Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to First Solar's first quarter 2022 Earnings C all. This call is being webcast live on the Investors section of First Solar's website at investor.firstsolar.com. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. As a reminder, today's call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Mitch Ennis from First Solar Investor Relations. Mitch, you may begin. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for joining us. Today, the company issued a press release announcing its first quarter 2022 financial results. A copy of the press release and associated presentation are available on First Solar's website at investor.firstsolar.com. With me today are Mark Widmar, Chief Executive Officer, and Alex Bradley, Chief Financial Officer. Mark will begin by providing a business and technology update. Alex will then discuss our financial results for the quarter. Following the remarks, we open the call for questions. Please note this call will include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from management's current expectations, including among other risks and uncertainties, the severity and duration of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We encourage you to review the safe harbor statements contained in today's press release and presentation for a more complete description. It is now my pleasure to introduce Mark Widmar, Chief Executive Officer. Mark. Thank you, Mitch. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us today. To begin, while our $0.41 loss per share results came in within our internal expectation for the quarter, it is reflective of what is projected to be a challenging 2022 from an earnings standpoint due to the factors that we highlighted during our call in March, in which we will address further today. That said, we are encouraged by our strong bookings progress as we booked 11.9 GW in less than 60 days since the prior earnings call, bringing our year-to-date bookings total to 16.7 GW, further setting ourselves up for 2023 and beyond. An important feature of many of these recent bookings, as previously discussed, is that they include adjusters to potentially increase ASPs based on the realization of our technology roadmap achievements and sales risk-sharing mitigation. In addition, we have begun to employ a similar ASP adjustment mechanism related to aluminum exposure. Later in the call, we will provide an indicative view of how these pricing adjustments could result in an ASP potentially significantly greater than the baseline reflected at the time of our bookings. In short, while these contracts have a baseline ASP that is reflective of the value of the product we are manufacturing today, that ASP has the potential to increase to capture the value of our product or technology enhancements or to offset sales rate and aluminum margin erosion risk. We believe this agile approach to contracting will continue to attract customers looking for long-term certainty and value. The combination of reliable, competitive pricing and supply certainty, lower political and compliance risk, and access to our best available technology is a tremendous value driver for sophisticated customers who may be fatigued with the volatility uncertainty that can be experienced transacting in this industry, particularly in the current environment. It is worth noting that many of these recent bookings are with long-term repeat customers with relationships that span hundreds of megawatts of previously installed capacity. In addition, our most recent bookings include significant volumes from customers new to First Solar. These decisions to work with First Solar and our technology speak volumes, not just about the trust in the company, the value of our differentiated CadTel semiconductor, and our adherence to principles of responsible solar, but also the risk of pursuing a solar at any cost strategy, by which we mean an approach that would otherwise compromise values and ambitions for projects powered by truly low carbon and environmentally superior solar. This trust is in part built upon the company's dependability and its ethos of honoring its commitments. Some argue that the current volatility in the industry in general, and the module availability and pricing specifically at this particular moment in time, provides the company with an opportunity to pursue repricing of legacy contracts that we are delivering on today, but which were entered into at prices several years ago. We take a different view. We are continuing to build First Solar for the long- term, and our partnerships with our highly valued customers is a critical aspect of that ambition. We believe the benefits that come with continuing to serve a base of enduring strategic customers that seek to partner with a company for large scale, multi-year procurements outweighs the potential long-term adverse impacts that could result from taking a transactional versus relationship-based approach in the short- term. Turning to slide three, I'd like to review some highlights and provide some updates from the quarter. As just mentioned, we booked 11.9 GW since the March earnings call. After accounting for shipments of approximately 1.7 GW, which was in line with our expectation, this brings our total contracted backlog to 36.4 GW. Manufacturing metrics remain strong despite some planned downtime for upgrades in Vietnam in February and March and our Q1 production of approximately 2.1 GW. With regards to supply chain and logistics, as mentioned on our earnings call in March, we have no direct tier one suppliers in the Russia-Ukraine conflict area. However, volatility in various supply markets such as metals, lumber, and fuels is further exacerbating the current inflationary environment. In addition, we have some indirect exposure through our equipment vendors as it relates to the timing of manufacturing delivery of tools for our new factories in Ohio and India. Moreover, the conflict and current inflationary environment have contributed to dislocations in certain currency markets. Alex will discuss the impact on First Solar later in the call. Regarding freight, while pricing in the trans-oceanic freight market continues to be at historic highs and to represent a headwind in 2022, we have recently seen increased container availability, which we believe is a result of China's pursuit of its zero COVID policy with its associated lockdowns. That said, transportation costs and transportation duration continue to be significantly higher than historic norms. For example, in Q1, shipments from Southeast Asia to the West Coast averaged over 130 days compared to approximately 60 days in 2020. Transit times have been exacerbated by the Russia-Ukraine war, as several global logistics and shipping companies announced cessations of shipping to Russia, further stranding equipment and vessels and intensifying backlogs and delays in global shipping industries. Turning to Japan, as we noted during our March earnings call, in late 2021, we received an unsolicited offer to acquire our Japan project development and O&M platform. Negotiations related to this potential sale are progressing well, and we expect in Q2 to enter into definitive agreements to sell these businesses, with closing taking place following satisfaction of customary closing conditions. As previously noted, should this transaction not be completed for any reason, we would