Ditlev Engel - CEO

Stig Frederiksen - ABG Sundal Collier Rupesh Madlani - Barclays Capital Josh Shaver - SAC John Segrich - Gabelli & Company Henrik Simonsen - SEB Enskilda Peter Rothausen - Danske Markets Arnaud Brossard - Exane BNP Alastair Bishop - Piper Jaffray Brian Gamble - Simmons & Co. Allen Wells - Morgan Stanley Martin Prozesky - Bernstein Christian Nagstrup - Jyske Bank Catharina Saponar - Nomura Robert Clover - HSBC Didier Laurens - Societe Generale Patrik Setterberg - Nordea Mark Freshney - Credit Suisse Tom Gibney - Credit Suisse Archie Fraser - Redburn

Stig Frederiksen from ABG Sundal Collier. Regarding the V112, you're stating that you're seeing faster introduction and higher volumes coming up on this new V112.

Could you reflect a bit about, which market do you see that and does that have any relation to the EDPR order the other day? Then secondly, you talked a lot about the high efficiency on this one.

Do you think that prices will reflect that, when you introduce this one, the clients will be willing to pay for the higher output from this turbine?

I think it’s important to say that the V112 is more about wind classes than it is about countries because it is for the low and medium wind size and that is 75% of all the wind resources in the world, which is in this category. So, we it is real and will be truly global machine therefore we will also produce it globally.

The way that we work with things at Vestas is obviously, when you put a machine out for marketing gives an indication of the interest in the platform from our customers and we are very happy to see the interest in the market of using the V112 and therefore we have decided to ramp up our facilities to make sure we can cater for this expected demand. When it comes to the performance and when it comes to the economics of the machine, it is of course clear that getting to the TRIPLE 15 aspirations as we have said on numerous occasions, one had to remember that where Vestas is today, has all been on the existing platforms.

So, moving up towards a TRIPLE 15 aspirations on earnings of 15% has to be driven also very much by new technology and the V112 forms a very important platform in this and therefore we hope and expect that it will be a good machine, also financially both for us as it will be for our clients as we do believe that it will have a cutting edge competitiveness in the market in these wind machines. So, yes, it hopefully will be financially also interesting for both parties.

Rupesh Madlani from Barclays Capital. Could you comment on the confidence levels you have for securing additional orders for the rest of the year and also how many 1 gigawatt-plus orders you anticipate?

Second, could you comment on your expectation for pricing and pre-payment levels for the rest of the year and to the extent that you wish to discuss, perhaps the main characteristics of the EDPR deal?

Let me start from the last question. On the EDPR, I think its in both company's releases on Monday, clear exactly how far we are expecting to go on commenting on the deal.

So, I think you will have to live with what's in the two announcements. Talking about the pricing in general, we have said all the time, that the key issue is really whether you can deliver the right business case certainty over the lifetime and can stand out for this.

Therefore, talking about the products and the presence, is actually meaning that the business case certainty and thereby the yield that the customers are getting is much more important than some discounts on the machines. As when we talk about the terms and conditions therefore, we have not made any significant changes to this.

When I was here last time there was a lot of questions about the United States and the US market, the so called gray market and we made it clear that Vestas did not want to participate in that. Obviously, one of the consequences of this is what we see in the first quarter with the very low activity level.

However, changing the conditions in the market we didn’t feel would be the right thing to do, but instead focusing on the value proposition that we do have to the market. Concerning orders above 1 gigawatt I think you should know us better than that by now that we only comment on from an unconditional orders and not while we are discussing.

I will however, say that as I also mentioned on Monday on the EDPR deal that looking at the growth aspiration I was just mentioned in the coming years, it is clear that many of the major utilities are now thinking how are they going to make wind part of their portfolios and therefore in which way is that going to play in. If we did not have this belief that we would see this kind of development we would obviously not today release the amount of investment that we are doing as we actually for instance in the US are putting in capacity in the magnitude of 3000 megawatts on a yearly basis, which is obviously a huge capacity to cater) for this market.

Just to, perhaps, follow up, with respect to component price increases, do you believe that could actually lead to some overall price increases going into next year, given how the indexation works?

I think there is obviously these days there is a lot uncertainly in the market because of what’s going on many fronts, but at least what we have experienced in the last few months is and more upward trend as I mentioned on the materials and thereby also on the components and that obviously will also could go in an impact the cost of the machines to which level. We will have to see how the development is, but we all know that back in the first half of 2008, we were at completely different level, has come down.

