e r e u v v w	P 3 a g
i i D d d e n s v	P 1 5 a g
S k i d l t t t t o c p r c e a n o a r e u r n	P 1 8 a g
i H t s o r y	P 2 1 a g
T i t e r r o r y	P 2 4 a g
S t t r a e g y	P 2 7 a g
G d i i b i t t a s s r u o n	P 3 6 a g
G l a s s a e s	P 4 5 a g
f A i i l d t n n e x e s n a n c a a a :	P 5 3 a g
D i l i s c a m e r	P 1 0 2 a g

Contents

Business Overview

→	G b i i i i t t r o p s n e s s a c e s u u v	P 4 a g
→	C i i i h h i i I l t t t t t o m p e v e e n v r o n m e n e g a s c a n n a y :	P 5 a g
→	M k i i i t t a r e p o s o n n g	P 6 a g
→	G f A i D b 3 1 2 0 1 t t t 5 s c o p a v e r o u p s r u c u r e a s o e c e m e r, s … … …	P 7 a g
→	S A i h h l d s c o p a e a r e o e r s v .… … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … … … … … … … …	P 8 a g
→	f M i i i l d t a n n a n c a a a	P 9 a g
→	S 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 E B I T D A b k- d b i B i U i 5 t t t r e a o n r a e g c s n e s s n w y u - … … … .… … …	P 1 1 a g
→	F i i l l i n a n c a e v e r a g e c o m p a r s o n	P 1 2 a g
→	F i i l d b d f d b t t t n a n c a e a n c o s o e … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 1 3 a g
→	E I B L o a n … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … …	P 1 4 a g

Ascopiave Group operates mainly in the gas sector.

GAS SALES - 2015 KEY FIGURES (*)

scm = standard cubic meters

f ( / ) V l l d l o m e s o g a s s o s c m m n u	9 6 1
( /m ) Fu l l c l i da d c ies ln te on so om p an sc m	8 1 9	( ) 8 5 %
Co ies l i da d w i h e i ho d ( /m ln ) te t ty t m p an co ns o q u me sc m	1 4 3	( 1 % ) 5

(*) Data of the companies consolidated with the equity method are considered pro-quota.

Main italian gas down-stream operators

The Group has created an industrial pole that is ^a national player in the gas sector and ^a leadingregional player in Veneto.

	Ra nk ing	Gr ou p	Vo l. ( c) sm	%
	1	Sn am	7, 230	24 .7%
)	2	2i Re Ga te s	4, 849	16. 6%
* (	3	He ra	2, 592	8.9 %
D E	4	A2 A	1, 737	5.9 %
T	5	Iren	1, 229	4.2 %
U	6	Tos a E ia can ner g	913	3.1 %
B I R	7	As iav (a ) co p e	776	2.7 %
T	8	Es tra	679	2.3 %
S I	9	Lin Gro Ho ldin ea up g	574	2.0 %
D	10	Ero t gas me	347	1.2 %
S	11	Ac -Ag sm am	336	1.1 %
A G	12	Ag Ve sm ron a	325	1.1 %
F	13	Am bie En ia B rian nte erg za	322	1.1 %
O	14	Un ion Fe a In ion al ter nos nac	283	1.0 %
S	15	En ei erg	280	1.0 %
E M	16	Do lom iti E ia ner g	256	0.9 %
U	17	Ga s R imi ni	253	0.9 %
L	18	Ed iso n	250	0.9 %
O V	19	Aim ag	227	0.8 %
	20	Aim Vi cen za	222	0.8 %
		Oth ers	5, 560	19. 0%
		To tal	29, 240	100 .0%

	Ra nk ing	Gr ou p	Vo l. ( c) sm	%
	1	En i	13, 270	24 .9%
	2	Ed iso n	6, 095	11. 4%
	3	En el	5, 270	9.9 %
)	4	Gd F S uez	2, 290	4.3 %
* (	5	E.O n	2, 049	3.8 %
D	6	Iren	1, 992	3.7 %
L O	7	He ra	1, 879	3.5 %
S	8	Ro l D h S hel l utc ya	1, 588	3.0 %
S	9	A2 A	1, 22 1	2.3 %
A	10	So nia rge	919	1.7 %
G F	11	As iav ( b) co p e	888	1.7 %
O	12	Es tra	668	1.3 %
S	13	Ero t gas me	512	1.0 %
E	14	Do lom iti E ia ner g	510	1.0 %
M U	15	Un oga s	494	0.9 %
L	16	Lin Gro Ho ldin ea up g	426	0.8 %
O V	17	Erg	402	0.8 %
	18	Sw iss Po r & Ga we s	398	0.7 %
	19	Ag Ve sm ron a	358	0.7 %
	20	En eni erx a	35 1	0.7 %
		Oth ers	11, 742	22 .0%
		To tal	53, 322	100 .0%

With respect to the number of gas sales customers, Ascopiave Group ranks 1st in Veneto

(*) In house processing on 2014 AEEGSI data. Data of the companies consolidated with the equit method are considered pro-quota; (a) Including volumes distribuited by Ascopiave, Edigas DG, Asm DG and Unigas DG; (b) Including volumes sold byAscotrade, Etra Energia, Asm Set, Estenergy, Veritas Energia, Pasubio Servizi, Blue Meta and Amgas Blu.

Ascopiave Shareholders (*)

Asco Holding S.p.A. directly controls the capital of Ascopiave S.p.A. in an amount equal to 61.562%.

Asco Holding S.p.A. is owned by 91 municipalities mainly located in the province of Treviso (publicshareholders) and ¹ private company (Blue Energy).

(*) Internal processing of information pursuant to art. 120 TUF (Source: CONSOB website)

2015 MAIN FINANCIAL DATA ACCORDING TO IFRS 11 (*)

I N C O M E S T A T E M E N T
	G ro u p	D is i bu io t t r n S B U ( **)	S le s S a B U ( *** )
Re ( ** ) ve nu e s	5 8 1, 6 5 5	8 5, 4 7 6	5 9 0, 3 0 5
E B I T D A	8 0, 9 8 3	5, 3 8 1 7	5, 4 1 6 7
E B I T	6, 9 0 5 5	1 8 7, 7 7	3 9, 1 3 7
Ev lua ion f t a o ies i h t ( ) co m p an w i ho d ty t eq u m e	7, 4 4 9	9 9 0	6, 4 5 9
Ne inc t o m e	4 5, 3 6 2

B A L A N C E S H E E T	/ / 5 3 1 1 2 2 0 1
Ta i b le d in i b le ta ts ng an ng as se	4 3 2, 4 0 5
Inv in ia tm ts te es en as so c s	6 8, 0 8 7
O he f ixe d t ts r as se	2 6, 6 9 9
Ne k ing i l t w ta or c ap	6, 9 9 1
C T O T A L A P I T A L E M P L O Y E D	5 3 4, 1 7 3
S ha ho l de i ty re rs eq u	4 2 0, 1 3 7
Ne f ina ia l p i io t t nc os n	1 1 4, 0 3 7
T O T A L S O U R C E S	5 3 4, 1 3 7

(-)

EBITDA of the company consolidated with the equity method: €13.3 mln(distribution companies: €2.6 mln ⁺ sales companies: €10.8 mln)

EBIT of the company consolidated with the equity method: €7.4mln (distribution companies: €1.4 mln ⁺ sales companies: €6.0 mln)

(*) Thousand Euro; (**) Distribution SBU includes gas distribution, heat management and cogeneration; (***) Sales SBU includes gas sales and electricity sales; (****) Gas distribution SBU and gas sales SBU revenues are represented before elisions.

5 F I N A N C I A L R A T I O S ( *) 2 0 1
	( A )	( B )	( A ) ( B ) +
	C o m p a n y l i d d i h t t c o n s o a e w f l l l i d i t c o n s o a o n u h d t m e o	C o m p a n y i i l d d h t t c o n s o a e w i t t n e e q u y l i d i t c o n s o a o n h d t ( **) m e o	T l t o a
S ( Q ) h h l d i E U I T Y t a r e o e r s e q u y	4 2 0, 1 3 7
( ) N F i i l P i i N F P t t e n a n c a o s o n	( ) 1 1 4, 0 3 7	1, 3 8 5	( ) 1 1 2, 6 5 2
E B I T D A	8 0, 9 8 3	1 3, 3 3 5	9 4, 3 1 8
/ N F P E B I T D A	1. 4 1		1. 1 9
/ N F P E Q U I T Y	0. 2 7

(*) Thousand Euro; (**) Data are considered pro-quota and refer to Estenergy, Asm Set and Unigas Distribuzione. Data doesn't include Sinergie Italiane.

2009-2015 EBITDA break-down by Strategic Business Unit

( Mil lion Eu ) ro	I N C O M E S T A T E M E N T	G r o p u	D i i b i t t s r o n u S B U	%	S l a e s S B U	%
	R e v e n u e s	5 8 1, 7	8 5, 5		5 9 0, 3
IFR S 1 1	E B I T D A	8 1, 0	5, 3 8	4 4, 2 %	5, 4 2	5 5, 8 %
	R e e n e s v u	5 8 5, 3	9 0, 7		5 8, 7 7
S 1 IFR 1	E B I T D A	7 9, 6	3 5, 4	4 4, 5 %	4 4, 2	5 5, 5 %
	R e v e n u e s	6 6 7, 8	8 7, 4		6 4 4, 7
S 1 IFR	E B I T D A 1 re sta ted	8 6, 3	3 3, 4	3 8, 7 %	5 2, 9	6 1, 3 %
	R e v e n u e s	8 5 4, 3	9 4, 1		8 3 9, 6
	E B I T D A	1 0 5, 9	3 6, 0	3 4, 0 %	6 9, 9	6 6, 0 %
	R e v e n u e s	1. 0 7 8, 0	9 5, 4		1. 0 5 5, 4
	E B I T D A	1 0 2, 7	3 3, 9	3 3, 1 %	6 8, 7	6 6, 9 %
	R e e n e s v u	1. 0 9 9, 2	9 2, 0		1. 0 5, 6 7
	E B I T D A	9 3, 2	3 4, 9	3 7, 4 %	5 8, 3	6 2, 6 %
	R e v e n u e s	5 5, 8 9	8 6, 7		8 4 2, 3
	E B I T D A	7 8, 0	3 2, 9	4 2, 1 %	4 5, 1	5 7, 9 %
	R e v e n u e s	7 6 4, 2	7 7, 2		7 6 3, 5
	E B I T D A	6 1, 5	4 1, 6	6 6 % 7,	1 9, 9	3 2, 4 %

Gas distribution businessis characterized by stable operating margins.

