Good day, everyone, and welcome to First Solar’s fourth quarter and year end 2009 earnings conference call. This call is being webcast live on the investor section of First Solar’s Web site at www.firstsolar.com. At this time all participants are in a listen only mode. And as a reminder today’s call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Larry Polizzotto, Vice President of Investor Relations for First Solar Inc. Mr. Polizzotto, you may begin.

Thank you. Good day, everyone and thank you for joining us for First Solar Fiscal Fourth Quarter 2009 Conference Call. Today, after the market close, the Company issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter 2009 financial results. If you did not receive a copy of the press release, you can obtain one from the investor section of First Solar’s Web site at www.firstsolar.com. In addition, First Solar has posted the fourth quarter presentation for this call, key quarterly statistics, historical data on the financial results and operating performance on our IR Web site. We will be discussing the presentation during this call. An audio replay of the conference call will also be available approximately two hours after the conclusion of this call. The audio replay will remain available until Tuesday, February, the 23rd 2010 at 11:59 P.M. Eastern standard Time and can be accessed by dialing 888-203-1112, if you are calling from the United States, or 719 457 0820, if you are calling from outside of the United States, and entering replay passcode 2240374. A replay of the webcast will be available on the investor section on the Company’s Web site approximately two hours after the conclusion of the call and remain available for approximately 90 calendar days. Investors may access the webcast on the investor section of the Company’s Web site at firstsolar.com. If you are a subscriber of FactSet or Thomson ONE, you can obtain a written transcript within two hours. With me today are Rob Gillette, Chief Executive Officer, Jens Meyerhoff, Chief Financial Officer and Bruce Sohn, President of First Solar. Rob will begin with an overview of the Company’s fourth quarter achievements followed by a market and business update. Jens will provide you with the fourth quarter 2009 operational and financial results and provide an…

Great, thank you, Larry. Thanks to everyone for joining us today on our Q4 call and 2009 summary. Starting off here to talk about Q4, we had a strong finish to the year and we achieved our 2009 guidance which we set over a year ago, so despite all the challenges and changes in the market, we did very, very well. Q4 net sales were $641 million, up 33% quarter-over-quarter. We sold Sarnia and Blythe sites and drove $142 million in net income. For the year, $2.1 billion in net sales, up 66%, and Q4 diluted EPS was $1.65, bringing the 2009 EPS to $7.53, which was up 78% year-over-year. Strong cash positioned us well; we finished the year at $1.1 billion in cash and marketable securities and generated an additional $395 million free cash flow. We continue to execute well in operations in Q4, produced 311 MW and finished the year with 1.1 GW of production in 2009. We achieved a milestone of over 2 GW cumulative production and sales. So, great finish to the year. Our annualized capacity per line rose to 53.4 MW and our efficiency output was up to 11.1%. Module cost was down to $0.84, was impacted by $0.02 roughly due to the Ohio start-up and $0.02 due to SBC. So, our core costs for the quarter-to-quarter was down $0.03 to $0.80 a watt. Total annual costs were down 19% from $1.8 to $0.87. We also started to expand our capacity in Malaysia, Plant 5 and Plant 6 and adding additional lines. Now, in terms of systems business, in our market development, we sold projects totaling 100 MW and shows that both the utility and investors have an appetite for solar projects and projects in sales. We continue to progress our development business as well.…

