Answers. I'm delighted to be joined by the Chairman, John Leggate, and the fund management team of Ben Guest and James Bustin. I will shortly ask John to set the scene and give some introductory remarks, and to remind us that the investment thesis for battery energy storage and the company remains strong. John will then hand over to Ben and James to update us on the market and regulatory outlook, the three-year plan, and importantly, the growth plan from today. They will delve into more detail on the spate of recent public announcements regarding the acquisition of pipeline projects, debt and equity funding of the pipeline, the strategic partnership we announced with Sumitomo Corporation of Japan and TPK Holdings in Taiwan, share some insights into the alternative revenues and how we expect these to make a meaningful contribution to enhancing profitability of the company over the next few years, and importantly, how this will translate into shareholder value as we continue to scale the company. After some closing remarks from John, we will open it up to Q&A. Please send in your questions and we will answer as many as we can in the allotted timeframe today. We're allowing for approximately two hours from start to finish. On that note, John, a warm welcome. Thank you, Rupert. Before I start my remarks, James, is there something to say on the disclosures, first of all? No, it's okay. We just put it on screen so people can see them. Good. What I wish to do is just frame up how we think about this sector. Before I do that, I would like to offer some acknowledgments. One, to our investors who are with us on this journey and those who have joined us today. Two, to the Gresham House team, who have handled, as Rupert said, a tsunami of RNSs, which are only the pointy end of serious work, and lest we forget that. Three, to my fellow board members who worked pretty well around the clock to push this news into the market as quickly as we can. That's my just thank you. Moving on across the battery sector and thinking about it quite carefully. When we began the IPO, this, you might have said, was a marginal activity to the overall running of the grid. Now it's very clear that BESS is central to a number of large economies and very much part of the norm, and that's been a big transition of size and scale and contribution. When we also think about these ecosystems, which include all the usual participants, the change and the rapid change has been the upscaling of renewables, wind and solar in different countries, but in the U.K. especially, hand-in-hand with the decline of what's called the dispatchable power base, i.e. the base that can be relied upon to deliver a solid base. Coal, nuclear. Coal has gone from the U.K. now. Nuclear is declining and maybe some years before it reappears as a major contributor, and the gas turbine fleet itself is pretty antique now, and that's an interesting question how that's going to go. Overall, BESS has become the go-to solution. It is very impactful economically and in the carbon footprint sense, also rapidly deployable at scale to match the upturn in the penetration of wind and solar. The other factor which we can all see around us is the ongoing electrification of society. Whether it be EVs, air source heat pumps, data centers, AI, it all puts pressure on the system, and that has come of age now too, so that journey is on. The most useful thing for us isn't just the idea. In fact, the means of doing it, big batteries, the cost base is declining. If I remember back to 2018, we got roughly 3 MWh in a 40-foot container. Now that number in a 20-foot container was six, and it is becoming more than that. We see the benefits of scale and technology impact. Of course, the situation in the world at large, in the Gulf and in Russia, is putting endless nervousness into the system, and I think we've a role to play. When BESS began for us in 2018, we were on the rapid response end of the market now. Now, with the worries about how the energy economy is going to work, there is a space opening up for long-duration energy storage. We firmly believe, from the examples of what we do, that this is a new play area for us to make serious money and to be a serious participant in helping get to the eight-hour and beyond world. James. Apart from the big picture, there is the reality of delivering GRID and its business outcomes. In November 2024 at the Capital Markets Day, we did something which was seen by some to be a bit bold, is to actually hang out our three-year plan to the market. That's quite a risky thing to do because there's lots of uncertainty. In the time that's gone past, and Ben will go into this in much more detail, the managers demonstrate their capacity to execute projects in a consistent, repeatable manner and be able to operate at scale. That stands GRID apart from the others. The operation at scale is a whole different world. In addition to running well and doing what we said we would do, we also needed to bring forward, as it were, the next generation pipeline and for the manager to prepare us for the scale-up as well. That's gone on, and we've done augmentations. We have a new pipeline. Of course, the other question for us is simply scaling up doesn't always enhance the EBITDA ratio, and Ben will talk more about the counter revenues as an EBITDA enhancement feature. In a sense, this is all very interesting as long as you have the money. That was another major breakthrough, and we think, I think, it's quite extraordinary what's been done here behind the scenes to pull together these deals with Sumitomo and TPK via STP. I think Ben will say more about that. It is, from my point of view, opening up and unlocking a pipeline that otherwise would be denied to us. In summary, from a board point of view, our objectives and commitment is to deliver shareholder value through NAV growth and the generation of free cash flow, so we can then revisit our capital allocation policy. With that broader frame, Ben, I really bring you across and let you color in the detail of this. You're on mute, Ben. I can run a fund, but I can't get off mute. Apologies, everybody. We're very excited to be here today. Thank you, John Leggate. I echo your comments in terms of attributing praise to all those who have done a huge amount of work, not least the board, over many hours over the last few, well, frankly, since the start, last few weeks in particular. Before we get into the meat of everything, we felt it was important to introduce the company to those of us who are not close to the story. This slide essentially introduces the company. We'll canter through fairly quickly through these slides because we want to have lots of time for Q&A at the back end. These slides will be available online so people can review them at their leisure. Just to let everyone know, there's lots of material available online already in the form of our annual report and other material. GRID is Gresham House Energy Storage Fund plc. We nickname it GRID. That's the ticker on the London Stock Exchange. It's an investment trust company. It's listed on the London Stock Exchange, on the Specialist Fund Segment of the market, and has been IPO since early November 2018. We invest, as is probably obvious, in a portfolio of battery energy storage systems. That's what BESS stands for, and they're located across GB, Great Britain, so England, Scotland, and Wales. To be honest, we only got projects in England and Scotland at this time. We can invest internationally, but have not to date. Our aim is to deliver a value to shareholders through income and capital growth. Although it's clear that at this stage we're very much focused, due to the heavy opportunity for growth, we're focused on recycling capital. Ultimately, we're looking to maximize capacity over time to grow our scale, and the importance of that is going to be clear, I hope. Obviously, maximizing unit revenues or revenues per MW, as we call them. Our capacity, we have grown very fast. Our capacity has grown from 70 MW at IPO to over 1,072 today. We have a 15% market share of the 70 GW market. We've, as will be obvious to those who have read the RNSs, followed our three-year plan. As we'll discuss in this session, we've got nearly 400 MW under construction as of today. The duration of the portfolio, in other words, the time it takes to charge or discharge the batteries in our portfolio in full, so fully charged or fully discharged, has gone from much less than an hour to about just under two hours expected by the end of this year as a function of the investments we're making to extend the durations of our projects, because there's a good case to do so from a return perspective. From a revenue mix perspective, as John said, this is an emerging space still today. The revenue mix has changed fairly dramatically and pretty much as we've expected from frequency response, let's call it electrical stability of the electricity in terms of its frequency, to effectively trading and moving large amounts of energy into and out of the market, creating artificial demand and supply as required to match to intermittent supply to demand. Crucially, our mix has gone from about 10% contracted to 50% plus at the moment. That says that we've introduced contracted revenues on the merchant side through floors and tolls. I'll come onto that. I think it's important to talk to our scale and expertise. The next slide will talk about expertise much more. In terms of scale, we are the largest player. I mentioned we're a gigawatt, or about 15% of the market. Having the opportunity to have scale also means that you can diversify your fleet. We have 30 projects today, and they're spread all over the country. We have a deep in-house expertise, and I'll come onto that in a moment. In terms of scale, I think you can't understate the point that, obviously, we're well-known to all the key suppliers and key service providers, and that does unlock competitive terms for us. Continuing to grow only reinforces this. Thanks, James. In terms of our experience and what we've hopefully demonstrated to the market to effectively evolve with the market, we've obviously grown our scale, and we've mentioned this. We've done a lot of other things. We've sought to create value from our existing projects incrementally. Asset enhancement, otherwise known as augmentations. We've augmented nine projects so far, and installed an incremental nearly half gigawatt hour through this method. Two of those nine are projects that we've already completed this year. There's a very heavy workload on our construction team, on that portion of the construction team this year. We look forward to completing the other six that we've got planned of the eight in total for the year. In terms of diversification and in terms of revenues and income streams, we first branched out into contracted revenues with a toll with Octopus Energy in 2024. We have since secured floor agreements on 1.6 GW. That includes the pipeline that we're building, the majority of it, not the Rayleigh project or the Lister project at this stage. This year, having run some pretty extensive trials over a long period and thought about this for a long time, we're launching our alternative revenue strategy really to increase revenues from the existing invested capital base. Last but not least, and also as John mentioned at the start, we've been innovative in our financing approach. We've attracted long-term capital from diverse sources to fund growth, and this is at a time when issuing equity or raising equity from the public markets at the PLC level, in other words, at the GRID level, has not been possible due to the share price trading below the NAV, which is a common feature of the investment trust space. We did a sort of, let's call it, I wouldn't want to call it a test, but it was a first go of raising funds at the project level or within the group. We did this first with Energea Invest to fund the Glassenbury augmentation. Really, we always create a win-win in these situations because the value created through that investment unlocks value for both parties and the cake can grow. Of course, we've done this on a much broader scale, and James will go into some detail on this, with Summit Transition Partners, which is a JV between Sumitomo and TPK. We're very excited about this transaction in terms of having visibility of funding for the foreseeable future in terms of the pipeline we've got. A lot of people at Gresham House have worked very hard over a long period of time on this transaction. In addition to that, we've obviously migrated our financing arrangements from a group level financing, fairly traditional corporate debt, which is relatively short maturity and not amortizing, to traditional project finance, which is amortizing. In other words, you pay it back like a mortgage, if you like. We've achieved that both at the senior level and then also importantly, we've secured attractively priced more junior debt in the form of an export