Increase of the gas sales business operating margins over the last years is due to the external growth(acquisition of 8 companies) and tohigher profitability, mainly thanks to declining gas procurement costs.

Financial leverage comparison (2015)

C S ( *) F I N A N I A L R A T I O	C S ( **) L O A L U T I L I T I E ( da ) ta av er ag e	S C A O P I A V E	V A R
F i i l l n a n c a e v e r a g e	1, 0	0, 3	-0 8 ,
D / D E +	5 1 %	2 1 %	-2 9 %
E / D E +	4 9 %	7 9 %	2 9 %
D / E B I T D A	2, 9	1, 4	-1 5 ,

Ascopiavefinancial leverage (0.3) is lower than those of the Italian listed comparables (avg: 1.0).

The low indebtedness level is ^a very positive result in the light of ^a macroeconomic scenario that makes access to credit ^a real challenge, which therefore strengthens the Group's economic andfinancial soundness and enables it to reap the opportunity of carrying out potential extraordinarytransactions in next years.

(*) Financial leverage is calculated considering the shareholders' equity and the net financial position as of December, 31th 2015; (**) Local utilities considered are the main italian listedlocal utilities: A2A, Hera, Acea and Iren.

( T ho d Eu ) ( *) us an ro	3 1 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5	3 1 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 4	Va r	Va % r
Lo f ina ia l bo ing ( 1 2 hs ) te t ng rm nc rro w s mo n > Cu i ion f lon f ina ia l bo ing t p t te rre n os o g rm nc rro w s S ho f ina ia l bo ing ( hs ) t te 1 2 t r rm nc rro s mo n w <	4 3. 8 2 9 9. 6 2 8 5 9. 9 3 7	3. 4 6 5 5 9. 4 7 5 7 4. 2 2 4	( 9. 6 2 ) 7 ( 1 1 ) 7 ( ) 1 4. 2 8 7	-1 8, 0 % -1 2 % , -1 9, 2 %
To l f in ia l de b ta t an c	1 1 3. 3 9 4	1 3 7. 4 2 5	( 2 4. 0 3 1 )	-1 7, 5 %
F ixe d bo ing te ra rro w s Va ia b le bo ing te r ra rro w s	3 4 2 1 1 3. 0 2 5	8 0 3 1 3 6. 6 2 2	( 4 6 1 ) ( 2 3. 0 ) 5 7	4 % -5 7, -1 3 % 7,

2015 average cost of debt: 0,81% (vs 2014 rate: 1,13%)

(*) Data refers to the companies consolidated with the full consolidation method.

EIB Loan

EIB lends 70 million Euro to Ascopiave for gas grid in northern Italy

In June 2013 the European Investment Bank (EIB) and Ascopiave havesigned ^a 70 million Euro loan in support of investments to improve andexpand gas distribution networks in the Veneto and Lombardyregions.

This is the first operation between the EIB and Ascopiave. This loan confirms the EIB's commitment to the natural gas sector, which in the past two years has undergone major restructuring in Italyaimed at making gas distribution – ^a priority public service– more efficient.

It also represents an important sign of the Bank's commitment in the EU to mid-caps in the utilitiessector, which are marked by ^a sound business model, public participation and strong regional roots.

→	D i i d d l i v e n p o c y	P a g	1 6
→		P a g	1 7

Dividend payment sustainable with high return to shareholders

Sustainability of the dividend policy:

• pstable cash flow
• pstable business profitability
• pwell-balanced financial structure

Dividend yield at the top of the listed italian utility companies

D I V I D E N D S	2 0 1 5	2 0 1 4	2 0 1 3	2 0 1 2	2 0 1 1	2 0 1 0	2 0 0 9	2 0 0 8	2 0 0 7	2 0 0 6
D iv i de ds d is i bu d ( T ho d o f Eu ) tr te n us an ro	3 5. 1 6 2	3 5. 1 6 2	2 8. 1 2 9	2 5. 7 8 5	0	2 3. 4 4 1	2 1. 0 9 7	1 9. 9 2 5	1 9. 8 9 8	1 9. 8 3 3
Gr ( f ) Ne t Inc T ho d o Eu ou p om e us an ro	4 3. 0 1 4	3 5. 5 8 3	3 8. 6 7 8	2 7. 8 6 5	6. 2 6 6	3 1. 1 7 4	2 5. 2 8 8	1 8. 4 5 2	2 1. 7 6 4	1 6. 3 8 1
Pa io t r t y ou a	8 2 %	9 9 %	7 3 %	9 3 %	0 %	7 5 %	8 3 %	1 0 8 %	9 1 %	1 2 1 %
D iv i de d p ha ( Eu ) n er s re ro	0, 1 5 0	0, 1 5 0	0, 1 2 0	0, 1 1 0	0, 0 0 0	0, 1 0 0	0, 0 9 0	0, 0 8 5	0, 0 8 5	0, 0 8 5
D iv i de d y ie l d ( *) n	7, 0 %	7, 6 %	8, 4 %	9, 2 %	0, 0 %	6, 3 %	5, 8 %	5, 7 %	4, 4 %	4, 0 %

TOTAL DIVIDENDS DISTRIBUTED FROM STOCK EXCHANGE LISTING TO DATE

About 228 million Euro

/ R O I R O E	2 0 1 5	2 0 1 4	2 0 1 3	2 0 1 2	2 0 1 1	2 0 1 0	2 0 0 9	2 0 0 8	2 0 0 7	2 0 0 6
R O I ( **)	1 2, 2 %	1 1, 1 %	1 4, 4 %	1 3, 1 %	1 1, 8 %	1 1, % 7	9, 1 %	8, % 5	1 % 7,	1 0, 4 %
O R E	1 0, 4 %	8, 8 %	9, 7 %	7, 3 %	1, 8 %	8, 3 %	6, 9 %	5, 1 %	5, 9 %	4, 4 %

(*) Dividend yield = dividend per share / average price per share in the year; (**) ROI = EBIT / CI; CI = Net Capital Invested (In 2014 and 2015 investments in associates are excluded)

Dividend Yield comparison (2015)

Dividend distributed by Ascopiave in 2015 is higher than those distributed by the major listed comparablecompanies:

(*) Dividend per share / 2015 average price per share

Stock price and total stock return

→	A i k i l i t s c o p a v e s o c p r c e a n a y s s	P a g	1 9
→	A i l k l i t t t t s c o p a e o a s o c r e r n a n a s s v u y	P a g	2 0

Ascopiave stock price compared with the other listed italian utilities and the FTSE.MIB index

Analysis from 12.12.2006 (Ascopiave IPO) to 13.05.2016

The total stock return represents the total stock price variation from 12.12.2016 (Ascopiave IPO) to13.05.2016 taking into account the dividends collected from 2007 to 2016.

Contents

History→ Use of IPO proceeds ....................................................................................... → Equity story after IPO (2007-2015) .................................................................. Pag. 22Pag. 23

Ascopiave has used the IPO proceeds to finance ^a series of investments pursuing the dimensional growthof the Group, both by internal lines (investments in gas distribution network and other capital expenditures)and by external lines (investments in firm / company acquisitions).

	( ) Mil lion Eu ro
( ) N F i i l P i i 3 1. 1 2. 2 0 0 6 i h I P O d t t t t t e n a n c a o s o n a o p r o c e e s w u	( ) 7 3, 9
O I P P d r o c e e s C h F l 2 0 0 7 2 0 1 5 a s o w ÷ F i i i N F P ( *) t r m a s s g n m e n p r c e + :	1 6 1, 5 4 6 6, 1 2 6, 9
T l h i 2 0 0 2 0 1 5 ( A ) t 7 ÷ o a c a s n :	6 5 4, 6
( F i i i i i N F P ) t r m a c q u s o n s : p r c e + C ( i l E d i ) t t a p a x p e n u r e s S ( i i I l i l ) t n e r g e a a n e o s s c o v e r a g e C C ( h i N W k i i l ) t t a n g e n e o r n g a p a ( D i i d d d h b b k ) v e n s a n s a r e u y a c s	( 1 8, 8 ) 7 ( 1 9 9, ) 7 ( 2 ) 7, 5 ( 8 1, 6 ) ( 2 1 4, 9 )
T l h 5 ( B ) 2 0 0 7 2 0 1 t t o a c a s o u ÷ :	( 5 ) 7 0 2,
i i i i ( C ) N F P l d d h h h d t t t t t t ( **) c o m p a n e s c o n s o a e w e n e e q u y m e o :	7, 8
C ( ) ( ) ( C ) h i N F i i l P i i 2 0 0 7 2 0 1 5 A B t t a n g e n e n a n c a o s o n ÷ : + -	( ) 4 0, 1
N F i i l P i i 3 1. 1 2. 2 0 1 5 t t t e n a n c a o s o n a	( 1 1 4, 0 )

(*) Assignement of the company active in photovoltaicsector; (**) Net Financial Position at December, 31st 2013.

Territory

• → Production and distribution of the value added ................................................ Pag. 25
• → Shareholder Municipalities: investments, concession fees and dividends ....... Pag. 26

The value added (*) allows to measure the economic performance of the management and the ability of the Ascopiave Group to create wealth for its stakeholders.

The generated value added has been shared between economic value distributed to the main categoriesof stakeholders and economic value retained by the group in the form of depreciation and reserves.

T A T E M E N T O F D I S T R I B U T I O N O F T H E V A L U E A D D E D	2 0 1 5
S C S H U M A N R E O U R E	2 8, 1 0 4
Em loy ( d s lar ies de fer d c ion he ) t ot ts p ee s wa g es an a re om p en sa s, r c os ,	2 6, 8 2 7
( ) No loy te bo d ies lta nts l la bo rat ion n-e mp ee s co rp ora , c on su , c o s	1, 2 3 1
S S- S S C H A R E H O L D E R P R O V I D E R O F R I K A P I T A L	3 3, 3 4 7
D iv i de ds d ist i bu d o inc te et n r n n om e	3 3, 3 47
F I N A N C I N G	1, 1 4 1
C ha for ho d lon ita ls rt a ter rg es s n g- m ca p	1, 1 4 1
C S P U B L I A D M I N I T R A T I O N	2 9, 0 9 6
Co ion fee nc es s s	8, 3 8 7
Lo l ta d fee ca xe s a n s	4, 7 6 6
Sta fee te tax d es an s	1 6, 15 2
Co /or fun i bu ion d b l ic d ing ive d ntr t s a n p u re ce	-2 0 1
S S S E N T E R P R I E Y T E M	3 2, 0 4 5
De iat ion p rec	2 0, 0 2 9
Pro is ion v s	1 2, 0 1 6
C O L L E C T I V E	9 7 3
fam D isc dy i l ies nt ou ne e	7 2 8
/or Do ion d h ip be h ip fee t na s a n sp on so rs s, me m rs s	2 45
O T A L G R O S S V A L U E A D D E D	1 2 4, 7 0 5

(Thousand Euro)

(*) The value added is represented by the difference between revenues and intermediate costs and accessory and extraordinary components.