Thank you, Rob, and good afternoon. On today’s call, we are reporting our 2009 financial results. These results confirm our guidance given back in October of 2008. Despite one of the worst financial crises in recent history, module oversupply and rapidly declining crystalline silicon prices, the global recession, and a financial climate that significantly impacted project financing and customer working capital. Annual net sales grew 66% year-over-year to $2.1 billion, operating margin was 32.9% and diluted EPS rose from $4.24 to $7.52, a 78% increase that includes the impact of the OptiSolar acquisition during 2009. We achieved RONA of 25.5%, exceeding our weighted average cost of capital by approximately 12.4%e points. During the fourth quarter, we experienced strong module demand aided by competitive pricing and robust seasonal trends in advance of annual change in the Feed-in tariff in all core markets. Net sales for the fourth quarter were $641 million, an increase of $160 million compared to the third quarter of 2009. The increase was driven by higher module production volumes, system revenue recognition for the 20 MW AC Sarnia and 21 MW AC Blythe project as well as a slightly favorable euro exchange rate. These effects were partially offset by lower module ASPs. We produced 311 MW during the fourth quarter, up 6.4% compared to the prior quarter. During the fourth quarter we began the ramp of the new Perrysburg, Ohio line. The Ohio line expansion to four lines remains on plan to be at full capacity in the first quarter of 2010. Cost per watt produced for the fourth quarter was $0.84, down $0.01 and benefited from lower material costs, higher throughput and conversion efficiency, which was partially offset by $0.02 for the Ohio ramp and $0.01 of unfavorable foreign exchange impact. Manufacturing [ph] costs excluding ramp out…

Thank you. (Operator instructions) We will take the first question from Vishal Shah with Barclays Capital. Vishal Shah – Barclays Capital: Thank you for taking the question. Question on the U.S. market, since the December guidance call, the NPR in California was revised down to about, call it about $0.00 per kilowatt hour from $0.14 previously. How does that impact your system pricing assumptions and what’s the risk to 2010 second half guidance on that particularly? And then secondly, what percentage of your modules will be shipped to the German market in the first half?

Okay, I think, Vishal, on the NPR side, as you know, at least for 2010 and pretty much a good portion of 2011, the PVAs are in place. I think revisions of the market price rev in the California market I think will be ongoing. Actually, quite a few PVAs have been executed and recent history slightly above that NPR and PVA prices in these initiations. That was slightly higher. And they seem to be passing through the CPUC. Obviously, a decline in natural gas prices and a related reduction in NPR could have an impact right on our longer-term outlook with respect to the economics of the California market. We have seen the NPR go up, we have seen a slightly go down and it will fluctuate. Our focus is essentially to ensure that we drive our cost reductions further down because somewhat regardless of long-term of the impact or of the pricing in the NPR. We need to be competitive with fossil fuels, which is somewhat indent of the NPR. Essentially, as you know, the NPR makes assumptions on long-term gas prices as those I think still within the $6.50 to $7.50 range in those assumptions, which I think, overall, is in line with our long-term assumption in the market segment. And then as it relates to Germany, I think overall with respect to module consumption for 2010 into Germany, we look at roughly about 50%, give or take our volumes, right now, production volumes going into Germany for 2010.

Thank you. We will take our next question from Satya Kumar with Credit Suisse. Satya Kumar – Credit Suisse: Hi, thanks. Just a follow-up on the Germany question. Would you care to talk about the first half exposure of the volumes in Germany, and I know you don’t want to talk about the specifics on the proposals, but if I look at Slide #34 in your presentation, is that government proposal were implemented, is there a framework you can give us to think about your 2010 guidance in that scenario?

So generally, I think as I talked about is a 50% deliveries into Germany for 2010. I think they are more frontloaded into the first-half. I candidly don’t have the exact percentage of Germany for the first six months in my head out. But it is more frontloaded. We are trying to mitigate the impacts of any Feed-in tariff revisions on captive pipeline. As it relates to the Feed-in tariff and even if you take some of the proposals, we like to refrain on this call from any type of qualitative assessment, whether we feel that these proposals provide risk or opportunities against our guidance, since we’re in the middle of the political debate, and essentially we like that to run its due course before we commented a more qualitatively on that.

We’ll take the next question from Sanjay Shrestha with Lazard. Sanjay Shrestha – Lazard: Good evening, guys. Just a quick update, if you could. Out of your pipeline in the U.S. market, how much of that do you see potentially qualifying for the grant money as well for the FITB under the DOE loan guarantee program and what type of capital structure could we potentially be talking about some of these near-term opportunities?