Our view is that like what we have friends, who have seen on the cost of oil or gas or whatever, we have been down on an artificial level and we are now starting to move up again and that is therefore in our mind maybe not so unexpected that this is going to happen, but to how bad it is going to be? We will have to wait and see, but it could be a consequence.

[Josh Shaver] from [SAC]. A quick question, when you look at the US environment particularly on what's coming out of Washington with the Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman bill and some of the setbacks that might be happening there.

How might your business or your planning change in the US if you don't have, if a national, let's say, RES or a clean energy standard, doesn't come out of the US? That's the first question.

Then on the second question, if nothing does come out from Washington with respect to a climate or an energy bill with an RES. Do you think with the EPA and possible regulation of carbon at some point in the future, that that might be of a benefit to the business?

Of course its very difficult to know exactly what’s going to happen on these bills and of course we follow this, as we just mentioned what was going on at the moment., I think that the energy challenges that the world has is pretty evident and the fact that we are now starting to see and people are forecasting the oil bag at $100 per barrel soon, is going to bring the whole energy discussion back into question again, about how do we reduce its whole energy cost for the country. Adding to this they are obviously the renewable energy standards, there are the activities from the EPA that you mentioned and I think that there are lot of things pointing in this direction.

I was just this morning listening to about population in American cities and some of the challenges this is causing. So, I think the fact that we can provide actually on long-term basis a cheaper, cleaner and domestic fuel.

I think has an interest on both sides of the isle and therefore I would say what happens in Washington we will see. We still have a lot of RPSs, renewable portfolio standards in place in many of the states and we are seeing a very different activity level right now in the US then we did for instance 12 months ago.

With the ITC grant in place, with the PTC in place I think we really feel confident otherwise we would not increase number of colleagues over here now and release those if you didn’t see a complete different activity levels. So, you will be as good as I’m in guessing what will happen in DC on this, but I think the other fundamentals are important to remember as well and again we are delighted to see the increase in activity level and (inaudible) to see we started to announce orders in the US again, where as we in 2009 had no orders in United States, which was pretty challenging taking in to account that in 2006, 2007, 2008 that was our largest market and again and another reason why we are seeing this Q1 that we are seeing now.

Hi, it's Jon Segrich from Gabelli. I'm just wondering if you could help us understand what you think the cadence of your business is going to look like obviously, first quarter revenue is low.

You've got 7,000 to hit for the full year. How should we think about the ramp and also is there going to be a difference do you think between, let's say, a front half that's going to be maybe very supply only and maybe a second half, where you then have percentage of completion revenue, which helps you get to that 7,000 or what's driving the significant ramp?

Of course the type of contracts that we are talking about here, we have taken in to account and how they are going to impact the earnings and the revenues, when we say that we are going to see in 2010, which is heavily backend loaded both in terms of revenues and earnings and this is of course something that we keep following up on to make sure where are the projects and when are they going to go into revenue or when are they going to go into earnings. The best reply I can give to you is obviously that this has been embedded in the guidance already, depending on the projects that we know and what type of contract they are and how this is going to affect our P&L for 2010.

So, basically I would say the only change we are seeing in the market and the type of contracts is that the customers tend to favor more and more turnkey projects. Also, the bank seems to be of this opinion, in order to mitigate the risk, i.e.

that there is one party being responsible for the whole installation and this is fine with us and again, the expected turnkey projects that we are looking at is of course therefore also embedded in the revenue guidance. But we are seeing maybe a more tendency towards this compared to the past.

One more question there, then we will go to the telephone.

Henrik Simonsen from SEB Enskilda. Just two very quick ones.

Order intake guidance, 8 gigawatts to 9 gigawatts for this year. Does the EDPR order and what you say is a faster launch or introduction of the V112, does that make you more comfortable moving closer to the 9 gigawatt, compared to what you were a couple weeks back?

Then the second one, on the supply chain, you say prices are starting to increase. Is that because some of your competitors are buying for inventory?

Or is that because of bottlenecks are slowly starting to come back into the industry?

The expectations are 8 to 9, and but of course I would say the fact that the EDPR order is signed obviously helps getting through the 8 to 9 but when we mention this already back that we were expecting this, we said at the time it will be about as also about the new products coming in and of course the V112 is going to be important also to get to the 8 to 9. Concerning the raw material cost.