Concession fees paid by Ascopiave S.p.A. to non-shareholder municipalities in the period 2010-2015: about 16 million Euro

Strategy

→	S i i d l i d b j i t t t r a e g c g e n e s a n o e c e s u v	P a g	2 8
→	G h i h d k t t t t r o w n e o w n -s r e a m m a r e	P a g	2 9
→	G d i i b i t t t a s s r o n s e c o r u	P a g	3 0
→	f f A i i i l d i i h d i i b i b l i d t t t t s c o p a v e n a n c a n e e s o r w n n n g e g a s s r u o n p u c e n e r s : …	P a g	3 2
→	G l t a s s a e s s e c o r	P a g	3 3
→	A i i l i h l k t t t t s c o p a v e s r a e g c g o a s n e g a s s a e s m a r e : … …	P a g	3 5

Gas distribution sector: key figures

• pNo. of operators: about 240
• pMunicipalities served: about 7,000
• pVolumes of gas distributed: about 34 billion of standard cubic meters
• pNo. of users served: over 22 million
• pLength of the gas distribution network: over 220.000 km (ownership: 75% of operators)
• pRegulatory asset base (RAB): 15,1 billion of Euro

Since 2000 gas distribution operators have been reduced to less than a third.

Currently gas distribution sector appairsstrongly concentrated:

• pabout 50% of RAB (*) is held by Snam Rete Gas and F2i, the only operators with a national rank
• p about 30% of RAB is held by 14 medium size operators (RAB > 100 million Euro), with a regional relevance
• pabout 20% of RAB is held by small size operators

(*) Ascopiave valuation.

Gas distribution sector is facing ^a new phase of restructuring after that experienced subsequently theissuing of Letta decree of the early 2000s. Through the adoption of ATEM (minimum territorial district) isexpected ^a significant reduction of the number of operators. The need of new finance in the system will bethe determining factor for the realisation of the sectorial concentration announced by the legislator.

Likely consequences also to the retail front in consideration of the same ownership structure.

Overall effects of the recent legislation on the competitive context:

reduction of the number of potential competitors

Participation in call of tenders will be possible only to enterprises with suitable financial andorganizational capabilities

less relevance of the economic part of the offer

Definition of maximum thresholds on the economic elements of the offer makes less determining –for the purposes of awarding tenders – the benefit of economic efficiency on operating costs(flattening of the offers on threshold levels)

relevance of the technical offer

To win ^a tender will be crucial the formulation of ^a valid investments plan for development, strengthening and maintenance of the gas distribution system (technical efficiency and sustainabilityfrom the point of view of ^a cost / benefit analysis)

Gas sales sector: key figures

• pNo. of operators in the italian market: over ¹⁶⁰
• p First ¹⁰ operators (with volumes of gas sold higher than one billion of standard cubic meters) supplying over 73% of overall consumption to the gas final market (45,6 billion of standard cubicmeters on ^a total of 62,4 billlion of standard cubic meters)

Since liberalization introduced by Letta decree of the early 2000s, gas sale market has experienced twowell distinct phases:

pORGANIC GROWTH

pCONSOLIDATION through company aggregations / mergers and vertical integrations

The current phase of CONCENTRATION that is happening through growth for external line and the exit from the market of minor gas sales companies will be cause an addictional reduction of the number of operators.

• p Since ²⁰⁰⁸ economic crisis continues to affect natural gas demand. Together with the structure and constraints of take or pay contracts it has contributed to create ^a long market
• pDecoupling between gas price and oil gas price is very significant
• p All these factors (decoupling, long market and spot prices) have contributed to considerably raise margins for retail operators not tied by procurement to takeor pay contracts
• pThe difference between tariff component of raw material and real purchase costs has been very high
• p Resolution n. 196/2013 has changed the criteria to define and update the component of the selling price aimed to cover the cost of the raw material that, from 1st october 2013, refers entirely to the gasspot market (TTF forward prices)
• p Although gradually, extra margins outcoming from the difference between tariff component of row material and real purchase costs will be reduced significantly in the coming years
• p Growth for external lines returns to be ^a driver of development in the gas market as opposed to the organic growth

Ascopiave: actions in the gas sales market

To maintain / improve competitive positioning in the gas sales market, Ascopiave Group foresees:

• to grow for external line to compensate the natural loss of gas sales customers in the geographical areawhere it is the incumbent operator
• to reduce the cost to serve
• to improve the gas supply process by exploiting the competitive advantage of having stable consumption in^a long gas market

Contents

Gas distribution

→	M i i i i l d i i b l i d d d l i t t t t t n m u m e r r o r a s r c p u c e n e r s e a n e s	P a g	3 7
→	A i i i i i h d i i b i k t t t t t s c o p a e p o s o n n g n e g a s s r o n m a r e v u	P a g	3 8
→	f f R l i h l l d t t t e g u a o n o e c a o e n e r s	P a g	3 9
→	C i b i d h i d i i b t t t t t t t o m p e n s a o n o e p a o e o g o n g s r o r u u … … …	P a g	4 1
→	C f f i l i V R T d R A B t t t u r r e n a r r e g u a o n : a n	P a g	4 2
→	T i f f l i i i i i l d i i i t t t t t a r r e g a o n m n m m e r r o r a s r c c o n c e s s o n s u : u … … … .… … … … … …	P a g	4 3
→	S W O T l i G D i i b i S B U t t a n a y s s a s s r u o n –	P a g	4 4

• p Gas distribution concessions must be awarded only via Minimum Territorial District public tenders, so tenders can not be called by ^a single municipality, as in the past.
• p Each Minimum Territorial District groups several neighbouring municipalities, in some case served by interconnected gas distribution grids
• p¹⁷⁷ Minimum Territorial Districts nationalwide

The following chart shows the Ascopiave Group gas users breakdown by Minimum Territorial District tender deadline:

Tender deadlines

M I N I M U M T E R R I T O R I A L D I S T R I C T	To l m in im ta um i ia l d is ic te to tr t rr r g as u se rs	As ia Gr co p ve ou p g as u se rs	%	Pu b l ic de te n r de d l in a e	As ia Gr co p ve ou p ha g as u se rs s re ( % )
Tr iso 2 ev	1 9. 8 9 4 5	1 4 1. 1 6 3	2 9, 0 %	Ma h 2 0 1 7 rc	8 8, 3 %
Tr iso 1 ev	1 3 7. 9 0 6	7 5. 6 6 4	1 5, 5 %	Ju 2 0 1 7 ne	5 4, 9 %
Ro ig o v	9 9. 3 7 6	3 5. 5 9 3	7, 3 %	Ap i l 2 0 1 8 r	3 5, 8 %
V ice 3 nz a	1 0 2. 7 2 4	2 7. 4 3 1	5, 6 %	Se be 2 0 1 7 te p m r	2 6, 7 %
Be 1 rg am o	8 0 1 7 5.	3 1. 9 3 5	6, % 5	Ja 2 0 1 7 nu ary	4 1, % 7
Be 5 rg am o	9 6. 9 1 7	3 0. 8 8 6	6, 3 %	Ma h 2 0 1 7 rc	3 1, 9 %
Ve ia 2 ne z	2 0 3. 0 1 3	2 5. 8 9 9	5, 3 %	Ja 2 0 1 7 nu ary	1 2, 8 %
O he d. t t. r m	1. 3 1 8. 4 0 3	1 1 8. 4 2 5	2 4, 3 %	2 0 1 6- 2 0 1 8	9, 0 %
To le ta	2. 1 9 4. 0 8 8	4 8 6. 6 5 4	1 0 0, 0 %

Ascopiave positioning in the Minimum Territorial Districts set by the Government

• p Ascopiave is currently the main operator in ² Minimum Territorial Districts (Treviso ² and Treviso 1) with ^a more than 50% market share in terms of end users served. The current end users in these MinimumTerritorial Districts amount to over 40% of the total end users served by the Group.
• p Ascopiave has ^a current remarkable market share in other Minimum Territorial Districts located in Veneto and Lombardy.
• p Ascopiave is selecting the Minimum Territorial Districts target and evaluating potential partnerships with other operators, in order to strengthen its position in somegeographical areas.

Standards to evaluate economic and technical offers

• A – Economic Offer
• B – Safety and service quality
• C – Development and maintenance of the distribution network

A - Economic offer

(maximum score: 28)

• pDiscount on gas distribution tariffs
• pDiscount on prices for other services provided by the distributor to the end users
• p Fee to be paid to municipalities awarding the concession (cap on the fee level: 10% of the capital cost components of VRT (Total Revenues Constraint) ⁼ 10% ^x ( CI ^x rd⁺ AMM ))
• p Obligation to extend the distribution network (meters of pipes per end users that imply the obligation to connect new potential end-users)

• pInvestments to improve energy efficiency

• B - Offer concerning the safety and the service quality(maximum score: 27)

• pnetwork inspections in order to prevent gas leaks (percentage of gas network annually checked)
• pperformance of the emergency service
• pperformance of the gas odorization service
• pimproving the level of other quality standards set by the Authority
• C - Offer concerning the development and the maintenance of the distribution network(maximum score: 45)
• pappropriateness of the network operation analysis
• p investments plan for the extension and the increase of the capacity of the distribution network; the evaluation concerns: the tangible benefits expected by the investment proposed, the accuracy of the technical projects as well as the quantities of new pipes to be made
• pinvestment plan for the maintenance
• ptechnological innovation

In the event that the public tender should not be awarded to Ascopiave, the winner must pay to the Group, as the current owner of the networks, ^a compensation:

• (a) the compensation must be calculated in accordance with the terms of the agreement implementing theconcession or direct award (as the case may be), provided that the agreement is signed beforeFebruary 11th, 2012
• (b) or, if this is not provided for, the compensation must be calculated in accordance with the Guidelinesset by the Ministry of Economic Development (Decree May, 22nd 2014)
• (c) contributions paid by private users in the past for the construction of part of the network must bededucted (valuation of these are in accordance with the tariff regulation) (*)
• (d) whenever the compensation is higher than 110% of the net capital invested remunerated by the tariff system (RAB): the Energy National Authority (i.e. AEEGSI) must verify whether the compensation hasbeen evaluated in accordance with the law
• (e)the organizer of the tender bid must take into account the observations issued by the AEEGSI.

^(*) In the evaluation of RAB contributions paid by private users are currently deducted.

