Time, new entrant has been Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners with a meaningful new project at 500 megawatts. VoltWise, which bought SMS PLCs assets and is growing itself, is shown there as well. And you've got foresight here who acquired Harmony's assets. It's still a relatively small field, I think, as a key point to highlight. There will be one or two emerging players in particular, Fidra Energy is building a large project at Thornmarsh and another one as well. They are expected to be a large operator. They're backed by ENG and the National Wealth Fund. But other than that, it's pretty small overall playing field in the UK. By number. And then in terms of highlights, so driving value from our operational base is a key focus. And between financings, we have more time to do this. We're obviously growing our team as well. And we're finding ways of incrementally adding revenues or incrementally taking costs out. And we look forward to reporting more on that at the next stage. Whether it's at Q3 or full year, remains to be seen. But we're excited about how much cost we can take out of the business by doing things innovative ways. Again, more details on that in the future. The following bullets are mainly about the growth plan, augmentations, adding 198 megawatt-hours of capacity, we're heading towards two hours very quickly. We're at just under 1.8 hours now. It's nice to see that. It has a positive impact on revenues. We're under construction on the incremental three projects, nearly 400 megawatts, with energization in the back half of next year. We're progressing well on the development and progressing to construction readiness on the incremental 777 megawatts. Even if we are still waiting for the Rayleigh grid connection offer to come back, we're evaluating design and in particular duration very closely. There's a lot of new battery offerings to serve that part of the market now in emerging as well, which is very interesting to look at. And then scaling up alternative revenues, we remain very excited about this area. We're honing our strategy and look forward to just providing further updates with an initial step of 20 megawatts by the end of this year in terms of what we're reporting and committing to. That's it with that. I'll go back to Rupert. Thank you. Ben, thank you. Informative as always. Again, if any of the audience would like to ask a question, please send those in online. We have three or four here, so we can kick off while others want to add to the list. Ben, first question. Are you seeing any changes in battery technology coming to sufficient maturity that you'd start to consider them for the company? Starting to. And the only one we're starting to see is sodium-ion. The technology has various benefits and various drawbacks today. It's still more expensive than lithium-ion, so we're very unlikely to buy it. It has also less density. So it takes up more room. On the flip side, it's considered and is safer likelihood of thermal runaway is smaller. Sodium is more abundant, and so the likelihood is that you'll, once it gets and competes with lithium successfully, is that the bill of materials there will end up lower and it may completely take over in due course. It's easier to measure its state of charge so that you can use the battery more fully. It doesn't go to degradation necessarily, but it goes to potentially revenues. And there's a few other features. So yeah, the sodium-ion is the only one that is being heavily backed also by the Chinese manufacturers as well. CATL have announced a product in this area, so I would expect a big push from the manufacturers in this area and it would be interesting to see the world not dependent on lithium for stationary batteries. I suspect the density is not good enough for car batteries, although you may see hybrid batteries because sodium also operates well at a wider temperature range as well. So that could be good for many uses. Thank you. Trading revenue in H1 2026 were lower than the same period last year. Can you comment on reasons? The wholesale electricity price was negative on eight occasions in September to date. While high on average overall. How has this impact recent trading? So first half trading and recent trading. So the first half was generally flatter. We saw an uptick in skip rates for batteries. I'll come on to that in a second. So slightly flatter markets or flatter markets at certain times. I mean, there were certain months that were pretty volatile, but overall, there were some also weaker months. So overall, market conditions were a bit tougher. But within our portfolio, what's really impacted things is uptime. So as I mentioned, our Glassenbury project, which was 50 megawatts, was off and not really generating until well into Q2. We had Stairfoot, which was off, I can't remember exactly how long, but two to three months that's 40 megawatts. That's basically 4% of the portfolio. We did have one other asset that was offline for technical reasons. For which we've made a business interruption insurance claim. And that gap will probably be filled in with that. It was not our site that was at issue. It was the network. So there's a handful of factors that led to lower uptime as well. The last factor being DNO