Welcome to Nel's first quarter 2023 results presentation. My name is Håkon Volldal. I am the CEO. With me today, I have our CFO, Kjell Christian Bjørnsen, and our Head of Communications, Lars Nermoen. We have the following agenda. We will go through Nel in brief before we get into the first quarter highlights. We will talk about commercial developments, the strategy update, do a quick summary, and then, of course, Q&A. You can pose questions along the way, and then Lars will take us through the Q&A session. Nel is a pure play hydrogen technology company with a global presence, specializing in electrolyzer technology and hydrogen fueling equipment. Our mission is to unlock the potential of renewables and enable global decarbonization. Nel at a glance. We were listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange in 2014. We are the largest electrolyzer manufacturer in terms of number of units, with more than 3,500 delivered to more than 80 countries since 1927. We are also a leading manufacturer of hydrogen refueling stations with close to 120 solutions delivered or in progress to 14 countries. Manufacturing facilities in Norway, the United States, and Denmark. We have a global sales network and offices, a bit more than 600 employees, and we have become the preferred partner with industry leaders in hydrogen. After a successful capital raise, we now have NOK 4.6 billion in cash reserves and are well capitalized to fund further growth. If you look at the first quarter, we are pleased with the development. On the top line, we grew that by 68% to NOK 359 million. EBITA ended at minus NOK 121 million, an improvement over last year. Order intake, close to NOK 600 million, driven by two key contracts. That means we have a record order backlog of NOK 2.9 billion by the end of the first quarter. We also have a cash balance, as I said, of NOK 4.6 billion. Key developments in the quarter included a NOK 125 million purchase order from HyCC, a project developer in the Netherlands, and a NOK 360 million purchase order from HH2E for a couple of projects in Germany. We also decided to automate and expand our production facility for PEM technology in the United States from 50 to 500 MW per annum. We concluded a successful private placement of NOK 1.6 billion, bringing our now cash balance to NOK 4.6 billion. Looking at the numbers in more detail. As I said, the top line is up by 68%, primarily driven by the electrolyzer division, that we will take a look at in a moment, but also solid growth in fueling year-over-year. EBITA improved by NOK 30 million from last year. Still have a way to go to get to profitability, it's a step in the right direction. On the EBIT side, we improved versus last year. The pre-tax income, of course, last year driven by adjustments to our holdings and this year, no significant adjustments. Looking at our two divisions, we have the electrolyzer division and the fueling division. In the electrolyzer division, we grew revenues on the alkaline side of the business by 145% year on year, whereas revenues in for PEM electrolyzers increased by 9%. As you can see, EBITA improved versus last year, driven by better margins, now that some of the large scale contracts with improved profitability start to kick in. Solid order intake, up 160% versus last year, and also a very solid backlog, 160% above what the backlog was a year ago. On the fueling side, we grew revenues by 50%, from, I would say, a low NOK 22 to a decent in line with last year. This is driven by the fact that we still have high warranty costs, and also increased utilization of stations on fixed service, fixed rate service contracts mean that we have operational losses on the fueling side. Order intake was insignificant in the quarter, but the order backlog is still up 20% versus a year ago. Actually, that cannot be. That must be more than that. It's 40% up versus last year. Order intake and backlog. We have had three solid quarters with a strong order intake. The NOK 580 million in the first quarter was a doubling of what we recorded in the first quarter of 2022. Again, driven by electrolyzer, up 61% year-on-year and fueling, which was down 64%. Over the last 12 months, we've had an order intake of NOK 2.6 billion. Again, an increase over the previous periods of 160%. Intake is expected to vary between quarters. Order sizes have increased. We can't expect to every single quarter land or win significant contracts, even though we have done that in the past 3 quarters. The pipeline will vary between the quarters. Backlog side is up 126% year-on-year, again, driven by the electrolyzer division, which is up 109%, and the fueling division, which is up 19%. The order backlog is solid, but it sits still subject such as delays and/or cancellations if customers have to take a final investment. In February, in March, we raised NOK 1.6 billion through our largest private placement ever, and we will spend the proceeds to continue to invest in our technology development. We will scale up the organization to deliver large-scale projects, and we will further expand our production capacity. This includes both the plant expansions at Herøya in Norway for the alkaline electrolyzers and in Wallingford for the PEM electrolyzers. If you look at the key commercial developments in the quarter, let's start with