2015 VRT (*) (Gas Distribution Revenues) and 2015 RAB (Net Capital Invested)

2015 VRT (**) = CO + AMM + CI x rd= 67.4 €/mln

where:

CO:quota covering management operating costs

AMM:quota covering depreciation

CI(RAB): net capital invested in distribution

rd: real pre-tax rate of return on net investedcapital (~ 6.90%)

2015 RAB (***) ⁼ 394.0 €/mln

According to AEEGSI resolution 583/2015/R/com the real pre-tax rate of return on the capital invested (rd) for the years 2006 and 2017 is equal to ~ 6.10%

(*) Ascopiave 2015 VRT has been approved by Gas, Electricity and Water Authority (AEEGSI) with Resolution n. 147/2015/R/GAS; (**) VRT of the companies consolidated with the full consolidation method ⁼ 61.5 €/mln ⁺ VRT of the company consolidated with the equity method ⁼ 5.8 €/mln (pro-quota); (***) RAB of the companies consolidated with the full consolidation method ⁼ 363.4 €/mln ⁺ RAB of the company consolidated with the equity method ⁼ 30.6 €/mln (pro-quota).

Tariff regulation for the incoming Minimum Territorial District concessions(Res. AEEGSI n. 367/2014/R/GAS)

Underestimated RAB compared to the national mean level

Revaluation of RAB if the current value of the gross asset value per meter of the distribution network isless than 75% of ^a target value calculated by AEEGSI by applying ^a standard mathematical formula.

Difference between Compensation and RAB

At the starting date of the new concession:

• • if the winner of the public tender is the current incumbent operator, the new RAB is equal to theprevious one;
• • if the winner of the public tender is ^a newcomer, the new RAB is equal to the compensation paid bythe newcomer to the outgoing operator.

Compensation at the ending date of the minimum territorial district concession

The compensation is calculated as sum of (a) the value of the stock of capital existing at the startingdate of the concession, that is equal to the initial compensation properly updated to take into account thedepreciation occurred during the concessional period, and (b) the value of the investments made during the concessional period, calculated as the average between the effective costs of the assets and the regulatory value of the assets (*).

(*) As announced by the AEEGSI in the future the value of the investments considered by the tariff system could be not the effective cost but could be estimated by using standard cost to be defined by the AEEGSI. For this reason the regulatory value of the assets could be different to the effective cost of them.

Strengths

• Dimensional level that allows exploitation of interesting management economies of scale
• Contiguity in gas network, with advantages in terms of operative efficiency
• High network management operative standards
• Part of the local municipalities granting the gas distribution concessions are shareholders of the Group
• Independence by large municipalities
• Current financial leverage

Weakness

We expect that legal framework uncertainty and the timeneeded by municipalities to organize competitive tender procedures will delay the tenders start

Opportunities

• Possibility to achieve critical mass as of aggregative polein Veneto and Lombardy in the utility sector
• Tenders for gas distribution concessions
• Temporary push towards aggregations of companies operating in the sector increase in geographical coverageby expanding the corporate structure

Threats

• Regulatory uncertainty
• Uncertainty on financial needs for the compensations to be paid to outgoing distributors
• Gas concession expiring
• Risk to lose tenders

Contents

Gas sales

→	G l d k i d l l i i t t t t t a s s a e s o e n c u s o m e r s m a r e s e g m e n a o n a n s e n g p r c e s : … … …	P a g	4 6
→	G l l i i d i d t t t a s s e n g p r c e o o m e s c e n c s o m e r s u	P a g	4 7
→	C M E M i d i h i t n e x a o n m e c a n s m … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P a g	4 9
→	G t t a s p r o c r e m e n c o s s u	P a g	0 5
→	S i i I l i t n e r g e a a n e … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P a g	5 1
→	S l i G S l S B U t o a n a s s a s a e s w y –	P a g	2 5

Gas sales to end customers: market segmentation and selling prices

(*) 2015 data in million of standard cubic meter. Operating data of companies consolidated proportionally are considered pro-quota.

P C M E M C C R Q T C p r + + + =	G R A D T D Q V D G C T V A T + + + + +
C M E M C C R W h l l f t o e s a e c o s o g a s + =	T D G d i i b i i f f t t t a s s r u o n a r =
Q T G i i i l k t t t t t t a s r a n s p o r a o n c o s v a n a o n a n e w o r =	Q V D G i l l t t a s r e a s a e s c o s =
C G R A D P i f h d l t t p r + r c e c o m p o n e n s o r e g r a u a =	G C T G i t t a s c o n s u m p o n a x e s =
f i l i h l i t t t t m p e m e n a o n o e n e r e g a o n w u	V A T V l d d d t a u e a e a x =

Gas selling price to a typical domestic end customer (annual consumption: 1,400 scm)

Pr ice t c om p on en	Eu / s t ro ce n cm	%
C M E M C C R +	2 4, 2 9	3 4 %
Q T	3, 8 5	5 %
Cp G R A D r +	2, 8 5	4 %
T D	6, 8 4	9 %
Q V D	0 0 5,	% 7
Pr ice	4 2, 8 3	5 9 %
G C T	1 8, 4 1	2 6 %
V A T	1 0, 9 5	1 5 %
Ta xe s	2 9, 3 6	4 1 %
Pr ice ta + xe s	7 2, 1 9	1 0 0 %
( Ja 1st 20 16 Mu nu ary ,	Co ) nic ip alit lian y: ne g o

Average gas pricefor a family with autonomous heating and annual gas consumption of 1,400 scm.

Until 3rdQ 2013: Cost of raw material ⁼ QE; Fixed costs ⁼ QTI+QS+TD+QVD+QCI; Taxes ⁼ GCT+VAT; From 4thQ 2013: Cost of raw material ⁼ CMEM; Fixed costs ⁼ QT+TD+QVD+CCR; Taxes ⁼ GCT+VAT; Other costs: Cpr+GRAD.

Price component covering the wholesale cost of gas set by the Authority for the protected market (CMEM) is currently linked to the European gas spot prices and not to the medium-long term take or paycontracts.

Current regulation provides that the price component is quarterly up-datedand is equal to:

CMEM = Pfor + QT(int) +QT(psv) + QT(mcv)

where:

P(for) ⁼ component price covering the cost of the raw material (energy), calculated as the average of the forward OTC quarterly prices in the Dutch TTF hub occurring in the pen-ultimate month before the reference quarter and published by ICIS-Heren

QT(int)⁼ cost of the gas transport through international pipelines

QT(psv)⁼ cost of the gas transport from the national boundary to the virtual national hub (PSV)

QT(mcv)⁼ other transportation costs

Gas procurement costs

• pGas procurement costs are negotiated on a free market
• pIncumbent shippers have strong market position

U s e s		S i o r c n g u
S l d t t a e s o e n c s o m e r s u ( l d i b i ) t e c n g s n e s s c s o m e r s x u u u	/ 7 0 8 0 % ~	A l ( h l ) ( ) ( * ) t t t n n u a c o n r a c s e r m a y e a r D l i f l l d i i b i k t t t t e e r e n r o o c a s r o n n e o r v y : y u w f P l i t t e n a o r e c e s s c a p a c s e y x y u
S l b i t a e s o u s n e s s t c u s o m e r s	/ 3 0 2 0 % ~	G t t t a s p r o c r e m e n c o n r a c s u : d i d i d i h l l i t t t t t s a m e u r a o n a n n e x a o n a s e s e n g c o n r a c s

(*) Thermal Year: starting date: 1st october - year ^t / ending date: 30th september – year t+1; (**) Framework supply agreement with the Group's reference shipper provides that the annual cost of gas take into account the cost of the gas procured through take or pay contracts signed by Sinergie Italiane.

Sinergie Italiane is ^a company established in 2008 (*) to create ^a partnership among Italian downstreamenergy companies strongly rooted to local areas and with solid, loyal customer bases.

Sinergie Italiane signed ^a long-term import take or pay (ToP) contract with Gazprom for the supply of 1.0bcm of gas per year up to 2021.

In April 2012 Sinergie Italiane shareholders meeting resolved for the voluntary liquidation of the companyand appointed the liquidators.

The scope of the company during 2012-2014 was limited to import russian gas and to sell it to the salescompanies participated by the shareholders, as well as to manage the agreements, transactions anddisputes relating to the regulation of contractual relations, improved before the liquidation.

^(*) Former shareholders structure included the current shareholders and also Alto Milanese Gestioni Avanzate and Utilità Progetti.

Strengths

• Large end customer base
• High per-capita consumption
• Front offices capillarity
• Efficient customer care service
• Differentiation of offered services (dual fuel)
• Independence by big customers
• Deeply rooted presence in reference geographical area
• Strong local brand reputation
• High degree of customer loyalty

Weakness

Limited diffusion and knowledge of the brand outside of the geographical area where the Group is the current incumbent

Opportunities

• Presence in territory with good development capability in the segment of residential customers
• Opportunity to acquire new customers in locations not served by distribution SBU
• Total market 'opening' – Cross selling on customer base

Threats

• Risk exposure connected to gas purchase cost
• Activity partially regulated by the Italian Gas, Electricity and Water Authority, focused on keeping low price levels
• Competition in a fully liberalized market
• Competitive pressure increase and attacks from new entrants
• Entrance and consolidation of foreign groups and major Italian utilities

Annexes: financial data

Annexes: financial data

-FY 2015 financial results

→	F Y l i d d i 2 0 1 5 t t t t c o n s o a e n c o m e s a e m e n … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 5 5 a g.
→	C l i d d b l h D b 3 1 2 0 1 5 t t t t o n s o a e a a n c e s e e a e c e m e r, s … … .… … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 5 6 a g.
→	V l f d i i b d t t o u m e s o g a s s r u e … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … …	P 5 7 a g.
→	f V l l d o m e s o g a s s o u … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 5 8 a g.
→	f V l l i i l d t t o m e s o e e c r c s o u y … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 5 9 a g.
→	R b i d e e n e s r g e v u … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … … … … … …	P 6 0 a g.
→	E B I T D A b i d r g e … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 6 2 a g.
→	E B I T D A b k d r e a o w n … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… …	P 6 4 a g.
→	G d i i b i i f f t t t a s s r u o n a r r e v e n u e s … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 6 6 a g.
→	G i l r o s s m a r g n o n g a s s a e s … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … .… … … … … … … … …	P 6 7 a g.
→	G i l i i l t t r o s s m a r g n o n e e c r c y s a e s … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 6 8 a g.
→	O h i t t t t e r n e o p e r a n g c o s s … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … … … …	P 6 9 a g.
→	f N b l m e r o e m p o e e s u y … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 7 1 a g.
→	C l i d d f l t t o n s o a e c o s o p e r s o n n e … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … … … … …	P 2 7 a g.
→	C l i d d i l d i t t t o n s o a e c a p a e x p e n u r e s … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 3 7 a g.
→	N F i i l P i i d h f l t t e n a n c a o s o n a n c a s o w … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 4 7 a g.

