Today, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Gevo Incorporated first quarter 2025 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one one on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to your speaker for today, Eric Frey, Vice President of Finance and Strategy. Eric, you may begin. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us on today's call to discuss Gevo's first quarter 2025 results. I'm Eric Frey, Vice President of Finance and Strategy at Gevo. With me today, we have Patrick Gruber, our Chief Executive Officer; Lynn Smull, our Chief Financial Officer; Chris Ryan, our President and Chief Operating Officer; and Paul Bloom, our Chief Business Officer. Earlier today, we issued a press release that outlines our first quarter 2025 results and the topics we plan to discuss. A copy of the press release is available on our website at www.gevo.com. Please be advised that our remarks today, including answers to your questions, contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to be materially different from those currently anticipated. Those statements include projections about the timing, development, engineering, financing, and construction of our alcohol projects, our recently executed agreements, potential contracts for carbon credits, our Gevo North Dakota and RNG projects, and other activities described in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which are incorporated by reference. We disclaim any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. In addition, we may provide certain non-GAAP financial information on this call. The relevant definitions and GAAP reconciliations may be found in our earnings release, which can be found on our website at www.gevo.com in the Investor Relations section. Following the prepared remarks, we'll open the call for questions. I'd like to remind everyone that this conference call is open to the media, and we're providing a simultaneous webcast to the public. A replay of this call and other past events will be available via the company's Investor Relations page at www.gevo.com. I'd now like to turn the call over to the CEO of Gevo, Patrick Gruber. Pat. Thanks, Eric. What a change since the last quarter of 2024. In this first quarter of 2025, we generated $29 million of revenue. Now, this is only with two months of operations under our belt at Gevo North Dakota. The ethanol and carbon sequestration are working well, contributing value as we expected. Our RNG revenue and profitability has also improved. We believe our growth strategy reflected in our acquisition of the plant in North Dakota is going to pay off and help drive us to be EBITDA positive this year. This plant not only produces ethanol profitably in a tough market, it also has one of the three operating carbon sequestration operations in the country. We have received approval from the IRS to apply for the 45Z tax credit. Once we monetize that tax credit, it should further help our EBITDA growth. I know this is contrary to the noise in the market, but in fact, we believe these 45Z credits are monetizable now. We expect that we will be able to see the benefits in our P&L starting in the next quarter. By the way, it's worth noting that we are only aware of two ethanol plants in the country that will benefit from 45Z as it currently stands, and we own one of them. That's Gevo North Dakota. We don't need clarification around agricultural benefits. Our carbon intensity score is already low at about 20. The more we learn about the Gevo North Dakota site, the more we like it. It has an ethanol plant with 67 million gallons per year of capacity, and the site has room to expand ethanol further, expand the corn supply, and add additional plants like Alcohol- to- Jet. We have good railroads. Good roads. The sequestration operation has had a few years of operation without issue. The carbon sequestration well is probably one of the best, if not the best, in the whole country given its geological structure and size. It's certified as a thousand-year well. We own it. Being vertical is an advantage. We've run into a pleasant surprise too. North Dakota, its governor, legislators, and leaders in agriculture, gas, and oil, and energy more broadly have all been very welcoming. They're interested in growth in North Dakota. We are too. We believe the North Dakota site is ideal for an Alcohol- to- Jet plant. We have a great corn supply, land sequestration, and already well-run, well-built ethanol plant that's working great. In fact, we think we can get that ATJ plant built faster up there in North Dakota than in South Dakota, leveraging design and engineering we've already done for our ATJ- 60 plant. We believe we can keep the capital cost down too, making the ATJ project at Gevo North Dakota even more attractive. Part of this can be done by starting with a smaller plant in the first place, in this case, 30 million gallons per year of ATJ, maximizing the modularization, which reduces risk at the project and lowers labor costs. It's exciting enough that several