credit agency-backed facility for two of our new projects. There's also other material on this page which I invite our investors to look at their leisure. In terms of this next section, James again, thank you. This is a quick review of the market and regulatory backdrop and outlook. I won't go through this page, because I feel it would take too long, but I'll give the highlights. John gave some of them as well. We're seeing the market electrify, if you like, the energy market electrify or electrification of the energy markets. That's resulting in demand growth for electricity in this country. Now, that's exciting because over the last 20 years, through 2024, we saw between 15%-20% decline in electricity demand as we saw energy efficiency measures taken in consumer devices from light bulbs to things consuming less energy, TVs and white goods. Now we're seeing the effects of electrification, whether it's EVs, incrementally heat pumps, potentially electric cookers and other devices, and just economic growth. The benefits of energy efficiency have played out, and now we've got true demand growth. We've got demand today of 33 GW. A projection in the market for 2030 is 38%. That's pretty substantial percentage growth. There's over 50 GW of demand in the queue for AI data centers alone. I don't know what percentage of those get built, but that's illustrative of the amount of demand that's coming for electricity in this country. That's very powerful in terms of better utilization of the fixed assets in our networks, which are our networks primarily, and helping bring down the cost of electricity. We're going to see the best efforts of CP2030 being achieved, which is Labour's plans to achieve clean power in 2030, or 95% of that is the latest measure that I've heard. We're going to see a doubling of renewable generation in this period, not quite a doubling of generating capacity, nameplate capacity. That goes from 54 GW to 92 GW. Most of this is in offshore wind or a large percentage, which means that generates much more power per unit of installed capacity than other technologies like solar in this country in particular. We are going to see a doubling of renewable generation, a doubling of intermittency, and a doubling of the need, frankly, of batteries in this timeframe. This is a very exciting backdrop. In the same timeframe, we're going to see gas assets, over half the fleet, about 15 GW, get to being over 30 years old. That means that a lot of that flex capacity, which is currently solving a lot of the intermittency challenges through generating in the troughs and curtailment of wind when there's too much of it, to a shift towards batteries, because it's just going to have to happen. The gas assets are not getting the contracts they need. What do we like to see in batteries? We've got 7 GW with a less than two-hour duration today. We're going to go to over 30 GW of storage, the majority of that being batteries. It's our belief that the average duration will head above 10 hours as costs fall and as the need becomes obvious. Just to elaborate on a couple of points. One of the key challenges that is very familiar to most of our investors is what's been going on in the control room. The control room has to make sure that the electricity flows in such a way that it meets demand, and not more and not less. Otherwise, the frequency changes and the lights go out very, very quickly and you get outages that can spread across countries. Batteries do a very good job of dealing with this, but so have historically other heavy assets like gas turbines, even coal generation in the past. The challenge has been that as batteries are much more competitive from a cost perspective, but are also dispatchable in a very short period. James, if you could just scroll forward. Thank you. The challenge has been that the batteries that we've installed have not been fully used, and therefore, that's been the missing piece to generating the full return that we've wished to deliver to our investors. Positively, this is acknowledged and understood. A large amount of investment, over GBP 100 million, has been spent by the control room, which manages the Balancing Mechanism, owned by NESO, the National Energy System Operator, which is a publicly owned company. They've installed physical data centers, they've updated software, they've positioned the control room such that it can become automated. A key missing piece is about to fall into place, which is, we call it by its technical code, which is GC0166, but ultimately, will be information that the control room's probably been crying out to have, which is how much energy is in a battery. If you've got a gas turbine, you can assume it'll run continuously. Finite duration assets, you need to communicate this information. That, even today, is not used in the control room, but will start to be used, if expectations are met, from next month. The working assumption is that it's 30 minutes today. That will become whatever it is in the battery, and that's a very powerful development, we believe. There are still some challenges. We're working through them. There's a willingness, of course, to see batteries ushered into the market because as John said, they are the key that unlocks the firming up of renewable power as other technologies diminish in scale on our networks, with coal having gone offline, nuclear not being able to provide flexibility, it runs at one level all the time, it's base load, and gas aging rapidly. That's an exciting development for us, hopefully coming in the near future. Finally, over the medium term, James, thank you, we've got the point around gas. What happens in a world where you've got 15 GW, this is on the left-hand side here, retiring by 2035? That's about half the national fleet. If you've got demand today of somewhere in the 30s in GW on average over time, troughing somewhere below 20, peaking somewhere in the high 40s, gas, in combination with nuclear and biomass and interconnectors, can meet demand most of the time. In some ways, we're quite doubled up in terms of fossil fuels and other sort of fuel technologies, and renewables and batteries on the other side. It's time that we start to see, let's call it the old fleet or the historical way of doing things, come off the system to bring down costs in the system. Also that would unlock the business case for batteries, truly. They become true critical national infrastructure. There's no second line of defense after the batteries. We just need lots of batteries. To reinforce this point, in the middle tile, this year as an example, we saw no Capacity Market contracts awarded to gas plants wishing to secure multi-year contracts to rebuild their sites. Not refurbishment, but rebuilding. That means that the likelihood is that gas plants won't be rebuilt or replaced, and in any case, as you've probably read in the mainstream press, lead times for equipment are extremely long and lengthening around the world for things like gas turbines. Costs are obviously going up as well. Battery costs are coming down, gas costs are going up, and lead times are going up as well. The likelihood is that we end up with a system that's absolutely dominated by batteries. The challenges that remain around gas assets being prioritized over batteries, and resulting in these skip rates that we're concerned about, that mechanically just falls off the system increasingly as we see more batteries built and gas decommissioned. That was the sort of backdrop. Thank you for your patience on this. Now we'll get into the meat of the topic. We'd first like to start by reviewing our three-year plan. As John said, it was a bold move by the company a year and a half ago. We were excited by it at the time. We're at least as excited by it now with the changes that we're due to present today. Let's stick to we first having a revenue run rate of GBP 45 million on our 1,070 MW portfolio. That was based on the revenue rate at the time, the short period before that. We assumed that if we got our 1,072 MW online fully, which we've done since, although some are being augmented now and therefore not fully online, but nonetheless, the underlying capacity is there. At the revenue rate in, I believe, August 2024, the achievable EBITDA for the company would be GBP 45 million. We have some augmentations delivering GBP 33 million with a blend of two-hour augmentations, and then up to four hours on a handful of projects, where it's possible to do, thanks to the size of the site. Finally, alternative revenues. A new way of making money from batteries. If I'm candid, if we were to start again today, it may be that the alternative revenue strategy was the cornerstone, and what we do today is the additional piece. I'm not saying it's more important, I'm just saying it's a powerful strategy, and we're excited to talk about it. Then we left a bar there to talk about potential upside from the market improving. Sorry, James. In terms of progress on the current three-year plan, what have we achieved so far? We did complete our construction during 2025. We did put tolls in place. That was done, and the revenue run rate and EBITDA run rate was achieved. Augmentations. As we'll mention shortly, the augmentation strategy has been capped at the augmentation to two hours, with the augmentation to 1.5 hours pivoting towards a bigger step to eight hours in due course, and we'll explain why. In terms of new pipeline, unfortunately, in the interim period, the country's gone through what has been called queue reform or the Gate 2 process for those technically close to it, run by NESO as well. Unfortunately, delays to that process have meant that connections of all projects, whether they're wind, solar, batteries, or anything else, have been pushed out as all the connections were reviewed, and then connection offers reissued, sometimes with changed dates. Unfortunately for a couple of our projects, the dates did change, we can get into construction now on three 97 MW and have two 97 MW to start later, probably construction start next year, for connection in 2029. We've received those offers, at least we've got the visibility around them. Just to highlight the small difference, we're at 694 MW from that suite rather than 680 due to a couple of changes in the projects. Alternative revenues, we've absolutely cracked on with that, and that we believe is on track to deliver the GBP 25 million revenue, EBITDA, sorry, and it is revenue and EBITDA are very similar. The costs of this activity are ultimately the cost of the projects, those already are incurred and sunk costs. We, at the time, had a sense of what we were doing and had agreements in principle of what we would do. We've since then done a lot of testing, got a full agreement, scaling up with a roots market provider, and look forward to doing so in a cautious way, but nonetheless, in a determined way over the next year to 18 months as we get towards the end of the 2027 period. That all resulted originally in a plan for GBP 150 million. The current plan with alternative revenues completed, the current augmentations are reset to assume lower revenues, just honestly passing through lower assumptions in curves and uplifts in curves from two to four hours, and the delays to the pipeline mean that by the end of 2027, or once all this construction is completed, the initial construction, we'd be at GBP 104 million of our GBP 150 million target. Next slide, please, James. Now, what's the backdrop to our updated, what we're calling our growth plan, more generically? We've thought a lot about the investments we're making, and clearly, as I mentioned a moment ago, the missing piece has been truly delivering the revenues and therefore the return on capital that we'd expected on the business when we set out. A lot of that is driven by the backdrop, which is this skip rate topic, which is why we're of course focusing on alternative revenues, and we'll touch on that a lot more in a moment. We've also thought hard about what we can do from the capital side of the business. When we set out on this three-year plan, augmentations to two hours were the highest returning opportunities. That's what we focused on. Acquiring and building new two-hour projects was at number two. It achieved the second greatest return on capital. Third came incremental augmentations beyond two hours. As we've reviewed our access to capital and our wish to maximize ROE, and given that we've got a larger pipeline available to us, we've effectively focused increasingly on priorities one and two, and for the time being, especially given all the technical developments in the industry and technology, we're pausing on priority number three with the likelihood being that the next augmentation is not from two to four hours, but two to eight hours or more, and I will come onto that. That is the backdrop to what we thought about before presenting the actual plan. Let's go into the plan now. The next slide as well. We've been optimizing capital allocation