I'm happy to get this started. We should hopefully be joined by Rupert Robinson shortly and Ben Guest, who's the Lead Fund Manager on this. I myself, I'm James Bustin. I'm the Assistant Fund Manager. Happy to start the presentation. Once Ben and Rupert are back online, they can jump in as well. If we start with the first slide, please, Michelle. Next one. Great, so in the highlights, we've covered the key topics to point out, so year over year, we've had substantial growth in both the revenues and the EBITDA. EBITDA grown by almost 100% at 97.6%. Revenue slightly less. This is largely driven by two factors, one being the increase in operational capacity. You can see that in the bottom left, but also the revenue rate has improved quite substantially since H1 of last year as well. I see Ben's joined the call. Ben, we got started. I've just covered the revenue and EBITDA so far. You're on mute. Ben, you're on mute. Apologies, everyone. Yes, sorry, I'm online now. We've had an internet cutout in our building, and there's a degree of hotspotting going on. With apologies. I don't know, a bit more embarrassing than Donald Trump's escalator at the UN. So yes, thank you, James, for kicking off. We'll launch or carry on from here. Thank you again. So have you been through this page, James, or? So I've just started by highlighting the year-on-year revenue and EBITDA growth driven by the operational portfolio scale increasing during the year, but also the underlying revenue rate having been at its low point in H1 2024. We're in a much healthier position in H1 2025, but as the curves will show, there's kind of room to grow, and we're looking forward to developing that. Fantastic. Great. Yes, and as James has just said, we're delighted to have reached the gigawatt scale mark. We're now at 1.1 GW. So just to complete the rest of this page, apologies for any overlaps. The NAV has drifted down by 1.5% over the interim period, driven by continuing to reduce curves. We'll touch on that in a moment. We've got revenues growing strongly year over year. Obviously, at this time last year, in terms of in first half terms, we were in the lows of the merchant market environment, which has since significantly recovered. The portfolio debt was at GBP 160 million, drawn of GBP 175 million facility in terms of what was available as amended in gross terms. And we've now upsized that, and I'll come on to that also. And we've also significantly contracted our portfolio now and got 566 MW of contracted megawatts today, but that's going to go towards 900 MW and above in the near future. And of course, we've pre-contracted our pipeline assets as well. Moving on to the next slide, if that's okay. Thank you very much. So really focusing on the meat of our work at the moment. Obviously, the opening bullets here are speaking to what we've done so far, increased sort of the backlog, completed really the background and historical construction programs in terms of operational capacity of the full nearly 1.1 GW, done 330 MW hours of initial augmentations through the end of last year and very beginning of this. We've now concluded the refinancing and upsized the financing to be able to get the augmentations underway and raise the capital to finance a portion of the new projects and in particular, the acquisition of the project rights. And of course, the new near-term goal is really to complete the funding and financing and construction preparations to get underway with construction at the end of this year on as many projects as possible. And I'll talk to the risks around that in general in a moment. We're very pleased to have done so. I've reinstated our capital allocation policy and our dividend. And pleased to say that we've got a clear story now and clarity as to what we're doing. It does mean that in our growth focus and assuming relatively cautious merchant backdrop, just in terms of downside case modeling, we have reinstated a very modest dividend, especially for this year and next. And thereafter, we expect to have the potential for more sizable dividends on the back of more sizable cash flow. And we'll revisit the picture at the end of next year. But just naturally, as you have capacity growing and the construction costs to build that capacity tailing off, you see the expansion in the free cash flow figure in absolute terms and per share. So the focus is very much on the growth opportunity. And then just one more highlight, very briefly, is on the fact that we did conclude a transaction at the carrying value of the portfolio, which sort of echoed what was also going on in terms of the Harmony transaction that was well publicized. In terms of capital allocation, you can break this down into sort of the focus on the growth in the near term and the potential for much more substantial income over the longer term. And just playing to the theme and reality that we are an income growth-focused business, but with the growth opportunity being pretty strong at the moment as a function of lower battery prices, the ability to finance at a lower cost of debt. While the revenue outlook is lower than it has been, it certainly is holding up better than the battery prices, which obviously results in a strong overall financial equation. We're very much focused on the three-year plan. What we're talking about in this presentation are the levers that we're pulling that are a substantial subset of the three-year plan, which covered augmentations of 1.5 GW hours. At the time, it was a 680 MW portfolio, slightly upsized to 694, and a leg called alternative revenues. Really, what we're talking about here is a subset of 350 MW hours of that 1.5 GW hours, all of the new pipeline. At this stage, just to keep the picture simple, and none of the alternative revenues. So when I come on to talking about what we might be able to earn in a couple of years' time, it's a function of this capacity picture. And that capacity outlook is 1.8 GW at a two-hour duration, up from the 1.1, 1.6-hour duration we've got today. The last thing I want to say quickly, just as a sort of contextual point, which I'm sure comes up in conversation among analysts and investors, is the debt picture and the overall capital drawn. So we've upsized our debt facility on the operational portfolio to GBP 220 million. Naturally, this is amortizing, so straight away starting to decline as we're repaying it from day one. We will secure additional debt to complete the financing of our new pipeline, and that debt exposure will grow over time. The net of those two will be the resulting debt picture at any moment in time, but both will be amortizing facilities. We are clear that we won't exceed our debt to NAV