Well, good morning, everyone, and thank you, Bill and JP Morgan for this opportunity. I will just briefly touch on a few slides and not the whole deck that is available on our webpage. To introduce Solid Power, and why we are so compelling to the industry, we have a leading position relative to sulfide electrolytes for all-solid-state batteries. We have been working on this for over 15 years. We have a very unique position relative to performance, relative to a wet process that scales, and ultimately to the lowest cost. We are pursuing a capital-light business model, which has many, many advantages. We will not compete directly with Tier 1 battery manufacturers. We have a very strong balance sheet now with over $400 million in cash equivalents as of the close of last quarter. As I mentioned, we have got a very differentiated manufacturing profile. Very scalable, high yield, and tolerates lower dry room burden conditions. I think that it is one of the main attractions for our competitiveness moving forward. We also have a very unique capability relative to a feedback loop. In May of last year, BMW announced an all-solid-state module based on our cells that we produced, 60 amp hour EV cells, and integrated that into an i7 and drove it around Munich for a number of months to demonstrate real-world conditions. That feedback loop we continue to have in-house, so we can validate changes and improvements to electrolyte at the cell level, which is quite unique. Then we have got an excellent global partner network with BMW, SK On, and most recently with Samsung SDI. Skip ahead to why solid-state batteries. This one right here. What you see pictured there is actually the electrolyte in glass jars. That is what it looks like. Then actually at the microscopic level, you see it there pictured, the crystalline structure. This will drive the next level of performance for batteries in energy density, in battery life, and charging speed as well as safety. Again, we have got a very unique position with regard to that with three generations of electrolyte now available for our customers. The market five years ago was still questioning how to do all-solid-state batteries. There is really three ways you can do it. With polymers, with oxides, and with sulfides. We have been a long pioneer and evangelist of the sulfides because of their performance. They have the absolute best ionic conductivity, and because of their manufacturability, very, very important, and their low cost. You see pictured on the right a lot of names, all of which have sulfides now on their roadmap. It is a strong validation of what Solid Power has been evangelizing and pioneering for over a decade. In terms of why Solid Power itself, I have touched on some of this already, but because we have been in the market and driving innovation for over a decade, we have one of the largest data sets, both in terms of electrolyte as well as cells. We are using that and harvesting that now using AI and machine learning to drive continued innovation as well as improvements in our manufacturing process. We have set up a pre-pilot Electrolyte Innovation Center right next to our pilot line. We are using that at a small scale to rapidly make improvements and iterations and then migrate those into the pilot line. We did that most recently with Samsung SDI and BMW on the three-way collaboration. Did some major improvements on our processes as a result of that rapid iteration. I've already mentioned the feedback loop between cell and electrolyte, as well as the manufacturing scalability of our process. Again, what makes us unique is we have a mature wet process at the pilot level compared to our competitors using a dry process. With our partner network, we've been working closely with BMW for over nine years now, SK On for over five years, and for Samsung SDI over a year. On the left, you see where we're active today. We're migrating from a technology licensing collaboration, which is where our revenues have come from so far, to electrolyte supply at the pilot level. Then we're building on the right-hand side a partnership with a world-class partner in Korea to do the next level of scale up and then continue to advance our partnerships overall. We continue to primarily be focused in the EVs segment, but we are getting interest in other areas like robotics, humanoids, mining, and aviation and defense. We see a lot of synergies from the EV market into those spaces, but we'll be pursuing the same model there that we have in EV where we'll be doing proof of concept and OEM partnership development, and then introducing a Tier 1 battery manufacturer for the volume productions. Lastly, this is our scale-up. In batteries, it is all about scale-up and solving problems as you go to the larger and larger capacities. Right now, today, we have a 30 metric ton facility in Colorado that's a batch process. We're in the final stages of commissioning the continuous flow line there in Colorado on phase II. That will get us up to 75 metric tons in the Colorado facility. Then, as I said, we're in the process of striking a joint venture partnership with a large conglomerate in Korea to do the next level of scale-up, probably around 500 metric tons, with a vision to go upwards of 20,000 metric tons with that same partner over the next three to five years. Hopefully it gives you an introduction to the company, and where we're focused, why we're differentiated, and where we're headed from. Yeah. Thanks, John. Feel free to stay there or we can just chat here. Certainly can keep this open. We've hosted the company here a few years, and I think when you look back, the interest in the EV space has kind of ebbed and flowed and mainly not been as exciting lately. But solid state still moves forward and is actually now closer to realization. I guess what drove the industry towards this solid state to begin with, and where do you think Solid Power can create-- You're in the material space, but where's the most value that can be created, whether it be selling materials, know-how for the production for your customers, qualification support or some sort of licensing or tech transfer agreement? I think if you look at the overall industry, traditional liquid electrolyte-based lithium-ion batteries are asymptotically hitting their peak in