companies from around the world have approached us for plants in their countries. In fact, we're on the right track for growth. We've also made progress in selling voluntary carbon abatement. Now, this is separate than the LCFS credits in California or the 45Z tax credits or other carbon credits. These are actual downstream customers who buy carbon abatement in dollars per metric ton. Paul Bloom, our Chief Business Officer and Chief Carbon Officer, will talk about in a few minutes. Here's something to think about. The recent volumes of carbon sold and with other fuel contracts, we think we have about half of the potential Gevo North Dakota Alcohol- to- Jet plant sold out. The conditional commitment from the Department of Energy is still in place for our ATJ- 60 project in South Dakota, and we expect it to stay that way, eventually making progress and eventually closing it. The DOE is still putting people in place. We know that there's work to do on their side, but we have work to do on a variety of fronts too, changing certain off-take terms to make contracts more amenable to the DOE. We still need to learn what the plan is for the Summit pipeline. I am loathe, for example, to spend capital to develop a virtual rail pipeline to our North Dakota site, only to find out that Summit, as they continue to expect, have solved their pipeline issues. While we expect that we will get the DOE loan done eventually, we aren't waiting around to get ATJ capacity deployed. Hence, you can see why we wanted that Gevo North Dakota site with all of its advantages. As you have said over and over, Gevo is not a one-trick pony. We don't even need to depend upon Alcohol- to- Jet to be cash flowing. However, that ATJ, that alcohol-to-growth opportunity, is a great opportunity for the future and its growth. Jet fuel, in fact, is going to be needed in this country going forward from a basic supply and demand point of view. Shall we import the jet fuel or make it right here in the USA? We believe that ATJ should be made here in the USA. We believe that Alcohol- to- Jet is the most economically advantaged way of adding jet fuel capacity in this country. Half of that jet fuel made from vegetable oil or used cooking oil or animal fat is the second best way economically. Making more jet fuel from fossil oil in this country would require a new petroleum refinery to be built. Now, could that happen? I suppose it's remotely possible. However, if you actually look at full cost production, I think that an ATJ plant using ethanol as a raw material, it would be a similar cost to the jet fuel made from oil on a cash cost basis. We actually think it would be cheaper to deploy Alcohol- to- Jet overall. Now, add to all of this that we can reduce and even eliminate the carbon footprint, and that there are markets and customers that are willing to pay us to do so, we think it provides a tremendous opportunity. We calculated over the next decade, the USA could use more than 30 Alcohol- to- Jet plants if they were 60 million gallons each. Of course, that means more if they're a little bit smaller. There's enough ethanol capacity to pull this off. There's also enough corn capacity with no expansion of farming land use. All of us across the whole value chain are getting this figured out. Yes, we recognize that there's a lot of noise in the market, but we like the fundamentals, and the fundamentals indicate that this is an exciting time. I'll turn it now over to Lynn to go over the numbers. Thanks, Pat. Let's go over the numbers. We ended the quarter with $135 million in cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash. Combined operating revenue and other net income was $30.9 million for the first quarter. Our RNG subsidiary generated $5.7 million in revenue during the quarter. This reflects an increase of $1.7 million compared to the previous year, primarily driven by the increased LCFS credit generation due to our improved carbon score in that program, partially offset by lower rent prices. Regarding our income from operations and non-GAAP adjusted EBITDA numbers, at Gevo North Dakota, or Gevo ND, for the two months of February and March, income from operations was $0.5 million, and adjusted EBITDA was $1.8 million. This does not include expected growth this year from monetizing the ethanol 45Z. At Gevo RNG, income from operations was $1.1 million, and adjusted EBITDA was $2.7 million last quarter. This also does not include expected growth this year from monetizing the biogas 45Z. We have positive momentum with adjusted EBITDA in those two segments. Turning to our Gevo and Gevo fuel segments, which include R&D, project development, and other operating costs, including the development of our ATJ projects, combined net loss from operations was $21.7 million, and adjusted EBITDA loss was a combined $19.9 million last quarter. Company-wide, consolidated loss from operations was $20.1 million last quarter, with non-GAAP adjusted EBITDA loss of $15.4 million. We expect continued adjusted EBITDA improvement throughout the year, driven