Basically, we don’t see this, let's say, as a shortage of components in the market but more as a consequence of the general material cost expected to go up and you will probably have as a good view on this as we have on how this is going to impact us but at least that’s a trend we are seeing. Then I think talking about, let's say, the overall component situation.

The fact that, as was mentioned, in the region, for the region that we have ramped in China to secure the supply chain there, the fact that we are doing here in United States getting new suppliers to invest in United States, that we are bringing suppliers, bringing a new suppliers based on the U.S. op means that we’ll have a much better, let's say, possibilities going forward and we had just a few years ago when everything was based out of Europe.

So we are pleased to see the commitment from the suppliers because that’s going to ensure our competitiveness but also that we are not going to hopefully end up some of the bottle mix that we was talking about some years ago. With this let's turn to the telephone.

Thank you very much. Two questions, I'll take them one by one.

The first question, on the V112 scaling up of volume and your higher CapEx expectations. Does this reflect that you plan to bring on more capacity or is it a reflection that you put in more prototypes or a serial series into the market?

Maybe you could comment a bit on that. I don't fully understand the connection.

That's the first question.

Some of the present facilities that we are talking about here in the ramping up are therefore going to be, let's say, converted. Meaning that, we will in some of the plants take out some of the existing capacity for some of the other platforms and convert this in to the new platform.

Its clear that building, for instance, new blades of a completely different size and magnitude means that we have to invest in doing them and what we are just saying is that we are now, let's say, preparing and fast ramp off of the manufacturing of this type of platform. So that would be obviously in the planning also as a consequence where we are swapping between this.

We do not expect to see new factories as such being build up but the rebuilding some of the existing plan to cater for this.

So does that mean that your 10 gigawatt capacity is actually is going up with this rescaling of turbine models?

Well, you can of course say that the like for like if you use to make plates for 2 megawatt machine and you now make it for 3 megawatt you will everything equal obviously get more megawatts but I can’t give you any exact figure of how much that will mean.

Okay. The second question, on the U.S.

market. I know you mentioned that oil is going to three-digit levels or going up, anyway.

But we have seen decoupling versus gas prices. Gas prices are the key denominator for new installations and the competitor versus wind in the U.S.

market, as I see it. Why are you so confident of this pickup in the US market when the competitiveness seems to disfavor wind as it looks like right now, on the gas side?

I think we have to be a little hesitant in just talking about the market in general and basically what we have experienced. I can only talk about what we have experienced.

What we have experienced is a much bigger interest in to the U.S. than we experienced a while back.

When we said that we will the complete the factories and we will wait to ramp them up depending on the sentiment in the market as was previously mentioned, then the sentiment that we are seeing now towards the activities that we are involved in requires that we do start to ramp them up now. Therefore you are right obviously that there are some issues concerning the gas price level.

On the other hand we are also seeing certain states pushing their renewal portfolio standards further in hit and we would like to see a further ramping up of this type of energy in number of states, irrespectively of the development of the fodder fuel prices. Then obviously you have to add in to this, which of course is difficult to know whether we will get a renewable energy standard or not, but we are seeing a huge interest in to developing this type of energy in United States despite the development we have seen short term on the gas prices.

I think however that there is an agreement that when you look ahead in the coming years, which of course it’s important to remember not just the short term that we should expect also for gas prices that they will go up again.

Hello, two questions, in fact. First, about your backlog.

Today could you tell us what proportion is for 2010?

We have not listed that as we have never done before. So no, we don’t mention them.

Okay. So let's move on to my second question, then, about the V112.

Could you tell us to what extent the faster introduction reflects some kind of phasing out of the V90?

For the V90 platform in general on the 2 megawatt, there is no plans whatsoever to phase that out, as it depends also on what wind machines we are talking about and what kind of sites, whether or not the V90 or the V112 would be the best pick, but it is clear that in the coming years, we will probably see this but the V90 still is going to remain a very important and competitive platform for us in the coming years. So we are not talking about taking the V90 off the market in any way.

Since you couldn't answer my first question, maybe I can add one more about raw material risks? Could you tell us how much you expect this effect could be?

The timing of the effect?

I think it's really not that Vestas has a crystal ball here which is any different from the rest of the world on the materials and these developments. We obviously monitor this very closely.

We just highlighted that what we are seeing. But sentiments could change in the market again.

But we are just reflecting what we have seen. So, as I said, other views will be as relevant as ours on how we see this material develop , but it's just important to be aware off when we are looking ahead and this is why we are highlighting today and I actually do think I understood your first question.