expect to either continue our approach of selling down our contracted projects over time or consider an alternative buyer for the platform. Finally, construction of our third manufacturing facility in Ohio and our first manufacturing facility in India remain on track, although with the aforementioned risks related to equipment manufacturing and delivery schedules. Beyond these facilities, we continue to evaluate further expansion opportunities. As we have discussed before, with our new factories anticipated to represent the lowest cost of production in the fleet, their proximity to demand and given our large fixed operating cost structure, growth is expected to provide significant incremental contribution margin. As we consider options for growth, we have increasingly been approached to consider further expansions with various financing, ownership, and offtake structures as industry participants continue to embrace the value of entering into long-term partnerships with reliable module suppliers. While we have made no decisions at this time, we are receptive to enabling the ambitions of our partners seeking dedicated supply. To this end, we continue to engage with our tool and equipment vendors to ensure they have visibility into and the ability to support any potential expansion. Turning to technology, we are pleased with the optionality, excuse me, our current roadmap provides, both in terms of enhancing our form factor, product design, and energy profile in utility scale markets, as well as providing a potential route to scale into the residential solar market. With regard to form factor, we expect our Series 7 module, which is to be produced at our new factories in Ohio and India, will feature a glass area that is approximately 14% larger than our Series 6 Plus modules. Unlike crystalline silicon modules, which are constrained by the industry standard cell sizes and risks, such as cell cracking, CadTel has no such form factor or size limitation. A larger form factor benefits our cost per watt produced and allows our customers to install more watts with less balance of system costs. In terms of design, we expect the mounting system to be regionally optimized in the U.S. to a tracker application and in India to a fixed tilt application. We believe the redesigned structure will combine lower cost to produce with greater installed speed in the field, benefiting both First Solar and our customers. As it relates to energy, in addition to benefits associated with irradiance, temperature coefficient, spectral response, and shading, our R&D team continues to make progress on developing the bifacial attributes of our CadTel semiconductor. We are continuing to run tests that we expect will enable us to commercialize this technology across our module platforms and have recently produced another set of pre-production prototypes for additional field and product testing as we work to reaffirm the commercial, financial, and operational thesis of bifacial CadTel. Looking at the residential market, we recognize the value of high efficiency, aesthetically pleasing, and domestically manufactured products. To that end, we continue to evaluate the prospect of leveraging the high bandgap advantage of CadTel in a disruptive, high efficiency, low-cost tandem or multi-junction device. We believe that a thin-film semiconductor is essential to achieving the highest performing tandem PV module, and that CadTel is well placed to enable this leap forward in high performance with a path in the midterm to achieve a 25% efficient multi-junction PV module. As we seek to grow our presence and competitive position in the residential and C&I space, this type of module has the potential to be disruptive and provide us with a competitive advantage. In that spirit, we are in discussions with SunPower to potentially develop and eventually introduce an advanced residential solar panel, a stacked tandem module platform that combines our advanced thin-film CadTel semiconductor with responsibly sourced crystalline silicon cells. We do not intend to disclose further any developments with respect to this discussion, except to the extent an agreement is reached. Finally, as highlighted in our last earnings call, our technology team has been conducting extensive testing to measure the full performance entitlement of CuRe in high-volume manufacturing conditions. Since our last update in March, we have concluded that while the potential for CuRe remains, its implementation will be delayed beyond 2022. We will prioritize other aspects of our R&D stack in the near- term to ensure a focus on the three current technology pathways that we believe can be commercialized in the near- term: Series 7, bifacial CadTel, and tandem multi-junction devices. The success of these three pathways is not contingent on CuRe, which will continue to be developed in parallel. We have continued to advance progress on our previously discussed amendments and advanced stage negotiations to amend certain customer contracts utilizing CuRe technology by substituting our enhanced Series 6 product. We maintain our expectation that these amendments will impact 2022 revenue and gross margin by approximately $60 million, which is reflected in our guidance. Moving to slide four. With the aforementioned 11.9 GW of bookings since the prior earnings call, bringing our total year-to-date bookings to 16.7 GW and factoring in shipments of 1.7 GW in the first quarter, our future expected shipments, which extend into 2026, are 36.4 GW. Including our year-to-date bookings, we are sold out for 2022 and 2023, have 9.6 GW for planned deliveries in 2024, and have 7.6 GW for planned deliveries in 2025 and beyond. Included in these bookings are gigawatt-sized deals entered into over the past several weeks with, among others, Silicon Ranch, Energix Renewable Energies, and Leeward Renewable Energy for delivery in North America and internationally. Turning to slide five, I'd like to take a moment to walk through the recent changes in our contracting structure. This change in approach provides product certainty today as our baseline ASP is reflective of today's technology. It further provides ASP upside to the extent we realize future module technology improvements, including new product designs, which deliver a better energy profile for our customers. Finally, it provides greater logistics and commodity gross margin risk mitigation through ASP adjusters linked to aluminum and sales freight costs. Every contract is different, and not every recent contract includes every adjuster described here. To the extent that such adjusters are not included in a contract, we believe that baseline ASP reflects a commensurate risk and opportunity profile. As it relates to technology and product adjusters, we have previously and will continue to have both upward and downward adjustments to ASPs to reflect the bin class delivered, reflective of the baseline bin committed under the contract. As it relates to other technology roadmap and product features, under our previous structure, we would forward sell assumed improvements with no upside and a downside risk in the event these were not achieved, as represented by the red circles on the slide. Under our updated structure, we forward sell today's technology with upside for technology improvements, as shown by the green circles. As shown by the dotted box on the slide, and as we have reflected in the 10-Q filing, as of