limit at any stage. Just for context, we see that our peers in the renewables infrastructure and battery infrastructure space typically have a debt limit of 50% of GAV, which is actually a substantially higher limit if it was to be expressed in NAV terms, debt to NAV terms. In terms of the outlook, so once we've completed this construction, obviously, the capacity is higher. Just come back to this one. Thank you. Construction costs have rolled over. We'll be in a position to upsize dividends, or at least at the very least, our free cash flow will be substantially higher. Just for the benefit of our investors, we've included a scenario where if revenues on a merchant basis were about today's levels, perhaps a little bit higher, but certainly lower than where revenue projections are on the back of an improving skip rate environment and better trading for batteries in that context, when we get to 1.8 GW and you multiply that capacity by the yearly revenue rate, which is the sum of this merchant figure plus capacity market revenues, apply a margin to that overall revenue and deduct PLC costs and all debt servicing, so principal repayments and interest service payments. We project that we'll be in excess of 10p per share once this capacity is built. Hopefully, that's a useful picture for investors to appreciate the benefits of this substantial subset of the three-year plan being completed. And as I mentioned earlier, we do have ambitions to do additional augmentations and to reveal our alternative revenue strategy, hopefully, as soon as possible. In addition to that, as part of our capital allocation policy, we will consider the repurchasing of shares, and we'll have the flexibility to do this from excess free cash flow, in particular, while shares trade at a substantial discount to NAV. We can turn to the next one now, please. So in terms of NAV, broadly, some strong tailwinds from within the business in terms of the fact that we're accumulating capital, the fact that we're completing construction, which kicks off revenues, means that we can revalue assets at their operational discount rate rather than their in-construction higher discount rate. And there's been a couple of land acquisitions, which take away lease costs and have a net benefit, and then some lease extensions. The combination of all of these led to an underlying increase, but of course, third-party curves continue to drop. A couple of reasons for that. I'll move on to the next slide to touch on that. But essentially, curves continue to come down. In fact, what happened in the first half is one of the consultants brought their curves down. The timing of the release of the other consultants' curves meant that the second quarter was impacted for similar reasons to the first move down in the first quarter. A large part of that is driven by where gas prices have outturned in recent months as they drive spreads in power prices or the expectation of spreads. Overall, we think that third-party consultants are becoming more cautious as to the potential for the industry, probably as a degree of conservatism in the context of how well industry revenues recover as industry processes and control room technology improves and so on. So we'd like to think that these are becoming quite conservative, but in any case, there's still an expectation of a significant recovery in revenues. The illustration we gave you was at 75,000. By 2028, the expectation for two-hour assets is in the region of 90,000. And so if that's achieved, then the underlying free cash flow per share would be substantially higher given that all of that would fall to the bottom line. Just as a sort of additional couple of points, the overall merchant discount rate that we apply has remained the same in this period and in the first half-year stage, so 10.85%. And the weighted average discount rate stood at 10.7% overall. On the next page, we cover our debt arrangements. Specifically, we're really, really pleased to have concluded the refinancing, which concluded in August, so after the half-year end. We've upsized our debt facility from the GBP 175 million of gross debt that was available to GBP 220 million, which, as I mentioned earlier, leads to capital available for augmentations and some funding of the new pipeline. We have reduced the cost of our debt from a 300 basis points spread to 225, which we're very pleased about. And that really is a function of the next bullet there, which is the contracted revenues driving that, where we see full coverage of debt service, principal, and interest over the legal tenor of this debt, which is seven years, although it's sculpted as though it's amortizing over 14 years. Happy to take any questions on that if there's any. In terms of the clear focus for the second half, it's about having done the work on augmentations and refinancing and augmentations and contracting, is to get the new projects under construction. That requires our projects to come out of the Gate 2 process, which is a national reevaluation of the entire queue that is being well publicized. We're at the mercy of the timings around that, but we're not concerned that it's anything more than a timing consideration, and hopefully, things all work out so that we can not be slowed down by that exercise, which is being run by NESO and mandated by government. The key exercise now is to complete the financing. We've already pre-contracted the floors on four of the five projects, so we've got 57 MW still to contract. Because these are new projects, it's more straightforward because the debt typically is sized against the warranty periods, and warranty periods for new batteries are extending in the region of 20 years now. That allows for the amortization period and therefore time to repay, which is very positive for cash flow to extend a bit, sort of hopefully upwards of 15 years. We hope to conclude all of this by the end of this half so that we can get into construction. Of course, there's a huge amount of work going on separately to that around meeting GRID connection milestones, long lead items, contracting, which we're all running internally. It's leading to some pretty attractive costs from a construction perspective. Hopefully, that's useful. Again, happy to take any further questions on that detail. If we move to the next page, we've been monitoring very closely the macro picture, if you like, in terms of the skip rates, which is one minus the utilization of batteries when they are in merit. In other words, they should be taken because they're competitive and the cheapest source of capacity to the Control Room operated by NESO. While this chart shows the improvement from the beginning