I just didn’t want to answer it.

Yes, two questions from me, too. Just a follow-up to the last question on the V90.

You explicitly stated that you weren't planning to phase out the 2 megawatt V90. What about the 3 megawatt V90, would be the first question?

Secondly, the V112, you're mentioning that the feedback from clients is extremely positive. Could you maybe give us a little bit more detail as to what level of information you've given them that's creating that excitement, maybe, for instance, assuming a typical medium wind-speed site, how much greater output can you get from the V112 than your existing platform on a per-megawatt basis?

Thanks.

Well, I think you should join us in Colorado on the first and second of September because there you will get a lot of information about the competitiveness of the platform. So I don’t think there is something we want to share here in this webcast about those issues but it is clear that when we say, released for sale, basically means that this is when we are ready to sign also legally commit ourselves.

But of course you don’t sell these kind of projects just overnight. It is something obviously that you are working on for a while but of course there is a difference between when you are ready to also legally commit through this and this is what we talk about when we say, released for sale, i.e.

that we are then ready to also undertake the legal commitments for this platform. Talking about the V93.

I would say, the V93 is obviously a class 1 machine, high-wind and therefore will not come in to jeopardy on the V112 but since the V112 is also being released for off shore, I think it's clear that the number of projects for V93's off shore is going to be very fairly limited as the V112 will take over off shore.

Yes, good morning. First question, I just wanted to touch a little bit on the US market.

Ditlev, are you seeing an increase in competition level from some of the Chinese manufacturers? I know that over the last few years they have really worked on benefiting in their own markets.

Have you seen them try to get into other markets around the world, U.S. or Europe?

Then secondly, I wondered if you might be able to walk through just an overview on your view on the offshore, when thinking about a geared versus a gearless machine. Thanks.

We have a lot of competition in Chinese with our Chinese colleagues in the industry and as could be seen in the number one, two and three spot now all being dominated by Chinese players. So I would say we definitely have our hands full when it comes through to the competition in China.

When we talk about the competition outside China from Chinese competitors I would say we haven't really seen this on a larger scale in any way. I know and I have heard of the few projects in the U.S.

where this has been discussed but we haven't seen it on a bigger scale. It will probably happen.

I am sure about that but irrespectively I think it’s important to say that when we put up our facilities in the U.S., a few years ago, and decided to do that we made a very important calculation which basically is China cost plus rate. Meaning that by deploying this amount of capital in to the United States with this insure that Vestas would be cheaper in manufacturing in the US versus what it costs to manufacture in China and ship it across the ocean.

So, we feel that when it comes to and then I take away maybe the products and the services, but just looking at the pure cost, our view is that the setup that we have in Colorado today. Also the ways its been constructed as we look forward to show in early September definitely means that we can meet should that be the future let say competitive angle can be that.

So, I think that’s important to aware of. Concerning the offshore and we have obviously V112 machine is with gearbox.

So, therefore V112 offshore is with this and on the 6 megawatt platform we have at this stage no additional comments to this.

Hi, good morning, Ditlev. Allen Wells from Morgan Stanley.

Three quick questions, if I may. Firstly back on to the US and the comfort that you have on the growth in that market and specifically if you could maybe provide us with some details in where this is coming from and particularly who you're talking to?

Is it utilities or some of the IPPs that are potentially coming back to the market? What's driving this renewed interest and maybe potentially what's slowing some of these orders coming through, bearing in mind, although it's picked up, we have only seen 250 megawatts of US orders outside of that EDPR deal with the US market.

A second question, just on raw materials as well. You've highlighted some of the potential issues with rising raw material costs, but I wonder if you could say some comments on how you are looking to mitigate the risk here specifically as you're signing longer-term deals with the likes of EDPR is there indexation in these types of deals or will you be looking to hedge or lock in some of your component costs ahead of time?

Thirdly, just on the CapEx side, particularly on the increase that you've made of 400 million, would you, perhaps, be able to provide some sort of guidance or breakdown of how this is split between the new service and maintenance unit in the U.S. and the capacity expansion for the acceleration of the V112?

Thank you.

Yes. Starting with the U.S.

market, then people that are watching this, I am sure, especially and the analyst can remember when we talk about what kind of contracts we had under review last year. Something that we, for many reasons, have given up to talk about.

But it’s clear that many of the projects that we are now discussing in the U.S. are not necessarily new projects.

