**Reasoning**

- **Credit profile:** The company’s financial metrics are strong.  
  - Net debt/EBITDA is about 4.3×, well within the range for an “A‑range” rating.  
  - FFO‑to‑debt ≈ 23 % and interest coverage ≈ 8×, both comfortably above the thresholds for a high‑grade issuer.  
  - Cash flow from operations (≈ €1.6 bn per year) comfortably covers capex (≈ €0.5 bn) and dividends (≈ €0.5 bn), leaving positive free cash flow after dividend payments.

- **Refinancing risk:** The near‑term maturity profile is modest – only about €0.7 bn of current borrowings fall due within the next year. The company holds €0.8 bn of cash and generates ample operating cash flow, so there is no material refinancing pressure.

- **Capital‑structure needs:** The company is already reducing leverage (total financial debt fell by >€1 bn in 2022) and has no outstanding hybrid instruments. Issuing hybrid bonds would add a higher cost (hybrid pricing typically exceeds senior‑debt pricing) and would not meaningfully improve leverage metrics given the current low‑debt position.

- **Cost consideration:** Because the issuer can access senior debt at very competitive rates (swap curves are still low for investment‑grade utilities), introducing a hybrid would materially raise the overall cost of debt without providing a significant rating benefit.

- **Guideline check:**  
  - 0 % matches “Low refinancing needs; limited to no deterioration of credit metrics; strong rating profile, ‘A’ range; no extraordinary capex needs; cost of hybrid will materially increase the current cost of debt; no current hybrid in the capital structure.”

Given these factors, the company does not need to utilise hybrid bonds in the next 18 months.

**Final answer**

<answer>0%</answer>