the 40 MW purchase order from HyCC in the Netherlands for production of sustainable aviation fuel or SAF. HyCC is a Dutch company specializing in hydrogen production. They have received an environmental permit for a project in Delfzijl and is working towards an FID in 2024. Our partner on this project is Kraftanlagen as the EPC and Kraftanlagen has been contracted to do the FEED study with Nel also contributing. Another nice win for Nel in the quarter was the 120 megawatts contract with HH2E. We announced an LOI with this company in January 2023 in connection with the visit from Germany's Minister Habeck and Minister of Industry and the Energy Minister from Norway at our Herøya plant. They have now confirmed their interest in working with Nel through a purchase order for 2 x 60 MW in Germany. HH2E is a German hydrogen production company or project developer. We will work with HH2E on these two projects. Moreover, they have an overall ambition to reach 4 GW of green hydrogen production capacity by 2030. Maybe not all of that will come to Nel, but it signals an opportunity to really develop this business together with HH2E. I would also add that, in addition to the two key contracts we have signed, there's great interest in Nel as a company. As renewable hydrogen is seen as key to a society with low emissions. We are visited by politicians from Australia, Europe, and the U.S. They all travel to Norway to see our manufacturing facilities and learn more about electrolyzers and Nel's technology. We have been invited to discussions with policymakers and other stakeholders all over the world, from meetings with the European Commission to meetings with governors and energy ministers. I think that also proves that hydrogen is, is, you know, definitely on the agenda in many areas of the world. The EU is gradually catching up with the United States in developing favorable framework conditions. Guess you all are aware that the United States passed their Inflation Reduction Act, which made it very attractive to invest in hydrogen projects. The EU now has relaxed EU state aid rules and also introduced the so-called Hydrogen Bank as a response to the IRA in the U.S. We can see that this will drive further growth in the hydrogen industry in Europe, whereas the U.S. is also speeding ahead with new projects. Short strategy update. We spent time in the previous quarter to talk about our strategy, which we have coined bigger, better focused. If we start with the fueling side of the business, we have an overall ambition to be the preferred high-capacity hydrogen fueling equipment provider with a 15% market share in 2025. Again, around the themes of bigger, better, focused, we want to be or develop a high capacity hydrogen filling station for sales and supply from 2025. The industry is moving towards high-capacity solutions for heavy-duty vehicles, buses, trucks, et cetera. We will prioritize bigger strategic accounts. We will not sell single units all over the world. We will focus on customers that have a high potential for a high number of stations. We will become better. We have alluded to the fact that Nel and also the hydrogen fueling industry is immature and needs to step up its efforts to improve the technology. We need to improve the performance of our equipment to reduce ongoing operational costs for stations in the field, both warranty costs and also increase availability and make it more attractive to invest in hydrogen fueling infrastructure for heavy-duty vehicles. We also wanna foster a culture where everyone works in line with common expectations, values, and strategy. This might sound as a soft point, but it's important for now as we transition from being, you know, visionary and startup-minded into something which is bigger, has to be better, we also need to become more professional. We need more structure, more, I say cold business judgment into the decisions that we make, and we need everybody to work in the same direction in terms of making Nel a profitable and growing company. We also have to become more focused. It's not enough to become bigger or better, or actually, let me rephrase that. To become bigger and better, you have to be focused. We will phase out selected legacy product variants. We will focus on what we do best, not everything. Every single component in our fueling stations will not be made by Nel. We will focus on the core technologies, and those technologies are the high pressure compression from 300 to 1,000 bar, not the low pressure side, cooling and controls. We will prioritize and focus on existing markets. There is enough business for Nel in Europe and North America predominantly to serve the markets and realize this ambition. On the electrolyzer side, we also have the bigger, better focus themes. On the bigger side of things, we have communicated that we will target large scale projects. We will not do complete hydrogen plants that are small. We will do our part of the large hydrogen plants that are being built. To do that, we also need to scale up production. We will establish 2 GW at Herøya, 500 MW in Wallingford, in Connecticut. We will build a 4 GW facility in a new site in the U.S., and we will also prepare further gigafactories around the world in connection with where is demand and where should we produce in a good way to serve