March 31, 2022, we had approximately 9.8 GW of contracted volume with these adjusters, which is, if realized, could result in additional revenue up to $0.3 billion or approximately $0.03/W. Note, of our 4.8 GW of calendar quarter bookings, 1.4 GW did not include technology adjusters, but was priced with an approximately 10% premium to the remainder of the calendar quarter bookings. As it relates to standard versus high-load modules, our previous structure assumed a certain mix, and any deviation from that mix could imply greater high-load modules, which have a higher cost per watt produced, could have resulted in reduced gross margin. Under our updated structure, we have received an increased ASP to offset this additional cost, therefore preventing gross margin erosion, as represented by the blue circle on the slide. As it relates to sales freight and aluminum, we were previously exposed to incremental costs in logistics and commodity markets. Under our updated structure, we have contractual adjusters designed to offset such incremental costs and prevent gross margin erosion. As of today, we have 23.2 GW of contracts with either sales rate coverage or no sales rate exposure. The aluminum coverage clause was introduced after Q1 quarter end and is present in 11 GW of our most recent bookings. Indicatively, assuming today's sales rate and aluminum environment, a contract with these sales rate and aluminum adjusters would increase ASPs by approximately $0.03 per watt above the baseline. Finally, as it relates to policy, many of our updated contracts in the United States now specify sharing related to a potential upside for U.S.-made modules under an extension of the investment tax credit. As reflected on slide six, our pipeline of potential bookings remain robust. Even after booking 11.9 GW in less than 60 days, our total bookings opportunity of 54.1 GW. Our 23.7 GW of mid- to late-stage opportunities include 16.1 GW in North America, 5.4 GW in India, 1.7 GW in the EU, and 0.5 GW across other geographies. We are especially encouraged by the continuing growth in our India pipeline, which we believe positions us well to realize multi-gigawatts of bookings over the next several quarters. The global sustained market demand is driven by the fact that we are on the edge of a new age of electrification, one in which essentially everything that can be electrified will be. It is our next big evolutionary leap and our best bet at fighting climate change as we power transportation and virtually every aspect of our lives, including power producing fuel cells with electricity. Before turning over the call to Alex on slide seven, I would like to address recent policy developments in the United States, Europe, and India. Trade and industrial policy decisions and the upending of the global geopolitical status quo both play a significant role in impacting market dynamics as well as continuing to inform our growth strategy. Starting with the U.S., in late December 2021, President Biden signed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which received widespread bipartisan support in Congress. This act's rebuttable presumption against the importation of goods produced in the Xinjiang region, assumed to be produced with forced labor, is set to go into effect in June this year. There exists practical solutions to reduce the risk of purchasing modules associated with forced labor. For instance, the Responsible Business Alliance, the world's largest industry coalition dedicated to supporting the rights and well-being of workers and communities in the global supply chain, offers the leading standard for on-site compliance verification and effective shareable audits in the form of a validated assessment program. Yet this established model has not been widely adopted by the solar industry, with First Solar being the first, and at this point, only large solar manufacturer to join RBA. In our view, transparency and traceability are crucial to reinforcing our industry's social license to operate. The transition to a sustainable energy future and the fight against climate change must not come at the price of human rights. Turning our focus to domestic and trade policy, the Biden-Harris administration has the opportunity to deliver a meaningful and durable long-term solar industrial policy through the use of a manufacturing incentive. We remain fully engaged in advocating for legislation that would revive climate and clean energy investment, including the framework for manufacturing tax credits established by the Solar Energy Manufacturing for America Act, introduced by Senator Ossoff. On the trade front, in response to the petition by Auxin Solar, the U.S. Department of Commerce has initiated anti-circumvention inquiries against crystalline silicon imports to the United States that undergo minor processing, if any, in four Southeast Asia countries. We believe this is a positive step towards addressing the problem of mainly crystalline silicon Chinese modules and cells that are completed in Southeast Asia in an attempt to avoid tariffs. For too long, the American solar manufacturing industry has been under siege from the Chinese headquartered and subsidized companies that have been violating the rules of free and fair trade. The data shows that since the underlying antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese cells and modules were put in place, the value of Chinese imports to the United States decreased by 86%. During the same period, the value of imports from four Southeast Asian countries increased by 868%. Prior to the underlying antidumping and countervailing orders, there was virtually no crystalline silicon cells and modules produced in these four Southeast Asian countries. There is still very limited polysilicon in-ingot or wafer production in these nations. Instead, they source the high-value wafers from China, which controls 99% of global crystalline silicon wafer production. Additionally, China is the dominant supplier of the other key imports, inputs such as aluminum, silver paste, EVA sheets, backsheets, aluminum frames, and junction boxes. Simply, the data truly speaks for itself. We've heard the sky is falling narrative pushed by lobbyists advocating for China to have free rein in the U.S. market. Their doom and gloom is telling. It suggests that they are afraid that the Department of Commerce will find that the Chinese solar manufacturers, in fact, engage in circumvention and will hold them accountable for their unfair and unlawful trade practices. While the lobbyists characterize Auxin as a single company seeking to inappropriately exploit the law, it is precisely cases like this that the law are designed for. Indeed, Commerce has conducted 85 circumvention inquiries covering all types of industries, and of these, approximately 80% have been decided in the affirmative. We also reject the false narrative that Commerce investigation in pursuit of the rule of law will adversely impact the administration's climate ambitions. Trading away responsible ultra-low carbon solar manufacturing for dependency on China is deeply misguided because China polysilicon is heavily reliant on coal-produced electricity. When the price of coal goes up, so does the price of polysilicon and crystalline silicon solar panels. Whether produced in Xinjiang or in the United States, emissions exacerbate the global climate crisis. Smokestacks not visible from Pennsylvania