So good afternoon and welcome. I am Alex Ohlsson, and I'm Chair of Foresight Solar Fund Limited. I'd like to thank you all for joining us this afternoon in such large numbers. This is our capital markets event. It's intended to be a brief session, which we trust you will find packed with pertinent details on FSFL's strategy. We also intend to provide you with plenty of opportunity to ask questions, meet the board, and speak to the Foresight team, our investment manager. We are also delighted to welcome Claire O'Neill this afternoon. Claire is the former Energy and COP26 Minister, who will share the stage with Ross Driver later to discuss what a potential new government would mean for renewable energy and the U.K. meeting its net zero goals. After that, Ross and Toby Virno will present on the considerations behind rebalance, rebalancing the portfolio by divestments. We will then pause for a brief break, after which Conor Cowden, part of Foresight Group's asset management team, will cover U.K. portfolio performance before Ross, Toby, and Carlos Rey, who heads Foresight Group's Spain office, will return to the spotlight to present on FSFL's income and growth strategy. Okay, so moving on to our presentation. 2023 was a difficult year for investment companies, and particularly for the alternative sector, for reasons that everybody in this room will be familiar with. FSFL was clearly not immune to the bearish macro environment, and for the first time, traded at a discount to NAV of more than 10% during the financial year. However, to put this into context, since our IPO in 2013, up until December 31st, 2022, the fund had traded at an average historic premium of 3.1%, and at times, at a premium that was as high as 14.5%. The board, the investment manager, and our advisors recognized these challenges early on and acted quickly to support shareholders. We took several initiatives to address shareholder concerns in a challenging environment. Our goal was to demonstrate confidence in the fund's operations and trust in our valuations, as well as ensuring that we had a coherent and clearly articulated capital allocation strategy. Since the beginning of 2023, the fund has returned GBP 30 million in share buybacks, which resulted in 1.5 pence per share of NAV accretion. That's three quarters of the allocated amount of the full buyback program, which we continue to implement during 2024. The board will also consider further allocations to the buyback program in due course. We've used proceeds from the first phase of our 200 MW divestment program to meaningfully pay down debt and strengthen the balance sheet. The first phase of the program was the sale of a 50% stake in Lorca at a 21% premium to our holding value. We still have three quarters of the program to go and are proceeding with the aim of ensuring best value is delivered for shareholders. We've cut back on significant CapEx and communicated a prudent capital allocation strategy that prioritizes income and growth. The building of a proprietary development pipeline with the acquisition of the rights to roughly 500 MW of solar projects in Spain was the initial step in implementing a future trading strategy that should provide additional return for investors. We've also increased the dividend above inflation, reflecting the strong cash generation from 2023. Shareholder engagement is also, of course, important. We've sought to identify shareholder concerns and react to them, undertaking an investor survey and conducting a range of governance meetings. This extensive list of corporate actions demonstrates Foresight Solar's commitment to delivering in shareholders' interests in a difficult environment and positioning the fund for the future. It's clear to us that we need to drive organic growth in a much more pronounced way than we have done in the past. We do not intend to detract from our strong income proposition, but we need to offer more than just income, which investors can once again easily access via alternative in the fixed income markets. One can certainly speculate as to what the listed renewable energy market will look like in the next year or two. The board has noted the consolidation that is happening in the REIT sector, as well as shareholders' preference for large, more liquid vehicles. Corporate activity in the renewable infrastructure sector has been more muted, and at present, there is nothing specific for me to address. As chair of an independent board, I can, however, assure investors that any corporate considerations will be assessed with shareholders' interests front of mind. So today is a good opportunity for you to meet the whole board. The directors are in the room, and hopefully you will have the opportunity to meet them during the afternoon. The nomination committee evaluates board composition every year, and it has found that FSFL has a complementary board, has a board with complementary skills and is well-balanced. We have a succession plan in place, which we are following. Ann Markey came onto the board in 2020 to add energy and private asset knowledge, building the board's resilience. Last year, Lynn Cleary was appointed to substitute Peter Dicks, who stepped down in June. Lynn brings a wealth of financial experience to the board. Because of the complexities of the current macroeconomic environment, the board has collectively agreed that consistency is also important in guiding the company through this period. That said, the intention is that the succession process picks up in earnest following this year's AGM. That concludes my opening remarks. We do have a few minutes for questions on the topics I've discussed. Obviously, there are further sessions. Ross is going to join me to field the questions, but as I say, we have got a few minutes now if anyone would like to ask anything on the topics I've covered. It's your opportunity to raise questions. Tom? Hi. You mentioned the sector consolidation happening in the sector. What do you think is prohibitive about the report leading to the renewable sector? You want to go first? Renewable sector. Well, I think there's a couple of things there, maybe, Tom, in terms of... It's interesting, the news that came out the other day from the AERI and ORIT position, that actually the kind of offerings that can be sort of put forward for consolidation within the market companies together, it's clear that investors are probably looking for a large return of cash, and not necessarily just a share-for-share offer in terms of those. Or there's got to be quite a difference in the premium there that's going to be attractive, too. Because we saw there was a differential in the share price there, and it's almost flipped the other way. So I think it's the ability and what is going to look attractive to shareholders that's probably going to require quite a cash offer there. I mean, there hasn't been, to date, many outside acquisitions, but that's something that could happen as well. Not as... It might be a number of the analysts here in the room may have a view on why it's happened more in the REITs than in our space. Yeah, just happened today. Alex, anything? Look, I think, I think there are a number of questions for investors in terms of the nature of consolidation. Whether, investors, want to... would prefer to continue to see pure-play companies, or whether they, are happy to accept a, a, a consolidation a- across a range of different renewable activities. I think a number of the entities have got complex capital structures. I don't think this year's round of continuation votes is particularly helpful to the consolidation, process, because I think that introduces uncertainty, and managers are focusing around continuation rather than what next. So I think there are a number of things. As I've said to a number of you, I'm sure that once the investment bankers have dealt with REITs, they'll move on to infrastructure. Delighted to have you with us today. Thank you. So we're gonna talk a little bit more generally. While we'd love to just talk about solar with a allocation of BESS, we'll talk a little bit more generally about the future of U.K. renewables this afternoon, and particularly like to understand it from your... The future of U.K. renewables, but maybe looking at it from a bit of a political angle as well. Delighted, and delighted to be here. I just want to say I was, I was Rail Minister during the construction of London Bridge, so every time I come here, I slightly get PTSD remembering the kind of, the mob, literally the mob scenes that were happening. And I remember coming down, so I was a leaning-in kind of minister, and saying to the team, "How do you think it went?" And they said, "Well, it was great, 'cause there wasn't a riot, and nobody fell on the tracks." Wow! You know, that was the standard by which we judged our rail service back then. I'm not sure it's any better these days, but anyway, great to be with you. Thanks for the invitation. Fantastic. Thanks. So just a number of... We'll get on to the political angle of things as well, but it'd be really interesting to know, as with your background as being an energy minister: So historically, the U.K. has enjoyed a leading position- Mm ... in renewables, as we have done in many infrastructure sectors as well. What, what do you think? How did we actually get there, and what were the sort of pros and cons for U.K. policy at the time, would you say? Well, I think you're right. So even today, when, you know, we've had a bit of flip-flopping, if you go around the world and go to various meetings, people will still talk about the U.K.'s leadership. But... And I think a couple of things happened. The first was that we leaned in early to the idea of needing to have some sort of government structure around this. So we had the Climate Change Act, which was very cross-party, very consensual, which set up a framework of carbon budgets, and it set up an advisory group in the Climate Change Committee, which is excellent, and it set up a dynamic where ministers had to go to the House of Commons and actually justify what they were doing on a five-year cycle. Quite business-orientated. Mm. That can be quite awful, particularly when you take over, as I did, and the previous chap has put in some completely unachievable targets, and you have to justify them. But I was one of very few ministers that had to actually stand up in public and talk about our progress. We had a great kind of backdrop... The second thing was we embraced market mechanisms early on. Mm. So again, I remember going around Copenhagen Harbor with all the European energy ministers, where actually nobody was talking to the German fellow 'cause they just announced Nord Stream, and everyone thought that was a terrible idea. So, oh, oh, how prescient! And we were looking at all these wind turbines, and the Danish minister said, "You know, it wasn't until you guys started doing auctions, that all of these became relevant." Because until before then, they were just great big pieces of out-of-the-money infrastructure. So it was that embracing of the sort of market mechanism that really worked. Mm. And thirdly, I just think we've always been reasonably pragmatic. I mean, we didn't chuck nuclear out of the mix like some countries did. We embraced... continued to embrace the role of gas, particularly in the generation mix. But we did focus on coal, and managed to drive coal off the grid through a combination of additional carbon pricing and clean air incentives. So there was an element of pragmatism, I think, that's come in, and all of those things are still the case, and it is the case that we have decarbonized faster than any other G20 country, and we can debate if progress is... You know, what's happened to progress since then, and some say we've done the easy bits. But the decarbonization of the energy sector is a truly British success story. That's great, and it's a very relevant point about coal, because the roll-off of coal, we are seeing impact other markets as well. Well, when I was elected in 2010, coal was 40% of our electricity. I have to be careful, people like to combine... electricity generation. It's now zero. I mean, it's, and that is an astonishing... And given the world still gets about 40% of its energy from coal, it's a big achievement. The U.K. does still have its challenges- Mm. -in achieving net zero. I don't... You sound a little bit more positive on it. I think some of us maybe feel like U.K. is, has maybe lost its leadership a little bit. Or is it? Has it, or what are the next steps, how do you see it? Well, so, so the U.K., I think, is at a fairly critical moment for all kinds of reasons. I mean, you could argue we had lost a lot of things in the last few years. So having five prime ministers and seven chancellors and 10 chief secretaries to the Treasury, all in the last six years, will kind of do that for you. But, but I, but I think the fundamentals are still there in terms of this framework that's focusing on, particularly the decarbonization of the energy system. I think the thing that we have forgotten or, or have... So, so first of all, soft power is incredibly important in driving investment, and it seems to me that the U.K. has got so distracted, of course, with COVID, but also with Brexit, that it's kind of forgotten the importance of being at the table and saying the right things in the sustainability space. Did anyone go to COP28 in Dubai? It, it was a very interesting COP, very successful. Our Prime Minister literally jetted in, made a sort of fairly testy press conference appearance, and jetted out again. Mm. That is not the way that you lean into some of these enormous, enormous incentives that are going on. And the other thing that we continue to, I think, ignore, is how to play to our strengths. I mean, I'm sure we're gonna talk about IRA. We're never gonna outspend. Clearly, we can't outspend the U.S. or the E.U. in terms of, this green industrial strategy, but we could be a lot smarter at leaning into technologies and market mechanisms and things where we're actually still very good and trying to build an industrial strategy on that. Well, you pretty much managed to jump into the next question I had, really. Yes ... which was about how should the U.K., in your view, position itself when you've got those huge amounts of investment and public backing in IRA in the U.S and the new Green Deal in the EU as well? Well, so I sit on the board of Occidental Petroleum in Houston, and this was a very deliberate choice. It was the only 'cause I really wanted to serve an energy company, and frankly, being a director of an oil and gas company in Europe is pretty miserable. And you can understand why Shell talks about perhaps moving its listing. It's very different in Texas. And by the way, it is the world's most, it leans in most to its emissions. We're investing billions in carbon capture and storage. It's the only energy company that's ever been run by a woman. It has a lot of great boxes to tick. But you literally can see the impact of the U.S. industrial strategy, policy, IRA coming in. I mean, I think Biden spent $37 billion last month alone, dishing it out, and it is revolutionizing the rollout of, of EVs, of wind and solar, of green tech, and of course, it's sucking capital in from around the world. What I find fascinating in Texas is, Texas is now the world's kind of superpower for wind and solar production, and also it still has oil and gas, so it's kind of and and. Mm. But you'll literally drive along, and there'll be some fellow who's got a sign up saying, "Don't blame me, I voted for Trump," offering EV charging from his own solar and wind network on his farm. So we're basically changing behavior without changing minds, and it's having an enormous impact. So clearly... And by the way, the EU is responding, and again, is trying to pick some spots. So the U.K. needs to get a lot smarter about what it does. You know, we do have great technological leadership, including, you know, I was looking at some of the tech we've got in solar panel- Yeah ... investigations, incredible. We've got great financial markets, we've got. We still make stuff. We still are very good at understanding how to do data analysis of renewables. So there's lots of things that we just need to play smarter. And I have an idea for almost, I kind of call it tech add-ons. What are the things where you just need to crash stuff together to make things work? And government's terrible at this. I mean, what comes as no surprise if anyone's dealt with governments. It is not innately the, what politicians do to try and allocate capital and make smart decisions- Mm ... and move quickly. I mean, how many years have we been now reviewing REMA? I mean, for goodness sakes, how would you cover an investment strategy where we're on our second consultation, and we might get some results? So there's something about leaning into this sort of private sector and entrepreneurial stuff, which again, is not the comfort zone for- Mm ... for very many politicians. But we can respond, and we can do some good things, and we are still, you know, carbon capture and storage, something the North Sea is perfectly set up to do, starting to build systems around our renewable energy. I was interested in the solar in, in your, in the Foresight Group's view of how the world has changed from that kind of stage one, the kind of point source. Yeah. We just built a load of generation plants, then we've got this integration question going on, and then the third question is, what are we actually gonna do with land and water? How does this all fit together? So I think there are, you know, there's definitely work to be done, but we're not, we don't