by the monetization of 45Z, increased RNG value from our new negative 339 CI score, and ongoing performance at Gevo North Dakota. With that, I'll turn it over to Chris. Thanks. I'll expand a bit more on operations this past quarter. Since completing the acquisition of Gevo North Dakota at the end of January, we've been working towards integrating that site into the overall business of Gevo and laying the foundation for growth of the site. We're evaluating a number of great opportunities, and we've made progress on engineering of an ATJ, our Alcohol-to-Jet plant, that we could deploy there. This engineering effort has leveraged our ATJ design from our Lake Preston site, which is saving us time and money for development. This is all part of our copy-paste approach to building out ATJ capacity for ourselves and for others. Regarding operations at Gevo North Dakota, Gevo's first quarter 2025 results reflect the impact of just two months of February and March from Gevo North Dakota. During those two months, Gevo North Dakota operated exceptionally well, producing over 11 million gallons of low-carbon ethanol while selling over 40,000 tons of high-protein animal feed and 3 million pounds of corn oil, all from less than 4 million bushels of corn ground. That's a yield of about 2.9 gallons of ethanol per bushel, which we're really happy with. We see those as strong volumes and yields during two months of production, and this reflects the consistent operational excellence of the facility. In addition to producing those value-added energy and food products, we captured and sequestered 29,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide at the site. With an estimated CI score of 21 for our ethanol using the 45Z grid model, we've avoided an additional 7,000 metric tons of carbon emissions as a result of the use of our low-carbon fuels. At Gevo RNG, where we convert dairy manure into renewable natural gas, we produced about 80,000 million BTUs of renewable natural gas last quarter. Across the Gevo operations, including the two months from Gevo North Dakota and three months of RNG, we generated over 100,000 metric tons of carbon abatement last quarter. With that, I'll hand it over. Thanks, Chris. On the commercial front, we continue to make solid progress for our adjusted EBITDA generating businesses that Chris just discussed and our Alcohol-to-Jet growth projects. Let me start with Gevo North Dakota and RNG as we are negotiating our first 45Z tax credit sales. Back in December, we received our Form 637 approval notifications from the U.S. Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, which are required for Section 45Z credit generation. The team has been working to put all the necessary pieces of these agreements in place, and we anticipate finalizing them in Q2. As Pat mentioned, we're also developing our market position for the sale of durable carbon dioxide removal credits, or CDRs. Gevo North Dakota is actively generating high-quality carbon removals via CCS from biogenic carbon. Under the previous owners, our Gevo North Dakota facility was the first ethanol plant in the world to list CDRs on the public carbon registry, and they made initial sales. Now we're in the process of expanding sales into that market and structuring the team under the leadership of our Chief Business Development Officer, Alex Clayton. We expect to share more announcements soon as we help meet the needs of global customers looking to reduce their carbon footprint with high-quality CDRs. On the SAF front, we signed a groundbreaking off-take agreement with Future Energy Global. Under this deal, FEG will acquire Scope 1 and Scope 3 emissions credits tied to 10 million gallons per year of fuel from our future ATJ production. That value is in addition to and separate from the physical fuel, RIN value, and other state and federal tax credits we expect to obtain. It shows the market value of our carbon attributes. By separating the carbon attributes from the physical fuel, we anticipate this unique book and claim approach with FEG will be a market accelerator that will expand as we work together to provide greater flexibility for corporate customers, airlines, and airline lessors to access the solutions they need. Finally, we are actively pursuing opportunities to develop and deploy our ATJ plant designs and business system with partners around the world. We have the IP, engineering playbook, commercial capabilities, digital supply chain tracking solutions through Verity, and the network of partners to de-risk and scale this new industry. We do not plan to own 100% of every plant. In many cases, we will be developers, licensors, and strategic investors. We will have more to share in the future as these opportunities develop. With that, back to you, Pat. Thanks, Paul. I want to conclude by saying that we are showing that domestic energy production can go hand in hand with economic growth, carbon reduction, and production of food. You can get all of these things together if it's done right, and that's what we're all