Nuscale Power Aktie

Good afternoon, and welcome to NuScale Power's Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. A replay will be available on NuScale's Investor Relations website for 30 days. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Joining me today is John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of NuScale. We will begin by providing an update on our business, followed by a discussion of our financial results. We will then open the phone lines for questions. This afternoon, we posted supplemental slides to our Investor Relations website.

As reflected in the safe harbor statement on Slide 2, the information set forth in the presentation and discussed during the course of our remarks and the subsequent Q&A session includes forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views of existing trends and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties. For a detailed discussion of our risk factors that could contribute to differences in our expectations, please refer to our Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2025, and to our subsequent SEC filings.

I will now turn the call over to John Hopkins.

Thank you, Ramsey. I want to start with a simple observation about where the market stands now. Demand for reliable carbon-free power is not building slowly. It is accelerating. Every major hyperscaler, every large industrial offtaker, every utility with an eye on the next decade is now engaged in some version of the same conversation. We need power now, we need it to be clean, and we need it on a timeline that actually maps to our business. That urgency is real, and it is growing.

What I want to address today is what separates a company that can meet that urgency from one that cannot. Because the answer to that question is not branding or ambition, it is readiness. And readiness in this industry is a function of years of deliberate work, work that does not generate headlines, but that determines more than anything else, whether a nuclear project gets built on time and on budget or does not get built at all. That distinction is what I want to focus on today.

Let me start with context because I think the history here explains why engineering and design maturity matters more than most investors currently appreciate. The Vogtle AP1000 expansion, the most recent large nuclear construction project in the United States, is the clearest example of what happens when a project goes to construction before the engineering is substantially complete.

When that project started, the detailed design was not in an advanced state of completion. Significant engineering decisions were still being made on active construction sites. That result contributed to years of delays and billions in cost overruns. This is not a story about nuclear being hard to build. It is a story about what happens when you start construction without a mature detailed design.

NuScale has spent years deliberately applying the hard lessons of past large-scale nuclear projects. We've made significant, sustained investment so that when we go to market, the engineering is as complete as possible. That investment is the foundation of everything I'm going to share with you today. A brief word first on 2 pillars of our readiness position, regulatory approval and fuel readiness.

NuScale remains the only SMR company to have received design certification from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including standard design approvals for 2 of our designs. The NRC's design certification is the global gold standard for nuclear safety. Certification takes years. There are no shortcuts. We'll operate using standard low-enriched uranium, a proven fuel source, which is available today from established suppliers from around the world.

Several other designs being marketed today require high-assay, low-enriched uranium or HALEU, which is not available on a commercial scale. That dependency is a fundamental supply risk embedded in their programs that does not exist in NuScale. The combination of NRC approval, conventional fuel and a mature supply chain that are I'm allowed to describe that combination along with engineering is what commercial readiness actually means. No other company in this space has all 4. NuScale's role in an ENTRA1 Energy plant is that of technology systems integrator and engineer of record.

We are responsible for the NuScale power modules and services. Supporting delivery of the NuScale power module, we have assembled a network of more than 60 specialized suppliers. Each supplier brings deep domain expertise in a specific system, fuel, safety and instrumentation and controls, valves, cranes and module handling. Each holds detailed design responsibility for their own scope with NuScale providing the overall integration.

Here's where we stand. The detailed design for the critical path components of our modules, the systems that govern schedule and cost is mature. We've already negotiated supplier agreements with more than half of our 60-plus supplier relationships, many of whom we believe to be best-in-class. This means when we execute an OEM, many of our suppliers will already have designed, scaled, tested and in some cases, began production of components. Taken together, this shortens the path to actual power generation, not by months, but by years and supports certainty of execution.

Let me highlight a few of our suppliers. Doosan Enerbility is one of the world's foremost manufacturers of heavy nuclear components. They are our strategic partner on the major components of our modules, the heavy forgings at the heart of every NuScale power module. What you see on this slide are photographs taken at Doosan's facilities in South Korea, actual components in active production for NuScale power modules.