of 2024, which is material, bear in mind that the y-axis here does not start at zero, so it flattens the numbers as in that the skip rate still remains high in the 80s%. NESO does express this with some various adjustments. They call them stages, five different stages and adjustments, which bring their numbers down, their preferred numbers down to about 50%. But the reality is that we see clearly that all of the skips are avoidable if the systems, the processes, and the regulations are in place to do so. There is a lot of promise here that the new automated, fully functioning Open Balancing Platform installed by NESO is going to now become the equivalent of the Balancing Mechanism, automate the Balancing Mechanism from October, in other words, next month. And we'll see how that impacts skip rates, but it should lead to an improvement because we get national-level automated balancing and trading around what are called constraints, the bottlenecks in the network. So all of that becomes automated from next month. And crucially, another big source of skips, as they're called, is caused by the fact that before you get to the balancing mechanism timeframe, which is 89 minutes, there's a need to make sure that the assets that are available in the balancing mechanism are contractually obliged to show up. Now, that means historically, that's been how it's been operated for a very long time, and gas assets have always been reserved outside for contractual reasons, but also for technical reasons. They need to be warmed up or started up. The fact that the control room has been unable to fully see the state of charge of our batteries has meant that they've had to assume at best that they have 30 minutes in them. Until March of last year, it was even only 15 minutes. With a key rule change that's coming in from Ofgem implemented by NESO and Elexon, the settlement party system and owned by NESO, we expect that to be a very important source of lower skips as batteries are finally able to compete at the reserving stage before we get to the balancing mechanism period so that they get operated in the BM accordingly. Until that happens, we do have some fairly structural issues, which we've been pointing out, and we're excited about these changes coming about. So the announcement from Ofgem is expected this month or next, with the technical implementation of that a few months later. Moving to the next slide. In terms of revenue mix, obviously, over a long period, we've been saying that trading becomes our mainstay source of revenue. That's where the real need for batteries is, moving large amounts of energy around as opposed to the small balancing of energy associated with what's called frequency response. So frequency response, which was a very profitable source of revenues in the past, has naturally matured. We've been talking about this, frankly, for years since IPO. We expect to see the yellow band here to continue to reduce while the trading side, which is really the combination of tolling, which is someone else trading it and paying us for that, or the dark blue, which is our own traders doing this externally sourced traders, but still trading on our account. The combination of those is the sum of all the trading, and that number is growing, and we should expect it to keep growing. Capacity Market revenues will remain in the 10%-15% range we expect, which is the lighter blue bar. Next page, please. Bringing this together, if we focus on the thick light blue line, that's the actual monthly revenues of this business. This is a chart that we've shown several times before, obviously adding the latest information at each stage. We can see that there's clearly been a pickup in revenues versus the middle part of last year and, dare I say, end of 2023 as a function of growing capacity and as a function of revenue rates recovering, especially from the first quarter of last year. There's been a fairly quiet period relative to the beginning of the year, which is normal seasonality in the revenue rates through July. They have picked up in September in particular, and we do expect a sort of a natural seasonality as we get spikier prices in the winter months. We'll see what happens, of course. Of course, in the background, you've got the bars which show the capacity and, in particular, the capacity we've reached in the recent past. There's still some benefit to come through from the commissioning of the last assets, which didn't really play a significant part in the first half of this year. We should see an uptick as a function of those assets being online as well. Next slide, please. This is just a snapshot of the GRID portfolio. It's a pretty substantial portfolio now. Just focusing on the incremental growth, which will obviously lead to the bars in the prior slide I just showed you to go up eventually substantially up to 1.8 GW from the 1.1 today. The assets that will contribute to that growth are the ones in the middle of this page shown in the execution pipeline box. You can see that the average size of these projects is growing substantially. Cockenzie and Harker are both 240-MW projects, both connected at the National Grid Transmission Operator level. That's National Grid with a small N and G because the National Grid Company in Scotland is Scottish Power Transmission. In the UK, in England, sorry, it's National Grid Energy Transmission. Those are our two largest projects, and even the other three are pretty substantial projects. Four of these projects, Orbit, Elland 2, are connected to the transmission operator. Next slide, please. This next slide gives you the picture from a competitive player standpoint. We can see that GRID continues to be the largest player. There's a big increase in the combined bars driven by the orange bar at the top. That's a function of the latest capacity coming online, which we're pleased to see and shows us as the continuing industry leader. I'm always amazed by how long the tail is in this chart, but there are a handful of strong competitors, and there are some players who are going to be commissioning some pretty large batteries, but of course, will be growing as well. So just on the last slide now, just to summarize our overall presentation, and apologies again for the mishaps at the very start, we are fully focused on the three-year plan from a combination of augmentations, which are now funded and actually getting underway. In fact, a couple of them already are, and we can expect to conclude seven of the eight augmentations that are currently planned by the middle of next year, with the last one completing in the second half of next year and getting underway with the construction of our new