have the money. I mean, God bless poor Rachel Reeves, if she's indeed the chancellor, there will be a note saying, "I'm sorry, there is no money," and it will also be true. You know, that this is gonna be a very difficult time. We're not gonna outspend some of these other countries. So on a connected point to that, you talked about the mentality and how public and private sectors work and around creativity. What about from an investment side- Mm ... and creating those markets as well on the policy side? Mm. What do you think the roles are for each of the institutions in terms of that, and how can they support each other going forward? Yeah, and it's a really interesting question. I know this is solar. I did a lot of work in offshore wind, which sort of struck me as one of the U.K.'s great superpowers- Mm ... because the North Sea is shallow and windy, and we're very good at operating in that environment. And we did a thing called the Offshore Wind Sector Deal, where we basically, for the first time ever, I think, in the history of government, got everybody in one space, and it wasn't a sort of lobbyists and, you know, it was literally everybody. So we had all the CEOs, we had the banks, we had the ministers, we had the regulators, and we said: What's it gonna take to do in that, this was back in 2017, a 5x uplift of our wind. Mm. Now it's, you know, more like 10-12x. And the answer was a few things. So, so one of the responses was, you can't keep dribbling out these auctions on a sort of ad hoc basis. You have to give us a forward look. Don't worry about the price, what's the quantity? And that, of course, required changing the Treasury's behavior, which is extremely difficult to do because Treasury really does control energy policy. But we also had to have some tough conversations with industry, which is, you know, when you talk about U.K. content, we don't just mean, you know, you've hired a bunch of contract workers from Liverpool. We actually want you to be investing and building skills and building some of these manufacturing plants- Mm ... and helping to upgrade the ports. So it was a proper joined-up conversation, and as a result of it, the cost of capital plummeted in that sector. Arguably, the CfD price didn't quite keep up when the cost of capital went through the roof again, but it was really successful. So we can do it, but we typically sit in our silos. And what does government do? Government taxes, spends, regulates, and convenes broadly. The private sector makes quick decisions, allocates capital, takes risk, you know, is prepared to stick its neck out. When you put those two systems together, it can be very effective, but it happens very infrequently. COVID, actually, was a great example of how you just break everything. Mm. Imagine if we had not included the private sector. We basically said to the private sector: "Go forth and make vaccines," and we, "and by the way, we'll spend a lot of money on stuff we don't need, but make the vaccines really quickly, and we'll roll them out, and we'll get them around the world." And it was an astonishing response, and government kind of got out of the way. Mm. And unfortunately, it doesn't do that often enough. Getting out of the way- Yes ... that could be a good way. I mean, it again comes on to this next question I got about really, we've got the next—what the next electoral cycle means for policymaking and regulatory developments. Something you already touched on before that I think is something that just seems to be dragging on, which is REMA- Yes ... as well. Any thoughts on what it means for that and how investors should navigate this progress? Well- 'Cause I think it's, it feels like we've been talking about REMA forever. Oh, goodness sake! And how long have we been talking about ROCs? Since 2011. I mean, it's astonishing, really. And, and, and by the way, I do think, and I want to make sure I say this, I think well done for getting in early on solar. I think it's important that there were investors right at the start of that cycle because we desperately needed the capital. Solar feels like a really rapidly maturing technology. You know, if you look, I was in Australia last week, I was talking to ReNew in India. You just have these astonishing momentum pools around the world for solar technology, and of course, not just solar, but batteries, because now we're starting to think about this integrated thing and, and, and who will pay for that, and can you put portfolios together? Well, we know a few things. We know that the election has to happen by the end of January 2025, and it's, you know, it's a... No one's gonna bet on when it is, but I think it's gonna be October the 10th. I mean, I'm just saying. One for the diaries. You don't wanna go too much into winter 'cause it's extremely miserable campaigning in November. I mean, knocking on people's doors in November, I can't tell you. I did three general elections, two multiple referenda, and it was just astonishing, amazing. So... And the problem is, as soon as you have elections, everything stops. So already, the Civil Service, and there are some brilliant people in the Civil Service, are downing tools and thinking about what the next government is going to do. So do you think there's gonna be a bold response to the REMA consultation in the next few months? I think probably not. I think what you'll have is a, "Thank you very much. This is very interesting. We'll put it all into the mix, and we'll let the poor person coming in, who may or may not be Ed Miliband, to decide on what happens next. So this political cycle is incredibly bad for long-term decision-making. But that's not a good enough excuse. I think the other problem is this: politicians don't really understand, like, or want to talk about energy. So when I was in cabinet, we discussed energy once in two years. Once. And we talked about fracking, and I was the minister that tried to, in a controlled way, understand whether it was worth fracking. Having been on a bus tour around the Permian, I'm here to tell you it could never work in the U.K.. It's just really... Texas and Lancashire are quite different. But nobody talks about it. There were never really any votes in pipes, and wires, and batteries, and there's a lot of negative votes. So we had the great hoo-ha about solar farming, and Liz Truss described it. Well, she said, "I don't want paraphernalia, solar paraphernalia, in productive farmland." Well, in my constituency, which I still live in, most of the paraphernalia is on really unproductive, degraded farmland, and is really contributing to the grid. So it has lots of votes in being, you know, negative and points growing. Very little interest in understanding the energy system, and my goodness, have we made it complicated as a system. You know, and this is the other problem, is that politicians want to make everybody happy, which is a completely fallacious point. Someone is gonna... Somebody has to pay for all of this investment, and somebody has to put their neck out and say, "This is actually what we want to happen." And I think the solar you know, we're getting there. We've now got a commitment to solar. We've got the task force. We've got some momentum, but it feels like a snail's pace compared to what we could and should be doing. It does feel a little bit like drawing teeth. I mean, we had a- Yeah ... quite a bit of wobble around the commitment to solar. Yeah. There is a commitment to quintupling it- Yes ... in the government, that I think they flopped on one side and then came back to- But how does that- By the end. ... how does that look to an investor when you, when you've got other, You know, when you go to India, so I was talking to ReNew, the CEO, and, I mean, Mr. Modi made a commitment in 2012 that solar was his superpower, and then he reiterated that at COP26, this 500 GW, and it's now, this, you know, whether or not it's being done as effective, it's good, but there's just a huge amount of momentum. So, so I think one of the good things, if we're talking about the next government, they won't have a lot of money, but I think there will be some, some sense of certainty that this is actually, and that this is a place for long-term investment in renewables. Well, I think if there's one thing that we're gonna take away, because we do still see a lot of, a lot of interest and a lot of- Of course ... competition for investments here in the U.K. in solar, storage, wind, and others, that people still want to invest in the U.K. despite all this uncertainty. And they should. I mean, I was... So I went off, 'cause, of course, one of the things people will say is, "Well, why would you put solar in the U.K.?" Well, look at the solar installation rate in Germany or the Netherlands, where the installation rates- Yeah ... are not that different. You know, clearly, it can have a massive contribution, and it helps with demand-side responses. It helps with grid flexibility, though, of course, now you've got companies making massive commitments around... I I mean, I mean, the Microsoft Brookfield deal, I think, is fascinating. Basically saying: We are going to be consuming vast amounts of energy, and we're not gonna wait for the grid and government to provide it. We just want you to go forth and build this renewable portfolio for us, and include the storage. That's really exciting, and of course, we have great tech in the U.K.. We do have some great tech plays that, you know, will, should be dragged along by this investment. Well, yes, that's our hope in a way, that the government at the moment has said they still want to go for that target. Yes ... but actually, there isn't gonna be a change and a withdrawal from it. No. That, I guess, the hope is in a way that actually REMA will come out with a sensible conclusion by the end of it, and we're not ripping up the CfD just- But it will be sort of... Oh, I mean, I shouldn't say this, 'cause of course we need good regulation, and we need an important regulator, but, you know, the regulation was not done for the long-term health of our energy industry. It was always consumer-led regulation. And of course, you know, it's important that we protect consumers, but some people say we don't pay enough for energy, and we certainly don't, but we do—you know, we don't invest in energy efficiency and some of the things that we need to do. And I did go, and I was entertained. I thought I'd look at what... Do you know what consumers say about energy in the U.K.? So 80% of them say they're really worried about climate change, and 60% of them said they're doing all that they can themselves to, you know, to get on track with this. I mean, it... So there, so there's just this enormous kind of gap as to what people can actually do or think they can do. But I also saw that solar installations are going gangbusters. I mean, they're up, and this is rooftop, but they're up 30% year-on-year. So somehow, again, you're not changing minds, you're changing behavior, and that will really start to stimulate growth. I expect the energy bills may have had something to do with- That too ... as well, potentially. Yes. So getting on to the sort of question we're looking at here, and taking into consideration clearly at Foresight, clearly we are apolitical in terms- Of course ... of our thinking. As am I these days. But given that- I'm not affiliated at all. ... Given that one of the preeminent people in the industry, Professor John Curtice, has stated a few weeks ago he sees a 99% chance of a Labour government, so what does the future look like potentially under a Labour government if we did have a change for a party, as you think? Well, so, look, we're not gonna... I mean, yes, it's, I, I'm just so glad I'm no longer a politician. Thank you. you. Thanks. I... And I still live in my old constituency, so I sort of get asked that quite a lot, and I'm just so delighted to be back in the private sector, where it's a little more rational. And interestingly, just... I don't want to go off topic. I do want to ask the question, but there is this view that somehow the private sector's all really short-termist, and we kind of say things, and nobody means them. I think if you make a commitment to your shareholders about your long-term strategy, it actually is far stickier than a, than a, than a, a new leader's manifesto in the Tory party over the last five years, let's say. I mean, and of course, I know we live in a democracy, and that is a wonderful thing, but it also does come with these chops and changes. There has just been this kinetic feel to policy that has turned off all kinds of investment, not just in this particular industry, which is so frustrating given the advantages we talked about. So I think the polling's probably right, that there will be an election. Sorry, there will be an election. There will be a Labour government. How big the majority is, is sort of up for grabs. And it... I was entertained to read in The Economist, somebody said that this would mean the markets, instead of paying the Truss moron risk premium, might have a sanity dividend, which I thought was sort of an that suddenly, that, that this will be seen as a period of stability. We know that the government, incoming government, Labour Party, incredibly committed to decarbonization. I think their 2030 targets are implausible, and I have told them that, and they sort of know that because there isn't enough copper available in the world markets to deal with national grids, grid expansion plans, even currently before the extension for further decarbonization. But they will focus on low-carbon energy. They will—I think they will continue the good work that's happening with the grid in terms of trying to deal with the access. Someone's gonna have to make some tough decisions, by the way, about prioritizing those projects. I suggested to them that they should set up a war room for a year and literally go through those projects one by one. And, of course, you want the ones with the shovel ready, but you also want the ones that have the biggest benefit, and you can define benefit. Is it local jobs? Is it creation of additional supply chains? What is it? But you've got to lean into that stuff and actually manage it fairly actively, I think. So now, you think they'll come with big ambitions that will be - they will, well, they will struggle to achieve - Yes! ... but there will be positive direction in it. Yes, and the reality will also be that unless you push things very hard out of number ten, it's really difficult to run energy across government, because energy is a bit like GDP. You know, imagine if you had a department for economic growth, which actually they might well have, but, you know, it requires the whole of government to work very closely in tandem, and that doesn't happen that often. Well, that was gonna be one of my final questions, really, here. In terms of policymaking- Yes ... if you could give us a bit of an insight into that and how it actually works for something- Ah ... as big as en, the energy question- Well, yes ...that we, we live with every day. But how does it, that interaction between the civil service and the policymakers actually work around? Less effectively than you might think. Or maybe as ineffectively as you might think. It's a bizarre question because the civil service is full of incredibly smart people, and often ministers are pretty across their briefs as well, and somehow the two don't necessarily come together to make beautiful long-term policy. Part of the challenge is government is very innumerate. So people don't like to use numbers very often in government. I was the only business minister to have ever carried a calculator, which was considered incredibly intimidating by my civil servants. And when they would give me a 27-page document to say, "Please, would you sign off the spending of, you know, $3 billion?" And there was not one number in it. And then somebody said, "We've got to spend this because we've spent so much already." Corporate finance 101. Anyway, so it's quite innumerate. It's quite political. So again, you will have governments that come in and say things like, "We're just gonna shut down the Rough storage plant because I think it's a good idea to do it," and the civil service will say, "Are you sure?" And they'll say, "Yes, yes." And so it's, you know, it's political, and it's very short-termist. There aren't that many long-term strategies. So again, when I had the job, which I loved, I said, "Where's the chart that shows size of abatement opportunity plotted against cost per unit of reduction?" Didn't exist. So how did you plan? How did you set— So there's a lot of stuff that you would think strategically you would have, that you don't have. The Treasury tends to control most of the decisions, so ultimately, energy policy will have to be decided both in DESNZ, or whatever it's called, and the Treasury. Ministers are a bit like the cherry on a fairy cake, that they're there to add a little bit of oomph and color, but you can kind of flick them off and get on with it. I think quite a lot of civil service time is spent trying to get the ministers flicked off and into a corner. Sometimes you flick yourself off, to take this analogy one step further, because, you know, instead of going to attend a really important thing, you're forced to go and vote on some Rwanda thing. So the number of times I would be dragged back from, you know, incredibly important international meetings to go and vote on, you know, whatever, and that's fundamentally the job of politicians. It... I'm being slightly facetious. It, I also work with some of the smartest, most dedicated people I've ever worked with, and we did have a good