Framatome is one of the world's leading nuclear fuel companies. Fuel design has a long lead time, years, not months. Rather than wait for a signed customer contract before beginning that work, we entered into a dedicated agreement with Framatome to complete the fuel design. Our fuel supply will be ready as customers come online.

This quarter, we announced that Paragon has been awarded a contract to complete the final design development of the safety instrumentation and control systems for our NuScale power modules. These 3 partners are examples of the depth of our supply chain ecosystem. Doosan on major portions of the modules, Framatome on fuel, Paragon on safety control systems. And we have comparable relationships across cranes, module handling, valves and more, with additional announcements expected.

I'll briefly discuss key commercial updates from the quarter. ENTRA1 Energy, our strategic partner, continues to advance discussions with the Tennessee Valley Authority toward a definitive power purchase agreement for potentially the largest nuclear power deployment program in U.S. history, utilizing NuScale SMR technology. Our understanding is that these discussions are active and progressing. We look forward to providing a further update as milestones are achieved.

Next is RoPower. NuScale is working with Nuclearelectrica and RoPower to satisfy conditions attached to Nuclearelectrica's shareholders vote to advance the RoPower project in Doicesti, Romania, which will deploy 6 NuScale power modules at a former coal plant site and represents the most advanced SMR effort in Europe.

Finally, let me now turn to another area where NuScale is building massive advantage, our energy exploration centers. This quarter, we opened our 12th E2 Center at the University of Virginia's College at Wise, supported by a grant from the Virginia Clean Energy Innovation Bank.

These centers deliver immersive, hands-on nuclear training in high fidelity simulation environments designed specifically for the next generation of plant operators, technicians and engineers. Another highlight is our liquidity position. NuScale closed the second quarter with approximately $1.9 billion in cash, cash equivalents and investments. Our cash position reflects a conservative approach to liquidity as we anticipate near-term commercial deployment.

Now I'll turn the call over to Ramsey.

Thank you, John. Good afternoon. Our financial results are available in our filings. So my focus will be on explaining major line items, which can be found on Slide 7. NuScale reported revenue of $0.1 million for the 3 months ended June 30, 2026, compared to $8.1 million in the same period last year. The year-on-year decrease reflects the completion in late 2025 of the Fluor front-end engineering design Phase 2 work in support of the RoPower project. That scope had no comparable activity in the current quarter. As project activity advances, we expect both our product and services revenue to grow.

We closed Q2 with approximately $1.9 billion in cash, cash equivalents and investments, an increase of $900 million since March 31, 2026. As John said, this increase in liquidity reflects a proactive approach to conservatively positioning the business as we continue to deploy capital for commercial readiness.

When we invest in supply chain agreements, we reduce the time to deployment and derisk the cost structure of our first projects. When we invest in Framatome fuel design, as an example, we remove a bottleneck from the critical path. Finally, on Slide 8, you'll find the capitalization summary.

With that, thank you again for joining us today. We will now take your questions. Operator, please go ahead.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Eric Stine with Craig-Hallum Capital Group.

This is Luke on for Eric. So first one here, did the sizable financial and trade commitments from Japan and South Korea play into the timeline at all for converting TVA into firm PPA? How are you thinking about those in the equation here?

This is Ramsey Hamady, CFO. I think those announcements and the ideas behind them are very promising. I don't know that that's built into the particular capital structure for the plant. And I stress that NuScale builds reactors, our commercial partner ENTRA1 builds plants. I know they have a great relationship with the Japanese with Koreans as do we. So we remain hopeful, but I wouldn't say that the PPA or the capital structure is dependent upon that cash. I think it will benefit but not dependent.

But do remember that as stated, a significant piece of these investments is slated for energy projects in the U.S., which also includes SMRs.

Understood. So for our second question here, can you just maybe talk a little bit more about ENTRA1's project pipeline and how that's evolving just in terms of end users? Have you seen any particular customer type or use cases gaining particular traction for the NuScale applications and whether that's just within the data center industry or other applications?