the markets. In addition to becoming bigger, we also need to become better. We need to develop the most efficient and reliable alkaline and PEM technology. We will significantly reduce that cost over time. Nel not, might not offer the cheapest stacks, but we will have the best stacks so that the TCO still favors Nel over competition. We will utilize and leverage our deep insights and knowledge in hydrogen to lead the industry. This is an immature industry. We will work together with leading partners and customers to further, you know, develop our knowledge base and make sure that hydrogen becomes affordable and competitive with fossil fuels. On the electrolyzer side, of course, we need to foster a culture where we work in the same direction, and also we professionalize the business. We will learn how to say no to things. Everything will not be strategic. Everything cannot be prioritized. We cannot pursue every single opportunity out there. We need to become more business-minded and, you know, steer the company towards profitability over time. Again, we need focus. We will go from building complete hydrogen plants with responsibility for every aspect of the project and, you know, all the components, even components not manufactured by Nel, to really, you know, focusing on what we produce and what we develop. Therefore, the scope of supply will be limited to stacks and balance of stacks, so the electrolyzer and the gas separation system on top of it and the control system. We will work to standardize deliveries and offer less customization. This is needed in order to get the cost down and also get the speed up in terms of project deliveries. Our primary focus will be on Europe and North America. Over time, we will also serve Australia and Chile as important export hubs. We do have projects ongoing in Australia as we speak, but we see that demand is today stronger in Europe and North America than in other parts of the world. Again, driven by favorable legislation and incentive mechanisms for Nel's customers. We'd like to comment a little bit on the capacity expansion. This is a picture from Herøya, and we are now constructing the second line. The first line was opened, I think, in 2021. We inaugurated the facility in April 2022. A year later, that line is up and running. That's roughly 500 megawatts of annual production capacity. We're now adding the second line. Building on the experience from line one with copy-paste of equipment and processes with certain improvements. We are progressing this according to plan. We intend to have the second line up and running and producing for commercial orders by April 2024. That brings the total annual production capacity to 1 GW in Norway. As you might be aware, we can double that again to 2 GW if we get additional orders. We will try to match supply and demand in the smart way. There's no point in building production lines that will just idle. We have the opportunity to quickly ramp up compared to competition. I think that's something Nel has that is unique. We have a proven and tested production concept. We know what kind of equipment to order, we know how to put it together, and we can make it happen fast. On the PEM side, we have decided to expand capacity by a factor of 10. We will go from roughly 50 MW in capacity per year to 500 MW by 2025. Already by the end of 2023, we hope to have a nameplate capacity run rate of roughly 200 megawatts in our PEM facility. It's not only about scaling up the capacity, it's also about improving the underlying processes. Ordering smart new equipment that will take cost out and that will improve the quality of the products. In the same way that we've done on the alkaline side, we want to improve the way we manufacture our PEM products. We have for a period of time said that we are looking into establishing a gigafactory in the U.S. and that we have, you know, been involved in a site selection process. That process has now been concluded. We, I think, started with looking at every single state in the U.S. and more than 150 potential factory sites. The announcement of the winners, so to speak, the state that will have the honor of hosting an Nel gigafactory will be announced shortly. We have decided to do that together with the winning state, potentially next week. We aim to build a factory that can have a capacity up to 4 GW, split between PEM and alkaline. Again, in the same way that we have added capacity in Norway, we will not build 4 GW in one go. The factory will be built out in phases so that we can match supply with demand. No final investment decision has been made yet. The current Wallingford expansion is important to create the blueprint for the PEM expansion. We will develop the production concept, test the equipment, and then bring these innovations to the new site when we scale up further. This should put Nel, you know, at the forefront of automated smart manufacturing techniques for electrolyzers. It also signals a capacity commitment to the industry. In case we get large orders, we are, you know, really large orders, like gigawatt type orders, which we are working on. We are ready to go, if we, if we get them. Let's try to summarize then before we do the Q&A session. First quarter overall, continued strong order intake, a record high order backlog. Happy with the