run, you know, to, the, the sort of, not to claim credit, but we had a really good run, partly because Brexit was so horrendous, we all wanted to focus on the nice stuff like decarbonization. And the trick was we had cross-party consensus. So actually, what mattered almost more than how the government worked was: could you lean in to a cross-party consensus on some of the things that you should be doing? That's when we brought in the Net Zero Act, and we did a lot of work in some of these, some of these areas. We can get back to that. That is achievable. It doesn't, it doesn't have to be quite as fractious as it's been in the last few years. So just before we open up to some questions for yourself, Claire, as well. So do you—how do you broadly feel about the future of renewables in the U.K. and the outlook for it? Hugely optimistic. Hugely optimistic, because I think what we're, we're starting now to get this level of sophistication about what works best, what's the system integration that works, and also, how do we, how do we intelligently deal with some of our problems? So I was very struck looking at the skills part of the Solar Task force, and this - that could have been written for any industry at any point. You know, we need more people, we need to train them, we need to make it more attractive. There's a company called Enpal in Germany, do you know the company called Enpal? Which basically does home-based solar systems and, energy management systems and EV charging. And I was listening to this guy present in Berlin, and he said, "We're just never gonna attract enough people. So we've changed our model. We looked at what McDonald's did." So McDonald's, there was a massive shortage of hamburger cooks in America, so they broke down the cooking process so that anybody could do it... So instead of trying to go out there and say, "We must have a program in schools teaching children why they should become solar engineers," break down the installation and the optimization and the management process, and just make it really easy for people to do. So I think with a few tweaks like that, this is a hugely important, high-growth industry, and I think we can see with installations and levels of investment, both in the U.K. and globally, that that is happening. Well, it's, it's a bit gonna be about having the workers there to deliver it and having the skills. Yep, and making it exciting, but not saying, "And, and how long have you wanted to be a solar engineer?" Saying, "Come in, this is a great place to work. We'll teach you everything you need to know, and by the way, here's some great benefits and, you know, and fun stuff to do. Fantastic. Although that said, we do have some solar engineers here. Yeah, of course we do. I'm pleased to have them. Well done to you. Yeah. Thank you. We'd like to open it up. If anybody wants to ask any, now is your opportunity. If you'd like to raise any questions for Claire, anything you like. Go ahead. Yeah, how does EGL fit net zero? How does EGL fit with net zero? In what sense? The energy generator- Yeah, yeah, no, the levy. Yeah. I understand, but— Because it's just confusing when the government's added a bit of uncertainty to the whole market. We don't know whether we'll get an increase in that extension of it or even in the end. It makes it very difficult to make investments if policy changes. And I think this is a. So I think this is a. I was checking the numbers, actually, 'cause, I mean, we're kind of around the level now, aren't we? I mean, we're sort of- We're below it now. We're below it now, but it's sort of, you know, we've range traded back to that 75 level. You know, this is a very important question that when you do things in the short term, people don't always think about the long-term consequences. So it felt quite appropriate to claw back some of those excess profits, and governments have a long history of doing that. Gordon Brown did it. You know, we've done the windfall taxing thing. I felt it was rather massively disincentivizing to apply that to the renewable sector and then not give corresponding investment offsets, as was done in oil and gas. That just seemed to me to be slightly brain dead. And I think that you've already heard the government say that they want to continue this, particularly with the fossil fuel sectors, but there is an argument that it just shouldn't apply for renewables. And if we really want to do the kind of Green Deal stuff that we could do, putting the repeal of that and a package of targeted tax incentives together could be really powerful. The great thing about IRA is it's foregone tax receipts. So, and the Treasury hates that 'cause they've budgeted, but they never budget the incoming tax receipts, if you like, from that recycled money. So there is a package there that could be done. But I agree, I think this chucking and windfall taxes that are open-ended and putting in a floor, so they've tried to give you some sort of range, is not helpful for long-term investment. Mm-hmm. Just as a quick extension to that, do you think there could be a risk with either government of an extension of the EGL or generator? Yeah, definitely. Well, it's definitely in play. So, well, the— whether it's that or whether it's wrapped into some sort of North Sea wind extension windfall tax- Mm. It's definitely in play. But as we've seen with quite a lot of the policy pledges from the Labour Party, they don't always last. And I worked for George Osborne in opposition, for disclosure, and it's a horrible thing because if you say anything good, the government nicks it, which is what the Tory party's done on non-doms. So there may be some non-doms here, in which case, it's not so good. If you say anything bad, it becomes a hostage to fortune, and then you end up having to justify this. So the safest thing is to say nothing, and then people say, you... Tony Blair said very little before 1997. He had five pledges that were written on a, literally on a credit card-sized thing. Mm. So, it's a fluid thing, and there is definitely room for conversation. Awesome. Any more questions? Iain, you got the... Yeah, good afternoon. It's Iain Scouller from Stifel. Labour abandoned the GBP 28 billion target. In terms of what they are planning to do, what sort of size do you think it'll be? How are they gonna finance it? Will it be additional levies on bills? So I think they will not have a flagship number for investment. I think what they will do is they'll bring back the Green Investment Bank in a new name. They'll be desperately looking to crowd in private capital as much as possible, and they'll be asking and looking to do things around the tax and incentive system rather than a package. And I think that's probably a smart approach rather than putting a number on this. It's a bit like, again, the conversation globally is always about finance, and this big row about government money isn't flowing from north to south. There are trillions of dollars of clean capital flowing from north to south, primarily coming out of the private sector. So I think government saying, "That's what we're going to spend," is not a great market signal. What they should be saying is, "How do we enable the maximum amount of capital to deliver the maximum results? What is it that we need to do?" But the government... Sorry, but governments love to say, "We're spending GBP X billion," because you always-- And by the way, this is a tip with politicians. So when you lobby politicians, they're desperately trying to work out how they can write a press release of what you're saying. So today I met with Foresight Solar, and they said, you know, "They offered us, you know, 10 projects and 50,000 jobs, and, you know, and in return, we've offered X." That's just the truth, I'm afraid, the mindset of politicians. It's very transactional. One more down here. Claire, what's your view on the use of small modular- SMRs, so interesting. Impact? Yeah. No, it's a well, it's a great question, and it's, it's funny, isn't it? We talk about all these technologies as if they're sort of existing, you know? So it always amazes me, we, we always talked about solar as mature technology and lumped it in the pot one, which always felt like a very bizarre thing to do, because again, 'cause look at what's happened to the price of solar since the first pot one auction is, you know, it's a, a fraction. So I think SMRs are interesting. They have a role to play. I think that the technology is still very unproven, and we may end up with two or three types of technology, and they don't overcome some of the innate risks of nuclear, which is you've still got a nuclear reactor chugging away at some scale. All the issues around security and raw materials and dependency come into play. But I think they might have a role to play around the impossible-to-abate stuff. So the really heavy industry for which we keep pretending, and I love green hydrogen. I'm an advisor to a hydrogen company in Australia. It's just gonna take a really long time to decarbonize industrial clusters with hydrogen, whereas SMRs could actually provide a very good solution. I can't see them, though, sitting outside Basingstoke in a shed, chugging away. That doesn't feel plausible to me, which is I know where some people talk about, oh, microgrids with a cozy little nuclear reactor attached. I don't think the good citizens of Basingstoke are gonna love that. If they don't like a solar farm, they're not gonna love that. Do you agree, or do you, what's your view? Well, I think, I don't know, in 100 years' time- Yeah. It'll be different, but I do agree with you today. By the way, this is a place where the U.K. is very good. Again, you know, we had a nuclear industry, which we sold to France. We still have some remnants of it. Rolls-Royce is definitely in the mix. There is a really interesting role that we could be leaning into, and that, for me, would be one of those sort of tech hadrons, because actually, overcoming some of the planning consents by, for example, putting them on former nuclear sites that are being decommissioned, just join this stuff up and really go for it and say, "We're gonna do this in five years. We're not gonna wait 20 years for another consultation." You can tell I don't like consultations. Of course, we must consult. We love consultations. The dreariness, you get these consultations. Well, we've had 50,000 responses to these consultations, they'd say. And I thought, That's very interesting. 49,500 of them were a postcard that had been organized by some campaign group, and then there would be a response from sort of, you know, Elon Musk on the other side, and, and these things were somehow equivocal. It just, it was bonkers. So they're not, they're not brilliantly useful documents, I don't think. Is that very anti-democratic? Democracy is a very expensive luxury, but- It does, yeah. It does. Well, I, It does. Well, I, and I just think, and then the government changes, and then the civil service move, and then you get a report, and then you think, I'm gonna, I'm gonna fiddle with this. I mean, much better to co-design changes with industry up front and do it. And it was interesting, again, on a slight diversion, but there was a whole conversation about semiconductors, 'cause one of the other things the U.S. did was the Semiconductors Act, where they said, "We can no longer be reliant on China. We're gonna damn well onshore or friendshore our semiconductor industry," and they co-created it with industry. So it happened very quickly. Of course, there were lots of things that wrong, but it's, it's working, and they're building huge amounts of semiconductors in the U.S. It can be done. Any more for any more while we've got Claire with us?. Hi, congrats. Just a question about your views on the National Grid. And the transmission lines, how do we know, I guess they are building a grid that's appropriate versus, you know, the equal shareholders they use? It's a very, yeah, it's a really tough question. It's, and in some ways, they're much maligned 'cause they are very constrained by Ofcom, sorry, Ofgem, and that, I think, is the... What am I saying? I can't even get it right. Oh, no, it's, yeah, it's either Ofcom or Ofgem. So from a regulatory point of view, they're very constrained, and as I mentioned, our whole regulatory system is set up to benefit consumer choice and pricing. It's not set up to build long-term, high-capacity, robust energy systems. So I think they do what they do reasonably well, and if you listen to them, they will be very focused. You know, they've got in, and they've sorted out this access backlog problem. But I think they have a huge amount of work to do, and of course, there is now a conversation about how might you break that up? Might you have another structure, which feels a bit like sort of back to the future? Let's just work with what we've got, and let's make it work better, and let's lean in to the point where we can show that we're making progress. But do you have a different view? Well, I'm not sure taking it back into public ownership, that would be a much better, you know, solution, but, you know, maybe only to save the railways. Oh, Lord, nationalization. Funnily enough, I started writing a book when I stood down for rail minister called The Second Great Train Robbery, which was why actually nationalization of the railways, sorry, privatization of the railways was a terrible idea. Because the structure of the privatization was that it split the track, the trains, and the, and the operations into three separate buckets, and the people that made money were the, were the venture capitalists who were funding the rolling stock, which they made huge IRRs, and everyone else just had to suffer through London Bridge problems. It might work for rail. I don't think it works terribly well for the energy system. And again, as we talked about, our energy system is considered incredibly interesting and innovative. Not all aspects of it, you can argue with whether we had, you know, entry levels that were too low at the consumer market. But there's something about the innovation and the structure that people do find very appealing. And we were chatting actually about Spain, where you've just made an acquisition, and I think Spain is a sort of potential superpower for renewable energy for Europe. I think the permitting and energy system, sorry to put you on the spot—in Spain is nowhere near as good as the U.K. So we do actually do some things quite well. It doesn't always look like that from inside. It's part of the takeaway that not many others are doing it that much better, which is- Exactly ... not necessarily. Exactly. Any final questions? One more here, sir. Can I just ask about... Do Do you think that will compromise that potential sort of stable output you were talking about for energy policy, or even might even give you, might give greater consensus politically? So I think it's a really important question, because, again, I'm not convinced that the odds are now that there will be a working majority. But if there was a Lib-Lab pact, then I think, again, that might be quite good for renewable energy. Oddly, the coalition—so the coalition years, as a politician, were amongst the happiest political years of my life, because you were forced to compromise before you went off on one. You know, this was the thing about trying to find the workable solution, and it did force us into some quite powerful progress areas. Again, in energy, that's when we decided to shut down the coal, that's when we came up with the auction system. It actually was quite a strong period of time for energy policy. The other thing, of course, that might happen is we may get a deal on proportional representation if we had a hung parliament, and that could open up all kinds of all kinds of structures. So, you know, be careful what you wish for, I think. Fantastic. Well, look, I think, Claire, we'll draw a line there- Okay. 