These projects that there has been there for a while that people have been, let's say holding back on in order to wait to see how things were involving in terms of the market. Therefore I would say, the confidence in the U.S.

market comes not necessarily from that we are seeing just a lot of new things happening. We are seeing a lot of the things that we have been aware of, that we have been engaged in are now starting to firming up.

I think that’s important to recognize. Concerning the raw materials, you are absolutely right that the more, the kind of deals that, for instance, we made with EDPR, the better positions we can take ourselves in order to mitigate this and I think also in order to support the clients and thereby the cost of energy.

Another reason why it is important to have this longer term view to mitigate this kind of risk. So this is obviously what we are doing.

Concerning the CapEx, we don’t want to split them up but it is clear that the V112 ramp up is by far the largest chunk of the investments.

Good afternoon and two questions, please. The first is in terms of the free cash flow outlook for Q2 and Q3.

I mean, Q1 was one of the worst free cash flow quarters we've seen. The combination of the low sales and increasing working capital but given that capacity utilization remains very low and you said you focus of ramping in the quarter, but given that the order inflow in Q1 and in the beginning of Q2 was, especially in Q1, very back-end-loaded, it doesn't seem logical to expect big sales increases in Q2 may be in Q3 but in Q2 can you just give us a sense of how you think about free cash flow and cash you need for the next two quarters?

Then the second question, a much more long-term question on China. Your previous position on China was that China was a very pricing-driven market with turbines.

I think you said were sold by weight, not by value. I mean, it's a 1 megawatt market or below.

What has changed there in terms of conditions that makes you so confident? Are you still the number four in the market?

Well, let's start with China. I think it's again important to say that I think basically, what we have done is that we have stuck to our strategy about the value that we know that we can deliver.

In terms of business case certainty also to the Chinese market and the lowest cost of energy, if something really has changed I would say it is the fact that our customers are seeing that the value proposition we have also in China means that it is may be better to pay more up front than it is to pay less in the beginning i.e. that the business case certainly you get from Vestas technology and Vestas products is actually a better deal for them and therefore coming back to what I think also I’ve previously said about this is that no, we did not want to go down at the level that we saw in the market in order to try to be line-for-line competitive in terms of value as we believe that Vestas products had a different value proposition and I think basically what we are seeing is, this is being recognized, it's also clear as we have progressed on our supply chain development in China, that this is also again ensuring our competitiveness.

Meaning that we today have a truly Chinese set up again thereby ensuring that our cost base is of course tom-tom with our local competitors in that part of the world. Concerning the cash and the free cash flow, there is no, changes in terms of the need for cash, as we see it, and its clear that I think we also mentioned when we gave the guidance for 2010, that we would see not only a 2010 that was heavily backend loaded, but also a 2010 where the net working capital will have significant variations over the years and basically with the 21% that we are coming out here of net working capital is exactly just a consequence of this and therefore I would say, when you basically have had so little activity as we have had in the first quarter, personally, I am not surprised that we are at this, obviously also has a negative impact on the cash flow, but again this is something that we have taken in our planning and expectations for the year.

Just to follow up on that, do you think that utilization will improve quite a lot in Q2 and Q3 or really in Q3 only?

Well, we have said they will be heavily, backend loaded and obviously we will see the year, sort of, increasing, going up again and that of course, in all aspects on the P&L and cash etc, will therefore obviously be pointing in the right direction, but again the volatility as mentioned in 2010, will be large, simply due to the fact of all the things that that did not happen in 2009.

Christian Nagstrup from Jyske Bank. Two questions, one on China, one on the US.

If we start with China, could you please remind us what your production capacity is?

We have not mentioned this, but we have 3000 colleagues in China and we have 4000 colleagues in the US.

So you can do some math out of that. Then on the US, you have currently two orders that you got in 2009 with 2011 delivery and then maybe some from EDPR.

Why are you starting up now? Is it some of the existing projects from years ago, are they going to be delivered in 2010 or is this just a long startup time.

It’s clear that the fact that we in 2009 saw zero orders in the US obviously was for many reasons very frustrating and disappointing. Basically obviously what we are seeing now is that the orders will start to flow again and that is of course for delivery both in this year, but also going forward on the order intake and of course it takes some time to ramp up new facilities.

The latest of the plant will be ready in May full construction and of course it is also takes sometime to employ an additional 2000 people in order to go through that process. So, of course there is some time delay here, but in order to capture the deliveries that we expect for 2010, we have to get started now in order to be able to do so and also beyond 2010.