to maximize ROE. Let's just jump straight into it. In terms of augmentations, these were funded through the upsize senior debt that was underpinned by our floor contracts on the existing portfolio. We've needed no additional equity to build this out. Any incremental augmentations above that would've required a large amount of equity. New projects, we've now got a funding formula, which unlocks our growth. That's a crucial point in itself. It's a combination of senior and junior and third-party equity, which minimizes the amount of equity that's required from Grid. What we essentially do, and James will go into more detail, is obviously Grid acquires the project rights, is able to then raise money at an increased premium pre-money valuation, on the basis that the projects are incrementally de-risked from the point that they're acquired to the point that their further capital is raised, effectively making an instant return at that point, even though it's not crystallized from any exit perspective or cash perspective. Alternative revenues, this only requires, incrementally, regulatory capital and some working capital, and therefore is very high ROE as well. If we look at this graphically on the right-hand side, the original EBITDA, as a ratio of original GRID capital, was already pretty attractive, we felt, driven significantly by alternative revenues, but also the augmentations, the whole lot. We've marginally reduced our EBITDA target as a function of the dilution that we experience through our new pipeline. It results in a much smaller level of capital, which I think de-risks our growth, and we believe that we've got a win-win here. I'll let James elaborate on that in due course. Therefore, the resulting bridge now is not completely different. It's the same elements to it. We start with a slightly more positive revenue backdrop because late 2024 was a fairly weak environment. More recent trading suggests that we should be able to achieve somewhere in the mid-50s. We've got a much more modest figure for augmentations of just GBP 7 million. Again, that's not just reflecting the smaller investment, but also a lower assumption for augmentations, which I personally feel is probably too low, but we're using third-party figures here. Our new pipeline, the figures are now GBP 55 million, the alternative revenue figure is unchanged. We've ended up with a slightly lower EBITDA target, but a massively lower, 90%, greater than 90% reduction in total capital required. I think that's key for the overall return on equity for the business because that's what drives success in businesses, we believe strongly. Looking at this in a similar context to the last plan with timeframes detailed, in the 2025 context, we've already talked about achieving what we achieved. The augmentations of the existing portfolio to 2 hours, they're no longer through to 2027. We aim to achieve these in 2026 due to the scale back, but it is all achieved sooner. In terms of new pipeline, 400 MW is now achieved in a 2027 context in terms of connecting. 777 MW incrementally, due to our pipeline increasing now to 1,174 MW is achieved through 2029 with the assumption there that the Rayleigh connection date is in 2029, and it may be slightly different because we have not received that connection or feedback yet from NESO in the queue reform process. Alternative revenues, we continue to target the same timeframe for this with a resulting GBP 141 million EBITDA, because we only own 75% of the new pipeline, and we've got less capital committed to augmentations, but with an overall higher ROE picture and then just to sort of highlight, and again, James will talk to this, is that we will still stay well within our debt limits. Page 22, next page, just as a summary of which is to highlight that we believe we're a growth company, and not valued as one. I think we've got a lot going on, and I suspect, and we believe the reasons are we didn't demonstrate the ability to grow through the funding, access to funding, and we've not demonstrated fully the revenue potential of this industry and business, and we look forward to demonstrating both of those and hopefully, seeing the results in the share price as well. Talking to all of the above in NAV terms, we thought we'd provide an illustration. We've got the current NAV at GBP 1.14 per share. We've modeled through the build-out of our pipeline, with augmentations already mostly reflected in the NAV, as they're already underway. From the new pipeline alone, and there's nothing in here for alternative revenues. We model a GBP 0.56 in a central case, increase in NAV per share, which is roughly a 50% increase on today's NAV. What's that driven by? Well, we've taken a slight discount to what our assets are valued at on a two-hour basis in our accounts, and compared that with the cost of building the projects, which is a little under GBP 500,000/MW. We think we're pretty competitive on that basis. We capture effectively 75% of that, and when you multiply that up by the number of megawatts and divide by the number of shares, and there's a footnote on this, and always happy to take questions, you get to between 54 and 58, hence the 56 P target uplift. Hopefully, that's some useful context to where we end up. Important to note that Cockenzie, Monet's, and Elland 2 that are underway now, there's nearly 400 MW that we're building now. We'll be reflected initially in the NAV at the mid-year stage because the trigger for valuing projects on a DCF basis is the start of construction. Of course, we're valuing those with a fallow period from today to the point of commissioning, and we're also valuing them at a larger discount rate, so we won't see the full third of the GBP 0.56, but we will have unlocked it. Going into each prong, you may jump two slides, I think, James. We're first talking about augmentations and effectively what we've digested from the market in terms of our revised plans on augmentations, but it also goes to the new pipeline as well. I'll just pause there for a second to let James represent. Sorry about that, and it's back up again. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. This page basically speaks to what's going on in the marketplace that affects our investment decisions from a battery perspective. First, CapEx costs are falling fast. This is on the total cost per kilowatt. You could also do it per megawatt and divide by 1,000. In 2024 prices, the cost of a 10-hour system. On a per kilowatt-hour basis, you'd divide that by 10. What's interesting about 10-hour systems is that they're cheaper per kilowatt-hour or per megawatt-hour, per unit of energy stored, than a two-hour system. I'll come onto that. Essentially, that is a big important driver. Not only is this trend going down, this underlying trend for longer duration systems runs below on a per unit of energy stored basis, per kilowatt-hour basis. It runs cheaper than shorter duration technologies, and that's a key point and a key reason why we've decided to pause and take the next leap at a longer duration energy course. The next graph along is there's a lot of assumptions that sit behind this chart, but essentially what it says is that the value to the system, to the network, effectively, or to the consumer, of having batteries performing the task of flexibility, of balancing supply and demand, is much more valuable and effectively will result in lower electricity prices than if we fill troughs in renewable generation with gas-fired power plants and literally lose and curtail the wind off the top when we've got too much of it. That which is effectively what's happening a lot of the time at the moment. By replacing that mode of operation with an increasing number of batteries at an increasing duration, 10 hours plus, the value to the system is very, very significant and savings will show through. Finally, on the right-hand side, the middle chart shows this for batteries. If you were to run this with any other competing storage technology, whether it's pump storage hydro, of which we've got a significant amount, in terms of legacy assets in this country, they're all over 50 years old. Or newer technologies like liquefied air or compressed air energy storage, we have a far more competitive picture with a lithium ion. With that picture diverging increasingly. In other words, lithium ion batteries at eight hours and longer are falling in cost, while we're observing that inflation tends to grab and make these other systems more expensive because they're so heavy in civil engineering costs and larger operating costs as well. Essentially, all this points to batteries gaining in competitiveness, but also putting a focus on jumping to a longer duration first, in the next step. Let's go into that in a little bit more detail. If you were to build a new project today and consider a design, you could choose four hours, or you could choose eight hours. I'll come onto the technicals in a moment in terms of the cost of building them. From a revenue perspective, obviously longer duration BESS /MWh will earn less than a two-hour system, but their costs tail off. They're also able to capture spreads for much longer as well. They do capture a lot of value and are more suitable for the system based on everything I've said so far. From a contractual perspective, there are two routes to market. There's a new scheme altogether we call the Long Duration Energy Storage Cap and Floor scheme, which the government has introduced and is managed by Ofgem. We'll wait and see whether any of our new pipeline projects are awarded contract. They've all been stated, or all our larger contract projects have been stated as being eligible for contracts. We will find out in the next two or three months whether we are awarded an LDES Cap and Floor contract, and those contracts are quite attractive. They're 25-year contracts linked to CPI with caps and floors. The floor achieves an attractive return. The cap obviously limits that return. It doesn't do so horribly. It's not a hard cap. You still capture some of the upside. From a floor perspective, floor or tolled plus Capacity Market. These are the contracts that you can secure already for two hours or eight hours or any duration. What's interesting about Capacity Market contracts is that the remuneration from them goes up in a linear fashion. Even though merchant income tails off and the costs crucially tail off, the underlying contracted revenue from Capacity Market contract goes up in a linear fashion, resulting in quite an attractive overall potential return, obviously depending on where the Capacity Market clears in any one year. Those contracts are CPI linked as well for 15 years, and therefore highly bankable. There are a couple of options emerging. When you compare that with what I'll add now, which is the technical rationale, when you build a four-hour system, you're roughly doubling up on the cost of a two-hour system at the battery level. Obviously, you're not installing other electrical conversion equipment or grid connection equipment, but you are doubling up on batteries, and very similar batteries, and therefore a similar incremental cost. If you jump to an eight-hour system, these are much simpler. They're cycled so much more gently that the liquid cooling can be removed, and that's a highly complex system. It's lower cost and you get better density. You've got more room in the containers. You've got lower charge-discharge rates also result in better round-trip efficiency. You lose less electricity or less energy per cycle. The cycle life, because they're treated more gently, also extends longer. Also you're taking less cycles per day as well, so that's another driver of cycle life. Then because you've got less liquid cooling or fans or any other things, your auxiliary load to keep these things sort of operating also falls, which results in lower cost. You get the smaller auxiliary transformers, for example, and better round trip efficiency again. As I mentioned earlier, it's just the solution that's more future-proof for the system as well. Overall, we've got the technical and the route to market lining up quite well to suggest that in an incremental step, we may do things to an eight-hour duration. Just to caveat that we have not included anything in that context in today's three-year plan, but may be a feature of future iterations. Moving quickly to the next slide, we've got just a review of the augmentations we're carrying out, and it's a list of eight, and they are the two-hour augmentations. For completeness, we've included these in the presentation, but we can move on. In terms of the potential for building new projects to a longer duration, taking Ocker Hill and Rayleigh as examples of sites that can be built to eight hours and may even be awarded LDES contracts, they represent 61% of our pipeline. They can be built to an eight-hour duration for a number of reasons. First of all, we've got large enough land parcels. They've been told they're eligible