pipeline, ideally as many projects as possible by the end of this year, if not the beginning of next. And this will drive the outlook or scenario, if you will, that we highlighted in terms of potential free cash flow of this business of 10.5p in a 2028 timeframe on a per-share basis, and this will drive the outlook or scenario, if you will, that we highlighted in terms of potential free cash flow of this business of 10.5p in a 2028 timeframe on a per-share basis. There's a lot going on at the regulatory level, positive changes. We're getting towards the end of this big reassessment of the entire national queue. We think we're well placed to benefit from that. Just another piece of regulatory news in the last couple of days, which is public information, is around the long-duration energy storage backdrop. Our Cockenzie and Harker pipeline projects and Elland 2 are all eligible to submit. So there's a two-stage process where you apply for eligibility, and then you submit to try and be awarded a contract. These would be contracts that allow us to extend the project's capacity and duration to a minimum of eight hours. We could build it to a longer duration. We strongly believe, and this is evident in the fact that the majority of the capacity that's been allowed through to then tender is battery technology, not pump storage, hydro, or other emerging technologies. And I think that will remain the case due to the deflationary nature of the technology. But that's a really important development. In addition to those pipeline projects being eligible, we've got Melksham becoming eligible, which is our 100 MW operational asset. Other changes I've mentioned, the expectation of reduced skips as a function of the state of charge measurements of batteries being announced by Ofgem and then implemented by the control room, and the fact that the OBP, the open balancing platform, becomes the main way through which balancing takes place. Let's see if these promises translate, but we're fully focused and engaged very fully with NESO and Ofgem. Then generally, we're seeing continued, and we're pleased to see the continued support for batteries at a government level. There is, after all, a plan to complete the Clean Power 2030, which might extend to 2032 or whenever it is. The reality is that there's a strong focus on solar, wind, and batteries as the main ways that we generate power in this country with longer-term some additional generation from nuclear as well. Then, of course, last but not least, we've reinstated our dividend policy, echoing the focus on this growth. With clear guidance, I hope that once we've completed our capacity growth, we'll be in a strong position to generate significantly high levels of cash flow on an absolute and per-share basis. Back to you, Rupert. Ben, thank you very much. It's been an impressive six, nine months in terms of executing on the three-year plan. There's still a long way to go in terms of augmentations and executing on the pipeline. I think a lot of progress has been made over the last nine months. Also thank you to shareholders for their patience and working with us through what was a very challenging and difficult 2024. We don't underestimate that whatsoever. We've had a number of questions in. If I could invite those people who would like to ask questions to keep sending those in. Perhaps if I can start with one, Ben. Obviously, it's been a bit of a frustrating sort of six months in terms of some very positive drivers towards higher NAV and then obviously offset by a further reduction in the forward curves. Can you just give us a sense of what further risks you see to a further downward revision to the forward curves? Or have they now fallen to a level where you feel most of the bad news is priced in, if one can be as bold to make that statement? I mean, clearly, obviously, they're independent parties, so they're within their rights to revise their figures to the extent that the falling gas price and the gas price is now at levels pre the Ukraine situation and around the COVID levels, so gas prices are really at quite low levels, so any reflections of translation of that lower level to curves is something that probably should fade as a driver. There are lots of different factors. Ultimately, these forecasters are modeling the industry, modeling installed capacity, modeling demand, how they intersect on a half-hourly basis, which drive half-hourly prices, and then they look at the volatility of those half-hourly prices and assess how much money could be made by batteries in providing the necessary balancing of supply and demand, both through the wholesale market and in the balancing mechanism. I think there is an overlay now that's been introduced as a result of the realization that skip rates are a fundamental issue or have been a fundamental issue in the balancing mechanism, and dare I say, in the broader context of reserving as well, and there's an assessment assumption that we won't get back to or get to zero skip rates, in fact, probably quite far from that. I'd like to think that that gets proven wrong at some stage, given that if we're going to really rely on batteries to balance solar and wind generation and avoid the very, very substantial and rapidly rising curtailment costs and balancing costs that we see all the time and are hitting the press headlines all the time, and the fundamental reason for that is, I believe, skip rates, then I'd like to think that it gets solved. The mechanisms are in place to solve processes, systems, and regs to allow that all to happen, and if it does all work out, then I think the curves will go probably quite a lot higher. On the flip side today, I'd like to say that if one was to look at our share price, it's really just discounting today's revenue environment, today's cash flow yields, and probably none of the growth, so those are the extremes. We complete the growth, get to the higher levels of potential revenue reflecting historical curves to where we are today, and I'd like to think there isn't too much downside to where we are today in terms of where the share price is and what it's discounting. Thank you, Ben. Okay, let's go into some other questions. With regard to the debt financing that's expected to be secured for the construction of the new projects, I assume therefore the 694 MW, are you able to provide an indication around expected debt quantum given the phases of four, five, and nine? We've got to be careful what we say to avoid talking about commercially sensitive topics and selective disclosure and just getting ahead of ourselves in terms of what we disclose. But this will be a project financing along the lines of what