significant revenue growth of 68% and also the positive margin impact from large-scale contracts that have improved profitability. We have concluded a successful private placement, raising NOK 1.6 billion, and that means we are well capitalized to fund our growth. If the burn rate comes down, we can live long on the NOK 4.6 billion that we now have available. Also, we are continuing with our capacity expansions, line two at Herøya, the Wallingford expansion, and now also concluded on the U.S. site selection process. Thank you. I will hand it over to Lars to manage the Q&A session. Okay, thank you, Håkon. My name is Lars Nermoen. I'm Head of Communications. Apparently, something happened with the presentation. The PowerPoint wasn't visible during Volldal's presentation. We apologize for that. The presentation material is available on our web pages on the IR pages. For the ones that want to ask questions, please use the raise hands function, and we will call up your name and activate your microphone. Please make sure to activate the microphone on your end as well. Note that we will keep the camera disabled for the ones dialing in. Please keep a maximum of one question per person due to time constraints. You can always go back in line if we have more time. In case there are questions we don't have time to answer, please reach out to us on ir@nelhydrogen.com. A reminder from previous quarterly presentation, we will not comment on outlook, specific targets, detailed terms and conditions on contracts, as well as questions on specific markets. Let's go ahead with the Q&A session. The first question is from Urban Kjøstad. I hope I pronounced your name correctly. Your microphone is activated. Please go ahead. Thanks. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yeah, thanks for the efforts trying to pronounce my name. Congratulations on the clearly improved profitability across the board. I've got two questions, please. First on profitability and second on policy. On profitability, especially on the electrolyzer, we clearly see improved, at least much lower loss. We were at an EBITDA margin of minus 12% in the first quarter, which is much better than last year, which was around minus 47%. How much of that is the fruit of the higher margin contracts? Based on what you write, this is still a small contribution, right? How much of this is a fruit of a higher margin contract signed than recognized? Obviously, if you could provide any color of like, if we should see any further improvement in the second quarter, that'd be awesome. Second question on policy. There was a recently published report from the IEA in the U.S. suggesting that very few green hydrogen production methods would actually qualify for the full $3 per kilo production tax credit in the U.S. due to emissions from the manufacturing of equipment such as solar panels, et cetera. We always knew that the $3 per kilo was a maximum credit. I was wondering if this had caught your attention and this had changed your views or discussions with customers in any ways in the U.S. These are my two questions. Thank you. Okay. If we start with the margin question. The improvement is definitely driven by the monetization of the high the large scale contracts with improved margins that we have referred to previously. But bear in mind that the quarter is a combination of old contracts with weaker margins and some revenues from large scale contracts with improved margins. That will continue in the coming quarters. Further improvements, I think, we will see when the legacy projects, so to speak, signed in 2020 and 2021 are delivered out of our books, and we can get more of the large scale contracts into our P&L. That will bring further improvement. On the policy side, I think it will vary. Some projects are good projects and might not need the full $3 to be viable. Others depend on $3 and maybe more. The important thing for Nel is that there is a sufficient number of projects to pursue. I think our customers have a fairly good, you know, grip on what is available in terms of funding and support. Maybe there are some deductions. You know, that will vary. The base fee is $0.60, and then there's a multiplier on that where you need to meet different criteria. I think some customers meet all criteria, other customers meet fewer of these criteria. For now, there's enough to work on. Thank you. That's very helpful. Okay. The next question is from Gard Orvik. Please go ahead, Guide. Thank you. Firstly, I would just like to say that we can see the slides, that was no issue. I have two very quick questions. First, on effects. How much I know that you hedge out some back to back in your contracts, but how much of the effects this quarter is driven by, you know, a weaker NOK, when you translate the most of your income from EUR and USD into NOK? My second question is on the gross margin. I mean, now we've seen 2 quarters with stellar gross margins. Could you also give some flavor on what's driving that? I mean, you commented briefly on the total margin picture from the last question. Yeah, some more flavor on that would be great. Thanks. First of all, when it comes to the currency and currency translation effects, keep in mind that a very large share of our cost base, you know, the vast majority of our cost base is also not in Norwegian