Yes. We continue dialogue with hyperscalers, data centers. Our focus right now has been for readiness for TVA when the announcement gets made. But others that we talk to, and I think you recognize the need right now for clean energy. Texas just came out and stated here today that they have to shut down data center promotions because of lack of energy and water. We're an answer to that, and we're positioning ourselves to move forward quickly. So it's really the timing of the customer and when they need their energy, and we're ready to enter in discussions at any time.

Your next question comes from the line of Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital.

John, I wanted to go back to where you really started the call and dig into the competitive landscape as you see it, really focused on the Gen III+ light water SMR segment on Slide 3. Beyond the head start you guys have with NRC approval, how do you view the durability of your technology advantage if we roll forward the clock a few years? And does that fit with design, commercial structure or supply chains?

Yes. I think we're in a position right now. Over the last 10 years, we've been working steadily to get ready for deployment, and we are near-term deployable. I commented about over 60 suppliers, of which half of them we have master services agreements. We have 12 modules of which a lot of them are currently in production, which are long lead items, and we've been working on those over a 2-year period. So if I look at the landscape moving forward, we're ready to deploy now, as I commented earlier. If you look at future state, nothing stays static. We'll continue to promote this project and look at ways to improve efficiencies and costs, but we feel like we're in a very good position.

And then maybe shifting gears a little bit. I wanted to touch on the process heat opportunity. From recent disclosures, I think most recently a blog post from Dr. Reyes, the high-temperature steam potential seems really encouraging. Do you expect these applications to use the standard VOYGR-12 or VOYGR-6 configurations? Or will this be a distinct product? And then perhaps should we think -- how should we think about the potential parasitic load that's needed to support that compression step to boost the temperature to that 500-degree level?

Well, Jose is out promoting, and in fact, he spoke at CERAWeek at the petrochemical conference, he's speaking here coming up again on -- we worked with the National Labs and the ability for our reactor as a light water reactor to produce the steam and pressure requirements needed for process heat. And we think we're in a very good position to -- and again, compounded with an emergency planning zone, if you look at what these process companies are looking for, the further you are from a given site, the end user, it dissipates. Having the approval of the emergency planning zone, we're right up next to the end user. We can provide process heat, we can provide electricity.

The ENTRA1 model also supports the fact if you go to an area like Baytown or Corpus or anywhere we have a high density of process companies, we can build, own and probably have somebody operate the plant, you could be Entergy or whomever, that allows us on that fence line, they're not inside the evacuation zone. It doesn't entail any business interruption to provide the requirements those companies are looking for, if it's electricity or ammonia production, hydrogen production or, to your point, process heat.

Very enthusiastic about that opportunity. We do believe district heat and process heat is going to be -- and the ability to dry cool are very much distinctives that we have that are going to be -- again, I mentioned today, just earlier, I heard on a report that Texas, everywhere you go, there's droughts, there's water restrictions. Having a combination of emergency planning zone and being able to dry cool using air condensers is going to be extremely important going forward.

Your next question comes from the line of George Gianarikas with Canaccord.

So TVA made a few disclosures and I think some media comments today regarding their nuclear road map. I'd love to get your perspective on what you took away from the commentary, maybe an update on your bilateral discussions beyond what you've already said. And maybe any specific gating items remaining before reaching a definitive contract?

George, all that I can say at this time is that we're extremely encouraged by our conversations that ENTRA1 and TVA are having. We've heard similar that it was announced in a conversation today that TVA is actively engaged. It's the same what we're hearing. The conversations we understand are progressing well. And I can tell you that when the agreement is signed, NuScale will be ready to implement.

And one more question, just a little bit of a minutia item. I noticed that on your balance sheet, the investments increased significantly. I haven't gone through your Q yet. Can you just sort of talk about what compelled that to move up to $800 million relative to last quarter?

George, this is Ramsey. This is really just a treasury strategy as we bolster our balance sheet, we kind of pull away from this idea of traditional start-up burn rate and runway and more about cash allocation and long-term planning. And that's what $1.9 billion gives us the ability to plan long term, it gives us optionality. And as you have that amount of cash on the balance sheet, you tend to look into longer-term instruments. Within the treasury strategy, all high grade, but if you look at the longer-term instruments. So there's a reclassification on the balance sheet. But it's all cash and cash-like investments.