Avenue are no less harmful to the environment. To be clear, the anti-circumvention investigation is not about prohibiting imports, but about ensuring the imports compete fairly in the U.S. market. We welcome the robust international competition in its fair and rules-based backdrop. The problem today is that dumped and subsidized imports distort competition and cycles of innovation, with the Chinese government warping investment decisions and dictating outcomes. If the rules are enforced, we are confident that the U.S. solar demand will be met and that we will have a stronger American solar manufacturing industry, serving as a secure, environmentally responsible source of supply. More broadly, we firmly believe that the United States needs a combination of durable industrial policy, smart trade policy, and enforcement of the rule of law in order to build back American solar manufacturing and innovation. At no point should this vital transition to a sustainable energy future come at the cost of American jobs, investment, innovation, or national energy security. Moving to Europe, we are seeing three pivotal shifts in the policy space. The first is the growing momentum around accelerating renewable energy deployments and bringing forward targets. The second is the recognition that dependencies on authoritarian states are strategic vulnerabilities. The last is the rapid strengthening of bilateral transatlantic relationships. All three factors are being driven by Russia's invasion of Ukraine earlier this year. With regards to renewable deployment, faced not just with the risk and uncertainty of gas supplies, but also the prospects of continuing to funnel billions of dollars to Russia through gas purchases, European leaders are working to speed up the region's energy transition. The European Union's REPowerEU initiative aims to cut dependency on Russian gas by deploying more renewables and accelerating R&D in future fuels such as hydrogen. Individual European countries are accelerating their transition plans. For instance, Portugal aims to have 80% of its electricity come from renewables by 2026, up from an original target of 60% in the same time frame. Germany is also moving forward with a goal to double renewable energy generation from 40% today to 80% by 2030, an increase of 15 percentage points over the previous target. Significantly, the coalition government in Berlin included a clause in the renewable energy legislation package, acknowledging that renewable energy deployment is in the best interest of country security. With regards to strategic vulnerability, there is growing concern in the EU about replacing energy dependency on one authoritarian state with another, including and especially China, which supplies virtually all of the solar panels to the region. European leaders are underscoring China's position as a systemic rival and threat that operates in opposition to Europe's social and democratic model, liberal values, and recognition of international law. Finally, we are encouraged by the strengthening bilateral relationships between the EU and the United States. Near-term cooperation is focused on the immediate needs to alleviate gas shortages in Europe. Longer-term shared climate, sustainability, and energy security goals can lead to more collaboration on clean energy technologies and their deployment. As both the United States and Europe work through their challenges of rapidly scaling domestic solar manufacturing capacity, they should consider the template that India has established. There are a few better examples of how a combination of trade safeguards, manufacturing incentives, and tangible clean energy goals can spur domestic manufacturing than India. Today, India is expected to have 40 GW of new cell capacity and 50 GW of new module capacity come online by 2025. If all of this new capacity does materialize, it would not only make India self-sufficient, but it would also create a significant amount of export capacity. This is a direct result of the effective combination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers to level the playing field. The Indian government's Production-Linked Incentive scheme for domestic manufacturing and government clean energy targets that would see 25 GW of new capacity deployed every year until the end of the decade. India's all-of-government approach is clearly working and is perhaps one that we can all learn from. It's now my opportunity to turn the call over to Alex Bradley, who will discuss Q1 results. Thanks, Mark. Starting on slide eight, I'll cover the income statement highlights for the first quarter. Net sales in Q1 were $367 million, a decrease of $540 million compared to the prior quarter. Decrease in net sales was primarily driven by lower module volume sold, reflecting the seasonality and increased transit times, and lower average module ASPs, as well as a decrease in revenue from our residual business operations following the sale of three projects in Japan in Q4 of 2021. On a segment basis, our module segment revenue in Q1 was $355 million, compared to $690 million the prior quarter. Gross margin was 3% in Q1, compared to 27% in Q4 of 2021. Q1 module segment gross margin was 3%, down from 21% in Q4 of 2021, and was negatively impacted by $4 million or 1 percentage point of gross margin of underutilization expense stemming from planned downtime for throughput and technology upgrades. Additionally, sales rate warranty expense included in our cost of sales reduced module segment gross margin by 14 percentage points in Q1 compared to 13 percentage points in Q4 of last year. SG&A and R&D expenses totaled $64 million in the first quarter, a decrease of approximately $4 million compared to the prior quarter, primarily driven by lower R&D testing expense. Production startup, which is included in operating expenses, totaled $7 million in the first quarter, an increase of $2 million compared to the prior quarter, driven by increased startup costs associated with our third Perrysburg factory. Q1, we closed the sale of certain international O&M contracts in Chile and recorded a gain on the sale of the business of $2 million. Q1 operating loss was $58 million, which includes depreciation and amortization of $65 million, underutilization and production startup expense totaling $11 million, share-based compensation of $4 million, and a gain on the sales of certain O&M contracts of $2 million. We recorded a tax benefit of $19 million in the first quarter compared to tax expense of $36 million in the prior quarter. Decrease in tax expense is attributable to the pre-tax loss in Q1 compared to pre-tax income in Q4 of 2021. Combination of the aforementioned items led to a first quarter loss per share of $0.41 compared to Q4 of 2021 earnings per share of $1.23 on a diluted basis. Next, turn to slide nine to discuss select balance sheet items and summary cash flow information. Our cash, marketable securities and restricted cash balance ended the quarter at $1.6 billion compared to $1.8 billion at the end of the prior quarter. Module segment operating cash flow was offset by ongoing project spend in Japan, other operating expenses and capital expenditures associated with our new Perrysburg and India factories. Total debt at the end of the first quarter was $252 million, an increase of $12 million from the end of Q4, primarily associated with loan drawdowns in Japan. As a reminder, all of our outstanding