kroner. A weakening NOK will inflate both the revenue side and the cost side. And that in combination with hedging makes the net effect relatively small. On the second part, when you are referring to margin, I assume you're referring to, you know, the cost of raw materials as a percentage of revenue. What we see after the, you know, change in strategy that we've had, where we narrow our scope, is that we have less of the pass-through equipment. Equipment where we basically get a handling fee, and lots of hassle. That, of course, is something that influences that ratio more than the total margin on the project. I hope that was helpful. Yes. Thank you. If you were to say x co-constant currency year-over-year, how much would the effects be this year compared to Q1 2022? I don't have to that top of mind, so I'll have to come back with that figure. Okay. Thank you. Next question is from Deepa Venkateswaran. Please go ahead. Deepa, your microphone is activated. Sorry. My question was really if you could comment on what you're seeing in terms of your customers' behaviors, going towards FID, because we've talked in the past that, you know, FIDs have been lagging. Do you see, as a result of, you know, now more clarification on the rules in the EU and then the, you know, the Net-Zero Industry Act and so on, as well as this hydrogen auction that they've announced? Are you seeing any improvement or could you at least give a sentiment check versus the last time we spoke, how things are going? I think we need to look at the U.S. and Europe separately. To simplify it, in the U.S. you have attractive incentive schemes available. A year ago, there were, you know, few people in the U.S. that thought about hydrogen projects. The number of projects that were available were not that many. Now that you have the attractive incentive systems in place, people are developing these business cases, they need time to mature and progress their business plans and the business cases. That's why, you know, FIDs, I think, in North America is lacking. What we've seen is that the good projects move forward. We have signed a few of them. Others have also signed contracts. I think the speed will pick up as the business cases mature. In Europe, the story is a bit different because there we have a number of business cases that companies have worked on for a long period of time. They're ready to go ahead, but there is uncertainty around financing of these projects. Developing green hydrogen projects is not straightforward, and I think a lot of companies realize that right now it is more expensive than maybe they thought, and they depend on some external support during this transition period. The EU has made good progress on headline level. For companies looking at specific investment cases and wanting to go to FID, they need more certainty. What You know, how much money can I get? How do I get it, and by when do I get it? That is not crystal clear. I think the Hydrogen Bank auction and other mechanisms will help. You know, the auction hasn't been run yet. That's why investors are still working on their business cases but not taking the final investment decision. Next question is from, Arthur Sitbon. Hello. Thank you for taking my question. First one on the results that you published for Q1. I was wondering if in the electrolyzer business, we should consider that the EBITDA margins have troughed now, and if the level of EBITDA margin that you've seen in Q1 is a good reflection of what we could expect for the whole year. The second question on revenues in Q1, I was wondering if you could tell us how much was booked on the basis of the Woodside Statkraft and the 200 megawatt order in the U.S. Basically, the idea is to try to understand how much of that is still left to be booked. My last question would be on the market share comments that you've made on fueling and electrolyzer. 15% in fueling, 20%-30% in electrolyzer. I was wondering what is the, what is your underlying forecast for the size of the market in gigawatt or in number of stations? Thank you very much. If we talk about margins, I don't think we want to be very specific about our margin expectations in the coming quarters. We are still. Yes, there's an improvement in the first quarter. We have said that we expect margins to improve as we start to monetize more of the large-scale contracts and get rid of the small-scale contracts, but it's still, you know, a bit volatile. The long-term trend is clear. Based on the order backlog, the margin will improve. We have more attractive terms and conditions than we had in the past. Exactly how that will play out quarter by quarter, I don't think we will provide detailed guiding on that. When it comes to the revenue mix, yes, there is some revenue in the quarter from large-scale contracts. But I think if you look at the announcements we made, we've also said when we will start to make deliveries of equipment on the different contracts. Some of the contracts you referred to, we have not booked anything on Woodside Energy and Statkraft later. Yeah, I don't wanna comment specifically on which contracts we are monetizing because then you can work a little bit backwards what the margin might be, and we don't wanna be that transparent towards competition. Sorry about being a bit blurry on this, but there's