-2009-2015 financial comparison

-3M 2016 financial results

ho d Eu ) us an ro	2 0 1 5	2 0 1 4	C hg	C hg %
Re ve nu es	5 8 1. 6 5 5	5 8 5. 3 0 0	( ) 3. 6 4 5	-0 6 % ,
( Co f ra ia ls d c b les ) t o te s w ma r an on su ma	( 3 4 6. 4 3 1 )	( 3 9. 3 6 6 ) 5	1 2. 9 3 5	3, 6 % -
( Co f s ice ) t o s erv s	( 1 1 9. 1 1 ) 5	( 1 0 4 0 ) 7. 7	( 1 1. 4 1 1 )	1 0, 6 % +
( Co f p l ) t o s ers on ne	( 2 1. 3 ) 5 7	( 2 2. 2 6 ) 7	1. 1 3 5	1 % 5, -
( O he ing ) t t ts r o p era co s	( 1 4. 1 0 6 )	( 1 9 1 4 ) 5.	1. 8 0 7	1 1, 4 % -
O he ing inc t t r o p era om e	9 1 5	3 2	9 5 5	1 3 2, % 7 5 +
E B I T D A	8 0. 9 8 3	5 5 7 9. 8	1. 3 9 8	1, 8 % +
( De ia ion d a iza ion ) t t t p rec s a n mo r s	( 2 0. 0 2 9 )	( 2 0. 0 9 9 )	0 7	-0 3 % ,
( Pr is ion ) ov s	( 4. 0 0 4 )	( 6. 8 1 9 )	2. 8 1 5	4 1, 3 % -
E B I T	5 6. 9 5 0	5 2. 6 6 7	4. 2 8 4	8, 1 % +
/ ( ) F ina ia l inc nc om e ex p en se s	( ) 5 1 8	( ) 1. 5 9 3	1. 0 7 5	6 7, 5 % -
( *) Ev lua ion f c ies i h n ho d t t t a ts t a o om p an w e ss e me	7. 4 4 9	4. 4 5 3	2. 9 9 6	6 7, 3 % +
E B T	6 3. 8 8 1	5 5. 5 2 7	8. 3 5 4	1 5, 0 % +
( Inc ) tax om e es	( ) 1 8. 5 1 9	( ) 1 8. 1 9 4	( ) 3 2 5	1, 8 % +
Ea ing f te ta rn s a r xe s	4 5. 3 6 2	3 7. 3 3 3	8. 0 2 9	2 1, 5 % +
( Ne los fro d isc inu d o ion ) t t t s m on e p era s	-	-	-	n.a
Ne inc t om e	4 5. 3 6 2	3 7. 3 3 3	8. 0 2 9	2 1, 5 % +
( Ne inc f m ino i ies ) t t om e o r	( ) 2. 3 4 9	( ) 1. 7 5 0	( ) 5 9 9	3 4, 2 % +
Ne inc f he Gr t t om e o ou p	4 3. 0 1 4	3 5. 5 8 3	7. 4 3 0	2 0, 9 % +

(*) Result of the companies consolidated with net equity consolidation method (data are considered pro-quota): sale companies, Euro 5,0 mln (Euro 2,4 mln in FY 2014); distributioncompanies Euro 1,0 mln (Euro 0,8 mln in FY 2014); Sinergie Italiane Euro 1,5 mln (Euro 1,2 mln in FY 2014).

) T ho d Eu us an ro	/ / 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 5	/ / 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 4	C h g	C h % g
T i b l t ( *) a n g e a s s e s	3 4. 9 8 7	3 6. 6 1 4	( ) 1. 6 2 6	-4 4 % ,
N i b l t t ( *) o n a n g e a s s e s	3 9 7. 4 1 8	3 9 4. 5 3 0	2. 8 8 8	0, 7 % +
I i i t t t ( **) n v e s m e n s n a s s o c a e s	6 8. 0 8 7	6 4 3 5. 5	2. 6 2 5	4, 0 % +
O h f i d t t e r e a s s e s x	2 6. 6 9 9	2 9. 5 5 5	( ) 2. 8 5 6	-9 7 % ,
i F d t x e a s s e s	5 2 7. 1 8 2	5 2 6. 1 5 2	1. 0 3 0	0, 2 % +
O i t t t p e r a n g c u r r e n a s s e s	2 2 3. 4 8 2	2 2 9. 0 9 5	( ) 5. 6 1 3	-2 5 % ,
( O ) i l i b i l i i t t t p e r a n g c r r e n a e s u	( ) 1 6 6. 7 9 3	( ) 1 6 2. 5 4 8	( ) 4. 2 4 5	2, 6 % +
( O i l i b i l i i ) t t t p e r a n g n o n c u r r e n a e s	( ) 4 9. 6 9 8	( ) 5 3. 3 6 0	3. 6 6 2	-6 9 % ,
N k i i l t t e w o r n g c a p a	6. 9 9 1	1 3. 1 8 8	( ) 6. 1 9 7	-4 7, 0 %
T l i l l d t t o a c a p a e m p o y e	5 3 4. 1 7 3	5 3 9. 3 4 0	( 5. ) 1 6 7	-1 0 % ,
i G h h l d t r o u p s a r e o e r s e q u y	4 1 5. 2 6 4	4 0 5. 3 5 7	9. 9 0 7	2, 4 % +
M i i i t n o r e s	4. 8 3 7	4. 3 1 0	5 6 3	1 3, 1 % +
N f i i l i i t t e n a n c a p o s o n	1 1 4. 0 3 7	1 2 9. 6 7 3	( 5. ) 1 6 3 7	-1 2, 1 %
T l t o a s o u r c e s	5 3 4. 1 7 3	5 3 9. 3 4 0	( ) 5. 1 6 7	-1 0 % ,

(*) Applying IFRIC ¹² involves categorising the infrastructures under concession from tangible to intangible assets; (**) Value of the associated companies consolidated with net equityconsolidation method: sale companies, Euro 47,9 mln (Euro 45,6 mln at 31/12/2014); distribution companies, Euro 20,2 mln (Euro 19,9 mln at 31/12/2014).

(*) Sinergie Italiane excluded.

(*) Sinergie Italiane excluded.

( T ho d Eu ) us an ro	2 0 1 5	2 0 1 4	Va r	Va % r
E B I T D A	8 0. 9 8 3	7 9. 5 8 5	1. 3 9 8	1, 8 % +
E B I T D A Sa le -	4 5. 1 6 7	4 4. 1 7 5	9 9 2	2, 2 % +
E B I T D A D is i bu ion tr t -	3 5. 8 1 7	3 5. 4 1 1	4 0 6	1, 1 % +
E B I T	5 6. 9 5 0	5 2. 6 6 7	4. 2 8 4	8, 1 % +
E B I T Sa le -	3 9. 1 7 3	3 5. 6 7 9	3. 4 9 4	9, 8 % +
E B I T D is i bu ion tr t -	1 7. 7 7 8	1 6. 9 8 8	7 9 0	4, 6 % +

( T ho d Eu ) us an ro	5 2 0 1	2 0 1 4	Va r	Va % r
E B I T D A	1 3. 3 3 5	1 0. 9 0 0	2. 4 3 4	2 2, 3 % +
E B I T D A Sa le - E B I T D A D is i bu ion tr t -	1 0. 7 5 2 2. 5 8 3	8. 5 1 9 2. 3 8 1	2. 2 3 3 2 0 1	2 6, 2 % + 8, 5 % +
E B I T	7. 4 2 0	6. 6 8 3	7 3 7	1 1, 0 % +
Sa E B I T le - E B I T D is i bu ion tr t -	6. 0 2 4 1. 3 9 5	5. 4 1 0 1. 2 7 3	6 1 4 1 2 3	1 1, 4 % + 9, 6 % +

( T ho d Eu ) ( *) us an ro	5 2 0 1	2 0 1 4	C hg	C hg %
Ta i f fs l ie d les ies to r ap p sa co mp an	5 4. 9 8 1	5 0. 4 7 8	4. 5 0 3	8, 9 % +
( / - ) Eq l iza ion t t ua a mo un +	6. 9 7 9	1 2. 1 9 1	( ) 5. 2 1 2	-4 2, 8 %
Ga d is i bu io i f f r ( A ) tr t ta s n r ev en ue s
Co l i da d i h fu l l te t mp an y co ns o w	6 1. 9 6 0	6 2. 6 6 9	( ) 7 0 8	-1 1 % ,
l i da ion ho d t t co ns o m e

The decrease of gas distribution tariff revenues of the companies consolidated with full consolidation method (- Euro 0,7 mln) is due to:

1)change of gas distribution tariffs applied to gas sales companies: ⁺ Euro 4,5 mln;

2)equalization amount: - Euro 5,2 mln.

( ) T ho d Eu ( *) us an ro	2 0 1 5	2 0 1 4	C hg	C hg %
Re fro les ve nu es m g as sa	4 1 9 6 2 5.	4 0 4. 6 6 5	1 1. 2 9 7	2, 8 % +
Ga ( ha ) ts s p urc se co s ( D is i bu io ) tr t ts n c os	( 2 8. 2 8 1 ) 5 ( ) 9 3. 2 9 0	( 2 6 4. 0 2 ) 7 ( ) 7 7. 4 0 2	9 2 5. 7 ( ) 1 5. 8 8 7	-2 2 % , 2 0, 5 % +
G in les ( A ) ro ss m ar g o n g as s a Co l i da d i h fu l l te t m p an co ns o y w l i da io ho d t t co ns o n m e	6 4. 3 9 1	6 3. 1 9 0	1. 2 0 1	1, 9 % +

The increase of gross margin on gas sales of the companies consolidated with full consolidation method is equal to ⁺ Euro 1,2 mln.