we've done on our operational portfolio, number one. The way to calculate the likely level of debt, and I appreciate that some people might need some guidance on what these numbers are, but you take the cost of building these projects and you apply a percentage somewhere between 50%-100%. Sorry for the large range, but it's a commercially sensitive figure at this stage. And that will set the senior debt level, and that senior debt will be structured of project finance. So to the uninitiated, that's essentially like a mortgage facility. It's amortizing. We're repaying it every half year in this case and over a period of 15, maybe a couple of years longer than that. And so the quantum will be obviously substantial if you're taking 694 and multiplying it by somewhere between those two percentages. But we are, as I said before, very confident that the combination of the amortizing existing facility of 220, which is reducing as we speak, so to speak, and the new facilities that will ramp up as we get through construction will result in a blended debt level as a percentage of the prevailing NAV at that time that remains below 50%. Hopefully, that provides the color that people need. We will provide more color, of course, as we get closer to the conclusion of this process. Okay. Next question. Are construction costs expected to reduce relative to the costs incurred on recently built construction assets, given the level of CapEx deflation, particularly on BESS equipment over the past year? Short answer is absolute yes, which is what makes the investments particularly attractive today in terms of augmentations and in terms of new pipeline. So there will be, and this starts to speak to, and I don't want to make a prediction here, but there is obviously a requirement for us to build assets out at a better return than our prevailing discount rate. Because of these dynamics, the IRR on new construction from augmentations to new pipeline is substantially more profitable than our cost of capital, which is why we're so focused on growth. And we expect a meaningful uplift to NAV as a result of that as we value assets at the operational discount rate in due course. And we're entitled to do that from a valuation policy perspective as soon as financing is there. So we are now having closed the debt post the period end, having financed the augmentations that will start to feed through into future NAVs. And t`hen once we secure the financing, ideally by before the end of this year, that will also allow the year-end and subsequent NAVs to start to reflect the new assets and their net present value. Thank you. Now, there are a number of questions around capital allocation policy and around the excitement of the three-year plan, but the company still trades at a circa 30% plus discount to NAV. There's obviously a focus on growth at the expense of dividends over the next couple of years, but there's also reference to share buybacks. The question overall, is there a firm plan and focus to narrowing the discount on this trust? Helping our investors understand where our business is heading is the most important thing. Of course, buybacks and other mechanisms we can come on to, but this is why, even though I appreciate that it's not really our role to give forecasts in any firm way, but to help our investors understand how to think about this business. If you take the installed capacity at a certain duration, it will be at two hours. It's 1.6 right now and an expanded portfolio of 1.8 GW at a two-hour plus duration, that is the starting point. That capacity, what can that earn? We've guided, we're not guided, sorry, highlighted that if we were to be earning GBP 75,000 per megawatt per year on the merchant side, we know what we're going to be earning because it's contracted on the capacity market side, which is contracted revenues over 15 years. Deduct the operating margin, deduct all debt service, which includes interest and principal, which is true cash flow that could be used for all the purposes had we had a different debt structure, but we choose to do it this way. And then after all PLC costs as well, the free cash flow at that point is going to be upwards of GBP 0.10 once all this capacity is built exactly as illustrated. So that means that the share price of GBP 0.73 can be compared to price to not just cash flow, which is a traditional measure, but price to free cash flow will be seven times in 2028, give or take, assuming no recovery or no meaningful recovery in the merchant trading level. Of course, if we get up to 90,000, 90 plus thousand merchant rate, all of that falls to the bottom line because the operating costs of the business don't really change if you've got better pricing and spreads for the batteries to earn from. So that's the picture. And we can only keep reiterating that. And I think it's important to sort of start painting the picture, ideally 10p and upwards, and to highlight that everything we've just discussed that results in that potential figure, plus or minus, whatever it is, depending on changes to that for whatever reason, in particular the trading environment. There is still further work being done on additional augmentations to be funded, to be discussed once we've got all this underway and our alternative revenues for which we've reserved a 25 million bar in terms of the upside to EBITDA over our three-year plan. We look forward to being able to talk about that in due course. That's all external to the picture we've painted today. Really messaging this and continuing to message this and continue to deliver the key milestones of this three-year plan will hopefully encourage investors to believe in the story. I do think that we also need the macro environment and NESO to deliver on their promises and to start really getting these skip rates down and to start reducing the curtailment costs associated with gas, sorry, wind and infilled with gas where necessary and upwards of GBP 1 billion. NESO themselves have said that that could hit GBP 8 billion by the end of the decade. We've got to avoid that. That's really avoidable with batteries. So just continuing to message and pushing on the macro and pushing on the delivery of capacity and upside to EBITDA, I think, is key. And of course, buying on the top of the margin. And buybacks as well. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Ben. Next question on LDES. Well done on the LDES cap and floor eligibility wins. Given the large number total lithium-ion projects, 20 GW, do you think these subsidized projects will have an impact on pricing in the market or on skip rates, especially if eight-hour batteries are considered to have more availability? Has the capacity already been factored into third-party revenue curves? Sorry, a lot of. The capacity will have been a lot of parts of that, but all logical sort of modeling questions. What's discounted? What's in the numbers? There will be assumptions in the third-party curves for shorter duration BESS, longer duration BESS, and other storage in the forecasts. Let's not forget that the overall picture here, the reason why we're aiming at 20 plus GW is because we're heading towards a world where renewables make up, on average, upwards of 70%, potentially even 80% of total supply. It won't happen by 2030, but that's sort of the ambition, but somewhere between 2030 and 2035, renewables will be generating the vast majority of the power in this country. The demand will be going up because we've got electric vehicles and electric heating taking off. Underlying demand is also holding steady, and that renewable generation, as an observed rule of thumb, generates anywhere between zero and twice their expected average. And then, of course, there can be periods where versions of that remain true for not just hours, but potentially even days, not at zero or twice, but somewhere in between for which you need longer duration. All of that means that we need a huge amount of storage. We're at roughly five, six gigawatts two-hour duration in this country. We need to get to about 30 GW, probably at a 10 to 12-hour duration. It's a massive multiple from where we are today in terms of total energy if we're to substantially replace the alternatives, such as relying on gas and interconnectors as sources of flexibility. So there's a very, very huge need. There's lots and lots of offshore wind getting commissioned in the next few years, lots of solar getting commissioned in the next few years. We continue to see very successful auction rounds, despite some wobbles in the last couple of years, auction rounds for the contracts for difference for new renewables projects. So there's a really, really big need. Of course, installed capacity of shorter and longer duration BESS absorbs some of that need. And we'll always see the overall returns for renewable generators, which is sort of the wholesale price as adjusted by something called a capture rate. In other words, is all the renewable generation happening at the same time some of the time, and they fail to capture at other times because they're not generating. So they suffer from that while they benefit from more batteries being installed and reducing that capture rate challenge and vice versa. The more renewables that are installed, the more volatility that emerges in terms of supply, and the more the business opportunity grows for batteries. So there'll be a cyclicality or an assessment of where we are on that balance between flexibility and renewable generation over the long term. But that fundamental opportunity is still there, and it is absolutely reflected in third-party curves. If I can just add, yes, the third-party curves do include assumptions for LDES as well as various other technologies being built out. At the moment, most of those curves are assuming even less efficient technologies take a lot of that volume, which creates further market distortion than what we anticipate being the case with batteries being viewed as LDES. Another point is the volume likely to be queued in LDES is far below the ultimate requirement needed at this point. And the existing fleet of batteries can be derated to run at a lower power to cover the longer duration. So if the overall need starts to shift towards that longer duration, then the rest of the fleet can adjust to it as well. On the skip rate point, interestingly, as it stands at the moment, batteries are looked at as 30-minute assets. So the key changes coming from NESO are needed in order for an eight-hour battery to be used as an eight-hour battery. So adding that capacity just changes how the system needs to be run and pushes that along sooner. So these improvements that just impact the rest of skip rates across the BESS industry need to be there if eight-hour batteries are to come online anyway. So you should see an improvement on skip rates. Thanks, James. Perhaps Ben or James, you could just clear this point out. Is the 70k MW year merchant figure you state to get to the 10p free cash flow net of optimizer costs? Yes. Yes. Deduction of everything. So you deduct that at the very top. That's the top of the P&L. And then you deduct OPEX. And then you deduct PLC costs and service costs. Absolutely. Everything's deducted. Thank you. Would you consider establishing an in-house trading optimization platform? It's a really good question. We've evaluated that a lot. I think all else being equal or in isolation, yes, you'd consider it. But then you've got to factor in what are our priorities? What's the benefit of setting up a trading desk versus really focusing on some of the things that we're actually doing in the three-year plan, focusing on alternative revenues, which can be done separately to this. And there was another point I was going to make, but it slipped my mind. But essentially, the net, oh yes, I remember. Of course, now we're using optimizers who are also lending their balance sheets to our business by providing floors. That's something we can't do for ourselves. So that's an important factor as to whether we'd use in-house optimization over the longer term. We'd have to weigh up the benefits of that against a copper-bottomed floor from a third-party investment-grade counterparty. So that's an important incremental consideration over the last 12 months. And I suspect as a result of that, we're not likely to do this anytime soon. Okay. Next question. How are the costs for projects at ready-to-build moving? And how do you see the trend to acquire from developers moving? Interesting. The underlying cost of a project in terms of physical cost has declined significantly. We've got a construction methodology that we're excited about. We've got very long-established relationships with key suppliers from, of course, batteries and associated medium-voltage equipment to high-voltage equipment suppliers and other pieces of kit and even civils contractors and so on. We're benefiting from directly negotiating and/or contracting with some of these counterparties, especially the battery suppliers, directly and benefiting from the scale of the projects that we're building now. These are factors over and above the underlying trends in cost reduction. We haven't disclosed how much it's likely to cost us to build our projects, but we're excited about it. Ironically, that makes the projects at a project rights level more valuable. But given