Tyler DiMatteo: Yeah. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking the time and the questions. I wanted to follow up on the — some of the comments and the prepared remarks related to the CQP and the plans to prevent further delays that you highlighted some comments about partners and vendors. I’m just curious, how are you thinking about maybe leveraging more of your partners and vendors to ensure, or at least kind of really work through some of the challenges of the CQP that’s undergoing right now? Just how can you really leverage some of those partnerships as you go into 2024? Really, any other color there.
Oscar Brown: Yeah. It may be too much sausage making, but we have — as I said, every morning we get together and look at the critical path progress versus 24 hours ago. And we have key partners and vendors involved once or twice a week, but every week, and those calls — we also go through detailed plans on the part of the vendors detailed expectations on the part of the customers. And we have the subject matter experts from all three sides engaged in problem solving, where we identify a roadblocks and to remove barriers for the team on the ground. And this is — it is really creating that full right to left transparency. We also share this throughout the facility. So there’s a lot more eyeballs on potential issues and also solutions as we go than we’ve had previously. So quite a bit of changes in operating model and all of them related to unblocking and debottlenecking progress towards first sales.
Tyler DiMatteo: Okay. Great. And then just at a higher level here, kind of given some of the delays at the CQP, I mean, does this change how you think about maybe ESS versus EV, realizing that ESS was always the core near-term approach, but I mean, does this dynamic now change given the current state of play or — and if so, how?
Oscar Brown: So I think the semi solid technology was always a very promising technology as it relates to producing thick electrodes and thereby achieving the electrochemical properties you want for vacations like ESS. So if anything, our conviction that this is going to be a very good market for the technology, we’re advancing the strengthen, and we’re just going to keep executing towards that.
Tyler DiMatteo: Okay. Great. Thank you for the time. I really appreciate it. I’ll turn it back to the queue.
Operator: Great. Thank you so much, Tyler. Your next question comes from the line of Gabe Daoud with TD Cowen. Gabe, go ahead.
Gabe Daoud: Thanks everyone. Thanks for all the great detail this morning. I was hoping we could maybe level set Giga America again. So going back to the original plans, could you just remind us what the capacity targets are for both tracks? And then, any color you can give. I know a lot has to kind of go right from now until then, but any updated thoughts now on start of production from Giga America? I think the fast track plan was two and a half gigawatt hour at capacity, early starting production by the summer of 2025. So maybe just level set and give us a little bit of an update on the initiatives now at Giga America.
Jeremy Bezdek: Yeah, so this — yeah, it’s Jeremy here. Gabe, thanks for the question. Some of this is still being worked as we’re refreshing the business model, but let me give you some thoughts. So on track one as it relates to the 24M technology, because we are in the DOE process, the timeline to sort of closing the financing, the equity will likely line up with the DOE process. And so that’ll kind of dictate when we can close financing, which then allows us to order the long lead equipment and then that will take the start of production. So as we think about the DOE process for the 24M plant, that’s likely to take us through most of 2024. We hope to be able to get a conditional commitment before the end of the year. If we’re able to do that, we believe the equity financing will line up quite well with that.
We will, of course, feel good about where we’re at in the CQP and be able to move forward with ordering long lead equipment and then that puts us in a start of production late 2026. From a capacity standpoint, again, still sort of working on this. It has somewhat to do with how we end up designing the process, which of course, will be educated again coming out of the CQP performance. So my guess is you’re probably looking at anywhere from 15 to 20 gigawatt hours of capacity in that kind of a plant. But of course, that will be a bit TBD still. So we should be able to report more on that, as we get into the early part of 2024. On the second track, timing is a little bit — it’s a little bit more certain because, of course, you have, as Birgir said, you don’t have any sort of technology risk, but we are working with multiple partners to try to lock down terms around licensing the technology and assuming we can do that in a short term period, it’s going to allow us to likely beat that start of production timing I just mentioned for track one with the track two plan.
So — and then really no way to really comment on capacity yet on track two, that’s still being negotiated obviously with the potential licensed partners. So more to come on that.
Gabe Daoud: Thanks Jeremy. That’s great caller and super helpful. Maybe as a follow up then, can you talk a little bit about what you may be looking for in a tech partner? I’d imagine it’s someone with LFP chops if you will, just considering the market focus on energy storage and anything else that. Maybe you’re looking for in a tech partner. And then maybe specific to Nidec. I mean, could you pivot and contract two or phase two, I guess be the sole source of supply for Nidec. Like, Nidec doesn’t necessarily care if it’s 24M technology, is that correct?
Jeremy Bezdek: Yeah. So let me answer your first question first. As far as the conventional technology partner, I do think we want to focus around LFP, and I also think we want to continue to focus on the ESS market. As Birgir mentioned, we’re excited about that market. We’re excited about the growth opportunities there. And frankly, the speed to validation with customers. And so that’s important. So I think that would be — the way I would characterize our potential conventional technology partners. As it relates to, to Nidec, the one difference here for them as our module impact partner is the 24M cell design is different than a conventional cell design. So it will be two different module designs that, that go with that. So we’re working very closely with them on both track one and track two.
And so the way we would envision the relationship moving forward is to be as transparent as possible on what cell design looks like so they can follow with module design and get us into a DC block product, which we think the market desires.
Gabe Daoud: Okay. Got it. Got it. Great detail. Thanks Jeremy. Thanks guys.
Jeremy Bezdek: Thanks Gabe.
Operator: Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Alex Rappel [ph]. Alex, go ahead.
Unidentified Analyst: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I’m curious, with the — these sort of rejiggering of plans here towards Giga America specifically, how are you guys thinking about the offtake environment for ESS moving forward? It seems like almost when you came out, we were kind of in one very panicked environment. Today, we’re hearing something really different from buyers. They’re seeing rather steep price cuts in ESS. They’re much more confident on supply, I mean specifically to the US. So relative to sort of either track one or track two, my understanding is, you do need to show some offtake to get through the DOE alone process. How are you thinking about the contracting environment, and in ESS and sort of like what underpins your excitement looking at it today versus say two years ago? Thanks.