debt continues to be project related and will come off our balance sheet when the corresponding projects are sold. Our net cash position, which includes cash, restricted cash, and marketable securities less debt, decreased by approximately $285 million- $1.3 billion as a result of the aforementioned factors. In the first quarter, cash flows used in operations were $139 million, and capital expenditures were $155 million. Continuing on slide 10, our full year 2022 guidance is unchanged from our call in early March. However, I provide some context around some of the risks, uncertainties and opportunities within the year. Firstly, as Mark mentioned, negotiations related to the potential sale of our Japan project development and O&M businesses are progressing well. We're expecting Q2 to enter into definitive agreements to sell these businesses. The anticipated value in local currency has remained in line with our expectations when we gave guidance in March. Due to the global macro environment and the Bank of Japan maintaining a commitment to economic stimulus, in contrast to tightening U.S. monetary policy, the Japanese yen has in the last two months experienced a sudden and significant devaluation relative to the U.S. dollar. While we continue to anticipate U.S. dollar pre-tax gain on sale of $270 million-$290 million, timing of sale and the state of the currency markets at closing may adversely impact that value. Secondly, as it relates to commodities, we continue to see volatility and increased pressure in major commodity markets, including aluminum and lumber. As mentioned in our previous guidance call, we continue to face challenges and to evaluate pathways towards mitigating our aluminum exposure, particularly as it relates to hedging supply from Malaysia and Vietnam factories. Thirdly, the global scrap rate environment remains challenging. With Q1 freight costs tracking largely as expected, we continue to see full-year scrap rate approaching $0.05 per watt or approximately 18-20 percentage points of gross margin. Lastly, we maintain our forecasted cost per watt produced reduction from year-end 2021 to year-end 2022 of 4%-6% and our flat year-over-year cost per watt sold forecast. Turning to slide 11, I'll summarize the key messages from the call. From a financial perspective, our Q1 loss per share of $0.41 is in line with our internal expectations, and we reiterate our full-year guidance. Operationally, production of 2.1 GW and shipments of 1.7 GW were in line with expectations, and we continue to advance our technology roadmap across Series 7 bifaciality and tandem multi-junction devices. Finally, Series 6 demand has been robust with 16.7 GW of year-to-date bookings, which includes 11.9 GW since the previous earnings call, leading to a current contract backlog of 36.4 GW. This includes recent bookings with our updated contracting structure, providing ASP upsides and gross margin risk mitigation. With that, we conclude our prepared remarks and open the call for questions. Operator? Thank you, Sir. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please do so by pressing star one on your phone. Again, press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. Please be reminded to limit yourself to one question to give opportunity for other participants to ask their questions. However, if you have more than one question, you may press star one to be in the queue again, and we will address additional questions if time permits. Please stand by while we check for questions. Your first question comes from Philip Shen with Roth Capital Partners. Please go ahead. Thanks for taking my questions, and thanks for sharing all the detail on the contract structure. You know, I have a few on pricing in general, but you had mentioned, Mark, the $0.03 per watt or $300 million of potential ASP upside for 2023, I think, on the Q4 call. I'd like to explore how much more upside there might be beyond this. For example, you know, which adder is not included in your $0.03 per watt estimate? I believe it's Series 7 bifacial and origin adders. Can you talk through how much volume, in terms of megawatts we could see for each of these in 2023, and what kind of contribution in terms of cents per watt could each represent? Beyond this, can you talk through how the anti-circumvention chaos may be incrementally supporting even higher base pricing for your base ASP for incremental contracts? Finally, this is more of a housekeeping question for pricing. Our quick calculation for the Q1 ASP is roughly $0.21 a watt. That compares with, I think Q4 of closer to $0.31 a watt, so that's a big change. Can you help us understand what's missing in our calculation? Meaning, typically your megawatts shipped may be a little bit different from your megawatts recognized in revenue. Ultimately, what was the pricing or ASP in Q1, and what do you expect in Q2 and Q3? Thanks, guys. All right. Philip, let me, I wanna make sure I understand your first question. Actually, if you look at that contracting slide that we have in the presentation, the indicative contracting, there's a dotted box that's around, I think, four different components. One is the temperature coefficient, the long-term degradation rate, bifaciality, and Series 7. I think it's the four that it's around. Those if you look down at the bottom, there's a note down there that indicates that that is reflected in the 10-Q disclosure. That up to $300 million number that we referenced is taking the value of those four items into consideration. You referenced a few things around, well, what's not included. Yes, there are certain things that are not included, such as domestic content. If we source from our facility in Ohio, whether our existing facility or new facility, there are some provisions in our contracts that would say there's a premium for U.S.-made content. And that's even independent of whether or not it even gets captured in a U.S. content ITC. We highlight at the bottom of the slide that another thing that we've done with our contracts is that to the extent that there becomes a U.S. content criteria that is used for the ITC, we've contracted that now to provide upside. There's pretty significant value uplift for that 10 percentage point, which is what's currently being considered for domestic content for ITC. Beyond that, there's also the domestic source content that some of our customers just would rather have U.S.