'Cause we're getting Mateo at the back of the room, saying we are actually running out of time. But thank you very much. So myself, first of all, for those of you who don't know me, I'm Ross Driver, Fund Manager for Foresight Solar, and this is Toby Virno, who's a member of the fund management team full-time alongside me on the fund. So we're just gonna run through a little bit this afternoon to give a bit of further information, recap on the capital allocation policy that Alex sort of noted on before, but then also give a bit of an overview on considerations around the divestment program as well. So just going back to a bit of a recap here on the capital allocation policy itself. Look, we are absolutely focused, I think, between the board and the investment manager as well, on paying down the debt at the moment. It's one of the most important things, particularly given that the, the rates on the RCF have increased over the last year. We have actually paid down, as the fund, almost GBP 100 million in the total debt since January 2023. That is not just the RCF, but the fully amortizing, term debt in there as well. That is actually fully hedged at, pretty attractive rates on there. So GBP 40 million was, was repaid, the big chunk following the, successful sell-down of the Lorca portfolio in Q4 of last year. We've got through, coming through, putting out our Q1 announcement, for 2024. The balance hasn't dropped as yet, mainly because winter is less of a generating month, and obviously, to make big strides in that, we are going to have to... One of the key ways of doing that is making further divestments, which is what we plan to do. There are other alternatives that we have as well that we're exploring, but I think the key message was it is following on with that divestment program in order to pay down the debt. And the target there is a significant reduction of it, if not pretty much mostly paid off by the end of the year. The other point of it, that again, Alex spoke to earlier in the day, is the buyback program as well. I think it's fair to say that we, proportionally for our size, we actually have the longest, largest and one of the most consistent buyback programs in the market compared to some of the others. We have been out there doing it since May, and that has GBP 32 million spent to date, and it has added GBP 0.015 per share to the NAV in terms of uplifts from there. So the two big levers that we have available, big targets, that is what the focus of both the board and ourselves is on delivering. I think part of what we'll speak to you about today, so I do want to leave that very much in investors' minds, that is front and center of what we are looking at. We'll go on to add a little bit more flavor about how we plan to get there. The other side of it is in terms of modest development stage investments. We'll get onto that a little bit because you may have noticed we put out another announcement this morning about a development pipeline for battery storage in Spain. We'll give a little. Carlos, whose team led that deal, will give a little bit about a bit more about that as well. But really, at this time, at the point in the market, what we're looking in terms of this is an opportunity to bring through additional returns in more of a development play, putting modest amounts of capital at risk just for the time being to get those projects through to ready-to-build stage, at which point we may be looking to flip these on and divest of them for an upside to drive some organic growth out of it. So it's a small allocation at the moment with a potential meaningful upside in there. And I think if we put it this, it's trying to balance between all these levers that are available to us. Very much, it's in that order. Debt repayment is the primary focus. I think we've done a lot on the buyback. We continue to be committed to it, but perhaps as the markets, if there is a bit of a recovery in there, we'll look at, adjusting that appropriately, and then very small amounts into, into development stage opportunities, which we're looking at really for the medium and long-term growth, because we're not looking to put significant capital into projects at the moment. So I think just, just flicking onto that. So we'll talk you through a little bit around the considerations behind the divestment program. So we've got a, we've stated target of 200 -MW of assets commencing, when we commenced this and announced it in June of last year. As, as we've already said, and you well noted, phase one completed in November with a sell down of 50% of the Lorca portfolio, coming in with a partner who really wanted to come in alongside someone, an experienced investment manager like us, and was willing to pay what was a good premium to holding value in terms of that, in terms of getting into that, and are, are quite happy with the investment so far. So we, we did state from the outset. There's a bit of balance here, 'cause we did state from the outset that we're not specifically going to announce what assets we're selling. reason for that, I'd say, is it's also commercially driven, because we feel if we do say, if you put yourself out there and you nail yourself to a mast, and I am selling X assets, doesn't always position you in the best way for dealing with that commercially and looking like you are looking more desperate to sell it. But we will say there is only so many assets that we can sell here, and I would say take from this presentation a very strong inference on where we are leaning to in terms of our divestment program, which we will say more of over the time. So clearly, we do have the Australian portfolio there, the 4 sites and the 170 MW that we've got there. There is the U.K. BESS portfolio that we've got the one project in construction that we expect to come through later this year. We also have two projects that are ready to build at that ready-to-build stage. Now, we do have some decisions to make around those because we look at them, and if we applied the capital in them to these that we co-own with our sister fund, J-LEN, as well, we do still think that they could generate returns, they would be returns accretive for the fund. But it doesn't fit at the moment in our capital allocation policy, where we're looking to pay down the debt or buy back shares that we see as giving a more attractive return. So we're looking at all options for that portfolio in terms of what we do with those assets. We then have the U.K. solar portfolio as well, which I'd say is sort of the bedrock and has been for many years of the portfolio. Toby will speak a little bit more to this at home. But one of the things we also want to leave you with today is that we do see this 200 MW of selling projects at the moment. This is the start. And okay, the macroeconomic environment may have shifted, and things, in a broader sense, may have made us consider this and start this program. This is something that we see going forward with the portfolio as well, that there isn't anything in there that will necessarily be fixed forever because the fund will have to develop, it will have to, it will have to change, and it will have to modify as we go forward. I'm thinking more into the 2030s and beyond, as things sort of the rocks start to roll off, and we're looking at those other long-term revenue streams to add value and stable yield out of this and in terms of growth. Just add that we do, obviously, we have the Spanish solar portfolio. We still have the equivalent of 75 MW there. It is a consideration. We didn't choose to sell more of the Lorca asset at the moment, but it's always a consideration for us as well. So just taking a number of those in turn, to talk to Australia, and we do want to sort of talk about this head-on. I'm happy to take any questions of it at the end of the session. So it's undoubtedly, although Australian solar has had its challenges in recent years, we've had the interstate grid outages, we've had what felt like, I think, three terrible summers down in Australia. It's not like neighbors and home and away that I remember when I was a kid. So the, the weather has not been the best, and then we have been suffering levels of economic curtailment that have increased in the recent years. I think what we'd say is, notwithstanding this, this portfolio of assets that was acquired back in 2017, 2018, still remains very attractive in that market for a number of reasons. You've got 45% of the revenues are on a contracted basis, and the portfolio has been. It's been restructured, that we'll go into a little, in a bit more detail, but is very resilient. But in terms of looking at it, I think there's certain elements of here. So if you take the Bannerton project that we co-own with KGAL, that's got a 17-year fixed price PPA arrangement in it with an offtaker who say it's similar to what we've got in Spain. So a lot of the, a lot of the value in that project is already hedged. And the Oakey 1 and Longreach projects, numbers 2 and 3 in the portfolio there, they benefit from something that's called the Solar 150 subsidy that the Queensland government gave out back in 2017. It was called Solar 150 because only 150 -MW qualified for it, which we have about a third of it. And that guarantees you to be able to sell if you are generating at a fixed price of about AUD 88 MWh, which is significant. It's about double what the price is in the market at the moment. You will not see these kind of... They're even sort of more, they're like hen's teeth, they're more even valuable than the ROCs are necessarily in the U.K. You will not see these kind of projects again. So there is an inherent value within them, that if we were looking to divest of this portfolio, we would want to make sure that we captured that full value for investors as well. And then finally, we've got the Oakey 2 project there. That is a fully merchant project, but it's also selling those LGCs as well. So I'll just go on a little bit to talk a little bit more about what it is that we have been doing. There's undoubtedly been this, an increase in economic curtailment. And that has been factored into. We've now done site-specific reforecasts for all of the portfolio. We have been able to balance that with some operational savings coming through as well. So there was a bit of downside from that, but it's something that we've been looking at and we've been factoring in for the last few years as well. There is some of the - Yes, we've been able to re-tender O&Ms contracts and other operational savings that have been in there since the portfolio came through out of construction. We are progressing because it is a market that is, one of the reasons it's suffering from this curtailment in Australia is because there's so much generation coming through. Coal hasn't been ramped down as quickly in Australia as it has here in the U.K. and other markets, and there's a large amount of rooftop solar in there. The government themselves acknowledge this, and one of the things that they're trying to drive forward is battery storage within the market to help balance the grid there. What our asset management team on the ground have been doing is progressing actual site-specific BESS co-location at the sites to be able to put through the go through the planning to get these get BESS co-location actually added on to the sites. It's not necessarily going to be huge amounts, but it would be enough to help balance the grid off there. It may or may not be something that we do build ourselves, but it may be something that we put into if we're potentially looking at investment of these assets to help an incoming investor look at that and see how they appraise it going forward. And I'll just say, out of that, you will have noticed when we put out our Q1 announcement, that we have restructured and resized the Oakey 1 and Longreach portfolio, the debt on that. That was a joint facility across the two assets. It's been restructured. We have voluntarily paid down an ocean amount, it's about GBP 3.5 million off that facility because of last year, because of the higher economic curtailment. We saw that the cover ratios were coming under pressure. That's now agreed, signed, done. Those projects. It takes those projects, releases that pressure, and actually, the whole portfolio, we do not have concerns about it distributing going forward from this year. So I think having a look at it, it is really a case of getting this portfolio in a, in a very steady, steady, stable state, given some of the challenges that are going on in the market for considerations. I think the only other thing we'd say on this, having sorted out Oakey 1 and Longreach, Oakey 2 does need a refinancing as well. These projects, the Australian market, has mini perm debt. The longest you'll typically get is 5-7 years. That goes across virtually all infrastructure, unless you're raising billion-dollar bonds. So that will need refinancing. We are in discussions with lenders at the moment. That should take place in Q3. We wouldn't necessarily see doing that getting in the way of starting a process if we were to be divesting of it as well. And we've had good discussions with lenders and their appetite for that at the moment. So I'll just pass over to Toby at the moment, who's just going to talk through the other asset, and then we'll take questions in general. Sure. Thank you, Ross, and good afternoon, everyone. So I'm first going to talk about the U.K. BESS portfolio that we hold. And undoubtedly, there's been challenges in the U.K. BESS market over the last 18 months. This is primarily driven by very poor revenue performance, underperforming market expectations quite significantly in the period. This has been driven by a few different factors. Firstly, just wholesale electricity prices falling. This is driven by a bit of demand destruction and lack of energy consumption, noting the cost of living crisis, as you know, pressures hit households and businesses, but also the milder weather year that took place in 2023. In addition to that, we've had some structural constraints on the ability of BESS to participate in the balancing mechanism with very, very low acceptance rates. Some issues are slowly being addressed, but, you know, that can't come too soon for those with battery assets in the market currently. And then finally, in the inaugural year of the flexible demand services being introduced, that removed some of the volatility at those key pinch points when typically batteries might trade very, very well. Again, that's looks to be a 2023 specific issue, as the capacity that is procured through those auctions has reduced quite substantially, coming into this year. There is some cause for optimism. So as we say, some of these issues are looking to be addressed, and then there are also some tailwinds in the construction cost side of things as well. We see that through the private funds that we manage, who are invested in a number of other batteries with about 0.5 GW in total, managed by Foresight Group. We are very on top of the market, and know what is out there, and can be taken advantage of. We remain of the view that flexible storage, such as BESS, will play an important role in the U.K. energy transition going forward. We'll be very pleased to see Sandridge come through and come online later this year, as Ross alluded to earlier. But we will reiterate once again that our preconstruction assets, Clayfords and Lunan Head, we do not plan on constructing these and making further substantial CapEx commitments until it is compatible with our capital allocation policy. That's the message we want to deliver quite clearly today. Clearly, we want to maximize value from all the assets that we hold, and so we're exploring all options as to how best do that, be it further development or divestment, et cetera. As we say, we are working very closely with the team here at Foresight to take best practice and then maximize value from our U.K. BESS holdings. I'll move on now to our solar portfolio, and the U.K. solar assets remain the backbone of the global portfolio for the fund. It's a mature, stable operating portfolio, one of the largest in the U.K., and continuously delivers very, very strong operational performance that really contributes to the financial objectives for the fund. Our colleague, Conor, after the break, will be back to talk to you about why we consider our portfolio to be one of the best operating in the market. I went [inaudible]. Plenty of good things to talk about. The ROC-backed projects, as Claire mentioned earlier, we feel we've done well to grow such a strong portfolio during the life of the fund, and they remain very, very attractive assets. They are very highly sought after, and when quality portfolios come to the market, there's always strong competition for these. The reason being is the quality of the revenue stack, with a significant degree of inflation linkage that helps support our progressive dividend and supports other investors' financial objectives as well. For solar itself, it's got a relatively predictable generation portfolio, generation profile, meaning that there is quite a high degree of revenue certainty, and outlook going forwards as well. All that being said, it is also... Sorry, it is also backed by a very stable regulatory regime, which again, Claire spoke to, as being the envy of other parts of the world, even today. While highly optimized, our portfolio itself, there are still further opportunities for value enhancement, and with any disposal, timing has to be absolutely critical in order to ensure you are maximizing value for your shareholders. Probably won't dwell too much more on that, but Conor will go into some of the value enhancement initiatives later on. And I'll probably just leave that one there. Finally, on to Spain, before we move to questions. Following the sell-down from the Lorca portfolio, we hold a residual portfolio which is in stable operations and is strongly supporting our financial objectives.... We do expect that there will be further trading in this market for FSFL, but this will be driven by development platforms that we're invested in. Ross mentioned the Chelion framework agreement, which was added to and announced this morning. We will go into more detail around the development strategy and that trade, that trading model that we will build in a later session today. That concludes this section of the presentation. We'll open up now to the floor to Q&A to take any questions on capital allocation and the divestment program. I think just before we do that, I'm very happy for any questions around this. I think just going back to that point at the start in terms of us talking through all the options around this and how we get there, and saying we are not specifically naming a portfolio and tying ourselves to the roof. But I think what we'll say to the market is, look, we see it very much as being core, core for the portfolio being European-based, potentially Europe-U.K. and Europe for the future. Predominantly solar, with a small element of batteries in it as well. But we're happy to take any questions on this and the capital allocation policy. Tom? Can you just quantify what the value of Australian portfolio is? We haven't actually released that specific, that specific amount. I would say in terms of it is going for, it's probably around, it's between 5% and 10% of the overall portfolio, I think, to give a broad, broad, broad brush approach. And you mentioned