Yes, thank you very much for taking my question. My first question is similar to the topic that's already been mentioned on the skewing within the year.

I was wondering when you came up with your guidance, have you contemplated the possibility of actually being loss-making in the early part of this year? Can you, maybe, if I phrase it in a different way, what level of activity of megawatts sold or what uplift from the current deliveries of megawatts would you actually need in the next couple of quarters in order to return to profitability?

Can you give us some idea of what your fixed cost block is just so we can gauge how long it'll take you, in the next couple of quarters, to return to profitability, at least on an EBIT level? I guess, again, so that comes back to what level of order realization and megawatts delivered you're going to need.

I'd also be happy with an answer that contrasts current levels of capacity utilization, ideally by region, especially U.S. and China, where is the current capacity utilization and where does it need to go to in the next couple of quarters in order to return you into the black?

Yes, so those are my questions for now.

Okay. I think the fact that we already, in October last year, made it very clear that 2010 would be heavily backend loaded, both in terms of revenues and earnings is the closest that we normally get in a guiding not just on the year but actually a lot more on where do we see the development as the year progresses I mean we do not give guidance on a quarterly basis but we give updates on a quarterly basis and we are not changing our full year expectations for 2010.

On the other hand we are not starting to give guidance on how do we see the profitability development in Q2 and Q3 and so far and so on. I have also on previous occasions mentioned that it of course when you make a snap shot on the 31st of March it is of course also very depending on where each of the projects?

What can be recognized as revenue? What cannot be recognized before we get a full view over exactly how we will stand after the first three months?

We tend obviously to look at this on a whole year basis and but it is frankly for us difficult to say exactly how this is going to end up in that specific order. So, I guess what we basically are just turning back to is, lets look at the full year because that’s where I think it makes more sense to look at because there will always be variations between the quarters and I think if you look at where we were in Q4 2009 in terms of earnings and revenues compared to where we are here now in Q1, I mean huge variations and this was basically what we wanted to make sure people were aware off.

So I think again we have also mentioned where the orders are expected to come from, half from Europe, 30% from Americas, 20% from Asia-Pacific I think that will give you the best or can at least on how we expect to see the development also on a regional basis. But I think that’s a close as we can get to that.

A couple of follow-up questions, please, one on order flow and the second on the sort of regulatory framework in the US and Europe. I'm just wondering, firstly, on orders if you're prepared to give us an indication of how the 8 to 9 gigawatts of potential this been topped up by new negotiations, obviously now that you've had a very strong month or two of order flow?

Then secondly, on the regulatory side of things, I wondered if you'd be prepared to make some comments on how you see European tariffs developing, obviously, particularly in the light of some countries being somewhat financially challenged at the moment and if you have any views on the Spanish market, in particular? Then also whether you had a view on whether or not the Treasury grant program will be extended in the US.

I mean, clearly, the long-term framework with the Lieberman-Kerry-Graham bill looks a bit difficult, but do you think there might be some short-term stimulus extensions? Thank you.

Let's start with the regulatory issues. As I mentioned in the presentation we will focus at the next quarterly report on Europe because this means that we’ll have a much better visibility on what has happened in terms of the 20-20 aspirations in the EU.

It’s clear obviously that what happened last year in Spain where the market was put to a stand-still. That obviously was one of the other challenges that we got in the year 2009.

However, the European competitiveness of our industry is exactly as the same as what we saw and just trust up on earlier concerning the US. It is possible to produce and be competitive by making our types of products in Europe for Europe.

So therefore I believe that when we talk about the job creation, reduction of CO2 that this industry is one of the solutions to some of the challenges that we are seeing at the moment in some of the euro countries to see the economy progress. We have a lot of people employed in Spain.

We have sub-suppliers there as we have in many other EU countries and to make sure that this keep on progressing. We for sure help not just domestic economy, but it will also definitely help on the future energy and co2 challenges.

So, we sincerely hope and expect and that is embedded in this forecast that the EU targets will stand for all of the member states, but of course we can not know for certain until we have seen this being confirmed here over the summer. Concerning the situation in the US, I think I have commented already I can’t say a much more on how this will develop.

I can say, however, that if I look at the commitment to the clean take development by the administration I think that gives good reasons and hope to believe that we will see a strong focus on a clean energy agenda for the US and the support for this is not just on the renewable and the climate issue, but also very much to make sure that a domestic fuel is being developed and of course will the wind resource in US that again will also make a lot of sense and therefore we are hopeful that this will be seen from various important perspectives in ramping this up. Then you had a question on the order intake.