outages. So we're connected to distribution network operators or DNOs for short across our current fleet. And they need to sometimes do and usually during the better months of the year tend to take assets offline, like ours, which they allowed to do to either reinforce the network or do schedule maintenance. And that's we saw quite a lot of that this year. So there's that. Then in terms of the skip rate point, it impacted in particular in Q2 and into Q3 a bit. The very hot months that we've seen has led to some press on this as well, but the control room needing to be more cautious about how extreme certain scenarios might how extreme scenarios might be in any half-hourly period. In other words, will might we see certain gas plants go offline suddenly? Might we see even nuclear plants go offline in 40-degree heat? Et cetera, et cetera. You've got a sort of unknown decreases in behind-the-meter generation because of the 2 million rooftops we've got in this country, which keeps going up. We've got EV charging profiles starting to make a dent in terms of what happens on the network. And so the general caution was introduced in the control room. And that means that they need more of the flex that's available to them. That's made up of batteries, pump storage hydro, gas, and at the margin, even generating assets like the Drax's biomass asset. And the ones that need scheduling soonest for whatever reason even if they're more expensive are basically use them or lose them technologies. They're basically either you use them or you then don't have them available to you. And in a more cautious environment, you have more of those used. And the outturn might still not be that bad, but you've dealt with a you've mitigated the potential situation. But it does mean that the batteries are forced to compete in a reduced pot because privileged access in that context has been given to the less efficient technologies. That is the core of the skip rate issue. And it's made worse when risk management and caution increases in the control room. This is where the argument lies around how high skips should be. Over the next few years, we will see we do expect anyway, given that half the gas fleet is over 30 years old, 15 over 30 gigawatts approximately. We do expect them to either be offline a lot more or just go offline permanently at the end of life. And batteries will increase. So naturally, the skip rate issue should start diminishing as the overall mix of flexible assets just tends towards being more batteries. But this is a big factor and one of the factors why trading revenues were weaker in the first half. Thank you, Ben. Any updates on NISO control room? Yes. There's always a dialogue going on. So I've just spoken to the risk management point and the need to address sort of relative extremes situations and taking a sort of mid-winter approach to managing the network in the middle of the summer. Essentially. So that's one thing. But probably the most incrementally significant one from a specifically for batteries is what we've called before GC0166. That's the sort of grid code modification that was consulted on for years in the end. It's much slower than expected, but was approved by Ofgem in September of last year. We'd hoped that this would result in batteries becoming fully visible to the control room by the middle of this year or latest. That's been pushed back to early November simply to make sure that the information that needs to be provided to NISO both the type and how frequently it needs to be provided is on plugged in and basically onboarded all the assets, all the many over 100 battery assets that exist across the country are correctly onboarded onto the balancing mechanism system, which requires Alexon, which is the clearinghouse subsidiary of NISO. When it does come online, we do hope we'll have a meaningful impact because in those instances where NISO has to say, well, we don't we need as much flex as possible or allow for more flex because we don't know what the extreme environment might be because of the reasons I gave earlier. But outages of generation plants is a big one. They will then by then, they will be able to see, oh gosh, we've got a lot more battery capacity than we expected because so far we've been assuming 30 minutes worth. We've actually got two hours in that one and so on. We don't need to be quite as cautious in terms of using less efficient technologies. We can let them go and focus more on batteries, which are basically cheaper and start to see better utilization of batteries on the back of that. That's certainly what we've been indicated by what's been indicated by NISO. Thank you. Can you comment on dividend policy over the next two to three years? This is if I may pass the buck, is a board matter? Sure. The board is planning to give an update. They have committed to this. At some stage, I think before the end of the year, I can't remember exactly the timing, apologies. But there's a commitment to do so. If you do listen to rerun messages from the last few quarters, however, we have indicated that there's a wish to grow this company. There's a sort of energy transition going on here, and there's a wish to recycle capital. But I won't say more now. But and then fundamentally, this business is