for cap and floor. The later commissioning dates of these projects in 2029, there's a silver lining here, which is that eight-hour plus equipment will have time to ramp up from a manufacturing perspective and to bed down to iron out potential software or technical issues. They're already being built in China, by the way, so they're already effectively being live tested, but it's nice to have a good run-in period. We do anticipate, subject to final review of investment decisions, the capital to be available, and as I've said a couple of times, that it is more future-proofed. The resulting duration of just doing those two projects to an eight-hour plus duration is a circa four-hour duration for the overall portfolio. You'd end up in a similar place to where we would have initially intended, potentially even longer. Just for illustration purposes, if you look at on the right-hand side, you can see the Rayleigh two-hour design here that we originally submitted and got approved from a planning perspective. On the lower right-hand side, you've got the more dense modern equipment available, and it does occupy more space, but it's still within our what we call red line boundary, the permitted area. You can see that we're able to fit, and this is actually a 10-hour plus design, to allow for the system to not need augmentation for effectively its entire design life, which is 30 years. That's quite an exciting picture there. Another important point about Rayleigh and Ocker Hill, but more so Rayleigh, is that it's in the Essex area and therefore very well located to deal with a lot of the offshore wind that's landing following the awards of the latest Allocation Round 7, which is the Allocation Round 7 of these contracts with different auctions for wind and solar that took place earlier this year, which is a good indicator that we're going to need even more storage in the area that Rayleigh sits in. James, I'm going to hand to you, and take a drink. Thank you very much. Thanks, Ben. As we've highlighted a couple of times through this presentation, the primary focus from a returns perspective was on the augmentation to two hours, which we've now effectively completed through the course of this year. There are some exciting developments on longer duration, eight hour plus, as Ben's talked to. We're monitoring those developments, particularly as the technology comes through over the next year, which could be attractive value adds for the new pipeline, as well as existing assets, which we'll monitor over the time being. The next focus from a returns perspective is on new projects at two hours, which is the next optimal return. On that basis, we're delighted to announce that there's a further 480 MW added to our pipeline from the original three-year plan in the form of Rayleigh, which is a strategically important asset for the U.K., with it being located close to London. We don't currently have the firm date for the connection. We expect that very soon through the Gate 2 process. As we've already alluded to, we're targeting a 2029 date, subject to final confirmation on that point. That takes our new pipeline to 1.2 GW and our overall portfolio to 2.2 GW and 4.4 GWh, which is substantially larger than where we are today. From those numbers, we already have 397 MW fully funded and have already started construction. The connections for those are through 2027. Cockenzie COD will be slightly later, just given the size of that asset and the time to get that converted from the connection point. That starts in early 2028. The remaining 777 MW are by the end of 2030 is where we're targeting, but at the moment, 2029, subject to where we get to on Gate 2. The combination of all of this, as we've already highlighted at the start when we talked about the growth plan, is a GBP 55 million contribution to EBITDA. That contribution is after taking account of the 75% ownership that we've put together in the funding structure. That's one part of the equation, the returns from the different investment opportunities we've got available to us, and we're doing what we can to optimize those returns. The other side of the equation is equally as important, which is the funding structure. We're really pleased with what we've done over the last few weeks and what we've achieved with the announcements over the course of the last two weeks. We've been able to put in place a funding structure for the first three projects. Not only that, we've also created a template for future pipeline, for the development of the further 777 MW portfolio. Just to break that down, I'll cover each one separately as well in a little bit more detail. On the equity funding side, we announced this week. This is really exciting. We're bringing two very strong counterparties with their own expertise, but an interest in developing energy transition assets. What we've been able to do with this is we've been able to crystallize some of the value we've been creating on these project rights, so that we're able to sell them at a premium to incoming investors. That premium allows us to cover some of the cost of the equity commitment up front and therefore reduce the day one requirement from grid and boost our overall equity returns. In addition to that, we've got senior debt like we typically have and typically see with project finance deals. That covers up to 70% of the total cost and is amortized over 15+ years. The repayment profile is over that 15+ year time frame. Another exciting development over recent weeks, which we've been working on for a few months now. It's a landmark transaction around export credit. This allows us to defer a fairly substantial part of the BESS equipment cost, which broadly speaking, covers up to half of the overall cost of a project. 25% broadly, the cost of two of the projects, is covered through this export credit arrangement. This allows us to defer that 50% of BESS equipment over 10 years rather than paying that up front, which again, reduces the upfront capital requirement, but also improves our overall return from these projects. All of these things we're trying to implement is to drive further returns on those attractive investments in the first place. An important point to point out is there is no cross-collateralization in this structure. The structure on the right-hand side is for an individual project basis, so each project has an SPV project. It then has a holdco, that holdco is invested into 75/25 between ourselves and our JV partner, STP. This form of structure allows for a template for future growth, we can roll this out in both the senior debts, the export credit, and the JV for future pipeline, that's a key focus of both ourselves and our JV partners, STP. As we've highlighted at the bottom, this is a win-win for everyone. It boosts our return on capital. Brings in a well-established partner in the space with their own expertise, which we can develop and grow together. Ultimately for GRID, it reduces the net equity commitment on day one, boosting our overall returns. I'll cover each part quickly on their own, just to provide that detail. Export credit's on the left-hand side. This is 50% of the BESS payments. We've done this so far on Monet's Garden and Cockenzie. Elland 2 isn't done in this structure, but all subsequent projects is intended to follow this structure. This is a landmark transaction, as I've already highlighted. This is the first of its kind for BESS assets, and adds an extra layer of the funding opportunity available to us. It's also priced very attractively. This is because it's insurance-backed at the other end, which means the price is a fixed price, but it was based off 160 basis points over SONIA, so cheaper than typical senior debt we've seen for BESS projects to date. Again, enhancing our returns. This is a repeatable funding approach. We've got good relationships now with the funders for this and the insurers, and this is something that we would like to roll out with future projects as well. On the right-hand side, we cover the senior debts. This typical project finance structures, it's up to 70% of the cost and 15+ years for repayment. The margin is slightly higher than our operational facility at 250 basis points, but this is due to it covering the construction period as well. There is no change in that margin over time. There's no increase in the back end. This stays flat at 250 basis points. So far, we've raised GBP 141 million for the investment across Cockenzie, Monet's Garden, and Elland 2. This completes our funding structure and allows us to start building these assets, which had started prior to the funding being fully in place, but can now start in full, as we target the connection dates next year. What's interesting about the senior debt structure is also a variable repayment structure. This allows for movements in the revenue environments to not impact the debt as severely as a traditional structure would. This means, therefore, that the repayment requirements of different years can fluctuate if revenues are lower in that period, which helps to maintain coverage over our debt servicing. Again, this is a repeatable structure. We can add this to future projects, and that work has already begun on a couple of other projects already as well. On to the joint venture then. This is a really exciting opportunity. More generally, this brings in some extra expertise. Sumitomo is a global energy transition platform investor. They've worked across multiple countries, but also focused on U.K. across the full energy transition fleet. They've got background in batteries as well, and a strong commitment to U.K. investment at the moment. TPK Holdings are also a technology innovator and have significant supply chain expertise. All of this combines to a group that can enable and find additional value across the structure when building these projects. This has been established with them. They're a key funding relationship. The intention here is to help fund some of that equity gap for new projects so we can keep building the growth in the fund. The structure of this comes in the way of a 25% stake in each of the projects. Again, these are individually invested, separate projects. The majority of that consideration is paid upfront. There are some completion milestones for a small element, although those completion milestones are linked to delivery at Cockenzie, so expected in early next year, per the construction timeline. There's also exclusivity on the next two of the pipeline projects, Lister Drive and Ocker Hill. There's conversations around Rayleigh beyond that and future pipeline as well. The intention here is a long-term relationship with them for projects that we can bring in to invest in together. The equity is raised at the project level rather than at the GRID level. Each of these investments come in specifically at the project or the holdco of the project, and it's to unlock the growth for both of us. They're relying on our expertise and this pipeline that we can bring to them, and we're relying on them to help with the funding of the equity gap to build the overall portfolio between us. This is an attractive update, which we're very pleased to announce ahead of the CMD so we can talk about it today. Undoubtedly, there'll be questions around debt levels. New pipeline is funded with a large part coming from senior debt in particular. We've been modeling this out. Obviously, we will not exceed our debt limits as a firm requirement, and that's something we've been maintaining when looking at all of these deals. We're comfortable with that approach. We're comfortable the numbers show that we're staying within those. Obviously, the debt levels do grow. We are building new assets and bringing down debt to pay for those. There is an amortization profile for each of the debt structures. By phasing the pipeline, we've got the first 397 MW that starts to repay as well as the operational portfolio starts to repay ahead of fully drawing down the next batch of the 777 MW of pipeline. Between that, we're able to maintain our overall debt levels. Debt servicing is substantially covered by our contracted revenues. When we talk about coverage here, we talk about not only the debt service and so the principal interest repayments, but also the full cost base of each of these assets. The contracted revenues covers the vast majority of that. For the operational portfolio, it's fully covered. For new projects, the leverage levels are slightly higher, so therefore, we're not fully covered by the contracted revenues, but that's where the variable repayment profile comes in handy of if there are worsening environments in the revenues, the repayment profile can adjust for that to ensure we maintain coverage across the portfolio as well. The amortization structure, again, just points out at the bottom, it just ensures we can maintain our debt limits while building out this pipeline and continuing to grow. I'll hand over to Ben Guest now to talk around the alternative revenues, which