So essentially, as you know, the (inaudible) of ITC is some setting at the end of 2010. So, right now one of the large projects we are essentially trying to house under that umbrella. As it relates to the DOE loan guarantee money, we did submit applications and the process to submit further application into this process. At the same point in time, the DOE program is not yet fully defined. There are ongoing negotiations between the commercial lenders and the government as it relates to risk distribution among players. So there is still some uncertainty around the DOE loan program. If you assume those will be resolved, there is a significant economic benefit to the capital structure in these projects.

We’ll take the next question from Steve O’Rourke with Deutsche Bank. Steve O’Rourke – Deutsche Bank: Thank you, good afternoon. Just a follow-up on overall demand. When you consider what may happen in respective markets, how do you think second half overall demand looks compared to first half? And secondly, from just a competitive perspective, what do you assume for crystalline silicon module ASP declines this year?

I think it is difficult probably a difficult question to answer with any degree of precision, because I think, one of the biggest drivers, as you think about the time phasing out demand, especially given the fact that Germany will still account for 40% to 50% of the market, as Rob presented it. The timing essentially and then obviously to the extent the size of the cuts in the Feed-in tariff, both could create a disruption to the off take of modules. And in the shorter, essentially, the lead time has to, the Feed-in tariff digression becoming active requires the much swifter reaction throughout the overall value chain as it relates to reorganizing and reallocating the economics. So one thing we believe we have successfully done is we have acquired, as you know, a significant captive pipeline that we’re executing ourselves that we believe allows us a good degree of mitigation with respect to this type of demand uncertainties.

We’ll take the next question from Steve Milunovich with Bank of America.

Actually, Steve, just hold on for one second. I think I actually missed the second thing, and that’s about the crystalline prices. We essentially, as I stated, I think in the December meeting, we assumed by year-end 2010 a spot price of $40 per kilogram for poly was essentially a $0.75 non-poly manufacturing cost of our crystalline competitors and they operate at roughly 20% gross margin. So that’s what we assume for the piece of business that we’re competing head-to-head with these companies. Steve Milunovich – Bank of America: (inaudible) program how much that’s being used? I know it continues through this year. How much you expect it to be used? And how should we think about the balance of systems penalty today?

Steve, I think you got cut off in the middle, so, I got the second part of your question as it relates to the balance of system penalty. I think candidly, as we are bidding into project, predominantly in Europe right now, we don’t really see in the oil and system pricing a significant balance of system penalty due to the energy yield in the real world performance of our product. In addition, we continue to see that we achieve better financing cases as well, that aids to the overall economics. So, we have not anywhere actively created a pricing delta that we attribute to the BOS penalty. That’s often claimed. I think you also could have probably had accessed recently some of our customers in Germany actually gave some presentations in public forums on how they feel about the real world systems performance, which actually confirms what I just said.

We’ll take the next question from Jesse Pichel with Piper Jaffray. Jesse Pichel – Piper Jaffray: Hi, good afternoon. How difficult will it be for you to transition your second half German pipeline that’s on farm lands to other markets? I’m also hoping to get some additional color around the one-time operating expenses you have in the quarter. I didn’t see that in the slide. Thank you.