where the industry is and has been, it hasn't actually resulted in higher project rights costs. In fact, project rights costs have declined over the last two years to probably their lowest level in about three or four. And the fund will benefit from that when it concludes the acquisition of project rights. And for completeness, that is from its Gresham House DevCo pipeline partner, which sits within Gresham House. Okay. Next question. And this is a reconfirmation. In one of the earlier slides presented, portfolio combined balance sheet metrics show cash and debt as at December 2024 twice. Please can it be confirmed whether the second row in orange, GBP 160 million debt drawn and GBP 48.2 million cash is a typo and is reflective of the H1 2025 closing position? It's the end-of-June closing position. Yeah. Yeah. Apologies for that. Thank you for noticing. Thank you. Okay. There's one here on fees and, outside of investment management fees, are there any fees taken [at] SPV level and are they disclosed, etc.? Can you just touch on that? Sure. There's been a long-standing arrangement, just one long-standing arrangement, which is very small compared with the main fee structure, which relates to bookkeeping. So we initially outsourced the bookkeeping of our projects, and that included the running of the audit process. We've insourced that at a substantial saving to GRID several years ago. That comes to somewhere between, I'm guessing, a little GBP 200,000 and GBP 250,000 in total for all the SPVs that we manage, which is in excess of 30. Yeah. And all asset management is covered under the AIFM fee. There's no operations fee. I have another question here via email, and I've been specifically asked not to water it down. So in the spirit of transparency, I will not do that. Positive progress on the discount has been on the back of external Harmony success, not actions by the company. In this context, it seems fairly self-serving and with respect, arrogant to ignore the discount issue and the prior commitment to dividends. To switch now to a growth strategy, it always seems to be jam tomorrow here. What ability or issues do the board have to retain the debt structure and sell these assets to private holders at closer to NAV for the benefit of shareholders? So the third question's a punch-up. Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you. Yeah, and very welcome, to be honest. Where the share price trade is not part of my day job, of course, I'm very interested and think about it all the time. If the discount has narrowed on the back of the Harmony transaction and only that reason, that's because if that is true, that's because the investor base is not considering the actual process that we have, and I can say confidently, delivered in the last 12 months. It's a very, very difficult macro environment we've had to navigate through. We never expected merchant revenue rates to hit the levels that they hit at the beginning of last year. That led to a situation where we had to cautiously pull the dividend. We had to re-engage with our lenders to make sure that there would be no issues and to be able to conclude the construction of our existing pipeline. We needed the safe harbor, if you like, to be able to do that. We completed all of that. We have thought very hard about the right direction for this business in two ways. How do we de-risk it? It's fortuitous that at the same time that these events were taking place, the industry was also maturing, and the ability to secure contracted revenues to copper-bottom the worst case for this business became possible, and that further benefited the refinancing process by reducing the cost of capital, which allowed us to upsize our debt, and that then has led to our ability to further invest in the business and make over the long term for a more valuable business, then we also appreciate believing that the challenges that caused our troubles at the beginning of last year still required a substantial amount of investment in the industry and that this business would benefit from continuing to scale if it could. So seeing the pipeline that we had, the falling cost of construction, the falling cost of capital, and the resulting IRRs, we saw the opportunity to grow this business as a result of the re-evaluation of circumstances. It happened to overlap with a very difficult environment, but they were actually separate considerations. It is just a fact that this business is now seeing probably the most profitable investment opportunities that it's ever seen just after the most difficult period, which creates for an interesting story from an external perspective outside in. But this is, I strongly believe, and I'm grateful for the board to have backed us here. And I appreciate that the shareholders are requiring to be patient, especially from a dividend-paying perspective. But we expect to end up with a business that on a free cash flow basis is generating double-digit free cash flow on an underlying cash flow basis substantially above that. If the recovery and revenues, which are genuinely outside of our control, although we are influencing as much as we can, lead up, we will be substantially above the numbers we've just indicated. And then if we pull the final levers to our three-year plan, there's further jam, if I can use the expression used. All of that is far in excess of the current NAV. While it does require patience, if we looked at this on a forward NAV basis, and we appreciate we do need to communicate this more, but if we do also look at this very simply as an operating-type business with cash flow, with some of the other additional drivers, and apply whatever multiple the investor's happy to apply to that, whether it's to EBITDA or the free cash flow, I think you see that over a two or three-year timeframe, even if the discount is not closing, and that's something to be discussed increasingly aggressively because there's a patience challenge here. If we look at the outlook in two or three years, we think that your manager of this business is delivering something that's very, very valuable. And we do hope that our investors can start to see this as we deliver the milestones, as we communicate this with the support, importantly, with the support of our analysts and sell-side community. So we've really looked at every scenario. Of course, the board will always have the opportunity to consider other options, to go for the quick buck, if that's the right expression. And I am very sensitive to the challenge in the stock market, not just in GRID, but broadly in the investment trust space with the uncertainties associated with interest rates and the like. But we do think