is the next pillar of adding value to the overall proposition. Thank you, James. To sort of recap on the new pipeline, we've unlocked this growth. I can't state it strongly enough because this is a one-time transition, this is why we're focused on capital recycling. The transition will be largely complete in a handful of years. We're using a small amount of equity. A couple of things we haven't mentioned, which I thought I'd throw in on reflection is, the leverage might look higher, it is, it's also as a percentage of a lower construction cost. We've got a very competitive construction cost, our two-hour designs are not two-hour designs. They are two-hour usable designs for a long period of time in that we are building these projects out to 2.4-hour initial durations. It's important to sort of highlight that these are sort of well-designed projects. We're not sort of scraping through with the minimal requirement. Yeah. One other point to add there, Ben, is obviously the debt is growing, but also the asset base. This is large value assets that we're building over time, which helps to maintain that leverage level. Absolutely. Onto alternative revenues. We've been talking about this for a long time. We're now getting into the delivery of this strategy. This first slide is a landing page in some ways to recap what we shared at the annual report with a couple more details sort of extracted from different parts of the annual report into one place. First of all, we're scaling up after a series of successful trials. This is going to be a measured scale-up, but is nonetheless the real deal. These are not just alternative revenues, but additional or additive revenues. They are in addition to the revenues we're already capturing. There's a broadly an inverse correlation between the revenues that we capture today and the revenues that will be captured from this strategy. It, we believe, changes and overall improves the risk profile of the overall business. We've spent a lot of time validating this strategy. We've back-tested over many years that have been very volatile from a gas price perspective, where we've seen many different dislocations in the market, either caused by Ukraine, long Dunkelflaute, which are only going to grow, and so on, to make sure that we really understand how we can scale this and the ratio of the existing portfolio to the new strategy. The expected outcome from this is a GBP 5-GBP 10 / MWh revenue line, and that's similar to what we're earning today from the existing portfolio. For context, and we share this in the annual report, our trial, perhaps exceptionally, so we wouldn't want people to discount this fully, achieved GBP 23 / MWh after fees. That is something that's lending some confidence to our efforts. Moving to the next page, just to give you some of the history here. Just page four, James, if you haven't yet. Thank you. To date, the revenues generated by batteries, not just ours, but pretty much every battery in the market, is effectively through trading in the wholesale market, intra-day or in the day-ahead auctions, or by offering themselves to be traded in the Balancing Mechanism, in NESO's control room, and as well as other, what we call ancillary services in the industry, which provide sort of services which can't be really paid for or remunerated through in the same way as trading can, and there's sort of availability and utilization payments in the frequency response area and other areas too. The challenges that we face, and I've mentioned some of these through the presentation, are high skip rates, and some of the residual challenges that will remain even once we've got the GC0166 code implemented next month and the control room can really see into our batteries. There's still the wish to prioritize long notification assets, in other words, gas assets primarily because they become unavailable first. They need warming up for longer. There's a defaulting to, we must keep the lights on and have the most available to us, and therefore, ironically, the best assets are left to last. This is a fundamental issue that we are still living with and gradually gets resolved as we see gas-fired generation come off the system, as I mentioned as well. This is a persistent challenge. Of course, this is likely to improve and we're working with NESO because they want the batteries to come online and to get built and investment cases to be robust. Nevertheless, the income from our BESS have disappointed to date. As a result, I think, of the context that we've been operating, we've been, and we as an industry, have been underpaid. We earn 2%-3% of the final electricity price. The final electricity price might be GBP 250 per hour, and a battery, on average through a day, would capture, today, six, seven, sometimes eight, sometimes a bit more, pound per megawatt per hour. That's obviously disappointing and the expectation is that that goes up, and the outlook is for that to improve. Nevertheless, we have felt the need to diversify away from this challenge. What we've done over many years is to explore and understand fully the value chain in the electricity market, see who is making money and how, and identify ways that we could jump into areas of the value chain where more money is being made. We've known where the value is, for some time. The challenge has been in executing in this from a route to market perspective, given that we use our batteries already in a certain way, and so how do we set it up? We have found a solution, and this is what, in addition to the trials, provides that confidence that we can deliver on our target. Next slide, please. How does it work? We've got some commercial sensitivities here, but I think we can start to peel back the onion a little and to give our investors some color so that they have an appreciation for what's going on. At the moment, as I mentioned earlier, grid buys and sells power very short-term, intra-day, and we only sell what we've bought in the very recent past in our batteries. The alternative and additional strategy is to commit to sell power over longer periods in larger volumes, and it's larger volumes because when you're trading a battery intra-day, you're charging some of the day, you're discharging some of the day, and your overall revenue is over those two periods, and there are fallow periods in between. If you're committing to sell over longer periods, you're generating revenue every single hour. Of course, if you balance that with a volume of supply, which is obviously cheaper, you can create a new spread, and which can be contracted over longer periods. It can be three months, six months, 12 months, and longer still. Then what we then do is, to the extent that the majority, if not all the volume of supply to match the demand, is intermittent, grid manages the imbalances by effectively trading the volume imbalances. That's what batteries do, and these trades are essentially the same trades that are being carried out already intra-day, because effectively the price signals that the batteries follow to trade are similar or the same as the drivers to source more energy or to effectively discharge your battery or to charge it because power prices are low. The only difference here then is not so much the trading, but that for this strategy, these trades protect an existing spread because you'll be storing power when it's cheap rather than storing it and selling it on into the market at a very low price and creating a negative spread at that point in time. You're protecting a spread, while for the existing strategy, it naturally generates a spread. You're buying low and selling higher. This is why these two strategies are essentially inversely correlated and why you're essentially using the same asset base to layer on an additional revenue stream. You end up with what I sometimes call the Pac-Man. You've got a graph or a timeline of revenues from our existing revenues, a layer of revenues that sit above that in alternative revenue strategy, and then any variability in between the two largely marry up, hence the sort of teeth of a Pac-Man, I suppose. You end up with a broadly less volatile overall strategy, with the incremental risk, because there's never a free lunch. The incremental strategy and the thing we need to model is to understand the tail risks, exceptionally long Dunkelflaute, for example, or exceptionally long stormy periods where there's an awful lot of wind, and that goes beyond the ability for our batteries to store them. Those are the sort of tail events which we've modeled and will drive the ratio of the two strategies. How many megawatts do we have in alternative revenues versus the total number of megawatts available to us in the portfolio? Rather than going into more detail in terms of what we do, who we're working with, because this is very commercially sensitive at this stage, I think it's important to highlight the layers of value or work that are needed to unlock this. First, you need to understand the opportunity in all sorts of respects. You need to understand the regulatory framework, how money is made, where the value is today, modeling the risks and those tail events and possible exposures that you have, derive a trading strategy, and then identify a way to implement that strategy. That's what we mean when we say route to market. It's how do we implement this strategy? Who do we work with to do so, to achieve success? In this case, how do we implement this strategy so that we don't disrupt or interfere with the existing business that the portfolio has, especially given it provides floors and underpinnings to our overall portfolio and debt service. These are sort of ingredients which I hope help explain what we're doing, and we look forward to providing further updates in due course. With that, we're going to start to conclude and then go into Q&A. The next slide is literally the same slide as before, just to remind people. We're looking for an overall target adjusted for minority stakes of GBP 141 million of EBITDA, but delivered with a dramatically lower equity requirement than we would have expected initially. We're staying within our debt limits, minimizing equity and maximizing ROE for the portfolio. This is all driven by the sum of the points above, which are a slightly improved revenue backdrop from the existing portfolio, a set of augmentations which will be completed this year, not in 2027, taking the overall portfolio to just under two hours. Basically, we'll have augmented every project to two hours, bar a small handful of mostly smaller and older projects. The new investment pipeline is much larger now, but unfortunately, some of that is delayed. From an alternative revenue perspective, hopefully the additional detail we've provided shows that we're underway there. With that, I'm going to just cover one more slide and then hand back to John. Just to recap again, prioritizing investments with highest ROE, lowest equity requirement, and enabling us to grow with very little equity capital coming from GRID. We've upped the pipeline to over a gigawatt incrementally, seeing us more than double in megawatt terms and much more significantly from a megawatt-hour perspective. The portfolio, as I mentioned, will reach a roughly two-hour duration by the end of this year. We haven't mentioned this yet in this presentation, but we're continuing to target the GBP 0.10 of free cash flow that we highlighted at the interim stage last year. We can see the summary points again. GBP 141 million of EBITDA, GBP 0.56 of potential uplift from NAV per share based on the mid case that we highlighted. From a dividend perspective, and John's going to speak further, which obviously speaks to capital allocation, we have a small dividend promised for this year, and then going forward, the public statements we've made are that we deliver fully covered half-yearly dividends. That compares with quarterly dividends in the past. John, back to yourself, sir. You're on mute, John. Good. Thanks, Ben, and thanks James for somehow offering a précis of this topic. It is maybe we could be here for many hours. Thank you, Ben, for being so careful to package it, to make it digestible to our investors as well. We can follow up in more detail in the Q&A, I'm sure. I want to summarize where we are. We've heard, and heard from me, heard from Ben, the structural drivers of value here are in play. This is a business at scale in the world, actually, which has come of age. I think from that point of view, BESS is here now. The issue is then to keep the game going, to upscale and to drive more value. We've set some new growth targets with higher returns and lower equity. I think that, again, the funding mechanism that the manager put in place is really quite remarkable. You can probably take from what Ben and James said, over the years, the managers have established a phenomenal record, I would say, for delivery. That is not a question simply of just do, and do, but building the capability, the