-made and domestic sourced product. To the extent they do, there's a premium that we are asking for in order to reserve that type of allocation from that factory. As it relates to the anti-circumvention and the impact to pricing, it's pricing and it's not just near- term, but as you can see, we've booked 12 GW since the last earnings call, and a lot of that is going out into, you know, 2024, you know, 2025, and even we're starting to see some momentum going into 2026 as well. You know, that's obviously a strong indicator of fundamentals underlying demand. One of the things that we alluded to in our prepared remarks is we referred to as this kind of the edge of electrification and kind of this revolutionary age that we're in right now. We're seeing a lot of really strong demand. The way I always, you know, sort of position it from our perspective, we sit on the front end, so we are an enabler of that electrification. You have to start off with taking photons and making electrons, and then whatever evolution happens for electrification of transportation or building or other sources of fuels and other things along those lines, you know, we're gonna be a critical strategic enabler of that. We're starting to see a lot of momentum and demand in the marketplace right now, especially for green hydrogen and green ammonia, not just in maybe some of the places you would anticipate it, maybe in the Middle East or in Europe, but in India, and even here in the U.S., we're starting to see some inflection points around that. There's just a strong fundamental underlying demand for our traditional PV and PVPS market, but also as we're starting to see, you know, inflection points now with new demand curves starting to come up for things such as, you know, green hydrogen and green ammonia. We are seeing better pricing. If you look at the backlog of where we are, our baseline price has improved from the average that was there at the end of the year. When you factor in the benefits of the technology, you know, adjusters that we have, as well as, you know, to the extent that scrap rate stays inflated where it is now and as well as with aluminum, you know, the combination of those two could add, you know, up to $0.06 a watt to where our current pricing is on the baseline. Anyway, we're encouraged. We're seeing some positive signs. I'll let Alex talk a little more about Q1 ASP. On the ASP side, the shipped volume was about 1.7. On a sold basis, it was more like 1.3. If you do the math on 1.3 against about 303, I think 55 of module revenue, you get somewhere around $0.27 and change on an ASP basis. What you're seeing there is volume on a sold basis is down partly. There's some seasonality, right? Typically Q1 is a lower shipped than sold quarter for us. It ramps through the year. You've got a little bit of Incoterms impact there. We had more DDP versus CIP terms in Q1 relative to last quarter. You've got transit time, as Mark said in prepared remarks. We're still seeing times into the U.S. being at record highs, up at over 130 days in Q1. You've got those impacts coming through. On the gross margin side, there's a little bit of a mix shift as well, which is impacting us. You've actually got a bit more Perrysburg volume on the sold volume coming through in the gross margin. It's a little bit offset as you get some benefit in the scrap rate there, which is why if you look at scrap rate on a gross margin percentage points basis in Q1, it was down at 14 points of the full year expectation. The guide is 18-20. You've got a little bit of offset there, some higher cost core product, a little bit of benefit of scrap rate coming through. That's why you've got this lower sold volume and the impact you're seeing in the gross margin. Yeah, you know, I think, Phil, maybe to answer your broader question as well, is that we're seeing strong demand. We feel like we're getting attractive pricing in the market. We're continuing to drive costs down. As Alex indicated, even the backdrop of all the challenges we're dealing with, we still anticipate a 4%-6% cost per watt reduction. Then as we've highlighted before, Series 7, when introduced, will be the lowest cost product in our fleet. That's even a lower cost profile than we have today. The combination of all those, couple that with the contribution margin flow through from the incremental growth, you know, we're pretty excited about 2023 and beyond and the opportunities that we're positioned for right now. Continuing to look to grow beyond what we already have committed to with the strong backlog that we have right now. Great. Thanks, guys. Your next question comes from the line of Ben Kallo with Baird. Please go ahead. Hey, thank you guys. Maybe just to kind of take a step back, going back to when you had module gross margin targets, I think greater than 25%, way back when. If I put all this stuff together, you know, on that slide five, and technology advancements, how does that shape up versus that original outlook? I have a follow-up. Ben, I think if you just look at—I mean, right now when you pull out the effects of scrap rate on the quarter, I think we're in the high teens, 17%, 18%, something like that from a gross margin without the impact of scrap rate. And then if you include the technology adjusters, which is another 10 percentage points on top of that, you're gonna get to a gross margin that's gonna be at, you know, at that 25% or north of that 25% number that you referenced. So that's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it, you know, Ben, if we had the commodity adjusters in this current quarter, you know, we would have added 10 percentage points to where we are right now, including the impact of scrap rate from the commodity standpoint. We also had a very low shipment quarter. I mean, this is one of our lowest shipment quarters that we've had in a long time. As Alex indicated, 1.3 GW is one of the lowest quarters that we've had. So that's obviously drawn, you know, kind of weight against some of our fixed costs in our production facilities that drove to a lower gross margin. You'll see, you know, that being leveraged as we grow sales volume, as we expand throughout the year. We'll be averaging close to around 2.5 GW or 2.6 GW a quarter. Essentially double where we are right now on a sold basis to hit our revenue targets for the year. Yeah. I think if you look at the backlog that we gave in the 10-Q, you'll see the number tomorrow. You're gonna still see $0.27 ASPs. We had a very large booking quarter. You're seeing ASPs relatively flat going out into the out years. As we talked about on this call, it's important to understand that's a baseline number. We talked about there being up to $0.03 of technology added, potentially another $0.03 of scrap rate and aluminum adders relative to where we are today. In that same timeframe, you will have cost reduction as well ongoing. You're seeing ASPs flat to rising over time, cost reduction coming down, and then you add volume on top of that. Great. Congrats on the bookings. How do you think about, you know, with the backdrop that you outlined of all of the, you know, legislative and regulatory positives potentially for you, how do you think about, you know, the expanding capacity, you know, as you signing up contracts? Thank you very much. Yeah. Look, what we've always said that we want demand to drive supply for us, right? When you look at the bookings momentum. I mean, if you look at it right now, we've got 36 GW in our pipeline. If you go back last year at this time, we were about 15. We've added, you know, 21 GW to the backlog within a 12-month period. The momentum, if you look at the pipeline, it still is, you know, 50-55, you know, gigawatts of a total pipeline. As I alluded to, you know, I can easily see over the next several quarters, capturing multi-gigawatt volume in India, which we've been very patient in terms of taking that volume at this point in time to ensure we get optimal pricing and what we wanna capture in India. I think we're in a good spot there right now. We're gonna, you know, I wouldn't be surprised by, you know, in the middle of this year that we're largely sold out through 2025, uh, 2024, excuse me. You know, we've got a few more gigawatts. We gotta knock out India, which I think would give me in a good position and as well as some more volume here in the U.S. of a few gigawatts. We could be in a good position of having 2024 sold out and even a