buyback, that's probably a question for that. But, But, you know, would you use other mechanisms to return capital? I'm I'm thinking of sort of tender, you know, so the largest shell is getting scaled up by, by back to the smaller tender makes it smaller, but we can- Yeah. It is. I think it's fair to say with the discussions with the board, we've considered everything at the moment. We've got to a point, I think, with the buyback program at the moment, clearly, we're at 32 out of 40 million. I think there is a decision point there for us, whether we're continuing with that, with the current buyback, or we're looking, we're looking at other alternatives as well. I think the only thing is we, we have had a lot of available cash out of the last couple of years coming out, so we've got to see what we can do with the scale of the, scale of the monies we've got. I think to make really good progress in this and give you, giving you an idea of the scale of some of those opportunities, I mean, the scale that would come from the investments could be something like the Australia portfolio would really otherwise be U.K. or Spain solar. I think it's quite clear, without other areas, to make those big strides down in repaying the RCF or putting money out into tenders, needs to come from meaningful divestments. I think. Hassan? As you refocus back to Europe and U.K., and pay down totally your debt and possibly a portion of that, the buyback, what are your capital allocation thresholds are? The focus is absolutely at the moment on paying down the debt and the buybacks in terms of that. I think you're absolutely right in terms of, look, what we need to see from those IRRs coming out of other projects need to be substantially above where we are. So we either need to see a real closing in the discount rate and some narrowing probably of the, in terms of the discount itself and some narrowing of the discount rate there, or at least what's coming out, a drop in the market. I think what we need to be looking... We are thinking of this, and I think just to get the message across, we are not looking to suddenly, if things change, the discount narrows or to pile into new investments all of a sudden. What we're looking at with this pipeline that we're starting to build on the development side is for the medium and long-term growth, when hopefully we are starting to get back to more business. We are trading closer to NAV, and we are starting to see that, it makes sense in terms of our capital allocation. And I think I can speak for, hopefully, Alex and the board, where we're very much aligned on that, and that is what we want to say very, very clearly in terms of it. I would say as well is, look, even though we'll come on to speak about it a little bit later this afternoon, and we put out some sort of potential returns off the, off the Spanish BESS for the whole to maturity, and even the, in the pack, there are what we see in terms of available for, for U.K. solar or Spanish solar as well. I'd say at the moment, if those projects were coming through, we would probably be selling them at the ready-to-build stage. So we're looking to make that development stage play, which could potentially generate several x in terms of upside and put that back into the cash balance. So until it gets to a point where it really makes sense versus the alternatives, that will be the focus for the fund as opposed to. I think that's a really key point, and we'll come on to more of it later, but the optionality that's represented by our pipelines is really key because it means that we can sell or hold assets, and it will be dictated by the capital allocation policy at the time. We hope that you agree, and the room agrees that, you know, FSFL has followed a very disciplined capital allocation policy, as has been devised and communicated by the board, we think very clearly from the outset. Could you give us some more color around what is the market context? What market activity are you seeing in Australia? Yeah, so I think it's a very good question. Maybe I'll cover Australia to speak a little bit to the U.K. BESS part. I note that we have taken a, taken a view on the valuation recently as well on U.K. BESS. So we do, we do track Australia. We have a team of, we have a team of now 60 people since we bought Infrastructure Capital Group out there, and some people who know that market very well. I think really, in terms of the, there are a number of transactions that go on in that market, and we're comfortable with the discount rates where, where they are at the moment. We'll review them again at the mid-year, which is really driven by the sort of base rate. I think more than anything, it's understanding where the cash flows are, and particularly with constraints around economic returns and things like that. So one side can be the discount rate, the other side is really making sure you've got some prudent cash flows in that project, in those projects. In terms of interest, so we speak to our Australia team and the people who know that market very well. There is still quite a bit of interest from players looking at Australia as a long-term investment. So a lot of money from Asia and around there, looking for po-... Just while we put that up, looking for projects that have got a good hook and have got good, solid, either subsidies to give them a foothold in that market, they'd probably be quite interested in doing some development alongside it as well, to get a kind of play, that if you could link something up there, it could be very attractive to them. But there are still people looking in that market. Yes, the curtailment has been higher at the moment, but it's kind of linked to this fact that the coal hasn't rolled off quickly enough. So if you want to be... It could be more strategic players, it could be corporates and people like that. But if you wanted to get a foothold with a generating portfolio in there, I mean, not necessarily saying there will be dozens and dozens of people banging down the door, but if you get there and find the right people with the right advisors- Mm We feel confident that we'll find some... that there is interest there. Mm. We're comfortable where the valuations are at, at today. Just to touch on the U.K. BESS side of things, I think you're absolutely right. There's very poor sentiment in the market towards BESS at the moment, given the revenue underperformance. And at the same time, there is less capital chasing these projects. Combined with that, there's a very high supply of projects that have come through development in the last few years. So it's a very challenging time to realize maximal value for those assets, and I think that's been reflected in our latest NAV, where we did choose to write down those assets in pre-construction phase. I think what I'd say from Foresight's perspective, as mentioned, we benefit from the wider stable of funds that we manage, and the greater pool of experience that we have in investing in batteries in the U.K.. We were part of the first wave of batteries, a few years ago, successfully realizing those. We bring that track record with us, when looking at the challenge that faces our pre-construction portfolio today. There are opportunities to add value, and we are looking at all options, and I think that's what we'd say there. Thank you. Further. Go, chap here. I think we'll keep for two more because I'm getting, I've been told one more at the back, but let's just try and give you a good chance. Sorry about that. Yep. As well, I'll make it quick. Just on the Clayfords and Lunan Head, the pre-construction, we're saying you have grid connection dates and planning and grid connection consents. How easy is it to continue treading water in terms of kind of not committing, making kind of a progressing decision towards what the- Yeah potential capital? Is there a... Does there come a point in time where you sort of go, "Okay, we actually have to do this, or we- To be fair, this is part of the, but adhering to our capital allocation policy and the way that the market's changed now, so we can give a bit more flavor on this, but actually, you need to be careful how long you push this, and you need to be showing that you're progressing. Mm. I think what we are doing and our team is doing, is doing everything we can to make sure that, that we are actually progressing and going sort of- Yeah beyond what we need to do at the moment. But there comes a point, unless you're agreeing with grid, that it starts to become a challenge, right? Yeah, and I think what I'd say there is that's where the strength of the Foresight Group portfolio management team really comes into play, sort of open dialogue with the grid operators, experience in, well, just discharging planning conditions, so you stay in line with your permissions, and all the other clever tricks that you can do to prolong timelines. You know, we know what those are, too. So we are very much protecting our rights to ensure that that value is conserved. It's not an endless treadmill that you can run on. At some point, you have to take a decision. But no, we are very much protecting our rights at this point and protecting value. Just given the sort of 50% JLEN with the fund JLEN- Yeah Does that make it harder to- We're both in a very... I can't speak for them, but we clearly talk about it very openly with them. We're both in the same position, really, in terms of where they are with their investors, in terms of capital allocations. I think the discussions that we had very much aligned in how to deal with these assets. Absolutely. Give a last one over there, if that's okay. Yeah, yeah. Straightforward. How long do you think it would take to sell a subsidized U.K. solar asset? Yes, I mean, as with selling any infrastructure project, it isn't like selling a, you know, a second-hand car. There's a lot of work that goes into the marketing. You know, some of the actions that we're doing in Australia, you know, to optimize the projects, to optimize value, you know, are all examples of time that goes into running that sort of process. Particularly if you were to sell a meaningful portfolio and a quality portfolio as that which we own, you'd want to make sure you're getting top value. And so you'd spend a lot of time preparing the portfolio, preparing the materials to go out to investors, marketing the projects. So it's not something that happens in one or two months. It is something that happens over a longer period of time. There's been a couple of set piece transactions in the past year. We won't go into chapter and verse on them, but you know, clearly, the most recent sale of the Toucan portfolio, that took quite a long period of time for them to get that away with a very material portfolio. A fund managed by Foresight, the Solar VCT, that exited at a very, very attractive price early last year. Again, that was a process that went over many months, because yeah, while they are quality portfolios, there are a lot of assets and a diverse pool of things to look at for any buyer coming in, and you're speaking to a wide range of people in the U.K., abroad. It's a very attractive marketplace. Yeah, you want to throw the net wide. I think I'll just add to that. It's also the timing of going out to the market. Yeah. Do you want to be out there when others are in the market, potentially doing the same thing? But I think, yeah, look, you could, you could run quite a tight process for, for attractive assets like that. You just don't want to come up against others in the market at the time. Yeah. I'd say. Generally, are we talking many months, 6, 12, 18, 24? You would definitely hope it doesn't extend as far as 18 or 24. I'd say 6-9, 6-9 months for a large portfolio transaction is probably realistic. But, I mean, transactions have been known to go much quicker. I know the Spanish office have delivered, you know, very rapidly on the sale of Lorca, a very high-quality portfolio, and achieved an amazing value in a very, very short space of time. We started that divestment program in June of last year- Yeah ... and closed, you know, before, you know, early Q4. So, you know, you can run a very efficient process, and we're very pleased to see the Madrid team deliver that in-house. Right, we're just about running to time, so we'll try and keep on with that. It's my pleasure to introduce, Conor Cowden here, who's a manager in the portfolio team here at, Foresight, who looks specifically after the Foresight Solar portfolio. He does work alongside our long-standing portfolio director, Julian Elsworth, who's been here since the inception of the fund, which, for personal reasons, can't be with us today, which is a shame. But he has delegated to Conor, who's his, number two and does an equally sterling job. So, Conor, if I can hand over to you to talk us through, talk us through your section. Thank you. Thank you, Ross. So, yeah, as, as you mentioned, I work in the portfolio team, working on the operational assets that we have in the U.K.. So gonna talk a bit about what we do across the portfolio today. So here, the chart presented shows the impact of asset management, plotting the assets' production variance to budget, stripping out the impact of irradiation. So here, we're comparing our publicly available data with that of the U.K. solar portfolios of our direct peers. And as can be seen here, there's a marked difference, which highlights the significant impact of the work that our portfolio team has done to date to maximize asset performance. So how have we built and maintained the core operational functions within our portfolio to ensure stability and deliver the performance it's seen in the previous slide? So one of the key strategic components was active asset management from the outset. This started in the original due diligence that went into the initial selection of the sites and the counterparties that we worked with to deliver the projects. The portfolio team contains a number of engineers whose expertise fed into the component selection and asset design. The technical input from the outset supported the diversification of the portfolio and has ensured that the investment has continued to perform as expected. As the assets moved into the construction phase, we continued to monitor the EPC contractors and were an early adopter of PV module testing. This allowed us to identify manufacturing and transportation issues prior to them being installed on site and have them addressed by the manufacturer. As with any new and rapidly growing industry, utility-scale solar had a number of early insolvencies, including component manufacturers and EPC contractors. The FSFL portfolio was not immune to this, and has had to manage the impact of insolvencies through working with the companies and the administrators, as well as the close monitoring of equipment where manufacturer support is no longer available. So the portfolio team managed the projects through the provisional and final acceptance milestones under the EPC contracts, tightly enforcing our contractual rights, reaching settlements over defects, and calling the bonds where necessary. This has allowed us to mitigate the defects identified at handover, before they become production impacting, and retaining the funds has allowed us to mitigate issues that have arisen later in the project life and gives us protection for those that are yet to arise. For a portfolio of this scale, power hedging is a key element to ensure stable revenue and maintain the necessary dividend cover. Early implementation of this has given us the framework to take advantage of the market volatility over the past four years, as well as maintaining a core stable revenue stream. We'll go into further detail on this on the next slide. High asset availability ensures that we can perform as expected. The modular nature of solar farms somewhat mitigates the impact of component failure. However, there are small components which can affect the whole site. A significant investment was made in key component spares based on work conducted by the O&M contractors and the asset management team to identify the key components and critical failure points. The program paid for itself within a year following investment, due to the reduced downtime, and the impact of long lead components, long lead time components over the summer period, and we've further rolled that out over the years to ensure that high levels of availability continue to be maintained. The ongoing analysis of failure rates and key risk areas has supported the refinements of the project's lifecycle profiles to ensure that future spend is accurately reflected within the NAV. In 2018, the asset management of the projects was brought in-house and is now managed by Foresight Asset Management Limited. This has allowed us closer management and oversight of the projects and resulted in enhanced service delivery and reduced costs for the asset. All of these examples speak to the portfolio that we've built to date and believe is highly resilient going forward. So as the portfolio progresses into its tenth year of operations, there continues to be an added focus on lifecycle. To ensure the portfolio continues to perform and maintain high levels of availability, it is important to monitor the portfolio closely to identify operational trends before they have a large impact. This was done by working closely with the asset management and O&M teams, who monitor the sites through our centralized monitoring platform. The initial phases of lifecycle management focused on transformers as a key component of the spare parts program, and we continue to maintain and optimize a pool of spares to provide sufficient cover across our portfolio. A