a reason why we don't wanna go into too much details on the quarterly financials. The second part of your question, I have completely forgotten. Maybe you can refresh my mind? Arthur, can you please repeat it? It was on the market share targets, 15% and 20%-30%. I was wondering what's the underlying assumption in terms of market size. 20%-30% of how many gigawatt and 15% of how many fueling station, basically. I think on the electrolyzer side, you have lots of different forecasts from different companies and analysts. We have our own forecast, but let's say it's a broad range. Let's say we need to book somewhere between 6 and 9 gigawatt then to deliver on that margin. Not margin, but ambition. In fueling, exactly how many high capacity stations there will be in 2025, I think we need to revert to you on, I don't remember the figure off the top of my head. The high capacity market will apparently, you know, be a growing, fast-growing market, and it will start to grow from 2024, 2025, maybe from a low base, and then gradually, you know, become more important than probably the light duty market. 15%, you know, more interesting, long-term in 2025, 15% might be 15 stations. Next in line is, Yoann Charenton. Your mic has been activated. Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you for the presentation. I would like to come back on fueling as well, given the statement you made in the opening remarks. We had some policy developments in Europe in the first quarter, related to AFIR, for example. Can you tell us how this has participated in shaping your fueling strategy? Maybe more specifically on the two points you made, you are clearly focusing on high duty, or let's say heavy duty high fueling capacity. You are saying as well that you are focusing on the number of strategic accounts. Can you please provide us with an idea of the size of this high fueling capacity in terms of stations? Thinking about the distribution, compression, storage, if possible, just to sort of what is the typical station you'd expect, will represent the bulk of orders going forward. When thinking about the strategic accounts, are you able to say a rough number, how many of them have you identified? Thank you. You wanna take it? Correct. On the number of strategic accounts, there's quite a few. There's a handful that we would need to work with. The reason for that is that the high capacity market isn't there yet and the products aren't ready yet. Really what you're asking for is the product specification of a product that has not yet been launched to customers that see the need for it in 2025, 2026 time frame. In the interim, we will of course, continue to develop our own existing portfolio and to continue to serve the light-duty vehicle market. It's clear that what needs to come from, I would say 2025, 2026 onwards, is something with significantly higher capacity, and significantly better stability, so that it takes down the ongoing operational cost for the station owner. Next question is from Sean McLoughlin. Please go ahead. Sean, your mic has been activated. Hopefully you can hear me now. There we go. Super. Thank you. Just a question, just building on the last question. I'm assuming that your strategy to expand both PEM and alkaline in tandem is more around PEM is the technology for refueling, whereas alkaline is the technology for electrolyzers. Are you seeing actually much more crossover? Just understanding how you're actually helping your customers decide which technology would be the better one in case of crossover. I don't think one technology lends itself per definition better to mobility applications. I think we have large-scale projects involving alkaline electrolyzers that will deliver hydrogen for fueling applications. We have PEM facilities that produce hydrogen for fueling applications. I don't think there's, you know, one way to answer that. You have to look at the specific needs of the customer. If you want distributed fueling with the generational hydrogen, you know, at small quantities in several locations, then, you know, the containerized PEM product is a very good solution. If you want to produce larger quantities of liquid hydrogen or compressed hydrogen, then maybe an alkaline facility is better. There's no, you know, given answer to that. The benefit we have is that we can be a bit technology agnostic. We can discuss with customers what is the best solution for your application, whether that's in mobility, or in another industry. We don't need to just, you know, be a one-trick pony that only talks, you know, about the positives of PEM and, you know, or the only the positive things about alkaline. We can have a more balanced view. You know, the decision on fueling equipment versus electrolyzers is not very related. Those are two separate discussions. We have few customers that buy both fueling equipment and electrolyzers. Understood. Thank you. Secondly, just you last year you'd announced the development of pressurized alkaline system. Just wondering kind of where we are there. Is that now the core product that you're offering on the alkaline side? Yeah, I think we will get back to the market on an update on the pressurized technology. That is definitely an interesting technology that we are spending time and money on to progress. It is progressing