( ) ( *) T ho d Eu us an ro	5 2 0 1	2 0 1 4	C hg	C hg %
( ) G in les B ro ss m ar g o n g as s a Co l i da d i h i te t t e ty m p an co ns o ne q y w u l i da io ho d t t co ns o n m e	1 4. 2 0 5	1 2. 3 1 4	1. 8 9 1	1 5, 4 % +
G in les ( A+ B ) ro ss m ar g o n g as s a	8. 5 9 6 7	5. 5 0 4 7	3. 0 9 2	4, 1 % +

( T ho d Eu ) ( *) us an ro	2 0 1 5	2 0 1 4	C hg	C hg %
Re fro lec ic i les ty ve nu es m e r sa	9 2. 8 1 0	9 6. 1 2 2	( ) 3. 3 1 3	-3 4 % ,
( E lec ic i ha ) tr ty ts p urc se co s ( ) D is i bu io tr t ts n c os	( ) 5 1. 1 8 1 ( ) 3 7. 7 9 6	( ) 5 3. 5 8 5 ( ) 3 7. 1 9 5	2. 4 0 4 ( ) 6 0 1	-4 5 % , 1, 6 % +
G in lec ic i les ( A ) tr ty ro ss m ar g o n e s a Co l i da d i h fu l l te t m p an y co ns o w l i da io ho d t t co ns o n m e	3. 8 3 3	5. 3 4 2	( ) 1. 5 0 9	-2 8, 3 %

The decrease of gross margin on electricity sales of the companies consolidated with full consolidation method is equal to - Euro 1,5 mln.

( ) ( *) T ho d Eu us an ro	2 0 1 5	2 0 1 4	C hg	C hg %
G in lec ic i les ( B ) tr ty ro ss m ar g o n e s a Co l i da d i h i te t t e ty m p an y co ns o w ne q u l i da io ho d t t co ns o n m e	6 3 9	5 7 9	5 9	1 0, 2 % +
( ) G in lec ic i les A+ B tr ty ro ss m ar g o n e s a	4. 4 7 1	5. 9 2 1	( ) 1. 4 5 0	-2 4, 5 %

( ) T ho d Eu us an ro	2 0 1 5	2 0 1 4	C hg	C hg %
O he t r r ev en ue s	2 0. 7 4 1	2 2. 7 6 3	( ) 2. 0 2 2	-8 9 % ,
O he f r ia ls d ice t ts te r c os o aw m a r an se rv s Co f p l t o s er so nn e	( ) 4 8. 3 6 9 ( 2 1. 3 ) 5 7	( ) 5 1. 6 5 2 ( 2 2. 2 6 ) 7	3. 2 8 3 1. 1 3 5	-6 4 % , 1 % -5 ,
( ) O he in A t t o t ts r n e p er a g co s Co l i da d i h fu l l te t m p an co ns o y w l i da io ho d t t co ns o n m e	( 4 9. 2 0 1 )	( 5 1. 6 1 6 )	2. 4 1 5	-4 % 7 ,

Decrease of other net operating costs of the companies consolidated with full consolidation method: ⁺ Euro 2,4 mln

of which:

• decrease of margin on energy efficiency tasks management: Euro 2,4 mln
• decrease of cost of personnel: + Euro 1,2 mln
• decrease of cost of maintenance: + Euro 0,3 mln
• decrease of State fees: + Euro 0,3 mln
• decrease of cost for gas meter reading: +Euro 0,3 mln
• decrease of cost for administrative and IT consulting services : + Euro 0,6 mln
• increase of insurance refunds: + Euro 0,3 mln
• decrease of losses on disposals: + Euro 0,2 mln
• increase of contingent assets: + Euro 1,2 mln
• other changes: + Euro 0,4 mln

(*) Sinergie Italiane excluded.

FY 2015 cost of personnel of the companies consolidated with net equity consolidation method (Sinergie Italiane excluded): Euro 3,3 mln (-2,1%).

Consolidated capital expenditures (*)

FY 2015 investments of the companies consolidated with net equity consolidation method(Sinergie Italiane excluded): Euro 1,5 mln (-33,5%).

(*) Excluding network extension in new urbanized areas that according to IAS are considerated as operating costs and not investments. (**) Investments in tangible assets: Euro 0,9 mln; investments in intangible assets: Euro 21,1 mln (excluded realizations of tangible and intangible assets and investments in associated).

(*) Dividends distributed to Ascopiave shareholders and third parties (Euro 35,1 mln) net of dividends received by companies consolidated with net equity method (Euro 3,4 mln)

(*) Sinergie Italiane excluded.

Annexes: financial data

-FY 2015 financial results

-2009-2015 financial comparison

→	I t t t n c o m e s a e m e n	P 7 7 a g.
→	B l h t a a n c e s e e	P 7 8 a g.

-3M 2016 financial results

Income statement

	IFR S 1 1	IFR S 1 1	IFR S 1 d 1 r est ate
( T ho d Eu ) us an ro	2 0 1 5	2 0 1 4	2 0 1 3	2 0 1 3	2 0 1 2	2 0 1 1	2 0 1 0	2 0 0 9
Re ve nu es	5 5 5 8 1. 6	5 5. 8 3 0 0	6 6 7. 8 3 7	5 8 4. 3 3 4	1. 0 7 8. 0 3 8	1. 0 9 9. 2 4 1	5 5. 8 8 8 4	5 7 6 4. 1 1
( Co f ra ) ia ls a d c b les t o ter s ma n on su ma w ( Co f s ) t o ice s erv s ( Co f p ) l t o s ers on ne ( O ) t he t ing ts r o p era co s O he ing inc t t r o p era om e	( ) 3 4 6. 4 3 1 ( ) 1 1 9. 1 5 1 ( ) 2 1. 5 7 3 ( ) 1 4. 1 0 6 5 9 1	( ) 3 5 9. 3 6 6 ( ) 1 0 7. 7 4 0 ( ) 2 2. 7 2 6 ( ) 1 5. 9 1 4 3 2	( ) 4 7 3. 4 6 9 ( ) 7 3. 7 5 1 ( ) 2 2. 8 2 2 ( ) 1 2. 6 6 6 1. 1 4 6	( ) 5 7 4. 5 1 8 ( ) 1 3 3. 4 4 2 ( ) 2 7. 1 9 3 ( ) 1 4. 3 3 7 1. 1 4 8	( ) 7 8 0. 8 2 2 ( ) 1 5 2. 4 3 4 ( ) 2 5. 4 4 2 ( ) 1 6. 9 5 2 2 4 7	( ) 8 4 4. 2 6 8 ( ) 1 2 4. 5 7 2 ( ) 2 4. 3 2 3 ( ) 1 3. 5 2 2 6 1 2	( ) 6 6 0. 0 3 0 ( ) 8 7. 5 2 8 ( ) 2 1. 0 9 1 ( ) 1 0. 2 1 3 9 8 9	( ) 6 1 7. 3 8 4 ( ) 5 8. 8 8 8 ( ) 1 8. 3 7 7 ( ) 9. 9 3 4 1. 9 7 6
E B I T D A	8 0. 9 8 3	7 9. 5 8 5	8 6. 2 7 6	1 0 5. 9 9 2	1 0 2. 6 3 5	9 3. 1 6 9	7 8. 0 0 9	6 1. 5 4 5
( De ia ion d a iza ion ) t t t p rec s a n mo r s ( Pr is ion ) ov s	( 2 0. 0 2 9 ) ( 4. 0 0 4 )	( 2 0. 0 9 9 ) ( 6. 8 1 9 )	( 1 8. 2 3 ) 7 ( 6. 0 3 9 )	( 2 0. 0 ) 5 7 ( 8. 4 8 ) 5	( 2 2. 1 1 6 ) ( 4 9 1 ) 7.	( 1 9. 0 8 1 ) ( 3 2 ) 7. 7	( 1 4 1 4 ) 7. ( 4. 8 4 1 )	( 1 6. 2 8 3 ) ( 4. 1 4 ) 7
E B I T	5 5 6. 9 0	5 2. 6 6 7	6 1. 9 6 4	7 6. 8 7 4	7 3. 0 2 7	6 6. 7 1 7	5 5. 5 7 4	4 1. 0 8 8
/ ( ) F ina ia l inc nc om e ex p en se s Ev lua ion f c ies i h e i ho d t t ty t a o om p an w q u me	( ) 5 1 8 4 4 9 7.	( ) 1. 5 9 3 4. 4 3 5	( ) 1. 5 1 5 6. 4 6 8	( ) 3. 9 6 1 ( 2 6 2 )	( ) 6. 9 1 6 ( 1 1. 0 0 ) 7	( ) 2. 7 9 8 ( 2 2. 4 2 ) 5	( ) 7 6 7 ( 3 ) 7 5	( ) 1. 3 2 5 4 6 8
E B T	6 3. 8 8 1	5 5. 5 2 7	6 6. 9 1 7	7 2. 6 5 1	5 5. 1 0 4	4 1. 4 9 4	5 4. 2 5 3	4 0. 2 3 1
( Inc ) tax om e es	( 1 8. 1 9 ) 5	( 1 8. 1 9 4 )	( 2 8 0 ) 5. 7	( 3 1. 4 1 ) 5	( 2 9. 0 9 ) 5	( 3 3. 8 4 ) 7	( 2 1. 4 0 8 )	( 1 4. 3 4 0 )
Ea ing f te tax rn s a r es	4 5. 3 6 2	3 3 3 3 7.	4 1. 1 1 1	4 1. 1 1 1	2 5. 5 9 5	6 2 0 7.	3 2. 8 4 5	2 5. 8 9 1
( ) fro Ne inc los d isc inu d o ion t t t om e s m on e p era s	-	-	( ) 7 1	( ) 7 1	4. 3 3 6	6 3 9	-	-
Ne inc t om e	4 5. 3 6 2	3 7. 3 3 3	4 1. 0 4 0	4 1. 0 4 0	2 9. 9 3 2	8. 2 5 9	3 2. 8 4 5	2 5. 8 9 1
( Ne inc f m ino i ies ) t t om e o r	( 2. 3 4 9 )	( 1. 0 ) 7 5	( 2. 3 6 1 )	( 2. 3 6 1 )	( 2. 0 6 ) 7	( 1. 9 9 3 )	( 1. 6 1 ) 7	( 6 0 3 )
inc f Ne t t he Gr om e o ou p	4 3. 0 1 4	3 5. 5 8 3	3 8. 6 7 8	3 8. 6 7 8	2 7. 8 6 5	6. 2 6 6	3 1. 1 7 4	2 5. 2 8 8