number of years ago, lead times that we were seeing for transformers ranged between 12-14 weeks, and during the summer months, mitigating an outage to 3-5 days resulted in GBP 3 thousand worth of saving, a GBP 300 thousand worth of saving. Now, lead times are between 32-40 weeks, which could result in losses close to GBP 1 million for that period. However, we have a spare strategy in place to cover that and mitigate the impact of any of these outages. Since the initial phases, we've seen modest failures of string inverters associated with one manufacturer. The early identification of this issue has allowed us to develop and implement a revamping program that commenced last year and will continue over the coming years. The revamping program involves replacing large sections of the sites with new inverters and generating a pool of spares that then can be distributed across the affected assets. The impact on site performance was significant, bringing us back in line with budgets across those sites, and was highlighted in a case study during our latest annual report. Sustainability is one of the key pillars within FSFL, and this flows through our day-to-day operations, and the management of our sites to ensure that natural capital is maintained and biodiversity is enhanced. When considering the purchase of new equipment, whether for construction or revamping works, supply chain due diligence is conducted on all parties to ensure the portfolio meets our sustainability criteria. Over the past four years, we've seen the electricity markets move out of a period of relative stability, where you consistently see pricing around the GBP 50 mark, to a period of high volatility driven by the pandemic and the European energy crisis. Under our power purchase agreements, we have the ability to fix out for future seasons, as well as the option to have assets exposed to the wholesale day-ahead market. This gives us the framework and flexibility to take advantage of market movements and fix where there is attractive pricing and liquidity in the market. Our management of power contracts has limited our exposure to low pricing during the pandemic and allowed us to capture the upside available during the periods of high pricing in 2022. The impact of that high pricing is still felt today in the fixes that we have in place. Across our portfolio, we predominantly have a medium-term contract, which gives us the ability to fix out over five years with attractive commercial terms. This approach allows us to tender sections of our portfolio to, at different times to ensure that the terms align with the current market conditions and to keep the offtakers on their toes to provide competitive pricing. As we move into a period of relative price stability, it's important to ensure that the projects have the ability to utilize other tools to allow us to access more of the wholesale market futures pricing, and to that end, we have looked to additional financial mechanisms to hedge our power, hedge our power revenue into the future. The ability to access these mechanics will help us achieve higher prices and provide greater liquidity for future seasons and ensure we provide strong dividend cover going forward. So what does all this mean in terms of the context of the wider fund? Since inception, portfolio initiatives have added around GBP 0.20 per share, covering areas such as active power price hedging, where we have fixed ahead of the forward curves, lease extensions, additionally, O&M efficiency gains, where we've renegotiated contracts to deliver uplifts and other initiatives across the portfolio. In total, this has given an added value of GBP 86 million at the end, to the end of 2023. Over the past 10 years, we've learned a lot from the challenges and opportunities that we're presented with and have continued to evolve our processes and the management tools to ensure we remain at the forefront of the industry. With this operational expertise, we're now looking to the future and see many opportunities that will continue to enhance our portfolio. From the operational knowledge that we've developed, we now believe solar farms can have a longer lifespan than initially projected. We now expect key plant components, specifically modules, to last for 40 years. As a result, we are focused on extending the commercial life of assets to last for 40 years, and to this date, we have lease extensions on a significant part of our portfolio and are prioritizing another 260 -MW over the coming years, which will provide an increase in the NAV of the assets. In addition to the lease extension program, we are also looking at potential new revenue streams, which are now becoming available. With the assets now having 30+ years remaining on their operational life, there is the opportunity to explore the creation of Biodiversity Net Gain credits, and we are currently baselining our portfolio to identify sites with the highest uplift potential and may provide NAV accretive opportunities. As FSFL looks to move earlier in the development phase of solar projects, the lessons learned from our operational portfolio in the U.K. provide a great opportunity to feed back into the new construction and development projects to support the smooth delivery. This process has been happening for a number of years already within the wider Foresight portfolio team and as our different funds go through development and construction activities in new technologies and jurisdictions. Over the coming years, we see one of the key differentiators between companies being who can leverage their data to provide operational efficiencies. At Foresight, we recognized this early and invested in key tools, such as multifunctional asset management platform that connects directly to our centralized monitoring system for our solar farms. We collect huge volumes of data from our assets, and with our asset management team, are investing in automated trend analysis tools to predict and support maintenance activities. Since the fund has started, we've seen dramatic technological advances within the solar industry, enhancing the quality of the products and improving the capacity and efficiency of components. We expect these innovations and improvements to continue over the coming years and provide opportunities to test new equipment on our assets. We have been exploring a handful of pilot projects across our portfolio on sites where we're not quite seeing the desired output and are lacking manufacturer support. This provides us with the opportunity to trial the retrofit of new technologies into existing plants, and we expect to see the performance uplift on the back of these works. These projects are an important part of ensuring that we can capture the full benefit of the 40-year asset lives, taking advantage of the ever-developing technology. As with any asset progressing through its operational life, there is a focus on how these sites will be decommissioned. We are working with landowners and recycling companies to ensure that the correct provisions are in place to return the land to its original condition, and the components of the solar farm are reutilized or disposed of responsibly. We've seen a lot of growth and development within FSFL over the past 10 years and are looking forward to taking that knowledge into the future with new opportunities for the fund. I'd like now to open the floor to any questions, and Ross and Toby will join me for these. Thanks very much, Connor. So, if you have any specifically technical questions, Connor is your man for that. Toby and I will be here if there's anything more sort of fund general related. Anything anyone wants to pick up from that, specifically? Bob. The listed funds have P50, but they also use a five-year trading average. What, why are you looking the same? Yeah, sure thing. So, so what I'd say is, yeah, no, certainly when we're investing in projects at the outset, we get an external technical resource, look at P50 and a range of other, probabilistic uncertainties in terms of production. We do then monitor the portfolio for outperformance or underperformance over a period of time, and if there is sustained over or underperformance, we will then look to again engage someone to rebase, our, generation expectations, as has been done a couple of times, with the sites being revised upwards where they have demonstrably, overproduced, in the past. I guess what I'd say is that one of the key advantages of solar is that there is a high level of predictability, and the P50 is normally, you know, not bad, particularly with data sets that are available today. But yeah, so it is something that we do continuously monitor for over and underperformance. I'd say, as Connor has mentioned, huge amount of data is collected, and we are very much looking for the causes of any underperformance and then looking to address those through initiatives such as we have been doing. Yeah, I think the key thing with that, with the operational data from the past four years, there may be elements of underperformance which we know we can address and remedy, and so you wouldn't necessarily look to rebase based on sort of minor operational changes that could be remedied in a relatively short space of time. So the P50 provides a better outlook going forward into how we would project the performance to continue. Hope that helps. Anybody else got a technical question they'd like to... Can you tell us a bit more about the biodiversity credits? Yeah. So it's something, yeah, we're exploring at the moment. So earlier this year, the U.K. government released changes around how they look to quantify biodiversity uplift for any new development or building. So any new site or any new construction that happens has to achieve additional 10% biodiversity net gain as part of their development. So whether that's a building, a housing development or an infrastructure project like this. So they can either generate that through the land that they have and put in biodiversity enhancements on the land they've purchased, or they can look to offset that through a credit scheme. So these projects could look to essentially give an additional 30 years of biodiversity enhancement by creating so environmental uplift from areas of the site that are open at the moment. We can essentially give that uplift as a credit, as long as it's over the 30 years, and bid out into the market to offer that for developers who are looking to offset and meet their planning requirement. These are tradable? This is the opportunity- The market starting, yeah. So what we've started doing is baselining the entire portfolio because the opportunity around the solar sites, if you think about it, there is the space around the edges, there's the hedgerows and everything else. So we've been working in partnership with the Eden, Eden Project to actually go around and baseline all our sites. That's an ongoing piece of work at the moment, but what we're getting back is, well, one, we've got a lot of sites that are actually doing very well in terms of this. That doesn't come as a surprise to us because it's something that we've taken seriously for years. But then there's others that we can actually put in enhancement plans in how to build these up. The exciting thing from an investment perspective is this could become effectively a land bank to be able to offer those credits out to developers in urban areas, really. I think what I- It has to be at least 30 years, is that right? Yes. Yeah, there's a 30-year window. And what I'll just add to that is that Foresight is leading the way here. We have produced what is called the Nature Recovery Blueprint, and that is setting a plan, a framework, really, of how you can look at renewable energy assets and be a good custodian of those sites, and follow a common sense approach to supporting biodiversity in the local area. Solar farm's a great example, able to support local wildlife, and it's not a one-size-fits-all approach. So that was launched just last week, and we are hoping to roll that out across Foresight managed sites, and we're also hoping that some of our peers will look at it and look to that framework, and then, you know, follow that, you know, follow our lead. ... Some more questions. At the back again? Oh. Sorry, just a quick one. What sort of performance gains are you seeing or expecting from the retrofit? Can you give an idea on some of the projects where we have seen some issues with the panels? Yeah, so primarily, these retrofits that we're doing are to bring the asset availability back up to 100%. So a lot of the work we've done to date focuses around that. With modules, we're now moving, looking at where we're seeing underperformance on some of those sites. So historically, some of the modules that were built probably had between sort of 10%-15% efficiency. Modules on the market nowadays have an efficiency of 23% to the high 20s; we're starting to look towards some of the new modules. So that has the opportunity to essentially create more energy from the same space. The sites are capped essentially at by the grid connection and the subsidy that they have in place, so the overall capacity of the site can't change from that aspect. However, the footprint of the site can be reduced due to the size of the panels shrinking. So that gives us the opportunity to maybe change the footprint of the site in the future, and allow other opportunities for development on a smaller area of the site. I mean, just to add on that, I mean, it may go back to the bit at the front about the work that we put into these. We've been, I'd say, it's either it's helped the due diligence we did at the beginning or by fortune, to an extent, the issues that we've got. We do have issues with inverters. We have issues on a couple of smaller sites with panels as well. Everybody does. I think we're not hiding from that. I think it is down to part of what we... the assets that we sought in the first place, the most, and how we managed them. So I think we've been quite open around that, that there are challenges to deal with. In some ways, they can be opportunities as well. And also to test this, because one of the big things in this market will be about repowering. It may wait till after the ROCs, but if you're looking at 40-year lives, are they going to be the same panels in 40 years' time or 30 years' time from now that we're looking at today? Probably not. So we... There will become a point at which there's an inflection point, and it makes sense to put my head, an investment point to put new, more efficient panels in as the existing ones degrade. So it's a good opportunity to do a sort of test case in a way. Over there. I think it's the last one. Sorry. We can always catch up afterwards as well. What are your thoughts on tracking units, loads of tracking units in the U.K., some fixed panels? [Foreign language] Yeah. No, happy to talk to that. So historically, yeah, U.K. radiation hasn't supported the additional CapEx necessary for single-axis trackers. In Spain and Australia, as examples, they are much sunnier places, and, you know, the economics do stack up. We are seeing increasingly with projects being developed with single-axis trackers in mind. There's an element of kind of game theory there because that's harder to get through planning, and so if you can get that through, then someone can definitely build a a fixed tilt platform there as well. But we are seeing instances where people are starting to build out single-axis trackers as well. I mean, there are already operational sites in the U.K. that support that, and I think it's something that we'll see increasingly over time as costs continue to fall once again. Par for the course in Spain over there. John Matias isn't going to like this, but John, I want to give you the chance to ask your question. I was just going to ask, how do you deal with the fact that, I guess, the overcrowding in the solar space in terms when you're, when you are at market prices versus kind of from a fixed ROC, how do you help manage that, that whole program? When I say overcrowding, I'm talking about all solar, wind, and that, that within the intraday volatility. You mean sort of cannibalization of pricing? Yeah ... throughout the day? I'll best talk to it. So, yeah, there are going to be increasing levels of cannibalization as there is more renewable penetration. It's something we see in markets with high renewable penetration already. And, you know, that is very much, you know, something that we look to address part through our hedging strategy, also part through investment into storage. There's a natural hedge there. If you can take advantage of low prices, that can be when you're charging a battery, and then vice versa, discharging it later in the day. So you can do it through portfolio construction to create a natural hedge there. You can also do it through your hedging strategy to help protect yourself from kind of low periods of market pricing. I think what's key to point out is that we very much look to our hedging strategy to protect the dividend and provide great visibility over dividend cover going forwards. That's very much our focus. We're not looking to second-guess the market, and that's by design in terms of that hedging policy and how we will look to do that going forwards as well. Yeah, very much through portfolio construction as well. I think there will be a part where we will end up retrofitting some BESS onto onto some of the larger projects. They're not going to be necessarily the same size as the standalone ones, but there could be a case of that. But it's more as a sort of asset management enhancement as we see to the portfolio, rather than something that's going to