We have not given any guidance apart from 8 to 9, but not for the timing of the order intake, but then I would say we normally I think re reporting them either through press releases some of them are some target exchange announcement. So, I think we will just have to stay tuned there.

Didier Laurens from Societe Generale. On the EDPR deal, I don't want any more clarity on the deal, but it appears to me that it's a kind of change in strategy as you were not very keen to sign large framework agreements, especially with huge flexibility on it.

If I remember well, you were more keen to sign project-by-project contracts. So how could we see your strategy, going forward, with these kind of big deals?

Could we expect more deals of this kind to be announced in the future? That's my first question.

I think we have always been willing to talk about big deals if it were deals which were firm, i.e. there was something where there was a much clear line of sight of what we had to do and what our clients had to do.

The fact that we now have, as I said in the beginning, on products and presence, the fact that we are now capable of meeting these requirements faster and swifter than ever before, obviously increases our competitiveness in terms of meeting the flexibility demands that the clients have. Therefore, I would say its two issues that you are touching upon.

I don’t think there is a change in strategy when it comes to enter into agreements where it's clearly what is firm and what is non-firm. I mean, we have 1,500 firm and we have an option of 600.

So it's clear, it is a 1,500 deal and we will see whether or they will take the option. Instead of what previously the industry has been referred to as a framework agreement where, in our view, if it was not clear, what was let's say firm then we would be hesitant on commenting on this.

So I don’t think this is change in strategy there but you are right. But thanks to the global setup that we have now, it gives us a better competitiveness to meet these kind of requirements.

So I don’t think that's really a change of strategy but its something that we have been working on all the time when we went for the 10,000 megawatt ramp up that we will be able to cater for everybody, irrespective of where in the planet it was.

The second question is about your confidence on the U.S. market.

Because the same day you announced the deal with EDPR, EDP announced the postponement of CapEx in the U.S. and yesterday FPL also announced some delays in CapEx because of uncertainty on the U.S.

market. It seems to me, also, that there is a lot of rumors.

I'm not in New York, but I think there is a lot of rumors regarding postponements of the start of building dates beyond the December 31, to benefit the cash bump in the U.S. So I just want to better understand how could that affect your goal of 8 to 9 gigawatt order intake, which I assume is somewhere dependent on the U.S.

reopening markets?

It's clear that as I said the American’s regions, which of course includes the U.S. constitutes 30% and we are therefore of course dependent on that that will pick up.

But again the issues that we talk about here is something that we have been involved in for a while. It's difficult for me to comment about what other people are doing or not doing.

We obviously base this up on how we see the contracts that we are involved and the customers we involved and the aspirations that they have and it's based up on this that we have decided to ramp this up now and this is the reason for it. I think it's also important to say that we also need to think which is just not just a 2010 issue the fact that we are ramping up now is of course also a commitment towards '11 and so forth, and now we think it’s the right time to do it in order to cater for the market.

So I can only share with you what we see. What other people are then committing on its hard to me to relate to.

Yes, hello I have two questions. The first one is, or the both of them is relating to the V112 turbine.

It seems like the customer is very excited by this new turbine, but what is the bank saying? Is this proven technology for them and will it be difficult for the clients to get funding for these projects, consisting the new turbine?

That is the first question.

It's clear that for those of who have visited our facilities in Denmark, our new technology facilities, our testing facilities and so on, that the release of this platform is on a level that we have never done before, in terms of making sure that it is of proven technology. Therefore the way that the machine is been done is not just of putting it together and then switching it on.

It's a parts approval process that has been running, i.e. there are lot of testing and verification have been done in done prior to that.

This means that when we are going to put pen to the paper in August, hopefully, that we have all the verification and documentation in place which obviously will be required by the financing institutions in order to make sure that they have the necessary comfort to release this that it is actually even though it's a new platform it is already pretty well tested s throughout.

Okay. My second question, if I remember correctly, you have earlier stated that offshore version of the V112 turbine was not supposed to have the same release for sale data as the onshore model.

Is this correct or have I misunderstood the information?

I don’t know what you have misunderstood because as far as I know we haven’t given any specific date, when each of them was going to be released at least not onshore, but the fact that we are releasing it now for offshore I think it just illustration of what I said before concerning the proven technology.