terms of performance. The industry needs higher performing batteries to address things like range anxiety, charge anxiety, those sort of things. All-solid-state batteries really are a unique technology to do that. Energy density, cycle life, safety, and then ultimately cost at the system level. All we believe will be advantages of all-solid-state batteries. Those are the pain points I think that ASSBs are really addressing. In terms of what we bring to the party, we do bring a unique process capability in terms of that wet process for electrolytes, in terms of the highest connectivity for the performance of the electrolyte. Our intention is to be the absolute low-cost provider to the marketplace. Yeah. There's been various next gen approaches discussed. Silicon anodes being one that's kind of being implemented, lithium metal, another sort of, I guess, advanced electrolytes. What are the trade-offs you see, and I guess, what is the right commercial timeline that we should be thinking of for the various technologies? Some light opening of silicon anodes is already happening, but any sort of context there? Well, I think those technologies you mentioned are uniquely enabled by a sulfide-based all-solid-state battery. High purity silicon anodes perform best in a sulfide all-solid-state battery architecture in terms of energy density and performance. Same thing for lithium anodes or anode-less designs. Those are also uniquely enabled in sulfide electrolyte systems. I think that we have, again, a unique position as those technologies mature and are introduced to offer higher and higher performance as a result of adoption of those. In terms of timeframe, we have to be ahead of the market. A lot of people are talking about 2029, 2030, early 2030s, but as a material provider, we have to be there in advance. We have to be qualified in advance so that they can be considered to be qualified for those SOPs. We intend to have this joint venture partnership announced this year. That'll put us in a position to do the design and the construction of that next year to be in a position to ship up to 500 metric tons to Korean customers and other customers around the world in 2028, which would enable 2029, 2030 timeframes for SOPs for small fleets. Beyond that, we again envision the same partnership to go up much larger. The concept is a shell factory, and we would drop in 2,000 metric ton modules as the demand materializes going forward for a total capacity of 20,000 metric tons over time. Mm-hmm. Probably get to manufacturing partnerships in a bit, but I guess you spoke to some of the advantages. What would you say the key areas to overcome, maybe not so much manufacturing, but from a technical hurdle, or is that really not the case? It is more of a scaling matter at this stage. From electrolyte standpoint, it is scaling. The cell designs themselves are still maturing. To get to the target of energy densities and cycle life, for instance, and safety at an EV size cell, I think are still technical challenges that the Tier 1 battery manufacturers are grappling with. We know that because of our work most recently with Samsung SDI. It was a tremendous collaboration. We learned a tremendous amount. They challenged us, but we could tell that their designs are still evolving to get to those target levels that have been demonstrated at small scale, but not at large EV size cells. Mm-hmm. Obviously, EV would be the focus of this conference, but I think you have also mentioned interest from other areas like robotics, things like energy that seem obvious for EVs. How should we think about the fit of these other markets versus EV? I think auto is well known as having very long qualification timelines. What, if anything, would be different from a qual timeframe or system level constraints for other markets? What we like about the humanoid market is that a lot of the same requirements from the EV market are the same in the humanoid space, from what we see so far. The pack size will be smaller, but energy density, cycle life, and safety are really important to a lot of the humanoid market from the interactions we have had with customers. The difference is in duty cycle. That is the one thing that we still have to prove out, I think, with the Tier 1 battery manufacturers, is the duty cycle associated with the expectations in humanoid. Otherwise, there is a tremendous amount of crossover. We do think that the qualification cycles can be compared to EV. It is not as big a market, but I think in terms of a proof point, in terms of an application that ASSBs really offer a differentiation on, it is very attractive. Mm-hmm. Besides robotics and of course EVs, what is the level of interest you see from other markets? You have large markets like data centers. You have critical markets like aerospace and defense. What would you need to see to prioritize these into more structured relationships like you have with the two Korean entities? Mining, we think, is a more near term. We have seen some interest in those areas that you mentioned, particularly in aerospace and defense, but those are crowded fields, and they are not ultimately a huge market from what we can see right now. There is a lot of tension on defense right now with what is going on in the world for obvious reasons. But we think actually mining and a lot of the same attributes in terms of safety, electrification, et cetera, as the EV market could be very, very interesting. Hmm. That is the same sort of just at a much larger scale for EVs, just energy density primarily. That's right. Okay. I guess coming back to manufacturing and commercialization, you had some good slides there. Where are you on this continuous manufacturing pilot line today, and what are the key next gates, whether it be equipment acceptance, plant validation, startup? Trying to get a sense for where we are in the ramp to steady state output. We started our continuous project based on a DOE grant we received in 2024, $50 million. We have been in the design and planning phases of that since then. We just, in the second quarter, received all of the equipment at our location in Colorado for that and are in the process of completing the construction and utilities interconnect for all of the unit processes that are in that process, with the expectation