set up to provide a balance between income and capital growth. Yeah. Okay. I suspect they're also parts of this question or next questions that you can answer and those that probably are best part. But anyway, let me just read them out. When do you expect the new 777 megawatt to be included in NAV at DCF rather than cost? Is this likely to be the next big NAV boost? To the second part of the question, yes. It is. What is the approximate revenue per megawatt from the alternative revenues? How fast can you ramp this up? Okay. So there's two parts to the question there. So on the incremental 777, we'll revalue them at the quarter end following financial close. And that might be staggered in the end. We'll see. Hopefully, we can do it as one financing. But if it needs to be staggered because Rayleigh's a bit behind or something else, it'll be staggered. But that will be a meaningful impact. And very round numbers. You could probably go what was the uplift per megawatt this quarter and say something similar vaguely similar to for these assets incrementally as well subject to. But a 2027 rather than 2026. Oh, yes. And the timing of that will be 2027. Most likely Q3 or Q4. In terms of alternative revenues, we've highlighted that the pounds per megawatt hour achieved in the trial was in the region of 23 pounds. We need to see this strategy operate in more different backdrops and at larger scale before we commit to or we just start to report the actual numbers. 5 to 10 pounds is what we've indicated. Which is similar to the level of revenues that we're earning from the existing fleet today. And it's scalable across probably approaching 50% of our megawatts. Hopefully relatively cautiously. So there's a lot to go for here. And yeah, we'll I don't want to make any new forecasts or commitments on behalf of the company now, but we do stick and stand by our 25 million pound EBITDA target. Okay. Outside of your alternative revenue strategy, are you using different optimizers for your various sites or just one? Sorry, was this alternative revenues or something else? Sorry. No, no. Outside of alternative revenues. So yeah. So really a question around how many optimizers do we use? Yeah, absolutely. We've got five or six different optimizers across the fleet. Yeah. We've got the majority of the floors are this is all public information. Of the actual floors are with EDF and Statcraft. And we have an effective floor through essentially an ISDA with an insurance company for a significant portion of the rest. Okay. What specifically needs to happen between now and 2030 for revenues to converge with the third-party forecasts? Very good question. So when you look at the macro, you can almost dare to get a bit excited because you've got growing electricity demand. You've got a couple of nukes coming offline. You've got Drax generating less power as well. That's a commitment that's made that kicks in in Q2 next year, I think, if I remember rightly. And that's a huge asset. And it's going to overall generate half the output that it has done to date. Somewhere close to four gigawatts. So we've got demand increasing. We've got supply, especially dispatchable base load-like supply decreasing. And we've got a huge growth to fill in that gap in renewable generation. Such that it's likely to take renewable generation from 40-something percent to over 80%. In the next four or five years. So all of that translates into a very, very much more volatile environment with the bottlenecks and constraints that exist in the network still becoming but remaining a serious problem, even if lots of money has been spent to increase the amount of power that can flow at those constraints. So you see all of that. You see the likelihood that the gas assets that mostly behave like peakers these days with flexible generation I expect a proportion of those potentially a fairly large proportion, as I mentioned earlier, potentially half given that half are over 30 years old now. It's starting to go offline or having more issues. So really, it means that batteries go from one of the smaller sources of flexibility, especially given the shorter duration of the fleet, to a much larger proportion of peak megawatts and the amount of time that they can operate for and therefore megawatt-hours or gigawatt-hours. So all of that's means that the it gives a good reason why the overall curve should be heading higher from a macro perspective in the absence of skips. The other very important thing that we need, though, is a reduction in skip rates. Because at the moment, if you've got a the control room purely to manage risk has to turn certain assets on first, whether it's dispatching or scheduling interconnectors, pump storage hydro, gas assets, potentially Drax's biomass asset, and so on, and turning those on or having them available first and therefore prioritized, it naturally means that batteries are left to last. As we get more visibility of batteries, as we have many more batteries as the percentage of total flex, that effect should decrease and hopefully I do think another thing that needs to happen, which I'm less confident about, is the amount of automation and computer intelligence to help in that in those scenarios as well. But the combination of all these