be a large investment that turns the dial on that side. Yep. Okay, I think we'll close on. Thanks very much, Connor, for your insights on that. So we wanted to... Another of the key things that we wanted to speak to you about today is really our view on the strategy for income and growth going forwards. And where we come back to in terms of this, we're very clear on the. There's a new macro reality here, and a focus, more of a focus towards, a total shareholder returns model. But I think we'd be at pains to stress that that does not take away from the high quality yield or our focus on, maintaining NAV. Those two things are sort of core to what we do as a function. What we're looking at, though, and we acknowledge, is that, look, the macroeconomic landscape has fundamentally changed. We don't see that the funds are gonna be returning to business as usual going forward. It's not gonna be like the last decade, where we all benefited from having a 6%-8% differential against gilts that were negative. So we do think that the way forward in the next few years and in this environment is looking to provide a really high quality, strong yield, but also a route to a modest, sustainable level of NAV growth. And the way that we're looking to deliver this is through a development stage, what we'd say, wrapper around the fund, which is allocating modest amounts of capital into development stage projects, that when they come through and get to either a ready-to-build stage or you take them through construction like we did with the Lorca portfolio in Spain, you unlock, you can get that uplift in value that we could then trade in the market. So like I said earlier, we've had that, the sort of 200 -MW that we've initially talked about earmarked for divestment at the moment. But we see a trading strategy, either in developing rights through a proprietary pipeline, selling ones the sites get consented at ready to build, which would probably be the focus at the moment, or then constructing new projects that are yield accretive, bringing them through the portfolio, allowing us to either free up and sell down more legacy historic assets or bring new projects through that are accretive to growth. So in terms of this, the way we're constructing it and the target in terms of what we're delivering or seeking to deliver, and I would say with the pipeline that we've got now, the two Spanish portfolios, including the Chelion portfolio that we signed, the JV that we signed this morning... Sorry, we announced this morning, signed last week, we think we've already got the ability to add that sort of GBP 0.01-0.02 per annum NAV uplift over the medium term for the fund coming through. So the yield is there at around circa. Well, at NAV, if we were trading at NAV, that we do believe in terms of the value of the portfolio, we'd be on a circa 7% yield there. As a lot of you may know, on the current share price that we do hope to be seeing coming back up, we're looking at a current 9.9% yield. What we're looking to do is add that additional 1%-2% on there for a rolling yield and more of a total returns basis over a five-year period of 8%-9%. So the strategy here is very much centered on development and trading assets to bring through that we think can deliver those returns. I'll just hand over to Toby to talk a little bit more about this on the next slide as well. Cool. Thank you, Ross. When we released our annual results, we put out a diagram in the analyst presentation and investor meetings that looked a little like this. We're very pleased, as of this morning, to be able to announce the addition of the 400 MW Spanish BESS JV that was signed at the end of last week. It's a very exciting opportunity to be an early mover in a very exciting new market for storage in Europe, essentially, where the U.K. and other sort of more progressed markets were a few years ago. Very excited to be able to get in at that early opportunity with a good partner. On top of the 467 MW Spanish solar pipeline that we secured last year, we're approaching 1 GW now, of proprietary pipeline, and we think this is really exciting given the optionality that it presents. By venturing relatively modest levels of capital, you can drive that capital uplift that Ross was talking about on the early slide. The optionality is a key benefit, and we see here the decision tree as we progress through the various stages of life cycle. So taking a project through development, again, very modest outlays of capital up front, very much incentivizing developers with back-ended payment milestone structures, that keep them working in our interest. When you reach a fully consented status, projects see a sizable uplift in valuation, albeit on that modest capital outlay, but you are talking multiples of capital at risk in terms of that value uplift. And there's a decision point there that will be dictated by our capital allocation policy as to whether we realize that and crystallize that gain and recycle it into the portfolio, or choose to hold the asset and take it through construction. As we looked at with the case study of Lorca, again, we presented as a case study in the annual results, there is a lot of opportunity to add value when you take a project through construction. There is a substantial de-risking, and then alongside that, commercial structuring and financial structuring that allows you to really de-risk a project and make it appeal to a wide range of investors, as was seen with Lorca, where we achieved a very attractive premium to holding value by bringing in a pure financial investor who wanted to come in alongside an experienced operator such as Foresight. So you then reach the second decision tree, when the project hits operations. And again, you can either crystallize that value uplift, and we can't promise that all realizations will be at a 21% premium to NAV, but you very much look to add substantial value based on that additional capital outlay, and taking those projects through construction. Or you may seek to hold those projects into a long-term operation, and by taking that earlier exposure and getting involved in development, you retain more of that uplift for yourselves, and then see enhanced long-term returns as you take that forward. We're now going to hand over to Carlos, who's joined us from the Madrid office, and he's going to talk us through some of the specifics of the two opportunities that we've signed to date in Spain. I guess before I sign off, I would add that, you know, we are very much focused on growing and filling that hopper, targeting our other core markets, such as the U.K., and with a particular focus on U.K. solar. I'll hand over to Carlos now, who's gonna talk us through a couple of case studies, Cuerva and the Chelion portfolio pipelines. I'll duck off. Thanks. Well, as we were introduction, I'm Carlos Rey. I'm heading the Madrid office. I've been introduced five times, I think, in this afternoon, so I'm not new for the audience. Yeah, I want to talk about the two projects we have in development that I've introduced. First is Cuerva portfolio. We are not very original, 'cause the developer is Grupo Cuerva. It's a local TSO and also IPP in Spain, and relation with them, it's quite strength, 'cause Cuerva was original developer of Lorca portfolio. So, trust and relation was already in place. The portfolio is form of six different projects, different places in Spain. One of them, Muel, a very secure grid connection, which is located in this part here, where you see, with high irradiation area in the valley of Ebro River, whilst the other five are in Andalusia, in the south region, but still not have grid connection. In Spain, new projects to get the connection need to undergo an auction that are being delayed time to time. Expectation is that by the end of this year, they will opening these auctions, and our projects will be ready to participate on those. Expecting, indeed, RTB for the portfolio, starting end of this year, hopefully, or until 2028 with these other assets. We expect they reach fully consented planning. In terms of the market, I think the fundamentals that made us invest in Spain years ago still remain, in the sense that high irradiation levels, quite sophisticated industry, scalability, as well as quite decent high energy prices, despite the volatility of it over the course of the last years and the future forecasts. The government support to the industry is still there. Today, Spain accounts for 26 GW of grid-connected and operational solar assets. Targets on the national climate plan for 2025 is to reach 55, while 2030 is to reach 76. So still a way to do, and the strategy of this portfolio is in the back of this future market in Spain, supported by the government. As well as we have seen quite a liquid market in terms of PPAs and access to hedges. In the access we have in the portfolio behind the Carmen and Lorca, we secure PPAs at quite decent price levels. In terms of structure, as mentioned before, given that the interest of the fund was not to take quite a financial push in development risk, all payments are back-ended when the assets reach PPA, which, sorry, LTV. We spend low single digit for upfront payment, and all the payments for the portfolio are, let's say, set off across the six assets. In case one asset doesn't reach LTV, but we have paid for, one of those will be discounted for the project that reach the LTV. So given the fact that Muel already has a good connection, which is the essence, in development, we can say the portfolio is relatively risk-free, financially for the fund. We will retain 100% of the assets of the operated SPVs, and we have no any commitment with the developer in terms of construction, which means that once the plant reach LTV, we can either decide build it or sell it in the market, which we still see interest for fully consented PV projects. Maybe we can move to the second. Ah, okay, sorry, I have the control. Sorry. Yeah, and the next project is the one we suspect we announced this morning, project that we signed last Friday. In that case, what we have done here is, we just signed a framework agreement with Chelion Europe. Chelion is the European subsidiary of a Chinese EPC contractor and system integrator, which means that Chelion is not manufacturer of equipment, but they just pull together all the pieces of the BESS station. By the way, on the back of this deal, it's likely that Chelion will open a factory in Spain to make this assembly locally, also getting benefits of certain aspects when not importing equipment from overseas. Chelion already has experience in the market. This is, for Chelion, the third framework agreement as such, with other developers in Spain, mainly EPCs, rather than the financial institutions, and they have secured some grid access. So it has proved that the capacities of Chelion to originate assets are there. The market in Spain is still incipient, yeah, and we're taking advantage of this first moving. However, it's clear and all indicators are there that the BESS industry will form part of the next Spanish energy mix. A few elements: the National Climate Plan already allocates for 2020, for 2030, 19 GW of battery storage, electrical battery storage. So the government wants to have this asset class in the mix. It's clear that solar penetration has a limit in Spain, in many renewables, but solar, in particular, 'cause they produce in such hours that there is huge concentration. So, battery storage will be the answer to these problems that we as a system will face. And despite of that yet the national Spanish climate plan foresees much and much solar, as we mentioned earlier. So, that is, we believe, will be critical for the energy mix, and we see as well, in discussion with advisors, quite interest from players to buy at quite interesting values already consented by the storage project. So we see the asset class to be interesting from the necessity to get part of the mix, but also as a class itself from other developers. Same as before, we will retain decision on what to do with the asset once it's fully consented, so either build it or sell it at RTV. In that case, the structure that we have made up with Chelion is that, we shall sign from agreement that sets the rules for the new projects that they will come along to us. So we'll have full discretion to accept or not any project that they will suggest to us, and we will set a JV for each company at a 30% Chelion, 70% Foresight, with which we have right to acquire the 3% at RTV. Reason being is because we wanted Chelion to be part of the skin in the game, and therefore select the best locations and also accompany us during the process. In terms of pricing allocation, exactly the same as before, we have reduced as much as possible from payments, yeah, in the low single digits, and all big part of the payments at RTV will indeed made at RTV, and therefore reducing the exposure of the fund in different stages. And no any payment we made before the asset receive grid connection. So there is, in a sense, no development risk before grid is consented. And this is pretty much it. Any question? Pretty much it. Yep. So we can pick up on any questions at the end for this. Carlos, you hang around as well. But so are you gonna speak a little bit to the returns on the next page, just to give a bit of an idea about this? And also, probably, I think, how we're talking about that from investing for the long term, but also probably the strategy around how we're thinking of this in terms of the current macro environment and our capital allocation policy as well. Yeah, certainly. No, thank you very much, Carlos, for that deep dive into those two very exciting opportunities we think for FSFL. What we've heard there from Carlos is the approach that FSFL is taking to gaining that development risk exposure is a very measured one. We are working with the right partners, strategic partners, and we can only emphasize enough the importance that we place on finding the right management teams to work with. We'll be very selective about which development partners that we take on. And then through careful transaction structuring, how we fully incentivize the developer partner to have their interests as aligned with the fund and support the most efficient delivery of their pipelines. So Carlos and the team have done a sterling job of structuring those deals in Spain, and we're very excited to see those opportunities come through over the coming years. What does this all mean for the fund? And Ross set out the sort of aspiration in terms of development growth in that central column, in that first slide that we looked at in this section. Here we present some indicative examples, looking at three different markets: so Spanish solar, Spanish BESS, and then U.K. solar also. Spanish solar and Spanish BESS are both informed as examples from the current pipelines that we have recently signed. And what we can see here is that value creation throughout the life cycle process. So there's the opportunity to make meaningful uplifts in value for the fund, even by exiting a ready-to-build. So making a turn of multiples on those modest sums of capital that go out the door up both upfront and then, to a greater extent, on a success basis, once there is an asset of value that is marketable for sale. If we choose not to crystallize at that point and recycle into the portfolio, we may choose to take through to COD by taking the project through construction and then kind of mirroring the uplifts that were seen by the Lorca portfolio as we derisked and structured that before exiting. There are, you know, even greater uplifts that are potentially achievable by taking projects through to operations. And then finally, you've got enhanced long-term hold returns by participating in that risk from an earlier stage and then gaining the benefit of that uplift by staying with the projects all the way through their life cycle. Now, as we've been quick, you know, very clear from the outset, this will always be considered alongside our capital allocation policy and what is the most appropriate course of action at that point in time. So if the returns don't make sense to construct the project to either hold or then sell at COD, we will look to sell at ready-to-build. The fact that we have such control over the assets means that we have flexibility, and our, you know, our hands aren't tied as to when we crystallize projects. We can do that at time of our choosing and realize most best value, whether that's packaging our projects or doing further development to ensure that value is optimized. So we think that this is, you know, some really interesting examples here as to what could potentially be achieved. Clearly, some caveats there around market performance going forwards, but looking at Spain and then also the U.K., where we are very strongly focused on finding the right partner to work with, to develop out further projects here, there is clearly a good prize in terms of capital uplift for the fund going forwards. Hand back over to Ross to wrap up this section. Thanks, Toby, and I think it's right to say that there is, we do have a broader pipeline, that we are very much looking at the U.K. as our home market, but we are being very selective in terms of partners that we want to work with. So just wrapping up on this section for the moment, just the next steps in terms of this development ramp strategy for the fund, we can focus on the existing pipeline, what we signed already and what Carlos and the team has helped us deliver in from Spain. I think the team has done a good job. The focus is probably back on the U.K. now to find the right right partner going forward. But that pipeline