technical, the management skills, and they're quite remarkable to find in a company like this. I commend Ben and Rupert enormously for building and offering the board a company set of capabilities that can deliver on its promises. We're going to grow the portfolio, we've said that already, and to increase the free cash flow. As we do the free cash flow, clearly, that allows us choice to make. On the NAV, this is not hypothetical. We ought to see that feed into the system earlier. Probably, I think at the end of this quarter, we'll book some growth, I hope, all being well. The journey is on to access the upside to NAV. Overall, and to summarize it, I will tell you that the board is very dedicated to this situation, but very excited because it's always on the move. We can see now, with line of sight, future prospects for the company and significant value creation. With that, Rupert, we'll hand back to you. Thanks, John, for those concluding remarks, and Ben and James for your insightful presentation. It's clearly been an exceptionally busy time for the company. As John says, takes many in the team to execute on the strategy. There are many people, obviously, that sit behind Ben and James who've contributed to the execution over the last several months and previous years. Let's get into Q&A. Please send in your questions, and we'll aim to answer as many as we can in the following 45 minutes. Let me get in for the first one. John, maybe this is one for you, but by all means, deflect it if you feel appropriate. Do you have plans to migrate from the Specialist Fund Segment? A number of other trusts have recently done so. That's a conversation which we've looked at in the past. In the more recent times, the board's focus with the manager is delivery on our promises, and that exactly is what we've done. Now we're moving into the delivery side of that, not just the implementation, but making it work. We are open to ideas, and we will think about that again. We've explored it, but it'd be wrong to say we're going to do it. Certainly, as we grow and get confident in the company's deliverability and capabilities can be shown, then moving to a different sector could be a possibility, Rupert, but I wouldn't want to say that it's top of the list of things to do at the moment. Okay. Thank you, sir. Ben, the political mood seems to be shifting against the high system costs of net zero. Were net zero to be delayed by, say, 10 years, how would this impact the fund? It's an interesting question. I spend quite a lot of time thinking about how to address questions of this type. This particular scenario you highlight is probably a very negative one. If things were to stall, if we were to rip up every single unbuilt renewable project, and seek ways to continue and extend the life of gas assets, for example. That's the only way you could extend and delay net zero or whatever we want to call it, the transition initially. The electrification is happening. EVs are more competitive than regular cars. We've got the volatility in oil prices driving demand for EVs anyway. We've got the electrification of heat. It's been delayed in this country, but it's coming. The adoption, we've got the AI demand as well. The demand for electricity is going to go up. If we do decide to not build any of the renewables or a large portion of them that are contemplated, effectively, the refreshing of our generation fleet and the incremental fleet that's needed to meet the growth and demand won't exist. Therefore, you can't. Certain politicians or prospective politicians can make a lot of noise about this transition being very expensive or wrong, but the counterfactual, which is a favorite expression in the industry, the alternative doesn't exist. We've gone through high 90% of the gas and oil in the North Sea. Fine, we could potentially do a little bit more there. It would be incrementally expensive. It wouldn't last very long. The reality is that most of the dispatchable generation that exists today is gas fired. We've all seen what's going on in the broader world geopolitically. I wonder if that actually helps the pendulum start to swing back a bit. It's interesting how resilient that topic is. The reality is that we're building out, and we are starting to see the impact of all this renewable generation driving down wholesale prices. With the residual challenge being on everything else, which are network costs and subsidy costs. Subsidy costs will roll off in due course. They will take some time. If we have more demand, we'll have a network better utilized, and then the fixed cost of the network will be spread over more units of energy, more megawatt hours, kilowatt hours. I do question whether, over the medium term, electricity prices from renewables will really end up being as inflationary versus the alternative as everybody says. Anyway, I'm obviously a convert. In the middle of this, but hopefully that's vaguely convincing. I don't see a delay to the strategy. I just don't see it. There's no alternative. I think we're all convinced you're a convert. Yeah. Yesterday's RNS on the JV referred to STP providing access to significant international expertise. Should we infer you are looking to invest outside of GB in the future? The fund has always had aspirations to invest internationally. I think you could infer that, but you wouldn't necessarily infer it just from that. It's just the overall strategy is in due course to explore international opportunities. The short answer is yes, I suppose, and in the interest of time, I'll leave it there. Sure. Happy to follow up. Sure. Can you expand on what Sumitomo and TPK are bringing to the partnership beyond financing? Yes sort of kick off on that one, and then I'll let you and James embellish that. Clearly, Sumitomo Corporation, one of Japan's largest and most prestigious integrated trading and investment conglomerates, and clearly already have significant renewable energy businesses in the U.K., including in BESS. In terms of what they will bring to the table in addition to financing, it's a wide range of activities that we've obviously been in discussion with them over. Project development through to operations, asset management, supply chain management, optimization. The variety of activities that the organization, and indeed TPK, who are very well connected within the supply chain area, having developed that business through touchscreen, for Apple, which isn't necessarily relevant from a grid perspective, but clearly in our conversations thus far, we've been delving into a number of potential areas of collaboration. Perhaps you might want to expand a bit. I'll echo your comment, Rupert. Yeah. I think, like all these sort of relationships, you set off with an acknowledgment of the value of the other party, and covering the points that you've mentioned, Rupert. Yeah. There's a lot of experience on both sides, on all three sides, I'd say, with probably value to be unlocked that's yet to be identified, in addition to everything else. Obviously, they're a trading house. They're the large trading house in the U.K., as well as internationally. Optimization capabilities exist. They've got a lot of experience developing projects and building generation assets. Clearly, they're providing funding. Overall, their imprimatur, if you like, their credibility, is lent to us. Resources, supply chain, you've mentioned. There's lots of areas where together I think we can do a lot, and exciting to see where it leads. I will add one thing, with all huge respect for what we've just done, but for those who will have the question, this doesn't make us captive to our partners either. Sure. This doesn't lock us out of other opportunities as well. It's a very important opportunity to establish a relationship at a time where funding, in particular, but other things, too, are in short supply for the fund. Thank you. What is the typical payback period per megawatt of deployed battery, given everything considered? Since battery costs are dropping, could be important metric to understand, please. Yeah. We don't have that as a sort of something that we roll off the tongue. We'll keep that in mind now. The IRRs on incremental projects are already well into the teens, on an unlevered basis. On that basis, it's under 10 years. Right? Comfortably. On a levered basis, given the much-reduced capital that we've got, the return is that much higher for GRID. It does depend on how you look at it. Just on an unlevered basis, it's under 10 years of cash flow required to match the capital deployed. Just sort of moving on from that, what is the ROE on the new growth plan versus the prior plan? Under the alternative revenue stream, is this just a sophisticated trading strategy? How easy is it from another operator to copy it and cannibalize the return? Those are two very different questions, I think. ROE on the initial strategy. Sure If you just look at the ratio of the original EBITDA bar, and the capital required, it was in the region of 50%. A large part of that driven by the very high ROE on alternative revenues. Also leverage in the new pipeline being positive. It's almost a nonsensical number, I dare say, in the new guise. It's a very similar EBITDA figure. When you take the capital required down 90% plus, you end up with a very high number. It's not nonsense, it's real. Yeah. It just highlights that I hope we're doing the right thing for the company here to increase EBITDA across the entire equity base, and delivering an overall ROE for the business that's substantially higher. I won't try and state a number that's over 100%, the risk of ridicule, but it's a very high number. The trading strategy, the new alternative revenue strategy is absolutely a trading strategy. Everything we do with batteries is buying and selling electricity. By definition, there's a trading element here. Is it copyable? I think everything's copyable. The short answer is, yes, could we be copied? I think the reason why I put those bullets of what we've achieved is also to highlight the moat we've created, I think. Which is that you need to understand what's going on. First of all, you need to own the batteries to be able to do this. Secondly, you need to understand what's available in the marketplace, understand the value chain, understand the whole picture, understand how you could then implement this. What are the rules around doing some of this from a regulatory permissions and so on, regulatory capital as well. How do you do this when you're overlaying this onto an existing portfolio? Other portfolios that are similar to ours wishing to do this will probably struggle the way we have to try and find a way of implementing this or a route to market. Yes, of course, if this proves successful and we announce some attractive figures, there's no doubt that people will try and find ways to identify what we're doing and then copy it. Doesn't mean, though, that we won't continue to do well. It's important to stay ahead. This is not something that's going to commoditize overnight. Scale is important here on both of those points. We're able to achieve that high ROE because we can bring in equity partners because of the opportunity we can bring to people, with the size of portfolio we've got and the pipeline we've got. Also on the alternative revenue strategy, having that large BESS portfolio enables us to cover some of the downside elements of the strategy for trading, and allows us to build up a bigger alternative revenue strategy than others would be able to with that battery fleet. Thanks, James. There are three parts to this question, so I'll get through to you slowly. Q1 2026 NAV was the first quarter without a third-party curve haircut since 2022. Curve reduction is now roughly 60-odd P. What confidence do you have that 2025 curves represent the floor? That's the first question. Second question is, beyond Rayleigh, are any operational sites or pipeline projects at risk from NESO reforms? Are the full pipeline Gate 2 offers truly protected, or could they slip further? The third part of the question is, 528 MW or two-year tolling agreements expire during 2026. Migration plan, direct to floors, merchant or new floors? Sorry, or new tolls. New tolls. Thank you for all those questions. I'll share the first one with James. Yeah. Does 2025 represent the low? It remains to be seen, of course. We can't predict curves, which are predictions in themselves. Maybe we could guide investors. Yeah from where we've come from. Where were the peaks in terms Yeah. By our measure, I think it's over GBP 0.60, by the way, of haircut, which is. Yeah Incredibly frustrating. Yeah. If I was to sort of use, and I've said this to anyone who'd care to listen, the near term, we've got uncertainty as to how proactive NESO will be to reduce skip rates. We do have this mechanical reality, want of a better word, which is that old gas plants are going to come off the system, and we've also got rising intermittency. The reliance on batteries is