things, processes, mix of flex, and in particular the growing percentage of batteries, and technology and also computing power in the control room should all contribute to the flexible all the flexible market being available to batteries, not just what remains after other assets have been prioritized. That's what's needed. Thank you, Ben. Another question on the alternative revenues. And specifically around what the trials have achieved in terms of the trials have significantly beaten the 5 to 10 megawatt-hour you are using to get to the 25 million. Can you explain why you expect this to be so much lower than the 23 megawatt-hour you've seen in the trials? It was a very I certainly can't explain it. I'm just trying to word it in a useful way while also not disclosing anything we don't want to disclose. But essentially, we're extracting a margin essentially between the price that can be captured at spot by batteries or and the and somewhere in the towards the end market. And without giving that away. And that margin can vary significantly according to the amount of renewable generation on the system. And during the trial period, there was quite a lot of wind. And so you have to be cautious about where the outturn is. Having said that, without changing our forecast or assumptions, given that we're heading from 40-something percent, 45-odd odd percent wind and solar in this country, to 80%, we do expect the amount of time that renewables together generate significantly more than it might be expected from them to grow and that having a favorable impact on wholesale prices. So let's see how everything pans out, but we do have to be cautious here just because it's a short period. Sure. Sure. What is the impact on the best market from higher gas prices as a result of the Iran war? Are we seeing a rerun of the Ukraine war impact? We're in the gas prices in the foothills of the Everest share price shape that we not share price, gas price shape that we saw between '21 and '24, I suppose. But it is at multi-year highs now, and it absolutely increases volatility in the market. And we're seeing that now, the sorry, I don't think I spoke to the recent trading question earlier. It gives me a second chance. If you look at the Modo Index or best analytics or any other platform that shows recent trading, we are close to highs for the year. In terms of volatility. Yeah. Can you explain why balancing revenues are negative? And what needs to happen to get this to turn positive again? I don't know what's meant by balancing revenues being negative. I'm going to guess that that's looking at the best analytics. Yeah. I don't know exactly how they construct this, but my guess is that there's an assumption in that model that assumes that you only charge in the balancing mechanism only export in the wholesale or largely do that. And that means that you're only incurring cost in the balancing mechanism rather than doing more balanced trading in terms of importing and exporting in the balancing mechanism. But the overall line that goes through the overall chart that's the sum of everything is what we need to look at and is the number that's heading higher. Hopefully, that's useful to the person who asked. I can just take something offline if they want to call us. Thanks. Ben. There are a couple of questions here around prime stone. And the dialogue there. And I think, look, a couple of comments there. And I speak on behalf of the manager, Geham, here. And as a colleague of Ben's and Harry's. s. And our goal is to maximize shareholder value. From delivering on our growth strategy. And I think the manager's been very clear on that. Obviously, the board have had a number of constructive dialogues with prime stone. There have been various RNSs release, which have obviously been seen by everyone. And I think that there's a common goal here, which is to see a higher share price, see a reduction in the NAV discount, and to maximize returns for all shareholders. I think getting into any discussion or debate beyond that is it doesn't serve any purpose here. Suffice to say that I know that the board and its advisors will continue to have a dialogue with prime stone as well as all other shareholders who they have consulted over recent weeks and months. And we as the manager will be involved as and when the board deem it appropriate in the meantime, we will continue to have a laser focus on driving and maximizing shareholder value. Nothing to add. I think, Ben, that is that's all the questions that we've had from the audience. I think we are obviously at 10:45, 10:47. So I think we'll close the formal session there. I'd like to thank everyone for attending this morning's presentation. Ben and Harry, thank you for your contributions as ever. Thank you to all our shareholders. For their patience and support over the last 18 months as we've been on this recovery journey. I think the team continue to innovate, continue to execute. And as I say, remain absolutely laser focused on driving and maximizing shareholder value. If anyone has any further questions or would like to follow up directly with the manager, we'll obviously be delighted to do so. But in the meantime, thank you again for attending this morning and hopefully see everyone soon. Thank you. Thank