about. It's more than about just fuel. It's about creating American jobs, supporting farmers, strengthening the rural economy. Unlike a lot of others in the space, we do not have to sit around and wait for government guidance on how sustainable agriculture impacts the 45Z tax credit. We plan on monetizing the 45Z this year because we've already got an attractive CI score even without the sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture will be a further upside potential for us if that happens. We believe that our Verity business, where we can track and trace land use, ag practices, carbon footprint of crops, and other raw materials, in addition to we can track the process energy needed to produce the products and consider all the impacts across the whole of the life cycle, making it all auditable by anyone, ideally, visible, and most importantly, all based on science and data. This is going to be extremely important in the future. We want customers, consumers to know that they're getting something real for their money. We know that with data, we can push back on the false narratives around land use. Yes, we can measure land. Any of us can. Anyone in this industry can if they desire to do so. It's a fallacy that they can't. We have the ability to do so. We can push back on the food and fuel narrative. Real data shows that by using row crops, that adds protein and nutrition to the food chain. It is more economical. Yet, you can still produce raw materials to make energy products. The right paradigm is about producing energy and food concurrently. It is better for the world, better for economic development. Verity will help make this all clear. There is certainly more to talk about, but that wraps up our prepared remarks. We are now ready to go to the open line for questions. Operator, please go ahead. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question comes from Dushyant Ailani with Jefferies. Your line is open. Hey, team. This is Whitney Mutalemwa dialing in for Dushyant Ailani. Congratulations on a solid quarter despite a weaker-than-expected crush margin environment. You ended the quarter with $135 million in cash equivalents and restricted cash. I'm aware you don't normally provide guidance for cash, but given the Gevo North Dakota acquisition, the $40 million CapEx spend for ATJ- 60, and just some other general maintenance spend, how should we think about the cash cadence for the year? Sure. We aren't going to be spending $40 million this year on the ATJ- 60. We've dialed back the spending on that, although we are doing some work and shifting resources into the ATJ- 30 as we're waiting for the timelines to sort out for the DOE. That'll be less. I think we also—I know for a fact we're also planning on refinancing our RNG plant. We'll announce that shortly as to what we're doing there, but that'll also free up some cash. You're right, we don't give guidance on cash, but we should be in pretty strong shape through the rest of the year. Got it. I understand. Just as a follow-up, relating to ATJ- 30, I do not believe there is a timeline disclosed on this project. Obviously, it is smaller and modular. How would the timeframe compare to ATJ- 60? That will be all. Thank you. Sooner than ATJ- 60 is my guess. We have been working on the ATJ- 30 for quite a time here, and it is a copy, edit, paste type of an approach in that we already have these designs worked out for the ATJ-60. This is about making it smaller, but the concepts are the same, which is—that's actually the harder part. A lot of companies are going to fail because they simply do not know how to design a commercial plant. We do. That is our background. Those kinds of things have already been thought through. We expect it to be more straightforward. We also expect that it is going to generate a lot of interest because it is going to be a lot cheaper to build than an ATJ-60 that has project financing. That is going to be very interesting. We'll talk more about it once I have more numbers baked and then who else is going to participate with us up there. It will be a project-level game again for us in that, except for it's going to be adding on to our site. It is actually quite exciting up there between all that's happening around the 45Z, I don't know, in the Ways and Means Committee and stuff and what's being proposed. It's like, "All right, this is going our direction finally. Thank you. Our next question comes from Amit Dayal with H.C. Wainwright. Your line is open. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Congrats, Pat, on all the progress. Great to see the operating revenues and the EBITDA starting to come through. I'm just curious, with respect to the carbon abatement product, right? It looks very interesting. Is there an established market for this already that you can tap into immediately, or will there be some work required to be done to build that product and create a market for it? Paul, why don't you go ahead and take this question? This is your work. Yeah, sure. No, thanks, Amit, for the question. There is already a market that's growing for these durable carbon dioxide removals, right? If we choose to take that value and sell it separate from the fuel, they're traditionally classified as BECCS, CDRs. That's called bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration. That's really the market that we're in today and continuing to grow our presence there, which, again, was really started with the work that the Red Trail owners did before we acquired Gevo North Dakota. Now we're really going to grow that business and look at it as the optionality between selling that carbon value with the fuel or separate from that fuel, depending on what we see in the market. Understood. Thank you. With respect to 45Z, it looks like you're getting an extension on that in at least what has been proposed so far. That is really good news for you guys. Are you potentially going to start monetizing this right away in 2Q, Pat, and potentially—just wanted to see if I heard it correctly—are we getting positive EBITDA in 2Q potentially or later in the year? I just wanted to get a little bit more concrete color on that. Yeah. So yes, we expect to monetize it sooner rather than later. These are credits that exist, and they're already proven. Our CI scores are solid enough that, unlike most companies, ours are really solid. I mean, we're metering carbon going down a hole. Yeah, we expect to monetize it, and that'll surprise the heck out of people, right? As far as the EBITDA positive goes, that should be overall for the year. We should be EBITDA positive is what we'd expect. That's what we're shooting for. We're managing the cost side of things carefully. We see that we have these streams of money that can come into us, and we'll use those. That's our goal is to do this. Because one of the questions that people always have, they're always asking me, "When are you going to raise more money, Pat? You're going to run out of cash." No, we aren't. Sorry. That's not the plan. The plan is we already have enough operations to be self-sufficient. That's the idea. And we can execute projects. We have a well-developed intellectual property portfolio, engineering portfolio, project portfolio, mature projects. It's time to go execute those things. The idea of big burn with no outcome, no. We'll have to still get money for projects to execute, whether we expand ethanol or we do a—or we do ATJ, but if we expand ethanol, well, that's what OIC said they're interested in. Great. We'll find out. So we feel pretty confident in where we are. Now, in terms of the 45Z, I was in DC all last week talking to senators and representatives and their staff. I got to tell you, it's pretty strong support for 45Z. I think they're going to get it done. If they get the big, beautiful bill done, I think we're going to be in good shape. The principles in play, I think, are pay for performance. You got to do something in order to get into the money. It's more narrow rather than wide, meaning you have to actually do something, and the criteria remain stringent. We are in good shape. I think that extending it through 2031 was at least a year better than I was expecting. I was kind of excited to see that. The rest of it, I like one of the really important ones. They're getting rid of the indirect land use as a component of measuring CI. Outstanding. Because that's bogus anyway. There's not any data—that science base that supports that. That is one of the problems and games that people play as they say, "Well, gosh, I got a waste feedstock. It has a zero." No, they do not have a zero. Not really. That is bogus. They have a charge. Just people do not want to look at that. Guess what? Now they said, "Corn does not have a zero feedstock. ILOC scores well." Cool. That will make it an improved in the future, the CI score, even at our Gevo North Dakota plant and any of our other operations. It also will help benefit the soybean people. This is one of the big—there has been a lot of game playing in the Yuko area, used cooking oil and HEFA, where people are using counterfeit or the claims that people are using counterfeit oils and stuff. It just goes along. It is a brilliant idea. They did a good job. It makes sense. It levels the playing field. I think they still should go pound on Corsia and Europe because of their biases against U.S. agriculture. Overall, I got to say, I was pleasantly shocked, surprised. It's great. It's really good. I hope they get it done. I hope the whole bill works and they make it all happen. Even if they don't, we're in good shape. We're in the money for 45Z already. Understood. Good to hear that. Congratulations, guys. That's all I have. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone. Again, that is star one one to ask a question. Our next question comes from Derrick Whitfield with Texas Capital. Your line is open. Hey, good afternoon, Pat and team. Hey, how you doing? Maybe staying on 45Z for the first question. Clearly, some positive news yesterday on the extension of the credits to 2031, removal of indirect land use, but also the creation of a dairy RNG pathway. Yes. Could you speak to the amount you expect to receive for ethanol and dairy RNG molecules? It is proportional to the CI scores. So when you have—we are already at about a 20. Chris mentioned in his comments a 21, and he rounded upward. I am rounding downward because I think there are a couple of other things we can do still. We will be down in the 20s before taking out indirect land use. That puts us down what? Another 8-10 points. That will be the lowest CI score ethanol plant. When you figure they are worth, what, a couple cents, you have to get below 50%. You have to get a 50% reduction before you get in the money. Okay? We should be—it is 2 cents per CI point. It is going to be pretty healthy. What they are trying to do is sponsor economic development, growth, investment, jobs. That is actually what they are trying to do. We are firm believers that tax credits have to have a sunset. They should not last forever because that creates wrong behavior. Everybody thinks they can—when you do that, it really—people get starry-eyed in what they think they can do. No, they actually should help pay for a plant, and its capital and the jobs that are created. That is the right idea. That is the approach that we are seeing this Congress take and their attitude. It is great. It is significant. On the RNG side, that was fascinating and caught me by surprise. I was shocked that they included that because I was not expecting them to. The issue had been that one of the things when you are using a biogas or making a biogas is you can do it rather than letting whatever the raw material is just digest and spew methane into the atmosphere. By using the RNG techniques or the processing, you can collect that, and you also avoid then methane. It's a methane avoidance factor that goes into the LCA calculations. They punted it in the original 45Z calculations, and they just averaged everyone together, whether it was landfill or dairy or whatever. What that means is, for instance, I think it was worth—I don't remember exactly. Derrick was like 20 points or something. It was only like a negative 20 or something. Very small, but they averaged all types, all RNG methodologies altogether. What they're calling out here now is that you've got to do it discreetly. It will look probably more like a California where we're at a minus 330, 339 score. They have work to do to go figure that part out. In the meantime, that doesn't stop us from already monetizing that RNG credit. I'll be very keen on seeing how all that dust settles. The argument that the IRS had last time was that there's too much work in the working group in the prior administration. There's just too much work to keep track of it all. They just averaged everything. This one calls out that they got to go calculate it. That's very good for us because we have one of the best RNG facilities in the country. Like I say, this was a good week in terms of what I'm seeing in these bills. What's fascinating and good is that the Republican leadership, they understand what we're doing. They know us pretty well. They know that we're abating carbon, but they also know we're doing cost-effective products and creating jobs and helping agriculture and rural development. It's all of those things together that matter. Completely agree, Pat. We are hearing from ministry that you are potentially going to see a repel against the transferability that was stated in that House bill. From a Senate perspective, what would you guys—I mean, would you expect this to be very similar to what we saw from the House? Are there things that you are looking for out of that side that may be more favorable or less favorable for that matter? No, I thought it was about—honestly, the thing that you're right on the transferability after 2027 of the tax credits, I actually think that that's a good thing. Here's why I think it can be a good thing. This can be a good thing because it forces investment in plants if you want that, to take advantage of that. Someone who has a tax burden needs to put up capital into a plant in order to get that tax credit. That actually makes a lot of sense if the intent is build capital, deploy plants. I kind of like that. The alternative was that you can just sell the tax credit to anybody. That is convenient. I like from a policy standpoint, I kind of favor—I like these things that favor industrial investment and growth. I also like the other language in some—I forget what bill it was. I was just looking at it today where it was talking about depreciation and all that kind of stuff. They're trying to make it favorable for investment in America. Outstanding. Good guys. This is a good thing. I like that quite a lot. It's pretty good. Now, remind me of the second part of your question there, Derrick. I lost track of my mind. I think you covered it well just in relates to if any changes you would expect coming out of the Senate side versus the House. I think I expect noise in the Senate side. The reason I expect noise is