we will be commissioning that in the fourth quarter of this year, which will allow us to start production in the first quarter of 2027. We are on plan according to what we set out in 2024. We actually are under budget, which is a nice place to be. After customer support, it is the number one project at the company right now in terms of execution and completion. I look at it every month, if not more frequent, depending on what is going on in the project. There is a lot of weekend work going on right now to maintain production with our current line and not disrupt that while still complete the construction. It is all planned out very well and it is going well. I also would add that we have had no safety instances associated with that project life to date, and that is a big step for going into a brownfield facility, continuing to operate manufacturing for our existing relationships, and then adding that capability into the facility. Feels like you get asked this question on every earnings call. Why not expand in the U.S., and I guess why is Korea the right location? Maybe you can ask that. So why is that the right location for the next step in commercial scale production, and how do you think about the supply chain or geopolitical considerations when choosing partners? We will get into your partnerships in more detail. Yeah. Korea is just a unique battery ecosystem. You have, of course, the OEMs are there. You have world-class Tier 1 battery manufacturers that are there. You have a government that supports the battery industry very, very aggressively. You have national labs that you can collaborate with. You have just engineers, scientists, chemists, all that are very battery literate. You have supply chain partners for the raw materials that are very, very sophisticated and mature. That is why we chose Korea. It also is a place where we believe we can protect our intellectual property uniquely. From our standpoint, the demand is in Asia. Korea is uniquely positioned. Also, the geopolitical relationship between U.S. companies and Korean companies is strong compared to other options, if you will, from our perspective. So it is a good place to start. I believe that it will materialize in the U.S. at some point, but it is just not there today. So we are starting in Korea, with an intention to come to the U.S. as soon as that demand materializes. Tying back to auto, and I think in my past sort of career, ISO 9000, ISO 9001, those are kind of critical and pretty time-consuming, but- Yeah. -What does the certification change in practice for customers or for internal execution? Yes, we undertook this last year. We did complete the stage one audit for ISO 9001 in the second quarter. We intend to have the stage two completed in the third quarter as we speak, with a certification by the end of the year. All indications are that we are on track to do that. Now, what it does for the customer is it gives them a level of confidence that we have the process controls, that we have the management of change controls, that we have the documentation, and we have the repeatability so that they can make decisions to use our material and have confidence that it will not be a supply risk to them. From an internal standpoint, we get tremendous efficiencies from it. We identify processes that we need to improve. We identify process owners, so there is ownership. We have regular reviews, at the management level, to continue to drive to consistent output for our factories. It is a stepping stone for any commercialization. I am really pleased with where we are. It also will be key for this joint venture partnership in Korea. It is absolute table stakes to be able to be in a position with that certification to enter into a joint venture partnership like we are contemplating. Yeah. Just sort of last question. I think I've talked about this in the past. Moving to a, I guess, a continuous process makes a ton of sense, can limit maybe some lot-to-lot consistency of batch, but it feels like it also might limit your ability to make custom or change lines. How should investors think about the quality control aspects and the specs that matter most? The way we designed the continuous flow is we have unit processes now that are much more controllable compared to the batch process. The type of equipments we're using, the type of processes that we have developed have much tighter control limits, much more Gage R&R. All those kind of basic manufacturing capabilities are much tighter with the continuous flow process. The reason we know that is that we have actually done at a very small scale, a pre-pilot scale, use of each one of those new equipments in our Electrolyte Innovation Center. And we've been developing the processes and doing the Design of Experiments and running the Gage R&Rs on those smaller equipments. The same manufacturers will scale up or have scaled up, and that's what we are installing right now in the continuous flow pilot line. It gives us great confidence that we've demonstrated a smaller scale, same manufacturers for the equipment at a larger scale, and largely the same processes that we will be able to control much tighter our lot to lot and our output for the continuous flow line. Mm-hmm. Let's move to some of the partnerships. On the joint evaluation with BMW and Samsung, what are the next steps investors should be looking for, I guess, over the next 6, 12, 18 months? We expect with the natural closing of the phase I, which is very productive from all parties' standpoint, but certainly from our standpoint, we will migrate to separate agreements with the two entities to take the next phase of collaboration. We have got a long-standing relationship with BMW. They are going through some changes internally. We have got now a standing relationship with Samsung SDI. They have got some new requirements for things outside of EV. What you can expect is a continuation, but an evolution of our collaborations with those parties individually. Mm-hmm. Maybe on a similar vein, SK On was a key partner as well. You have completed the line installation agreement and received the milestone payment. I guess for any next steps, what does success look like there? To answer that question, Bill, it is really premature to say where that is going to land. It is clear that they