FREYR BATTERY Forum: Community User: Mountainclimber

Thanks, David. We agree on the big picture and we are appreciative of your confidence. Gonna be a bumpy ride into year end for solar but the future is bright.

Ich habe mir gerade nochmal die Mail durchgelesen die du gestern von J.Spittel bekommen hast.Dort betont er ja nochmal das sich an dem Update das sie vor einigen Wochen zur G2 abgegeben haben nichts geändert hat und die G2 Ende 2026 in Produktion gehen soll. ....

Vielen Dank fürs Teilen und den guten Kontakt zu Jeffrey!

Ich bleibe dabei, langfristig mache ich mir weniger Sorgen um mein Geld. Kurzfristig kann es nochmal runter gehen.... Auch wenn es hier wenige mögen. Dann kommen wieder die ganzen komischen Leute die nur schlechte Laune machen wollen.

Die müssen erstmal gründlich alles prüfen. Das dauert natürlich auch seine zeit. Besser so, als schnell schnell und dann macht man einen Fehler..

Hoffentlich haben sie noch ein Ass im Ärmel mit der G2.

Es wird spannend. Aber wir haben die G1!!! Und das war und ist und wird unsere Rettung.

Jeffrey,  thanks so much for this detailed assessment. I understand the concerns regarding the uncertainty from the OBBB and the Executive Order, especially concerning 'safe harbor' and the FEOC language. It's clear this could put short-term pressure on financing costs and earnings forecasts. However, I share the view that the long-term demand for clean energy, particularly from Big Tech and data centers, provides a strong foundation for T1 Energy. Solar power is often the most cost-effective option, and the need for power will only continue to grow. Given T1 Energy's track record, and unlike the ongoing saga with Freyr battery, the inherent market demand for solar power, I'm confident that the team will take the necessary steps to navigate these regulatory challenges effectively and capitalize on the ongoing energy transition. I trust in the company's ability to adapt and ensure our continued growth. Best regards, David

Bei diesem Chaos von Gesetzgebungen sehe ich nicht mehr durch.Und was will Spittel speziell den deutschen Aktionären damit sagen ? Das T1 nicht dran schuld ist am derzeitigen Aktienkurs oder vielleicht am Scheitern oder der Verschiebung von G2 ?

Sehr lange Mail... Das war's jetzt aber.

20. Trump promised the 3 Freedom Caucus holdouts a tighter clampdown on Green New Scam safe harbor, but 6 Senators pushed for the modified safe harbor window. Republicans are already thinking about a 2nd Reconciliation bill in late 25 or H1 26. They need those 6 Senators more than those 3 Freedom Caucus members, and the 2nd Reconciliation will focus on more Medicaid cuts which ranks much higher for Freedom Caucus than Green New Scam 21. Per my convo with lawyers, the ambiguity is a positive for developers following existing safe harbor rules. It doesn't create an opening for the Trump admin (esp in a post-Chevron world) 22. I would agree on last point. Chevron deference limits (via litigation) how far Treasury could go here 23. I also think the ambiguity is fine for a top 5/10 developer, but will make tax equity, etc. More expensive for others 24. The bullet points above are generally accurate but it underestimates the political imperative (and administrative willingness by this Administration) to break norms and execute in accordance with both the letter and spirit of the Executive Order. I have no doubt the FEOC provisions will become more onerous, and I fear they might seek to sharpen the interpretive guidance around safe harbor and start of construction definitions. Stay tuned…

16. Agree with 9-12 as OBBB codified into law previous IRS notices on safe harbor strategies. 2 things I didn’t see in the notes: The EO refers to solar and wind by name and then “other green energy subsidies”. And then only 45Y and 48E for wind and solar by specific credit #. Does this mean they will not be looking at this as closely for nuclear, geothermal, hydro, storage, etc. OR other credits like 45U, 45X, 45V, 45Z, 45Q? This could be an interesting test in the post chevron world where agencies have less freedom of interpretation and the OBBB legislative text is very clear on referring to 13-29 and 18-59 17. That July 4th 2026 date confused the whole industry. It's basically impossible, if there is no flexibility for companies to go beyond 2026 then this will be a noose instead of beneficial. 18. I am shocked the OBBB solidified 45Q and 45V…as long as a facility is under construction by Jan 1, 2028, then you get 10 years of subsidy and the credit is transferable. At the same time, there’s a hard stop for 45Z in 2029. This is a MASSIVE win for e-fuels folks. It’s completely contradictory to everything Trump has been saying. In speaking directly with several key Senate and House members on this topic, the story is this was a concession needed to get the OBBB passed. The e-fuels lobby success is quite impressive. I am very surprised so many Senators were so supportive of e-fuels. I am told by these members the intention is to make it difficult to receive the subsides via Executive Order, but I don’t think the July 7th EO did that at all. As best I can tell, the only material restriction created by the EO is against using Chinese equipment or materials. That could cause some problems. 19. From what I've heard the consistent message is this - the EO just tells treasury/IRS to do whatever they were going to do anyway. The EO was promised, treasury not going to go that far off the beaten path. And there is a group inside congress who will push back if this gets more serious than essentially a gesture.