there's a fight that's afoot. It's not a Senate fight. It's a fight of people. There's a group that wants blenders credit. The blenders credit benefits a narrow group of people where a production tax credit benefits a whole huge number of people. There is strong support for a producer's tax credit versus a blender's tax credit. Heck, people like us are the ones doing the work anyway and taking the risk. The guys downstream blending are not doing that. They're just blending. There's that noise. That's going to create some noise. It's going to show up in the form of maybe some alternatives, but I think they'll get beat back. We've heard strong support on the Senate side, same way as on the House. However, it's all got to go through markup. There'll be twists and turns. In the end, I think it's going to look a lot like what we just saw from the House, maybe with a couple of tweaks, but nothing substantial. This getting rid of leveling the playing field on indirect land use is a huge deal. This is the main way. Indirect land use is the way that enviros penalize U.S. agriculture and raise money for themselves. It's not okay. Europe uses it as a hammer against feedstocks that could win their business, I mean, from an economic standpoint. They go ahead and turn around and allow their own farmers to do things. It's going to be very, very interesting to see all this dust settle. The 45Z, in the grand scheme of things, is pretty small potatoes in that bill. It's a tiny, tiny thing on the tail of the dog. Pat, I'd be remiss if I didn't ask just one last question on your offtake agreements with Future Energy Global. Could you speak to the amount of value you're receiving for Scope 1 and Scope 3 emission credits in dollars per ton? Again, just in generalities here, I'm not looking for the exact number, just so that we can start to think about that incremental value from a voluntary perspective. Then just confirm that it's driven by additionality requirements for the production of SAF. Yeah. I'm going to have Paul answer this question. Paul, if you give it to him, give a range of what's out there in the marketplace of the kind of credits and just kind of what you're seeing and what's happening. I think this is an important question because it is—I know that the analysts in general, they're always looking at the LCFS or the 45Z, and they know what those are. This is a new thing, though. You kind of got to give them guidance on the dollars per ton. Yeah, sure thing. Great question, and appreciate that. I mean, these values are well north of the types of carbon value that we see in LCFS markets today. We can't give you, so well over in the hundreds of dollars a ton type of range. We're pretty excited about that. It really makes the case for the value of the carbon abatement and the book and claim case because you're not going to have SAF at every airport, but you've got customers who want to access SAF. That's where Future Energy Global can really help customers by taking these scope ones for airlines or the operators and the scope threes for the customer and basically giving them options to do this in book and claim style. It really expands the capability and the market reach. That's why we've got not just this first deal, but we hope that it's a series of deals that turn out this way. Yeah. The other thing that is, we're trying to make sure that we have access to that market directly rather than losing it to somebody who's blending in the middle. Because that's historically what's happened with some of our competitive companies is that those scope threes in particular get lost in the channel somewhere, and then someone else monetizes them. We're going to try to keep that for ourselves. It's an important part of the strategy. That's, of course, the whole reason of Verity and all the rest, and that really does help us. Extremely helpful. Thanks for your time, guys. You bet. Thank you. Our next question comes from Peter Gastreich with Water Tower Research. Your line is open. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation today. Congratulations on your progress. You've got some great momentum here. Just three questions I have about the ATJ-30 and North Dakota. First of all, it's great to hear that you have more than 50% of that capacity that's sold for ATJ-30. Are these entirely new discussions you're having, or does this 50% reflect some excess demand, perhaps from your volume to ATJ-60? Effectively, are these customers you already have in tow in South Dakota, and now you have the additional volume that you can give them in North Dakota? They're different. The reason they're different is because the contract structures are different. The contracts for the DOE have to be done in a certain kind of format to limit self-defined financing, where we think it'll be more equity financed up there in North Dakota. It is a different kind of a contract. FEG is representative of it. There are other deals that we've done where we've sold the jet fuel and part of the carbon to somebody else, and we keep the carbon