	IFR S 1 1	IFR S 1 1	IFR S 1 1 r ed tat es					( *)
( T ho d Eu ) us an ro	/ / 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 5	/ / 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 4	/ / 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 3	/ / 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 3	/ / 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 2	/ / 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 1	/ / 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 0	/ / 3 1 1 2 2 0 0 9
Ta i b le ts ng as se	3 4. 9 8 7	3 6. 6 1 4	3 8 4 0 7.	3 9. 2 7 7	4 0. 3 4 5	6 1. 9 8 3	4 3. 8 1 4	3 2 9. 9 0 7
No i b le ta ts n ng as se	3 9 7. 4 1 8	3 9 4. 5 3 0	3 8 7. 5 0 0	4 4 7. 8 9 8	4 5 0. 4 5 7	4 5 9. 0 4 6	4 1 0. 7 6 5	1 1 4. 5 4 2
Inv in ia tm ts te es en as so c s	6 8. 0 7 8	6 5. 4 5 3	7 2. 4 2 1	1	-	-	-	-
O he f ixe d a t ts r ss e	2 6. 6 9 9	2 9. 5 5 5	3 9. 6 8 7	4 4. 3 1 5	2 9. 8 1 7	2 6. 4 1 7	1 6. 1 3 3	1 4 1 8 5.
F ixe d ts as se	5 2 7. 1 8 2	5 2 6. 1 5 2	5 3 7. 4 4 9	5 3 1. 5 2 7	5 2 0. 8 0 8	5 4 7. 7 7 0	4 7 0. 7 1 2	4 5 9. 9 3 0
Op ing t t a ts er a cu rre n ss e	2 2 3. 4 8 2	2 2 9. 0 9 5	2 0 4. 0 6 6	2 8 6 4 7 5.	3 6 3. 4 3 6	3 8 1. 6 8 4	2 6 1. 1 3 7	2 1 1. 9 6 7
Op ( ing l ia b i l i ies ) t t t er a cu rre n	( ) 1 6 6. 7 9 3	( ) 1 6 2. 5 4 8	( ) 1 6 0. 2 3 4	( ) 2 1 1. 9 8 6	( ) 2 6 1. 1 7 5	( ) 2 8 3. 1 9 9	( ) 2 0 8. 9 2 8	( ) 1 7 8. 0 7 5
l ia b i l i ies	4 9. 6 9 8	3. 3 6 0 5	4. 9 2 5 7	6 1. 1 2 6	6 4. 1 2 2	8 2. 4 6 6	4 2 6 7. 5	4 4. 4 6 8
( Op ing ) t t t er a no n c urr en	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )
Ne k in i l t w ta or g ca p	6. 9 9 1	1 3. 1 8 8	( ) 1 0. 9 6 0	2. 7 5 2	3 8. 1 4 0	1 6. 0 1 9	4. 6 8 3	( ) 1 0. 7 4 7
To l c i l e loy d ta ta ap m p e	5 3 4. 1 7 3	5 3 9. 3 4 0	5 2 6. 4 8 9	5 3 4. 2 7 8	5 5 8. 9 4 8	5 6 3. 7 8 9	5. 5 4 7 3 9	4 4 9. 1 8 3
Gr ha ho l de i ty ou p s re rs e q u	4 1 5. 2 6 4	4 0 5. 3 5 7	3 9 6 8 9 7.	3 9 6 8 9 7.	3 8 4. 0 5 3	3 5 8 1 7. 7	3 5. 5 3 5 7	3 6 2 4 5 7.
M in i ies t or	4. 8 7 3	4. 3 1 0	4. 9 8 9	4. 9 8 9	4. 7 6 5	4. 6 9 6	3. 8 6 6	2. 8 5 1
Ne f in ia l p i io t t an c os n	1 1 4. 0 3 7	1 2 9. 6 7 3	1 2 3. 8 1 0	1 3 1. 6 0 0	1 7 0. 1 3 0	2 0 1. 2 2 1	9 5. 9 9 5	7 9. 0 8 8
To ta l s ou rc es	5 3 4. 1 7 3	5 3 9. 3 4 0	5 2 6. 4 8 9	5 3 4. 2 7 8	5 5 8. 9 4 8	5 6 3. 7 8 9	4 7 5. 3 9 5	4 4 9. 1 8 3

(*) Data are represented not considering the application of IFRIC 12.

ANNEXES

-FY 2015 financial results

-2009-2015 financial comparison

-3M 2016 financial results

→	M l i d d i 3 2 0 1 6 t t t t c o n s o a e n c o m e s a e m e n … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 8 0 a g.
→	C l i d d b l h M h, 3 1 2 0 1 6 t t t t o n s o a e a a n c e s e e a a r c s … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … …	P 8 1 a g.
→	V l f d i i b d t t o m e s o g a s s r e u u … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … …	P 8 2 a g.
→	V l f l d o u m e s o g a s s o … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 8 3 a g.
→	V l f l i i l d t t o u m e s o e e c r c y s o … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 8 4 a g.
→	R b i d e v e n u e s r g e … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … … … … … …	P 8 5 a g.
→	E B I T D A b i d r g e … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 8 7 a g.
→	E B I T D A b k d r e a o w n … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… …	P 8 9 a g.
→	G d i i b i i f f t t t a s s r u o n a r r e v e n u e s … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 9 1 a g.
→	G i l r o s s m a r g n o n g a s s a e s … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … .… … … … … … … … …	P 9 2 a g.
→	G i l i i l t t r o s s m a r g n o n e e c r c s a e s y … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 9 3 a g.
→	O h i t t t t e r n e o p e r a n g c o s s … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … … … …	P 9 4 a g.
→	N b f l u m e r o e m p o y e e s … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 9 6 a g.
→	C f l i d d l t t o n s o a e c o s o p e r s o n n e … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … … … … …	P 9 7 a g.
→	C l i d d i l d i t t t o n s o a e c a p a e x p e n u r e s … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 9 8 a g.
→	N F i i l P i i d h f l t t e n a n c a o s o n a n c a s o w … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …	P 9 9 a g.

ho d Eu ) us an ro	1s Q 2 0 1 6 t	1s Q 2 0 1 5 t	C hg	C hg %
Re ve nu es	1 8 2. 5 1 2	2 1 9. 4 9 6	( 3 6. 9 8 4 )	-1 6, 8 %
( Co f ra ) ia ls d c b les t o te s ma r an on su ma w	( ) 1 0 2. 1 7 7	( ) 1 3 9. 9 7 6	3 7. 7 9 8	2 7, 0 % -
( Co ) f s ice t o s erv s	( ) 3 4. 2 6 3	( ) 3 6. 6 6 8	2. 4 0 5	6, 6 % -
( Co f p ) l t o s ers on ne	( ) 5. 6 7 2	( ) 5. 7 4 2	7 0	1, 2 % -
( O ) he ing t t ts r o p era co s	( ) 4. 4 1 7	( ) 2. 8 0 8	( ) 1. 6 0 9	5 7, 3 % +
O he ing inc t t r o p era om e	2 1	5	1 6	3 3 2, 1 % +
E B I T D A	3 6. 0 0 4	3 4. 3 0 7	1. 6 9 7	4, 9 % +
( ) De ia ion d a iza ion t t t p rec s a n mo r s	( ) 5. 0 8 4	( ) 4. 8 3 0	( ) 2 5 4	5, 3 % +
( Pr is ion ) ov s	( ) 6 1 6	( ) 8 3 5	2 1 9	2 6, 3 % -
E B I T	3 0. 3 0 4	2 8. 6 4 2	1. 6 6 2	5, 8 % +
F ina ia l inc / ( ) nc om e ex p en se s	( ) 1 1 1	( ) 7 2	( ) 3 9	5 4, 0 % +
( *) Ev lua ion f c ies i h n ho d t t t a ts t a o om p an e ss e me w	3. 8 5 7	3. 4 2 5	1 3 5	3, 9 % +
E B T	3 3. 7 8 0	3 2. 0 2 2	1. 7 5 8	5, 5 % +
( Inc ) tax om e es	( 9. 6 4 2 )	( 9. 1 9 0 )	( 4 2 ) 5	4, 9 % +
f Ea ing te ta rn s a r xe s	2 4. 1 3 8	2 2. 8 3 2	1. 3 0 6	5, 7 % +
( Ne los fro d isc inu d o ion ) t t t s m on e p era s	-	-	-	n.a
inc Ne t om e	2 4. 1 3 8	2 2. 8 3 2	1. 3 0 6	5, 7 % +
( Ne inc f m ino i ies ) t t om e o r	( 1. 4 8 7 )	( 1. 4 3 8 )	( 4 8 )	3, 4 % +
Ne inc f he Gr t t om e o ou p	5 2 2. 6 1	2 1. 3 9 4	5 1. 2 7	5, 9 % +

(*) Result of the companies consolidated with net equity consolidation method (data are considered pro-quota): sale companies, Euro 3,2 mln (Euro 3,1 mln in 3M 2015); distributioncompanies Euro 0,2 mln (Euro 0,2 mln in 3M 2015); Sinergie Italiane Euro 0,1 mln (Euro 0,2 mln in 3M 2015).

( T ho d Eu ) us an ro	3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 6	3 1 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5	C h g	C h % g
T i b l t ( *) a n g e a s s e s	3 4. 8 7 3	3 4. 9 8 7	( ) 1 1 4	-0 3 % ,
N i b l t t ( *) o n a n g e a s s e s	3 9 6. 5 6 1	3 9 7. 4 1 8	( ) 8 5 7	-0 2 % ,
I i i t t t ( **) n e s m e n s n a s s o c a e s v	7 1. 5 1 9	6 8. 0 7 8	3. 4 4 1	5, 1 % +
O h f i d t t e r x e a s s e s	2 6 6 8 5.	2 6. 6 9 9	( ) 1. 0 3 1	-3 9 % ,
F i d t e a s s e s x	5 2 8. 6 2 0	5 2 7. 1 8 2	1. 4 3 8	0, 3 % +
O i t t t p e r a n g c u r r e n a s s e s	2 4 9. 2 6 7	2 2 3. 4 8 2	2 8 6 5. 7	1 1, % 5 +
( O i l i b i l i i ) t t t p e r a n g c u r r e n a e s	( ) 2 1 2. 7 9 5	( ) 1 6 6. 7 9 3	( ) 4 6. 0 0 2	2 7, 6 % +
( O ) i l i b i l i i t t t p e r a n g n o n c u r r e n a e s	( 4 9. 9 9 6 )	( 4 9. 6 9 8 )	( 2 9 8 )	0, 6 % +
N k i i l t t e o r n g c a p a w	( 1 3. 5 2 3 )	6. 9 9 1	( 2 0. 5 1 5 )	-2 9 3, 4 %
T l i l l d t t o a c a p a e m p o y e	5 1 5. 0 9 7	5 3 4. 1 7 3	( ) 1 9. 0 7 6	-3 6 % ,
G h h l d i t r o p s a r e o e r s e q u u y	4 3 8. 0 8 1	4 1 5. 2 6 4	2 2. 8 1 8	5, 5 % +
M i i i t n o r e s	6. 3 8 0	4. 8 7 3	5 1. 0 7	3 0, 9 % +
f N i i l i i t t e n a n c a p o s o n	7 0. 6 3 5	1 1 4. 0 3 7	( ) 4 3. 4 0 1	-3 8, 1 %
T l t o a s o r c e s u	5 1 5. 0 9 7	5 3 4. 1 7 3	( 1 9. 0 7 6 )	-3 6 % ,

(*) Applying IFRIC ¹² involves categorising the infrastructures under concession from tangible to intangible assets; (**) Value of the associated companies consolidated with net equityconsolidation method: sale companies, Euro 51,1 mln (Euro 47,9 mln at 31/12/2015); distribution companies, Euro 20,4 mln (Euro 20,2 mln at 31/12/2015).