Okay. So maybe real quick, as we mentioned, obviously there is potential depending on what type of changes by market segment we get around the German Feed-in tariff that you need a recalibration of the distribution channels. So this is particularly true, if you look at balance of proposals that have been made around agricultural land. And the possibility of singling a free field installation out with a much higher Feed-in tariff digression. As you know, historically, we have operated in and around roughly a 50/50 split between roof tops and free field. So we do have channel access to roof tops. If these cuts came through, obviously some of our channel partners would have to get more aggressive in roof tops, which means they all go competitive dynamics (inaudible) pushing more products into that segment, would generally increase, given our cost leadership. We believe we will compete quite favorably in that market. That market segment, as you know, would also then include probably the smaller commercial rooftops, which historically have not been yet a target market for us. But, I think the comment with respect to that there could be, again, depending on how much lead time you have with respect to the change becoming active, there could be essentially some disruptiveness out of that So, we believe again, like I said before, if you look at our own pipeline and what we have built, I think we have a good degree of resilience against some of those uncertainties. As it relates to of accessing in the third quarter I reported to you that we had some one-time benefits and the OpEx structure of about $9.3 million. Then in the fourth quarter essentially, between hiring Rob and the associated expenses there, and one of our senior executives parting with the company, made up the majority of the one-time events that we had in the fourth quarter. And also as I mentioned, we took the reserves since we got notice from the Dutch bankruptcy court that they were in disagreement with us essentially monetizing one of the bank guarantees that originated out of the bankruptcy of Ecoscreen [ph] earlier in 2009.

The next question comes from Rob Stone with Cowen and Company. Rob Stone – Cowen and Company: Hi, guys. My high level strategic question is, as you know, you guys are piling up a lot of cash. How do you think about your long range strategic use of that, more companies work capacity versus branching out some way in other businesses? And then my more prosaic follow-up question is if you could comment on the linearity of expenses Q1, I assume, has done quite a bit because of the one-time, if you could just talk about the shape of the expense incurred during 2010, please? Thanks.

So, I would say, generally, since we’re deploying return on net asset as a metric, we like it because we’re seeing disciplines you even around the amount of cash you’re holding on your balance sheet because the total cash balances factored into the calculation. Obviously, we like to reinvest a majority of our cash flows into the build-out of manufacturing capacity that continues to build the core of our business. That’s what drives costs and LC lead down for the industry. As we look at some of the very large scale projects the development effort has had some degree of cash consumption were utilized right now. We like to have the buffer in the balance sheet, even though, obviously, we’re unable to earn anywhere near RONA target out of this cash balance, as the strength of the balance sheet as a whole allows us right to achieve significant benefits on the project financing side just due to the overall aspect of credit quality within the company. I think time will tell and I think the growth rate of this industry will tell with respect to how these cash flows continue to trend. We believe we will operate in a free cash flow positive basis and there may be a point in time in our future, I wouldn’t say that in the next two years or three years, but maybe in the outer future, where we might return and start to return some of that cash generation back to our shareholders. With relate to the operating expenses, essentially, I think right now there’s nothing on the radar screen for us as it relates to one-time items. So I think if you kind of take the Q4 run rate adjusted for those one-time items. And then keep in mind Q1 usually; a slight increase in your expenses due to payroll taxes, etc., and also a merit increase is usually taken back during that time period. So you should see a gradual increase. And then I think it’s a fairly linear function throughout the quarter, over the quarters against the guidance.

The next question comes from Stephen Chin with UBS. Stephen Chin – UBS: Great, thanks for taking my questions. Jens, I just want to get back your conviction level on being able to sustain this module gross margin of 48% to 50% in 2010. The reason I ask is that you have a record sales quarter and probably favorable pricing. But you still came in towards the low end of the module guidance. Are there bigger cost per watt gains that you might be underestimating this year that makes your conviction level high on the module gross margin?

I think there are a couple of pieces in there. I would say, our overall cost reduction road map, I do want you to saying there is vast acceleration in this right now, as we look at 2010. As you know, the road map assumes roughly 10% year-over-year decline. We’ve historically been able to outperform this release that’s still not a bad gauge to apply. Other impacts are, if you look at Q4, the Q4 module margins were impacted, as I mentioned in my remarks unfavorably due to the economics in the Blythe project. You may recall the Blythe PPA or the PPA signed very early, it came to some degree with the acquisition of turn a renewables, which probably to some degree, was priced, I would say, 20% to 20%-plus under the market then So there is an impact out of that just in the fourth quarter. So if you look at 2010, it’s a combination of our cost reduction, but also an increase in what we consider captive demand and our own customers’ development pipeline to change into a different geographical regions all attributed to that margin outlook.