inevitable. Whether it's a three or five-year and beyond timeframe, we know that there will be a time where these curves will probably look low, if not much too low. In the interim, I'm personally, speaking personally, not clear as to, despite a lot of direct engagement with NESO, not clear as to when that nut will be cracked in terms of unlocking genuinely lower skip rates for the business. The GC0166 event, or watershed moment this next month or two is helpful. As we've seen before, sometimes it takes more than one go at it to unlock an improvement. James, before we go on to Aswad, do you want to add anything? Yeah. Thank you. Obviously, the third-party curves are third party, so we can't say whether they're going to move or not. What gives us confidence in these being at a level which we deem they should start to recover from and not dip further is various points of evidence that we've built up over time and see internationally as well, where batteries do get utilized effectively alongside gas. We've run trials a few years back where we were allowed to do that. We've been in the service over the past year or so where we've been allowed to compete directly with gas on our reserve products. Each time we do that, we see examples of GBP 120,000 /MW levels or somewhere in that region. Even so, in the older trials, that was on shorter durations than where we're at today. What's important to look at when we're looking at the curves now is we are moving to an average of two-hour duration. It's that two-hour curve that becomes more important than the rest of the curves that's in that mixture. That two-hour curve is somewhere around the GBP 100,000 mark at the moment. There's evidence, that piece of evidence that we're seeing of batteries being utilized effectively alongside gas at revenue levels above where the curve suggests is what gives us confidence that there should be some upward movements eventually once we can start getting through some of these short-term problems about gas being used ahead of batteries and batteries just generally not being utilized. The more we build out the battery scale, the more that gas turns off the system and the more volatile generation mixes, we rely more and more on renewables, all pushes in the direction of needing that more cost-effective flexibility, which is what batteries offer. We should start to see that going through, as Ben suggested, GC0166, the first step in bringing batteries into the same timescale of decision-making as what gas is today. We do have confidence that there's upside to these numbers. We can't say they won't fall further, but we're hopeful that we're starting to see the bottom of it. If they fall, they will then at some point recover. Yes NESO Gate 2 connections, is there any risk to? No, we've got connection offers on all our projects apart from Rayleigh. Without saying too much, we have regular conversations with both NESO and NGET to understand the likely possibility of building this project in relatively short order, by reviewing things like NGET's own enabling works and so on, which are effectively nil in this case. There's existing capacity in the substation. We're hopeful that even Rayleigh is relatively de-risked, but time will tell, or we wouldn't have announced it otherwise. In terms of generally, connection offers are made with target connection dates, and that's usually on the back of a program of works that NGET or the relevant transmission operator or distribution network operator has in place. There's always a risk of a delay, usually it's on the back of also ordering long lead items. As we know, high voltage equipment, transformers in particular, and switches are on long lead items and long time frames. Given the dates are 2027, we're already underway on those, and on the 2029 dates, there's a lot of time. We're confident that these are pretty robust, there's always a risk. It's not a zero risk. In terms of the floors, sorry, tolls and floors, the tolls do roll off over the year. For the most part, they're sort of pretty glued to floors that follow those. That's already been work done last year. The majority of the portfolio moves onto floors, and the tolls roll off. We are exploring other floors opportunistically, but I don't want to sort of say more than we're prepared to say at this stage. There are a number of questions around the alternative revenue strategy, unsurprisingly. I'll allow you to guide investors as you see fit. Let me just give you one or two flavors of the types of questions that are coming in here. Okay. Can you go further into the alternative revenue explanation? Is this taking some sort of delivery/baseload-like risk? Another one, afternoon all, can you expand on the alternative revenue strategy in a flat or low power price volatility market? Where do you expect to secure cheap power? Is my understanding correct that the alternative revenue involves virtual trading in the wholesale energy markets? I'll pause there, and just allow you. Yeah. Understood. respond to that. Thank you for the questions. I might answer the second one, the first two together, I suppose. Yeah, sure. Yeah, ultimately, if you're capturing a spread between a buyer of electricity and we won't say the nature of that buyer, that's something we want to sort of reserve, but ultimately, it doesn't really matter, that there's a buyer of electricity, and there's supply of electricity. The main trade, if you want to call it trade, is to establish that spread. There is a spread to be captured there. If there isn't, there's no point in starting, right? The main point here is that there's a spread, and that's secured over a period of time. There's a buyer of electricity, and they're prepared to pay X, and there's a seller of electricity, and they're prepared to pay Y, and there's a spread. Why is there a spread? It's because they don't match. The renewable electricity is not that useful without it being firmed up, and the buyer wants something that's de-risked. Speaking to the baseload point, it's not quite baseload, but it's a profile of electricity usage. The job of the batteries is to, or any flexibility, trade away those imbalances. As I mentioned earlier, especially to the extent that the most of that imbalance occurs on the supply side, that is exactly what our batteries are doing anyway today. There's limited need to do incremental balancing trades because they are the trades already happening. Bringing in the third question, we're not doing virtual trading, it's just that the trading's already happening, and we can position and overlay these additional, let's call them risk positions. Any trade is a risk position. In a flat or low volatility environment, where let's say the renewable generation is very, very stable. That is very good for this strategy because you don't have these tail events where you might have way too much power, and therefore a lot of imbalance to trade away there, or a lack of power, and therefore an imbalance to trade away there, where you're buying power expensively that you've agreed to sell at a certain price because you can't get it from your supplier. In a flat market, the spread is very easy to protect. In the flat market though, in our existing strategy, that's bad news. If you flip it around and you have a high volatility market with lots of intermittency, potentially volatility in gas prices as well, you have a very juicy environment for our existing strategy. Unfortunately, slightly flattened by the skip rate topic, but you still have a better environment than a flat environment. In that environment, you're going to see the spread that you establish between buyer and seller being eroded due to imbalances being traded away. That's the inverse correlation point I made earlier. Hopefully that helps fill it out. If there are follow-up questions. Those particular people who've asked questions, then happy to elaborate if we can. Great. Thanks, Ben. Very helpful. John, one for you, directly addressed to you. If the share price fails to re-rate in response to the execution of the strategy, at what point does the board conclude it is failing to deliver shareholder value and thinks about a plan B, which might be selling the company? Interestingly, the following question, as you think through that, was, given the material recent progress made by the company, could there now be risk of a large industry player making a bid approach for GRID? To the first point, Rupert, and I've made this point several times to investors. Yeah The board's job is to maximize returns to the investors, and we've got to look at that. What we've got is a very competent plan, and the question that was asked is how long do we have to wait before the board has a change of view? I would like to say, and I'm not putting a date on this. we need a bit of a runway to let these plans fit in. It's certainly in the course of next year, if we're not getting the returns we need, then clearly the board has the obligation to consider alternatives, and I'd rather not create speculation as to when and how and whatever of it. The effort that the board requires of the manager now is to convert these plans, these programs to reality, and that's what I want the board to be focused on, is delivering on what we've promised to the market. At some point, we will certainly review it one more time to say, "Well, this is not going the way we thought. It's falling short," and clearly we'll then do the right thing. That's the first step. Regarding a large industrial having an interest in us, well, let's put it this way, the purpose of events like this is to put as much information in the market. We're pretty transparent for anyone who would see us as a target, then have a look at the data. From my point of view, in our inquiries around who and where and what, you know what. You can never tell. Right. I'd rather not have a speculative moment about what might happen. We will keep our heads down, push on with the program, and when something shows up of interest, the board will take it very seriously. Very clear, Chairman. Thank you. A question here around the debt. Do you need to repay any debt during construction periods? Is the cost of project rights in the GBP 500,000/ MW construction cost? What is total equity requirement from GRID for pipeline net of 25%? What was the uplift on the 25% of projects sold? Well, I think there's probably some confidential information in there, but Ben, did you get all of that? Almost. What was the first one? Do you need to repay any debt during construction periods? Sorry. No. Is the cost of projects right in the 500,000 MW construction cost? Yes. What is the total equity requirement from GRID for pipeline? We acquire project rights, and then we raise capital, which effectively, substantially refunds that. The equity requirement will vary depending on the amount of total senior and junior debt, and total cost of construction. In large part, that's reduced very substantially to fairly close to zero. Okay, another question here. How long do you expect your assumed spread between the cost of construction and operational valuation to persist, given the relative speed with which projects can be built versus other forms of infrastructure? Other forms. Can anyone guess as to what that means, other forms? Other forms of infrastructure. Let's put it this way. We've got a doubling of renewable capacity. Those contracts have been awarded, that's based on stuff that we know about, that doubling of renewable generation. Those projects are either in construction or known about because they've been awarded contracts, T -4, AR7, CFD contracts or AR6. These are contracts that we know about. Sorry for the jargon there, essentially they're contracted projects on the renewable side. We know that's coming. We know that batteries are not going to get built at the same pace, could be built at a similar pace. There's a need to accelerate the battery deployment relative to where we are now. We're at 7 GW. The market doesn't want to double by 2030. It wants to get to 30, including pump storage, pump storage takes 10 years to build. If pump storage is awarded contracts, something else has got to step in, and it needs to be a much longer duration to satisfactorily replace gas. Gas as a potential alternative is obviously failing in the Capacity Market, at least this year, in terms of where price has cleared and batteries outperforming or are competing. I'd say that in the short-term, and by short-term, I mean say medium term, let's say between now and early 2030, potentially 2035, especially if additional electricity demand shows up, which just means the overall system needs to expand as well, the only thing that's proving a challenge in the short-term, until the gas assets go offline, is the skip rate topic. After that. Yeah The underlying positive fundamentals that John's also spoken to, start to reveal themselves hopefully very strongly. And could I just add. Obviously, the speed at which you can deliver batteries is subject