(*) Sinergie Italiane excluded.

(*) Sinergie Italiane excluded.

	( T ho d Eu ) us an ro
( ) T ho d Eu us an ro	Q 1s 2 0 1 6 t	Q 1s 2 0 1 5 t	Va r	Va % r
E B I T D A	3 6. 0 0 4	3 4. 3 0 7	1. 6 9 7	4, 9 % +
Sa E B I T D A le - E B I T D A D is i bu ion tr t -	2 7. 9 2 0 8. 0 8 4	2 6. 5 8 6 2 2 7. 7	1. 3 3 4 3 6 3	5, 0 % + 4, % 7 +
E B I T	3 0. 3 0 4	2 8. 6 4 2	1. 6 6 2	5, 8 % +
Sa E B I T le - E B I T D is i bu ion tr t -	2 6. 6 6 5 3. 6 3 9	2 5. 1 1 9 3. 2 3 5	1. 5 4 6 1 1 6	6, 2 % + 3, 3 % +

( ) T ho d Eu us an ro	Q 1s t 2 0 1 6	Q 5 1s t 2 0 1	Va r	Va % r
E B I T D A	6. 1 2 8	5. 9 5 1	1 7 8	3, 0 % +
Sa E B I T D A le - E B I T D A D is i bu ion tr t -	5. 5 1 7 6 1 1	5. 3 3 7 6 1 3	1 8 0 ( ) 2	3, 4 % + -0 3 % ,
E B I T	5. 1 0 6	5. 0 1 0	9 6	1, 9 % +
Sa E B I T le - E B I T D is i bu ion tr t -	4. 7 9 0 3 1 6	4. 6 7 4 3 3 6	1 1 5 ( 1 9 )	2, 5 % + -5 7 % ,

( ) ( *) T ho d Eu us an ro	1s Q 2 0 1 6 t	1s Q 2 0 1 5 t	C hg	C hg %
Ta i f fs l ie d les ies to r ap p sa co mp an	2 0. 4 0 8	2 0. 1 8 9	2 2 0	1, 1 % +
Eq l iza ion ( / - ) t t ua a mo un +	( 6 ) 5. 5 5	( 0 1 3 ) 5.	( 2 ) 5 5	1 1, 0 % +
Ga d is i bu io i f f r ( A ) tr t ta s n r ev en ue s
Co l i da d i h fu l l te t mp an y co ns o w	1 4. 8 4 3	1 5. 1 6 7	( 3 3 3 )	-2 2 % ,
l i da ion ho d t t co ns o m e

The decrease of gas distribution tariff revenues of the companies consolidated with full consolidation method (- Euro 0,3 mln) is due to:

1)change of gas distribution tariffs applied to gas sales companies: ⁺ Euro 0,2 mln;

2)equalization amount: - Euro 0,6 mln.

( ) ( *) T ho d Eu us an ro	1s Q 2 0 1 6 t	1s Q 2 0 1 5 t	C hg	C hg %
( ) Ga d is i bu io i f f r B tr t ta s n r ev en ue s Co l i da d i h n i te t t e ty mp an co ns o e q y w u l i da ion ho d t t co ns o m e	1. 4 0 6	1. 4 3 6	( ) 3 0	-2 1 % ,
Ga d is i bu io i f f r ( A+ B ) tr t ta s n r ev en ue s	1 6. 2 5 0	1 6. 6 1 2	( 3 6 2 )	-2 2 % ,

( ) ( *) T ho d Eu us an ro	1s Q 2 0 1 6 t	1s Q 2 0 1 5 t	C hg	C hg %
Re fro les ve nu es m g as sa	1 5 2. 5 9 5	1 8 8. 4 7 9	( ) 3 5. 8 8 4	-1 9, 0 %
Ga ( ha ) ts s p urc se co s ( D is i bu io ) tr t ts n c os	( 8 4. 1 6 2 ) ( ) 3 6. 0 4 1	( 1 1 9. 4 ) 5 5 ( ) 3 7. 3 8 8	3 3 9 2 5. 1. 3 4 8	-2 9, 6 % -3 6 % ,
( ) G in les A ro ss m ar g o n g as s a Co l i da d i h fu l l te t m p an co ns o y w l i da io ho d t t co ns o n m e	3 2. 3 9 3	3 1. 5 3 6	8 5 7	2, 7 % +

The increase of gross margin on gas sales of the companies consolidated with full consolidation method is equal to ⁺ Euro 0,9 mln.

( T ho d Eu ) ( *) us an ro	Q 1s 2 0 1 6 t	Q 1s 2 0 1 5 t	C hg	C hg %
fro Re lec ic i les ty ve nu es m e r sa	2 3. 9 2 2	2 4. 0 6 2	( ) 1 4 0	-0 6 % ,
( ) E lec ic i ha tr ty ts p urc se co s ( D is i bu io ) tr t ts n c os	( ) 1 3. 2 0 2 ( 9. 2 9 ) 7	( ) 1 3. 3 7 4 ( 9. 6 1 ) 7	1 7 2 3 9 2	-1 3 % , -4 1 % ,
( ) G in lec ic i les A tr ty ro ss m ar g o n e s a Co l i da d i h fu l l te t m p an co ns o y w l i da io ho d t t co ns o n m e	1. 4 4 1	1. 0 1 6	4 2 4	4 1, 8 % +

The increase of gross margin on electricity sales of the companies consolidated with full consolidation method is equal to ⁺ Euro 0,4 mln.

( T ho d Eu ) ( *) us an ro	Q 1s t 2 0 1 6	Q 5 1s t 2 0 1	C hg	C hg %
( ) G in lec ic i les B tr ty ro ss m ar g o n e s a Co l i da d i h i te t t e ty m p an co ns o ne q y w u l i da io ho d t t co ns o n m e	1 3 2	1 5 8	( 2 6 )	-1 6, 6 %
G in lec ic i les ( A+ B ) tr ty ro ss m ar g o n e s a	1. 5 3 7	1. 1 5 7	3 9 8	3 3, 9 % +

( ) T ho d Eu us an ro	Q 1s 2 0 1 6 t	Q 1s 2 0 1 5 t	C hg	C hg %
O he t r r ev en ue s	6. 2 8 2	4. 6 3 4	1. 6 4 8	3 5, 6 % +
O he f r ia ls d ice t ts te r c os o aw m a r an se rv s	( ) 1 3. 2 8 4	( ) 1 2. 3 1 4	( ) 9 7 0	7, 9 % +
Co f p l t o s er so nn e	( 6 2 ) 5. 7	( 4 2 ) 5. 7	0 7	-1 2 % ,
( ) O he in A t t o t ts r n e p er a g co s
Co l i da d i h fu l l te t m p an co ns o y w	( 1 2. 6 3 ) 7	( 1 3. 4 2 2 )	4 9 7	-5 6 % ,
l i da io ho d t t co ns o n m e

Decrease of other net operating costs of the companies consolidated with full consolidation method: ⁺ Euro 0,7 mln

of which:

• decrease of margin on energy efficiency tasks management: - Euro 0,7 mln
• decrease of cost of personnel: + Euro 0,1 mln
• decrease of cost of maintenance: + Euro 0,1 mln
• decrease of cost for gas meter reading: +Euro 0,1 mln
• decrease of cost for credit recovery services : + Euro 0,1 mln
• decrease of State fees: + Euro 0,3 mln
• increase of contingent assets: + Euro 0,3 mln
• other changes: + Euro 0,4 mln

(*) Sinergie Italiane excluded.

3M 2016 cost of personnel of the companies consolidated with net equity consolidation method (Sinergie Italiane excluded): Euro 0,8 mln (-1,3%).

Consolidated capital expenditures (*)

3M 2016 investments of the companies consolidated with net equity consolidation method(Sinergie Italiane excluded): Euro 0,2 mln (-21,1%).

(*) Excluding network extension in new urbanized areas that according to IAS are considerated as operating costs and not investments. (**) Investments in tangible assets: Euro 0,5 mln; investments in intangible assets: Euro 3,6 mln (excluded realizations of tangible and intangible assets and investments in associated).

(*) Sinergie Italiane excluded.

( *) ( T ho d Eu ) us an ro	3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 6	3 1 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5	Va r	Va % r
Lo f ina ia l bo ing ( 1 2 hs ) te t ng rm nc rro w s mo n >	4 2. 0 4 2	4 3. 8 2 9	( 1. 8 ) 7 7	-4 1 % ,
Cu i ion f lon f ina ia l bo ing t p t te rre n os o g rm nc rro w s	9. 6 2 8	9. 6 2 8	-	0, 0 % +
S ho f ina ia l bo ing ( hs ) t te 1 2 t r rm nc rro s mo n w <	1 8. 4 9 9	5 9. 9 3 7	( ) 4 1. 4 3 8	-6 9, 1 %
To l f in ia l de b ta t an c	7 0. 1 6 9	1 1 3. 3 9 4	( 4 3. 2 2 5 )	-3 8, 1 %
F ixe d bo ing te ra rro w s Va ia b le bo ing te r ra rro w s	3 4 2 6 9. 8 2 7	3 4 2 1 1 3. 0 5 2	- ( ) 4 3. 2 2 5	0, 0 % + -3 8, 2 %

3M 2016 average cost of debt: 0,66% (vs 2015 rate: 0,81%)

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

• This presentation has been prepared by Ascopiave S.p.A. for information purposes only and for use in presentations of the Group's results and strategies.
• For further details on the Ascopiave Group, reference should be made to publicly available information, including the Quarterly Reports and the Annual reports.
• Statements contained in this presentation, particularly the ones regarding any Ascopiave Group possible or assumed future performance, are or may be forward looking statements and in this respect they involve some risks and uncertainties. A number of important factors could cause actual results todiffer materially from those contained in any forward looking statement. Such factors include, but arenot limited to: changes in global economic business, changes in the price of certain commoditiesincluding electricity and gas, the competitive market and regulatory factors. Moreover, forward lookingstatements are currently only at the date they are made.
• Any reference to past performance of the Ascopiave Group shall not be taken as an indication of the future performance.
• This document does not constitute an offer or invitation to purchase or subscribe for any shares and no part of it shall form the basis of or be relied upon in connection with any contract or commitment whatsoever.
• By attending the presentation you agree to be bound by the foregoing terms.