I just have two quick questions. Firstly, on the CapEx plan, I think the big part, where you deviated from guidance or revised guidance today is on the €400 million you're spending, much of it molds for the new blades.

How much more of this if you like upgrade CapEx is there to come over coming years? My second question is just we've seen a little bit of concern in the market and the Spanish press on subsidies in Spain over recent days.

What are your views on that and regulatory risk, where wind does get support through extra subsidies rather than through a higher carbon price?

I think we already commented on the EU and the Spanish issues and those of subsidies we will have to wait and see what is being decided not just for Spain, but for all of the EU members before we can frame an opinion of this. I’m just saying that if look at the benefit that countries are getting out of installing this is very attractive not at least for a country like Spain, which obviously is major player in the wind sector.

Concerning the CapEx, I’d say that we re not guiding on future CapEx. What we expect for '11 we will talk about when we get to Q3 here in the 2010.

But it is clear that this industry is a capital extensive industry and if you just look for instance in China, where we decided to build a foundry as well in order to make sure that we have the right quality in place. Obviously is very expensive.

On the other hand, it also means that in our view that the barriers to entry into the industry are pretty high because you will need to have so many things in place, both from a CapEx point of view, but also from a people and competence point of view that were the road map and that we have also on the presence of our facilities. Yes, it cost a lot of money to install, but on the other hand, it also means that once we are there, we are of course in a better position to remain competitive.

So, what we will do in the future, CapEx? I’m sure we will still keep on investing in the years to come, but on what’s level, we will have to take on a year-to-year basis.

Just one question on your M&A strategy. Obviously, you did the rights issue last year supposedly earmarked for M&A.

Do you still see opportunities to invest to buy companies in the technology industry?

I mean the radar keeps running. So, yes, but you are right.

Nothing has been announced.

Just one question remaining. Going back to the subject of raw materials, you said in the announcement today as a general rule Vestas' contracts take such price increases into account.

Can you give us an idea of the proportion of your contracts, which typically have a throughput mechanism on raw materials like that and the proportion which do not? Can you also give us an idea of the time lag between a move in a commodity price and that move actually affecting your profit and loss accounting?

When we make our estimations for the year, we put in obviously what we know and what we have taken positions on is what we put in our expectations for instance the year 2010. I think that’s the best way we can possibly do it.

It is again as I said previously it is entirely up to also what the rest of the world is going to do and how this impact is going to be and as we have said also in the past it is for our benefit as it is for our customers benefits that the more visibility we get on this and a clear view on how to split the bill if that is necessary is for mutual benefit and to take the positions. We have not and will not comment on exactly how this has been done contract-by-contract, but it is something that obviously is an important point every time that you are negotiating a new deal.

So, again we don’t expect this to have impact for the year 2010, but we just want you to be aware off that we are seeing some movement here specifically that maybe we are right, maybe we are wrong, but at least something what we have seen.

Thank you.

I think we will have the last question before we close.

Just two quick questions. First of all, just to clarify, you say in China that the capacity is now reserved for Chinese demand.

I just wondered, does that mean that the capacity is fully booked or simply that you do not expect to export from China?

It means that we do not expect to export any thing out of China for the year 2010, but all for domestic consumption.

Excellent! Then the final question, on service, we haven't talked about that at all, in the quarter it actually grew a very solid 30% year-on-year.

What's really the key driver behind this? Is it installed turbines coming off warranty or what's driving service revenue?

Its clear that the wish of our customers to make sure that we provide the business case certainty and thereby also guarantee their output and yield has increased the interest of the very service offerings that we have and you can obviously have a full package service solution, where Vestas has basically undertaking everything and you can have a more lighter version. But the interest in keeping which of course is the key issue for our customers to keep the fleet running 24X7 is obviously not just a question of the service people, but its also a question of making sure that Vestas can supported and forecast what is going to happen.

So, I would say the capabilities of Vestas as an organization to forecast and plan and support is part of what is driving this development in service and our expectation is that we will keep on seeing the service business developed and no, we have not talked about it. You are the first one, who asked this about it, but it’s clear that we still see that service is having a good progress and that we expect that this will continue years to come and the reason why we have decided to set off this maintenance center and service center in Colorado.

So, we can fast and efficient also service the fleet and the technology ourselves in the best possible way for the benefit of the clients.

Thank you. This brings us to the end of the Q&A.

Thank you to everybody joining us in the room here today, everybody on the web watching and to all of my colleagues at Vestas. Thank you so much for again.

Great job done and see you soon. Thank you very much.