need our continued support to run their line. We did hand it off, and that was successful, as you said. Now they have gone through a lot of changes as well, and we are talking about supporting them in running that line as we go forward to mature their design. Mm-hmm. I talked about it before, but given sort of uneven EV demand backdrop especially maybe in the U.S. and, well, maybe everywhere ex-China, although Europe appears to be better, what are OEMs focused on? I guess, are you seeing any changes in other sort of opportunities within the space? Well, we talked about the humanoids. I think that's probably the most significant one that we see right now. Yeah. Even in the EV space, I know Ford was an early partner, but is there other sort of opportunities? Because I think you've also been doing sampling over time. Is that still continuing? Yes. We've got a lot of sampling going on every week and a lot of repeat sampling. A lot of people are maturing their cell designs, and it's taking time. We're able to customize our electrolyte characteristics much more rapidly than other competitors, and we've been doing that in responding to the continued sampling. We do hope to be in a position to announce some more partnerships like we have announced with BMW and so forth moving forward. I'm not in a position to add any more color on that than that at this point. But we've been definitely sampling with some good success, in terms of developments with multiple EV OEMs. But in the meantime, it sounds like robotics has sort of taken on a more urgent approach. I think that's a fair statement. Yes. Okay. I want to come back to the business model a bit. And you've pointed out some various means in the model, but how should we think about the model over time between electrolyte supply, collaboration revenue, licensing? How should investors view this over the longer term as being sort of the primary driver or drivers? Collaboration revenue will be going down, has gone down, will continue to go down, and electrolyte revenue will go up. So we're in a transition right now because we've had some very nice revenue streams from the collaboration. It'll probably take us one to two years to go through that transition. Depends on how the demand unfolds for these early SOPs for robotics and for EVs. Mm-hmm. What about licensing? Don't expect that's going to be a big part of our revenue profile moving forward, and that's different than the past. In the past, we thought that was going to be a much higher percentage. But given our shift to this capital-light business model and focus on electrolytes away from cell manufacturing, we really transition a lot of that royalty revenue into electrolyte revenues. I alluded to it earlier with the batch or the continuous process, but the continuous. But I guess when you think about supporting a broader partner network, how do you balance customization versus standardization in the electrolyte formulations as you scale? A couple of years ago, when asked that question, I'd say, look, we've got a large, diverse set of customer requirements, so there'll be a lot of customization. We still do see some of that, but for the larger players that we're engaged with, we're seeing a more centralized, common set of requirements that are emerging, and that's just been literally in the last six months. So what we plan to continue to offer is, based on all that learning, some standard product offerings that represents addressing these convergence while maintaining the ability to customize for the folks that are still experimenting with cell designs. Mm-hmm. Maybe coming to capital allocation. The team has a good liquidity position. How are you prioritizing capital allocation across the continuous line, the Korea or other JV activities, and commercial build-out? Well, we've really had the continuous line as a high priority, but work that we'll do in the second half year, that will go down. The capital requirements on that will go down. The capital requirements to support the joint venture in Korea will go up. We'll actually be shifting from the continuous flow capital to the JV capital as we go through the next year. I intend to build out the commercialization team much stronger than we've had in the past, given the progress we've made on the technical fronts. Now is the time to go ahead and grow our business development team and explore these other markets more aggressively, and I intend to do that in the coming 6- 12 months. That will be coming up higher than the past as well in terms of capital allocation. If you think about the operating model, assuming electrolyte supply is a long-term model, what does a margin structure look like? Does that vary between automotive versus maybe some of the newer, like robotics? Yeah. Certainly other markets beyond EV seem to be less price sensitive than EV. We have a cost roadmap through this scaling to effectively compete with very nice margins in the EV space. It all comes back to scale, and so that's why this JV partnership is so important. It's why getting to these larger and larger module capabilities is really crucial three to five years. And I guess maybe just sort of wrapping up, what are the key catalysts for investors to look for, maybe more broadly in the battery space, but maybe obviously for you, more specifically for Solid Power? So in the broader market, I think continued demonstrations in vehicles and in these other markets like humanoids is really, really important. I think independent verification of performance is really crucial to the industry for credibility as we go forward in these other applications. Then, of course, hitting scale milestones is crucial. From our standpoint at Solid Power specifically, I think measure us by the completion of this continuous flow project in Colorado by the execution of this JV partnership in Korea by completion of the ISO 9001 certification, and then additional partnerships as we go forward, not dissimilar to what we've done with BMW in the past. Great. Well, let's wrap up a few minutes. Sort of wrapped up my questions, but appreciate your time here this morning and good luck. We'll look forward to following up in the future. Thanks for sharing your insights. Thank you, Bill. Thanks. Appreciate the time. I got two more. Oh, okay. You have one more.