and sell that to some, yet again, a third party. It is pretty darn interesting. We're on the right track. It's about time we figured this out. Part of it is because the DOE process is onerous. I mean, it's onerous. There's no question. They're very thorough. They're very good. They have a huge success rate with their 97% track record of success. Awesome. My God, it's tedious. It's got belt, braces, and suspenders and protections and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. One of those things is how contracts are written. Here, we have a wider range of latitude of what we can do. That makes it, and that makes more sense. We'll eventually, I think, get that roped into ATJ-60 as well. We got to get it going first and make it happen. We do not tie our contracts to one location. We can go make it anywhere and move contracts around. We have the ability to do that. It's just that here, we did not have to start with the burden constraints. Okay. Got it. Thank you. The second question is, how much expansion is theoretically possible at North Dakota site? I know you can get up to 1 million tons for the CCS capacity, but have you done any preliminary work on how much further you could scale up on ATJ if you wanted to go beyond ATJ-30? Yeah. So here's how we're thinking about it. People People know about the people in the industry, so colleague companies know that we're working on the ATJ-30 plant. The economies of scale for an ATJ-30 are still pretty good. They're way, way, way better than a smaller plant. It's already in the flat part of the curve. We've made some optimizations. The economics look pretty good even comparing it to an ATJ-60. We see the opportunity to do an ATJ-30, but then do carbon copies of them in other places and other locations in the U.S. and around the world. Remember, our paradigm is we're building these in a factory with FEG. That de-risked the living heck out of it because everything will be known to work by the time the modules show up on site. They have to be assembled, and you can do regional contractors to put it together and avoid these lump sum turnkey EPC project financing projects that really just add a lot of cost. We like it a lot. We would see that the site up there has room to expand ethanol as well. Now, that's an important thing because it's actually ethanol that generates more CO2 than we put down a hole. That is something we're looking at too. I got to say, it's pretty darn exciting. I like it a lot. You can imagine that we would do this in a series of things. I want that ATJ-30 because I think that's the commercially viable plant that we can sell around the U.S. and around the world. We have other opportunities for ATJ-60 that are copied from the one in South Dakota. We have a couple of sites that will play really well. We could expand that ethanol plant up there and then add yet another ATJ-30 up there. I think that is more how the business will unfold. In the meantime, we will have parallel projects where we have sold a plant to somebody else for the deployment, or we have licensed the technology to them. One of the things Paul mentioned in the list of property, people forget that we have 100-plus patents or so that cover the supply chain. We were the first to do Ethanol- to-J et, even though other companies claim to have done so. We have the technologies that work. We are partners with Axens. We have a lower-cost technology in the future. Even Axens believes that we can win. People forget that part of it, that intellectual property is a key component. We'll use it here along the way too. It is a very interesting game. I'm so glad and thankful that we're on solid financial footing. It's really good. I like what I'm seeing coming out of Congress. Okay. Great. That's all my questions. Thanks, Pat. Appreciate it. Again, congratulations. You bet. Thank you very much. Thank you. This concludes the question and answer session. I would now like to turn it back to Pat Gruber for closing remarks. I want to thank you all for listening in on our call. This has been a very exciting quarter for us. I think the next one is even going to be better. My gosh, we're getting revenue up. We're going to get EBITDA contributing. We're offsetting the costs. We're going to continue to make progress through the year. It's quite a transformational year, actually. As I just got through saying, we have well-developed projects and technologies. These are ready for deployment. There are many people around the world interested. We got to go make that happen. It does not come at a big cost to us anymore. We've already paid the upfront fees to go and get that done. All the learning curve stuff, we've pretty much done it. Now it's all about deploying things. You know what? We've got a balance sheet that we can live on along with the income that we expect going forward. It's a pretty exciting time for Gevo. Sorry, it's the best that I think I've ever seen here. The best opportunity. Thank you all for joining us. Bye-bye. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.