that we're building a valuable company here, weathering a lot of storms along the way, taking advantage of the developments that benefit us, and appreciating that scale is really important. So I've not held back on the answer either. No, and I think very well answered, Ben. And the one point I would add is that history tells you that if the public markets don't give you or reward the value being created, then the private markets will. And I think all we can continue to do is focus on what we can control. We are highly sensitive to shareholders' views, and we've spent a huge amount of time consulting with shareholders over recent days, weeks, and months around these sorts of issues and capital allocation issues, and we'll continue to do that. I'm conscious we've gone past the hour. There is one other question I'd like to ask you there, because I think this is important to address. Please, can you elaborate on the relationship between Gresham House DevCo and the part of Gresham House completing early development of new projects, i.e., the development business within Gresham House? Are we, as in GRID, buying projects from other parts of Gresham House, and are you satisfied with how these clear conflicts are handled? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's been advertised, if you will, since the IPO that there is a development activity at Gresham House. It forms an extended part of my team. It has always sought to create projects that are optimal for the fund and the circumstances and sort of status of the industry at that time. It creates a lot of visibility for GRID, I think, in terms of knowing what's coming up the pipeline, in terms of being able to design projects from a very early stage, from all the different features in terms of revenue capture to safety to time to build and so on. So all of these are important considerations for projects, and it's very, very helpful when you have visibility of the pipeline years in advance, because that's how far in advance we're looking at projects. So the benefits, I think, are there. Of course, then there's a significant financial benefit. Ignoring the outcome first and speaking to process, essentially, this is absolutely a related party transaction. So Gresham House DevCo is negotiating really with the board here as advised by third-party advisors from the company's law firm to valuers, and that's been done very extensively. And then there's a very significant negotiation between board and DevCo to seek the best result. Just to give a little bit of color, the first substantial round of projects acquired that have been completed now were acquired at a significant discount to the prevailing price per megawatt in the market. The consideration is paid only once the projects in the past, once the projects were fully operational. So any costs incurred by Gresham House DevCo were borne until the project was fully operational, as opposed to typically 100% of the consideration being paid well before the start of construction in a traditional case. All of this creates a massive time value of money benefit. So there's an absolute benefit and a time value of money benefit, and we're confident that we'll have a similar benefit or a substantial benefit to GRID from accessing these pipelines, over which it has a right of first refusal, by the way. So it could reject them. It could absolutely go out to the market, but I doubt it would come close to achieving what it can achieve with Gresham House DevCo. But I appreciate the question and the opportunity to speak to that. And just to add, there was a question earlier about the headroom between the valuation and the cost of building the projects. And as the costs fall, what happens with the headroom with these arrangements for these projects? GRID definitely benefits from that increase in headroom between the two. And if you see, California is a good example of when the Inflation Reduction Act came in, projects became far more valuable. Developers tended to increase their premiums. GRID avoids all of that with this arrangement. So in that increasing headroom scenario, GRID definitely benefits from that. Absolutely. Yeah. I'll add one final point because this will also help give a bit of color on direction of travel of NAV. Project rights typically sell somewhere in the tens of thousands of pounds per megawatt, lower than it was in the context of the current market and the rates achieved by DevCo with GRID to make sure that it's a stronger deal as possible. The upside to cost, which includes these development rights, is in the hundreds of thousands. And as I've mentioned, the IRRs. I haven't given numbers, but I've mentioned the IRRs are at a significant premium and the highest premium that we've seen during the life of this fund to the weighted average discount rate. And so the benefits of building these projects out is key and competes well with the opportunity for buybacks to cover that sort of capital allocation challenge, especially given the long-term benefit of achieving scale as well as being key. Ben, thank you very much. And James, likewise. I just thought I would mention that people may have seen in the news recently that Gresham House made an acquisition of SUSI Partners headquartered in Switzerland. This is a specialist dedicated energy transition business with circa CHF 2 billion of assets under management. It's a dedicated business and one that we are looking to scale in terms of bringing in additional expertise and resource. Also, it gets us into new geographies. It gets us into new client channels. It broadens the client offering of Gresham House. Clearly, the energy transition is a key pillar of growth for this company and one that we will continue to invest in. In terms of its impact on GRID and the management team of this company, there's none at all, but clearly, we'll look at how we can bring different skills, experiences, and synergies into the table, so we're excited to get that over the line. Ben and James, unless there's anything else from you this morning, I'm conscious we've gone on for an hour and 10 minutes, an important juncture in the evolution of the storage fund. Thank you for answering all the questions. As always, there's been no sugarcoating or watering down of the questions, and clearly, if anyone has any further comments or meetings they'd like to follow up on, then we're here and ready to answer them. Once again, thank you for your support. Thank you for your patience. We feel the company's in a good position to push on from here. So without further ado, have a good rest of your day and look forward to seeing you all soon. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.