to the Gate 2 process and the queue. That there's dates allocated to these projects. You can't bring them on any sooner than connection you've already got offered for those projects. That's not just it. A new player coming into the space, if they want to get involved in batteries, you can't just find a project and get it delivered within two years. You need to find one of those that has an offer in the near term. If you're coming from scratch, you're way behind the queue, and it's going to be a long time before you can implement an operational battery. That's why it's attractive for partners such as Sumitomo and TPK, who can attach onto projects like we're developing to get in a bit sooner in that form, and that's why it's attractive on the project right side. The next step beyond that is to acquire operational assets. If you're a portfolio that needs the hedge from a battery portfolio, for example, you're not going to be able to just build out a portfolio in a timely manner. You're going to probably look at more either closed operational or operational projects in future. Yeah a limit to how many projects can come online in a short order. Yeah. James, you've actually given me a couple of thoughts as you've been speaking. If you do want to go and enter the space, first of all, I don't think there's the funding yet in the sector to build out the assets. One point you can make is there's a very large queue in the market, and that's often been talked about. Those are projects that have been developed and exist that are potentially buildable. The quality of those projects is very, very varied. While they might have a connection offer, they may have serious challenges in terms of the land they're trying to build on, the grid connection challenges, or access to financing or other issues. I do think that, and this is something that's not lost on government, that the challenges that the battery sector has experienced from a revenue perspective in recent years has impacted the amount of capital showing up to build projects. That's maybe a long-term silver lining to some of the pain we've gone through, but it is a factor in how much capacity is likely to get built. Then to one final point that's related to if you decide to enter and you are happy and you want to spend the money, long lead items. The lead times on high voltage electrical equipment is not short. It's a couple of years for anything over a 200 MVA transformer. You need projects for the 2028 connection are really unlikely to get built if they're only being looked at afresh now, and it's more likely 2029, 2035. And Ben- So- just on top of what you've said. On equipment, because of our size and scale and reputation. I would suggest we've got privileged access to specific items. Whereas a new market entrant has got one hell of a job to get anywhere near access to critical equipment. We do have a position now well-established on the supply chain side. Not just, I suppose, reputation, but also knowledge of the kit, so we know the high-quality Tier 2 suppliers sometimes. We obviously have the relationships with the battery manufacturers who would be selective as to who they work with because they're sold out in electric cars and in many places in BEVs as well. Yes, I agree. Thank you, gentlemen. Let's move on. There's a question here around the GBP 0.56 estimated NAV uplift in the central case. What discount rate, power price, construction cost, and timing assumptions drive that? How sensitive is it to a weaker merchant backdrop or even the evolving gilt market? James, do you want to cover that? I'm happy to jump in. Yeah, sure. We've provided this on the simplest form we can do in the table, which just points to. What does the NAV uplift look like at different valuation points rather than going to the specifics of the various different assumptions that can make up a valuation because you might have a lower curve and a lower discount rate, or you might have vice versa. There's various different elements to building up that valuation. To avoid going into the detail here, we provided a sensitivity that was the high-level valuation of a portfolio. GBP 850K was around the mark for Harmony, is what's kind of seen as a guide for two-hour projects. We use that as the midpoint. That can be flexed up and down. This is why we provided the table for investors and analysts so that they can make their own assumption on what that number should look like and see what the outcome of it is. Obviously, in a weaker revenue environment, if that's continued and the longer-term curves are expected to come down, you would look at the lower end of that scale. If revenues pick up and we start to see improvements in curves again, you could be looking at the higher end of that scale as well. We pick the midpoint reflecting where the market sees it at the moment. Yes, there are a few factors that can play with that, and feel free to adjust as they wish. I'll just add, James, if you agree, the valuation, the holding value for two-hour projects in our accounts- Yeah is in the region of 900, if I've got my facts right. The assumptions that go into that, which are disclosed, would be. Yeah the numbers to assume, then you'd sort of derate, up the discount rate, or reduce the revenues to get to GBP 850, not very much. Then you compare that with the cost, which is set. Hopefully that's helpful. Yeah, exactly. Next question, how robust is the funding plan if project costs rise, connection dates slip, or financing markets tighten? Where is the first point of stress? Interesting. Yeah. Go ahead. I was going to cover on the project cost side. Obviously I've been putting the debt approach together recently. We do have large contingencies for our costs. We're also well progressed with the construction program, so we've got contracts in place for the equipment, for the BOP. A large element of the cost structure for these projects has been contracted already. We've put that in place. We've put in conservative numbers on top of the contracted figures we've got in place today. We don't envisage that being a problem. Sorry, there's a few other points. Feel free, Ben, if you want to pick up on those ones. I was going to say that we have a BESS supply agreement for the first five projects, which has an agreed price. Even for the next two projects, we've got visibility on that, which, as you mentioned earlier, James, I think it's approaching half the cost of the project. That's a material item locked in. What's interesting is that there's a lot of talk about high-voltage equipment going up in cost, but new suppliers have emerged, or new established suppliers in other jurisdictions have become credible and white labeled on our shores and so on. I'm not worried about, but of course, there's a risk of commodity costs going crazy and seeing whether it's copper prices or aluminum or something else going crazy and so on. That's obviously caused some strain. Similarly, on financing, if interest rates, unfortunately, we did lock in slightly higher interest rates than we would've liked. These are, from the get-go, pretty high-returning projects, despite the reduction in curves, really because batteries have fallen faster. Our construction approach is, I think, about as competitive as you can make it for the type of setup that we have. It's breaking down the construction cost to a sensible suite of contracts, but not too many and so on. There's a lot of learning that's gone into this over many, many years. I think it would take a lot for the IRRs of these projects to become unacceptable. At the moment, there's a very attractive uplift from assuming the cost that we've assumed. Okay. Conscious we've got about five minutes till we hit the hour, so let's try and take a couple more here. Why do you think international integrated utilities with large trading activities are relatively underrepresented in the GB batteries market, given the benefits of batteries to trading, firms like EDF and Drax? That's a very good question. They've been cheaper to rent, is the answer. They've been cheaper to rent so far, and I think it's the answer that you'd get from any of these players. I think in time they might change their minds, and that might result in a pretty different industry structure. That's sort of a little pet prediction that we've got going. That I think is fundamentally the point, that because of the setup and the relatively price taker setting that we're in for the asset owners, whether we're renewables, which we're not, or batteries, you're a price taker if you don't have a business model which can move out of its portion of the value chain, if circumstances get tough. That is what we're doing with alternative revenues. Okay. Thank you. One here on dividends. John, if I can direct this one at you. The board messages on when shareholders can expect the return to dividend payments has changed from the three-year strategy plan in November 2024. How confident is the board that dividends will resume by 2028? How will this compare to the original GBP 0.07 dividends, given the reference to GBP 0.10 free cash flow? Let's unbundle that a bit, Rupert, and say the first thing is to create the free cash flow. Yep. As we see that coming through, then clearly there's a big question of capital allocation. Cool. I.e., the balance between the recycling of money, buybacks and dividends. What we do know regarding dividends, we will only pay out when they're covered, and that's a kind of key principle of the board here. I would say, how far has it gone backwards? I don't know, James, from the modeling, what time delay from our previous projections are there? Do you have a view? Yeah. Perhaps I can add with, it's important to look at where does the increasing free cash flow come from. There's three elements to the plan that we're working on. The first to come through will be the augmentations which we're delivering through the course of this year. That's designed to bring further cash flow for the business. The next step is the alternative revenues, which we've been running the trials, and we're now in scale-up mode, through 2027, so in 2026 and 2027. We'll see the improvement from cash flows hopefully coming through very soon on those. The final stage is the new pipeline, and that new pipeline comes through from the end of 2027. Each of those is delivering that extra free cash flow, so it's not a case of no increase for a few years and then suddenly a pop. No, we're going to gradually increasing towards those levels. The first big addition to that will be the new projects, the first 397, so that's towards the end of 2027 and start of 2028. That's when the big assets start generating the extra cash flow which can contribute to it. We're still looking at the end of 2027, early 2028 is where we'll start to see the improvement in cash flow for the whole portfolio. The longer term, 2029, is when the further 777 MW starts to contribute as well. The GBP 0.10 target is with that whole portfolio, but a substantial increase comes from that first part, the augmentations, the alternative revenues, and the first part of the new pipeline as well, which is in the next year to two. Yep. Rupert, may I just add and pop up on that? Sure. The final choices here will be by the board engaging with the investor base. Offering them up and hearing their point of view. I think we all know from our meetings with investors, there's a spectrum of perspectives, from the dividend hunters to those who say, "Don't give a penny back. Keep building out the company. The role of the board is have a balancing act here and act on behalf of the investors as a whole, not individual groups. What we do get is we're lobbied for more dividend early. We get the alternate view called don't give it away. When we are in a better shape in terms of seeing the outcomes from the comments James has made, there'll be a proper period of engagement with our investors then to determine kind of where their perspectives are at that time and inform a view. Thank you, John. I think as we've just crossed 4:00 P.M., I think we will bring today's CMD webinar to a close. Let me start by thanking all of our shareholders and everyone else who's attended today's event, for your time. If we haven't got to your individual questions, apologies. If you'd like to follow up directly with us, the fund management team would be delighted to respond to those. John, thank you for your time. Obviously, you're here representing the wider board and for all their support and assistance over the many years now. If anyone would like to follow up with the fund management team or the board more directly, please do get in touch, and we will make sure that we respond either in person or via email. Ben and James, thank you for your time and your extraordinary hard work over recent weeks and months and years. We will continue to focus on building value, driving shareholder value, and scaling this company. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, everyone.