11. I think this is all a bit storm in a teacup. Congress passed the OBBB, IRS should implement on what is based in law/passed by congress which is above the status of an EO. Trump will push a bit on IRS to adjust, think the thing they really don't want is a load of FEOC safe harbor although the OBBB allowed this until 1 Jan 2026 with then having to be non FEOC until mid-June. THere will be a pretty strong legal basis to block if the IRS oversteps based on EO vs what Congress was passing. Definitely adds uncertainty but also stuff that is safeharbored already won't really be impacted as the OBBB is written, this can be as small as having a custom transformer delivered, if that is not impacted then this still all needs orders for parts etc. Alternatively they have already safeharbored across broad set of projects and then if things really do change you consolidate a bit but means initially you still see a pull forward which can get you a reasonable amount of projects in next few years until contracts adjust to higher PPAs which if you believe US is short on power will stills see a good pipeline etc. Could read well for domestic content offerors 12. #9 through 11 are the correct read. Start of construction is defined in the bill already. 13. I'd add to that is there anyone home in Treasury to rewrite new rules? and #8 is the most important one: Big Tech needs the power now and will start to push back on any friction to not getting solar and battery power (the only real options for incremental data center power this decade since NatGas turbines are sold out through 2030 (and growing) 14. This is obviously very real time, but my current understanding is that w/r/t current development projects: #4 is the key. All of the ones that imply that “start of construction” is solidly codified in the bill already may not be correct. I believe it was codified in one section (i.e., the FEOC stuff), but not necessarily for the broader safe harboring regime. As #4 says, we need the lawyers to weigh in with real analysis here. If there is indeed real ambiguity, this potentially gives the Trump admin a real opening here. That is worrisome, as they obviously intend to exploit whatever chance they have to narrow the start of construction definition considerably and have political pressure to do so from the far right.Having said that, the second sentence of #8 is also spot on. It still hurts developers in the near-term (so not sure the first part is correct – i.e., scale’d developers are not truly immune), but in the medium to long term, the country needs the power, and renewables in many places still out-compete even unsubsidized. 15. I’m surprised how much overreaction folks have to the EO when there isn’t really a clear path to implement such a draconian change. Seemed pretty clear to me like mostly political posturing / pointmaking and not policy as described. Re utility scale less effected I think that is right. I’m curious to see how gas new build costs play out…I think there was some dumb money that was going long GT deposits for data center load 6-12 months ago and not a lot of orders converting might lead to some right-sizing for OEM margins, which would put more pressure on utility scale solar. You prob have a larger and more contemporary database than I do but utility scale solar looks tougher in capacity constrained markets if gas peaking is $1200/kW vs 2000/kW.

Dear David, I am passing along the following comments from U.S. institutional energy investors in reaction to the OBBB and Monday’s Executive Order. These are folks who run tens of billions of dollars of money for their LPs, and they know their stuff. I know folks still like to talk about the FREYR saga on the message boards, but that is not what moves T1’s stock price. Hopefully this gives you some context of what’s on the mind of the people that do move our stock price. The only people who are guaranteed to make money in all this chaos are the lobbyists and attorneys. A bunch of back/forth/investor feedback on EO. Below is quick summary: 1. I was honestly surprised how all of sellside thought that 2026 July 4th + 4 years was the given runway to safe harbor projects for ITC...like that house passing the start of construction language meant that they could safe harbor out to 2030 as long as they start a project by 2026 july. Everyone pushed back that this was pretty safe now, and then boom you get this EO saying tighten this up so these developers can't circumvent project construction language 2. Yea, this is a short. You have to rebase earnings on what portion of projects on good faith can get done meaningfully by '26. Naturally the equipment guys are going to say PPAs will be renegotiated higher by the developers etc. And likely we'll see a range of interpretations/possible more bullish interpretations, but can't argue how strong the ITC credit is anymore with the start of construction language. 3. Im trying to get the legal view down. Differing opinions on whether start of construction is now codified. 4. One interesting thought we saw was that the FEOC language in the OBBB referred to the 2018 guidance of safe harboring. So there is potentially a conflict there when treasury issues new guidance 5. On utility-scale I am constructive but I do think this executive order places further uncertainty on the space. Think resi remains challenged 6. What is clear to me is that they want to restrict receipt of the tax credits. Trump didn't need to do the executive order. Could have made assurances to Chip Roy and others than reneged on his promises after OBBB went into law. But he wants to restrict those credits for solar and wind. Who is to say they can't just really slow play permitting if they want? 7. very weird to me that IPPs down on this 8. Probably zero impact for scale'd developers...they'll figure it out. Solar/wind are cost competitive with nat gas and we need the power. 9. Agree on point that on OBBB on safe harbor there is a contradiction (#4) - can't have two construction start definition under one provision. This seems to be the view of all the policy analysts I have talked to. But treasury can clamp down on FEOC. Think devs will buy domestic just to err on side of caution 10. They will do something with the EO but the law is the law... The law as it is currently signed refers to safe harboring as it was established under IRA (which was actually established even longer ago than that). Point being that it’s hard to see how they can legally make it significantly harder. It might get harder at the margin, but that is not a big deal

Geht nich, muß es in zwei Teilen schicken weil es zu lang ist...