We’ll take the next question from Kelly Dougherty with Macquarie. Kelly Dougherty – Macquarie: Hi, thanks for taking my question. Two quick ones. I guess the first one to follow-up is do you have any other PPAs that you would say are priced significantly below maybe where some of the other ones are that might have some an impact on module margins? And then a question about cash. I think we have a pretty good idea annually how you think the working capital situation will look. But just kind of wondering what the lumpiness, if you will, of the quarters and the various revenue recognition might have on your quarterly working capital needs?

Okay. So real quick, I would say, generally, I think we have PPA prices of distribution I think generally are fairly tight. I think historically, we talked about the $0.14 to $0.16 per kilowatt hour range. So we do not have outliers I think like Blythe. We recommitted to Blythe and the company we are when we commit to something, we execute against it and we hold true to our commitments. That’s what we did with that project. And there are no similar circumstances in the current portfolio. As you think about through the quarterly trend, this is obviously highly subject to the development business with respect to whether you achieve milestone payment terms versus completed contract payments. To give you an idea, obviously, Blythe and Sarnia were completed contract both from a revenue point of view as well as from a cash collection point of view. In our mind, the question is, do you get positive arbitrage? For example, can you negotiate a milestone payment without impacting the overall costs of capital and the capital structure in the projects? That obviously what we try to defer and we try to get the market with that efficiency. That doesn’t work in every case. So especially on some of the smaller projects we will essentially finance the constructions for our balance sheet which allows us in cases than to achieve a higher price than our profitability and higher cash collection and sign the offset way.

The next question comes from Chris Blansett with JP Morgan. Chris Blansett – JP Morgan: Thank you, guys. Jens, my question was related to your better credit rating for the company. And going forward, how does this impact the economics of the system? Is some way you can give some competitive metrics?

I would say fundamentally there are two pieces to the thing. If you look at some of the larger projects we’ve got in our pipeline, I think in order to finance them successfully, our biggest task is as we look at 2010, 2011 and beyond is to effectively, I guess, the projects rated so that we can access the institutional market, especially on the debt side and essentially start to issue solar bonds either in a private placement or unlike a 144 type a mechanism. The initial feedback we’re getting out of the capital source appears to be favorable and open. So obviously, the rating on the project is subject to the quality of the off-take with respect to electricity and then who is the counterparty on the PPA is. It is very much subject to how you structure the capital structure of the project. And then what we have learned is also highly subject to the quality of essentially the provider of a system and the provider with respect to warranties with respect to execution, construction financing as well as on the long-term O&M performance. All of these pieces factor in. As you know, I think you can just look at essentially some of the yield curves there is obviously a significant separation between achieving investment grade ratings on these types of projects for the corporation where sitting essentially in a junk bound environment. So from that perspective we are pursuing this. I think we haven’t announced any ratings yet, but essentially I think that’s where we stand. That’s how we look at it. So if you think about of our roadmap as it relates to reducing LCOE capital costs, it becomes a significant part of the equation and we believe we compete very favorably in that segment.

And our final question comes from Jed Dorsheimer with Canaccord Adams. Josh Baribeau – Canaccord Adams: Hi. This is Josh Baribeau for Jed. Just a question really on throughput. You’ve done a good job of achieving around a one point increase in module efficiency per quarter, but in some of the analyst events you talked about numbers such as 12% and higher. Are we to expect a large step function at some point based on let’s say, a technological breakthrough or is this more of a linear ramp that we should expect throughout the quarters? Thanks.

Josh, this is Bruce. The performance of our lines improves somewhat in an event-driven methodology. As we develop new technologies we are able to prove them out in the lab, integrate them into the factories and then deploy them out to the lines using our Copy Smart methodology. We have historically through efficiency improvements and run rate, line rate, when run rates and yield improvements generally improved at the rate of about 3.5% per year. We think that we’re still on the road map for our long range goals into 2014.

And thank you, everyone. That does conclude today’s conference and we thank you for your participation.