more meaningful position into, you know, 2025. All that sort of gives us the backdrop and the policy support and the environment that we're seeing, you know, in our, you know, three primary markets that we wanna stay focused on, which is, you know, India, the U.S. and Europe. I think there's some pretty strong inflection points right now for us on a policy standpoint and markets that are compelling for us. One of the things we said with what we continue to wanna do with our capacity expansion is to be close to end markets, right? To get out from underneath, you know, the ocean freight exposure and the challenges that they can create and the headwind on cost. I think thinking through those are three primary markets with robust, you know, recurring demand could be pretty attractive as we think about capacity expansion. Overall, I think the building blocks are coming together pretty nicely as we think through that. Ben, one thing I'll add is, you know, our technology being unique and different, so is our tool set and the manufacturing required for that. We've been engaging with suppliers to ensure that we have line of sight on critical path tools for further expansion. We continue to have those discussions with our suppliers. Your next question comes from the line of Maheep Mandloi with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Hey, just thanks for taking our questions. With regards to this revised pricing structure, can you just provide some more visibility around how many contracts in the backlog are under this new structure, with reference to the slide in today's deck? Or is it fair to assume only the bookings since the Q4 call have this new structure? Also just wanted to get your thoughts on the cadence we should expect for 2022 in terms of shipments or revenue recognition. Thanks. If you look at on a sales freight, I'll just go through the various adders. We've got sales freight adder, and I believe that's like about a little bit north of 23 GW. 23 GW out of the 36 or so. The aluminum adder is about 11 GW out of the. Again, we just started contracting that way since the really last earnings call, which was March 1. About 11 GW under the aluminum. Under the technology adders, you're gonna see in the Q when we announce it, effectively it's 10 GW that we believe we'll be able to capture. The number that we have contracted that way is higher. I think the number could be closer to around 16 GW or so. What we identify in the queue is it ties up into our roadmap of our bifacial implementation rollout, our Series 7, you know, our temperature coefficient and degradation improvement profile. We kinda model that and what the replication is for each of those technology initiatives, and then how does that roll out relative to what our current delivery schedules look like. If those push out, you know, for example, if we hold our technology roadmap and the actual schedule for some of those push out, then there's potentially upside that we can capture beyond just what's been identified. That's kind of the profile of what's in the backlog. What I would just continue to say is that everything we're contracting going forward is largely under this construct, but if somebody wants to pay a higher price, right? In some cases, customers are gonna say, "Look, I'll just pay for all in everything now and not worry about the adjusters," 'cause it may be easier to get it through their regulator, right? They gotta go to the commission, they gotta get approval for the CapEx. They'd rather have it all in number, so they go down that path, right? Some others may say, "Well, it's easier for me to get my financing and what have you, and therefore I want an all-in number," and we'll provide that. You know, it has an uplift and a premium. In some cases, some customers may go the other route, and they may say on the sales freight in particular, "I'll just pick it up myself." We also have some contracts where customers are saying, "Look, just give it to me Ex Works, so I don't have to take any risk on that. I'll let them take the whole thing and, you know, I don't have to worry about it," and we just deliver the project, you know, at outside of the factory walls, and then they take it from there. We try to highlight in the, you know, in that slide that, you know, not all contractors is the same. What I would say is in each case, what we're trying to do is to capture the highest value for the technology, not only today, but the future technology as it evolves, and also put us in a much better position and a risk-reward, you know, balanced position with our customers on things like commodities and sales freight and the like. Yeah, as it relates to the cadence of shipping and rev rec, there's a lot of variability given, as we mentioned, the transit times being higher, a lot of that uncertainty around sales freight. Obviously, we have more visibility to our U.S. transit, and that helps. I would say you're gonna definitely see a back-ended profile, so you can expect to see a little more, probably closer to 2/3 versus half of shipped volume and sold volume being recognized in the second half of the year versus first. Again, I caution there's a lot of uncertainty around that number just given what we're seeing in the shipping situation and shipping market. Your next question comes from the line of Joseph Osha with Guggenheim. Please go ahead. Hello. Thank you. Just for the record, I wanna say I'm completely in agreement with your position on the Chinese supply chain. Just wanna say that up front. I've got two questions. First, just wondering how your EPC partners are doing in terms outside of your product area, you know, cables, labor, racking, all that, you know, how, what you're hearing from them in terms of the ability to get projects completed. My other question relates to your plans for expansion. You talked about working with other parties, but, you know, you've maintained a very clean balance sheet. I'm wondering with this much high quality backlog, whether we might see you maybe potentially look at levering a balance sheet in order to continue to drive the manufacturing expansion. Thank you. Yeah, I'll take the first one. I'll do the expansion and leverage. Look, nobody's immune from the challenges in the supply chain right now. It's one thing on the model side, but we're also seeing it on our new tool sets, right? It's trying to identify and, you know, make sure that all the critical components that go into the tool sets that are needed are available throughout the supply chain. We've been working very closely with our tool vendors to make that happen or to ensure that happens or get as good availability as possible. It's challenging. It's no different than with, you know, our EPC partners and the challenges that they're dealing with. The reality in some cases, it can be something very small, and it would be perceived as insignificant, but it could be a major constraint. You know, a connector or whatever it may be could become a constraint to the overall project. Everyone's trying to work around that in some cases. In a lot of cases, you're even seeing a lot of people installing, you know, the structures as quick as possible, even though the panels aren't there because they know they're gonna run into other long lead time constraints and challenges that they're working through. Yeah, they're dealing with the same supply chain constraints that all of us are at this point