well. When we launch it has to beat the existing technologies. We, we're not a startup where that's the only product we develop. We have a, as I said, a portfolio of different solutions. We have atmospheric alkaline, we have PEM, we have pressurized alkaline. There's no point in launching something new unless it clearly beats what you already have. That's why we have set the bar fairly high for our pressurized technology. We could come out with a product today, but we wanna come out with something which is clearly, you know, different from what we already offer, and that is sort of the next generation of electrolyzers. I think it's a valid question, and we will get back to the market on an update on the pressurized technology. Thanks. Yes. We still have time for a few more questions if there's anyone out there that would like to take the opportunity. Yes. Okay. Are we going Pascal, please? Hello. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Thank you for taking my question. Just a quick question, probably a follow-up on refueling stations. We see an improvement in the margin. I'd like to know, this is due to that you're reaching larger scale products also for refueling station. I understand for electrolyzer that is to think, but for refueling stations, are you receiving larger orders and there is an improvement in the margin that you're able to charge on your client? Or is it more due to the fact that you've been able to solve some of the operating costs, increased operating costs due to higher demand on, and usage of the final product? If you could give us a little visibility on this, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. We don't really have large scale deployments on the fueling side yet. The reason we are targeting larger accounts on the fueling side also is not because you will roll out, you know, thousands of stations, but you get the same design, less customization. You can, you know, there's less complexity and less cost involved, that means we can protect our gross margin. Having said that, I think the gross margin in fueling is okay. What sort of negatively impacts that business is the OpEx of running the stations where we have had some unfavorable contracts. Also we have had quality issues on the stations, and we are working hard to fix that. We expect improvements on the, let's call it cost of poor quality. We expect those expenses to come down. We've also worked to sort of streamline and optimize our organizational setup. There are some savings on the OpEx side that has, you know, contributed positively to the margin improvements. It's still at a level that we are not happy with. More work needs to be done on the fueling side. We have one more question from Patrick Sjöquist. Please go ahead, Patrick. Thank you. It's actually a sort of a follow-up pressurized electrolyzer discussion. It was more around. You also mentioned in your yearly report that you were looking at larger electrolyzers. Maybe you can elaborate on time frames there, how that will benefit the customers, and how that also will affect the infrastructure that you're installing in the Herøya plant, for example. Yeah. I think there's two ways of going larger. You know, we can have the basic electrolyzers like we produce, and then just put more of them next to one another, or you can work on the size of that stack. So far, the main positive effect comes by putting more of those stacks together and then consolidating the equipment around it. That is the main effect that we are addressing now. If it, over time, makes sense to work on the size of the stack itself, we will of course do so. As for now, it's more with the system design, the surrounding components which we then consolidate. Thank you. Okay. One more question from Damien. Damien, you are activated. Hello, can you hear me now? We can hear you, yes. Okay, thank you. I have a question regarding SG&A cash costs. This quarter you recorded NOK 311 million, compared to NOK 221 million a year ago, which is 41% higher year-over-year. Could you please elaborate what should we expect in the future in the coming quarters in that area? Thank you. You know, we have scaled up the organization a lot, and that hits that line. Quite a lot of those costs that come in there will over time be charged to the projects. You know, so it is engineering hours and other things that we are, then going to charge on. We have seen a rapid buildup of the cost base during, the last two years. It, been a bit more stable lately. I would say that we continue to invest for growth. Continued, also growth in the, in the cost base will be expected, hopefully at a lower rate than what it has been historically. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. It seems like there's no more questions coming in. I will leave the word to Håkon now for some final remarks. Yeah. I, as I said, we are pleased with the development in the first quarter. Still have a way to go to get to profitability. It doesn't mean that we are, you know, truly, you know, satisfied with the performance, but it's a step in the right direction along several dimensions. I think we are developing the company in a good direction, and hope to continue to do that in the coming quarters also. Thank you for watching, and hope to see you back again for the second quarter update.