itself can add that target and drive that target growth in the near term that we've already been talking about at the beginning there. So we're gonna progress those initial assets through to ready to build. We have a dedicated development manager over in Spain in the Madrid office as part of Carlos' team that is looking at and overseeing these, working with the developers on a day-by-day basis, who's got the experience of doing this in the market and helping them, supporting them as they put it on. We say it's more beneficial, rather than in-housing that, to have someone who can oversee that development skill. We're not gonna tie ourselves to a single developer, but having, as we do on the investment side and we do on managing operating assets, is having that skills in-house to oversee how third parties are, in partnerships, are doing this for us. So, and then we will seek to, as Toby said, I think in the first instance on this, we will seek to make opportunities from divestment gains. So I think there's a clear example. If the first Spanish solar project came through later this year, I think we will be looking to sell it. That's, I think it's quite clear in terms of making an uplift on those development rights. I think then we'll be going to look at evaluating further opportunities. We do think in the medium term, having a pipeline there of the scale of around 2-3 GW, gives us that opportunity to get a couple of projects rolling out of this pipeline every year. Just that scale, and it is a bit of a numbers game. Clearly, we're looking to go for those developers who have a high success rate, but to have that coming out... It's all predominantly focused on that, putting that small amounts of capital at risk and the back ending of the payments. So actually, it could be somewhere to about 80% of those payments are back ended to the developer until they have actually secured you an attractive asset, which at that point, has value in itself, and then we know we can sell on to the market after having pre-agreed prices with them. So we will be highly selective on further partnerships there, and we will have that preference for minimal capital expenditure up front. And then just saying that really, the U.K., there are a number of discussions ongoing at the moment. They're not as well advanced as signing imminently or today, but there are a number that we're looking at across the U.K., which is obviously our core and home market. We do see it as a core market to bring through. Obviously, what we'd love to have is projects that we're gonna be developing through to bid into the CFDs and other revenue mechanisms going through as you look at the revenue balancing of the portfolio overall in the longer term. So that brings me on to the final point on this, which is, really, we see it as enabler of our broader asset trading strategy. It looks into rebalancing the portfolio in the longer term, and you've got to look beyond the life of the ROCs that will roll off in the early 2030s, and what other mechanisms could you put in place for those, be it CFDs in this market, be it long-term PPAs. The Spanish market has very deep liquid PPA markets there, so we need to look at how we adjust the portfolio for the longer term. And it is also that point of continued capital recycling. So the new investments allow... In order to maintain the NAV, which is one of our key objectives as well, we do, in the medium to longer term, need to continue to invest in the portfolio or the NAV will decline over time. So it is something we need to look at, but having this optionality means that we're looking for what we feel are the right opportunities at the right time, but it could be that we end up selling as many of these assets or more of these assets that we actually take forward to build. But it's having that proprietary, proprietary options. And then it also gives us the opportunity to look if we know we have projects coming through that we could build in the future, that are equally as attractive as some of our operational ones. It allows us to release the more, the operational ones with, more continuous or long-standing, revenues and, revenue and operational performance, that we think should be more valuable in the market once you've got them to that stage. So that's the, that's the update on the, on the development side of things. We'll pause at that point for any Q&A on that. Go straight here. How do you think the current dividend policy is then, as you approach the expiry of the ROCs and as you potentially have greater development construction exposure? Yeah, I think the, looking at it, the, the dividend policy, I think where we've been, and obviously this is coming off the back of the last few years, very high prices. We've benefited from high prices, plus we've got the ROCs that are benefiting from, from inflation linkage in there as well. And inflation linkage will become a key part of the, key part of the fund and how you're driving it as well. I think the, one of the key points is that the fund will be in a very different place, and there are a lot of, there are a lot of structuring points to think about at that point when the ROCs drop off, because all our long-term debt is fully amortizing, so the debt will be fully paid off at that point. The point of looking at this is how do you, in an inflationary environment, where you'd still be expecting that, how do you set up a fund that is still looking to give at least progressive or increasing returns out of it? But one of the key drivers of that is the debt will be paid off, and then we will be looking to restructure the fund in another way. I think the only thing I'd add is that, actually, the development activity that we're doing sits within a very modest bucket, for the overall capital allocation for the fund. We have a 5% limit, a 5% of CapEx limit. That goes an awful long way in development. I doubt we're going to be touching the sides of that. You know, we've talked about those single-digit millions GBP of capital at risk up front before you get to a fully developed project. You know, that can go an awful long way to developing, but we can see, you know, 1-2 GW of pipeline that we're targeting. Similarly for construction, the construction bucket is unchanged at 25%. The vast majority of the fund's exposure will be to operational projects as it is today. Okay? Jump around. Go, Joe, go on. I ask you couple of me just first in Spain, obviously the power price has recently been very low there, alongside, CapEx also being down. So curious to get your views on what you're assuming happens to both of those. And then secondly, on the GBP 1-2 per share, is that from 2024, or is that more from 2025, 2026, or? Yeah, happy we can pick up on these. We can always consult with Carlos if we need to. But I think the point on both of the portfolios there, we've taken pretty conservative views on the power prices going forward. I think when we signed Cuerva, the power prices were already coming down from the peaks there and taking a long-term view. Chelion only just signed in the last couple of weeks, when the power prices have come down significantly anyway. So I think the beauty of both of those is probably the pricing points, like, getting into there. That makes it even if we're taking conservative assumptions around the power prices in Spain going forward, they still work well for us on those levels of a return. So it's the view that we've taken at the time. We haven't baked in sky-high prices or sky-high increases for power prices. It's quite a conservative view of what's happening going forward. And then, to your point on the growth, yeah, you see, well, I think in that it's a rolling pipeline. It will have to build up to it. I'd say you look at that on a sort of 5-year average. We've done some modeling with our teams to look at this and actually the timeline at which they come out. So depending on one of two things, it depends on which projects are coming through. It could start as early as 25, but I'd take it on a rolling sort of 3-5 year average of that. It may build up to it. We may get some years where we have a bit of a windfall, but we're taking an attrition rate view on those projects as well, but not all of them will necessarily get through, but it's backed up by those two portfolios that we've currently got. Yep. Angus, do you have a- Yeah, it's gonna be in your steady state trading, how much do we see the value turning every share? We looked at a few scenarios about this. Do you want to give a bit of a view on that, Toby? Yes. No, so I guess we've certainly looked at it in terms of the volume of development pipeline that we're targeting, and then the churn that we'd like to see in that. One of the key advantages of that strategy is that it can become, to a degree, self-funding, as you recycle part of the portfolio to then fund the construction of other parts. Then that really does wonders for your returns on those assets that you hold, coming out of that development strategy as a whole. I think that in terms of recycling the broader portfolio, we spoke to it in the earlier session. There are some assets that we might look to trade sooner, and there are some that we still see value in and value opportunity in, that we would look to hold for the longer term. So I think, it is a building process before we get into that steady state of regularly trading assets. We have to start somewhere, and the first step is to build that proprietary pipeline and bring through new projects. We are already active in our investment program for the first 200 MW from our operational projects. I would say in the coming years, it will then become much more par for the course to trade operational assets and then reinvest to rejuvenate the portfolio. I just say to that, I don't think we're going to go job lot selling whole chunks of the portfolio, but it would you be coming to a point where you'd be putting portfolios of assets together to release out. In terms of we've got to think about the portfolio construction, really, and its evolution over time. So it would be an evolution in terms of that. Yep. At the back, sir. Yeah. Just in terms of the commercial contracts you put in place on developments, is there any difference between what you'd want in place for an asset you were definitely going to sell to a third party versus what you would want in place if you thought you were going to retain it in-house? No, I wouldn't say so. So the instruction that we've given to our investment teams and very much guided them, and it's been Carlos's team in Madrid so far, is we do want that optionality. I think the key thing in terms of some of these, whether like the joint ventures, clearly, we want control. We want that decision point at the end of the day. But I'd say it's very important for us because we'd be very selective about the assets that we want to do. We wouldn't be comfortable unless we could ultimately build these assets out ourselves. So those are the sort of partners we'd be looking to, to either have that flexibility around who you get as the EPC or be very confident with the partner that you're going to get there. Because it is something that we want that optionality and be able to be flexible, because market conditions can change. It might make more sense for us to hang on to some of these in sort of the next one or two years' time. We just don't know at the moment. But, I would say that if it wasn't an asset that we were going to be comfortable with hanging on to ourselves, why should we expect it to be an asset that we can realize full value in the market at selling it ready to build either? Yeah. And I think this is a great example, kind of going back to the first chat with Claire earlier, of two different parties coming together and, you know, bringing their separate skill sets. So developers don't always have the in-house expertise to optimize projects for sale. You know, whereas we know exactly the sort of projects that we'd want to invest in as investors, and, you know, structuring construction contracts, structuring financing agreements, structuring offtake agreements, is something that we do, you know, day in, day out, and are well-resourced to do. What we don't do day in, day out, is going knocking on the landowners' doors to see if they want to develop renewable energy on their site. So there's a real marriage there of skill sets, and it's worked really well in our private strategies. It's important to emphasize this, that Foresight Solar, you know, has introduced development exposure in its mandate relatively recently. Other funds under Foresight Management have been doing this for some time. Where we've seen it work really, really well is when there is that collaboration between us and the developer, both parties bringing their skill sets to bear. Developers bringing through with a high degree of confidence, a significant volume of projects, and us then layering over the top the commercialization of those assets to achieve some really attractive multiples. You know, our inheritance tax solution fund has been very successful in delivering U.K. solar as an example, working with two leading solar developers. So yeah, I think there's a real benefit, and developers recognize that benefit. It's not just our cost of capital, but it's also our expertise that we can bring to those partnerships. And I think just another thing to add to that, it is the expertise that Foresight Group has got with other funds doing this before we decided to bring it into the listed fund and the vehicle. I mean, there's a—you've got to make sure you're aligned. There's a number of structures, Toby's worked on some of these over the years, to make sure that you're both at the same page of what you're going to do with these assets when you, when you get to that point. Any further questions at the moment? Shyam. You're committed to doing legal works for development pipeline projects, and some of that will just be ready to build, and you might sell the rights to them. I guess, what's your sort of growth strategy in terms of absolute -MW capacity portfolio? Because you're rather shy on giving. Do you think about where you're going? Well, I mean, like I say, we would very much like to. I think it's, it's about thinking at the right time, to look at all the capital sources that are available, also where we are in the macroeconomic cycle. But look, I think the fund as a whole, we are still now is not the time to be throwing a lot of money out, at large capital growth. It's this is thinking about and planning for the future as well. We obviously would like to see the, the fund continue to grow. We think it would be attractive to more investors if it was larger as well, and we're able to offer something that was compelling for investors in, in terms of what they're seeking. So again, it comes back to this optionality. I think we build the pipeline, we build the options, then we go to look at all, all potential angles to how we get capital in there that is consistent with what our investors want to see us deliver, really. If that, if that helps for the moment. I think it goes back to what you said earlier. You know, this is not a return to business as usual, and we recognize that, this trading strategy, the trading element of selling projects and timing being critical in that to, you know, make sure we're maximizing value so that you can fund that growth in an organic way, as well as, going out and raising externally, you know, is certainly going to be part of the picture going forwards. I'll just recap some of these key themes. Firstly, as you heard from Alex, our Chair earlier, we're keenly aware of the current market environment, and we're doing everything that we feel is in shareholders' best interests, front of mind in terms of what we're doing. We are listening. We are out there. We encourage you to come and speak to us and give us your views, as we very much care about them and want to see that we're putting the fund in the right place for our investors. I'd say going back as part of that, proportionally, we have the largest buyback in the sub-sector, which has added demonstrable value on NAV so far. We remain committed towards that. We've made a good start on divestments and debt repayment, but look, I, I take on board that we know we've got more to do in this regard, and we need to keep, we need to keep pushing it and doing more this year as well. We have a very well-run portfolio. I believe our U.K. performance speaks for itself in terms of the example that Connor picked up. We have our dedicated asset management teams in both Spain and Australia, ensuring that our assets remain available and running, notwithstanding the challenges in some of those markets, but actually, the latter that we've been addressing as far as we can at the moment as well. And finally, we do believe that the strategy going forward cannot simply be a case of waiting for markets to return to business as usual, as for the last decade. So while we remain committed to our core objectives in terms of providing a high quality yield and NAV preservation, which itself will in time require further investment for the fund and to continue to grow, we don't expect interest rates to fall back to the lows of what we've seen over the last decade anytime soon. Hopefully, we'll see them moderate in the second half of this year. But we see this potential for modest organic capital growth over time as a desirable addition to the fund. So without question, these have been challenging times. We're charting a new course for one of the listed funds takes considerable thought and time. However, we believe this makes for an attractive investment opportunity going forward.