in time. I really don't see anyone being immune. Yeah. Look, as it relates to expansion, I would say right now, by the end of the year, we'll have spent about $1 billion of the roughly $1.4 billion associated with the two new Series 7 plants. That lines up with our year-end forecasted net cash balance of about $1.2 billion at the midpoint of guidance. If you think about beyond that, next year, we have another $300 million-$400 million or so of CapEx associated with those plants. You're also gonna have the first production coming from those plants, plus you've got all the Series 6 products up and running, so the business should be cash generative next year. You're right, we haven't levered up the balance sheet. We do have the ability to potentially lever up with some debt against the India facilities. We've been in discussions, and I think we've disclosed before the potential for leverage. We're still at a corporate level, which would really be linked to the expansion in India, potentially up to around $500 million or so of capital capacity there at pretty attractive terms. Going beyond that, I would say that we could add an incremental factory without stressing the balance sheet. Again, that 1.2-1.3 is net, so the growth number is higher. We'll be cash generative next year. As we come out of the systems business, the working capital and volatility around the business decreases. Now, beyond that, if we were to see opportunity to add significantly more capacity in the near- term, there's the potential for needing more capital. I think we're going to do that. Right now, our read is across debt, converts, equity, and other markets are pretty open, receptive to capital. I'd also add that if you just look at the timeframe in which we would add capacity, even if we were to make a decision today, it's gonna be 24 months or so before we'll be able to bring that capacity online. The spend timing around the land, the building, the equipment is gonna push out such that we have more time for the business to generate cash as well. I think right now, as we stand, we're in a pretty good position. I don't see us needing to access the capital markets, but if we were to desire to do so, I believe those are open to us today. Our final question will come from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. A lot of moving parts here around some of the contractual, you know, adders. So I just wanna make sure I'm not misconstruing it. When you said earlier that, you know, on that slide four or five you got 36 GW of module shipments teed up for the next several years, and then you have the 12 GW that you booked since the last call. What—I think you made a comment that the contract adders or the commodity adders or the technology adders were not applicable for a certain percentage of those. Is that? Was I right in hearing that the 12 GW that you booked since the last call could potentially have the $0.03-$0.06 of adders, whereas the other 24 GW, because those were sort of older contracts, do not? Just a quick question on the equipment vendors. Anything you can elaborate there on in terms of lead times and where you might be seeing some of the most bottlenecks around some of your key equipment and tool sets needed for a capacity expansion. Thanks, guys. Yeah. Let me try to do this again. Let's just start with the 11.9 GW that was booked after the quarter end, so April first to today. 11.1 GW of that would have the aluminum adder in it. Okay? Say 11 GW out of the 12 GW. Okay? All that volume would have one of two things on scrap rate, either a scrap rate adder, and I'm talking just the 12 GW, or in some cases, in this case, in this quarter in particular, there's a significant portion of that 12 GW where a customer says, "I'll take the shipping responsibility on my own." My obligation is to just deliver it to the factory outside the factory door, and then they take it from there. I have no shipping risk on that. Think of it as it's either one of two ways it's protected from shipping. I've got an adjustment to shipping. It's the customer, if we exceed the cost that's in the baseline, which generally is around $0.025, and/or the customer picks it up, and therefore my cost is going down at least $0.025. Okay? Those are the two. You got aluminum adders, you got all of those one form of scrap rate protection, either an adjuster to the ASP or the customer's picking up, and I don't have to worry about any of the cost at all. Beyond that's 12 GW out of the 12 GW were before year-end or after quarter-end, excuse me. We have an aggregate in the $36 million. We have 23 GW that has a sales freight protection, okay? 23 of the 36 has sales freight, okay? 11 of it has aluminum. On the technology adjusters of the 36, there is about 16 GW that has technology adjuster, but only about 10 GW are included in that disclosure that you're gonna see in the 10-Q tomorrow because that's the portion of the 16 that we expect to monetize or to realize. Now, all of the new stuff, you know, it's highly probable that the new stuff is gonna be captured, right? That 12 GW is not in that disclosure. Just gotta put that in there as well. That disclosure that you're gonna see tomorrow does not include that 12 GW because it was after quarter end. You could take this 10 GW that we just said that's in the quarter, and you could add the vast majority of that 12 GW that happened after quarter end and say, "Yes, that will have a technology adjuster as well." But I just wanna make sure it's clear, when you look at what's in the 10-Q tomorrow, you will not see this additional 12 GW. You won't see it until the actual filing happens for next quarter. Is that clear, Brian? I just wanna make sure. For delineating all that does clarify it a lot. As it relates to the tools and what our challenge are, well, look, some of our challenges are chips as well, right? So there's quite a bit of metrology and data and everything else that we capture through our manufacturing process, so a lot of it's chip dependency. Now we've worked through that, and actually as of right now, the last word I got from my team yesterday, I think we've resolved a good portion of that, which is good. Now we get into other things like glass, right? So in our ovens, we actually have chambers that you could look down into, right? Because if something happens, you know, our ovens could be, you know, 75 yards long. They're segmented in such a way that you also have these chambers that you can look down into, and if something goes wrong inside or you gotta fix or repair, you would then access them from above. Generally there's a glass opening lid effectively, and we're struggling with one of our vendors around getting the glass. Now it's not gonna be a constraint. We believe we can still, you know, get the tools in, and then when the glass comes, it's something we can install on site, but, you know, it, there's many different issues. The team's doing a phenomenal job. They're working each one of these with each one of our tool vendors, BOM item by BOM item for our tool vendors and making sure that they have them, that we can maintain schedules, and they're thinking through workarounds. Look, it's a challenging environment as you can anticipate around, you know, supply chain. All right. Thanks, guys. Okay. That ends the question and answer session and today's conference call. Everyone, thank you for participating. You may now disconnect. Have a good night.