Your next question comes from the line of Marc Bianchi with TD Cowen.

This is Esteban Albarracin on for Marc. So I wanted to ask on the Romania project. I believe RoPower earlier this year has some new contingencies around an FID, including a proposal on sort of the purchase cadence of the power modules. And I think there was also a more recent update to stick with NuScale rather than considering other technologies for the project. Can you walk us through some of those updates and when we should expect further progress on the project?

Yes. I could probably -- this is John speaking, and I appreciate the question. We -- as you know, we're a subcontractor to Fluor Corporation, who is a prime contractor. We completed successfully the front-end engineering design. There is a new government that's coming in that's being seated as we speak. Myself and my COO are planning to go to Bucharest to meet with that government probably later this month.

And -- but we're ready to go. We're just waiting on the green light to finalize our contract agreements. But as I said, Phase 1 went well. Now we're going into what's called the pre-EPC, which will take it up to the final notice to proceed, which is probably another year from now.

Okay. And my follow-up is on the combined (sic) [ construction ] operating license application. I know you had already completed a meaningful amount of work there on the COLA from the previous CFPP project. And I think you're still engaged with the NRC with that. So I just wanted to get a little bit more color on how much of that COLA standardized and can be carried over to another U.S. project and roughly how much time and probably regulatory costs that could save?

That's a great question. We're looking at what we have done for the previous project you comment on, about 60% of that COLA can be utilized. And as soon as these PPAs are put in place, that's one of the first initiatives we'll have is starting the construction operating license agreement with the customer. So again, about 60% of that, we can move over to this next project.

Your next question comes from the line of Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald.

This is Drew Nordquist on the line for Derek. Just going back on RoPower. Can you guys highlight what sort of conditions need to be satisfied in order to move on and if that's in your hands or if that's more in RoPower's hands?

Actually, in the first phase that needs to get done really is the completion of the prime contractor to come into contract arrangement with the customer. And then we will enter into contract negotiations with the prime EPC. So we're all kind of in a wait mode right now, waiting for things to progress, and that's one of the reasons we're heading over to meet with the new government to talk about what are the next steps.

Your next question comes from the line of Greg Lewis with BTIG.

Ramsey, I was hoping to talk a little bit more how you're thinking about the liquidity position. Clearly, you made some moves to really bolster that heading into the back half of this year and into next year. So just kind of clear, any kind of broad strokes you can give us around, let's just assume that we eventually get these contracts from TVA to move forward. Is there any kind of timeline you can give us in terms of when we're going to have to start deploying that capital? Just kind of curious around that.

Sure. Thank you for the question. Let's talk about a few ideas. We did bolster our cash, $1.9 billion as it -- yes, it reflects a strong liquidity position -- it reflects a conservative approach to liquidity. And as finance people on the line, I think we all understand liquidity is one of those things where it's often there when you don't need it, and it's often not when you do. And so we took the opportunity last quarter to bolster our liquidity and put ourselves in a pretty good position. What this does is it changes -- and I think I mentioned this in an earlier question, it changes the framework by which we look at our cash.

We've diverged from those start-up metrics. We've diverged from burn rate, and we provide optionality. And now we think about capital allocation. And as I think about capital allocation for a company that's engaging production, a first-of-a-kind technology, one thing that comes to my mind is ideas around working capital, changes in our OpEx and how cash enables the business to be in a better position to deliver our product when we say we're going to do it and the cost we say we're going to deliver at. And so that's begun some of the change.

Like when do we expect that draws on cash will happen? I think that question is similar to when do we expect commercialization to happen. Some of our expectation has been reflected in some of the announcements we've seen, for example, with Framatome over the last quarter. We expect commercialization to happen soon.

And so we're preparing for it. We're investing in the supply chain. We're investing in design finalization. We're investing in fuel systems. So you can read into our expectations based on our actions. But ultimately, the commercial contract is the main catalyst, and we're ready for it. And I think it's a great position for us to be in.

Okay. And so as we think about some of those parts of the supply chain that need to be addressed, I imagine we'll spend a lot of time thinking about the costs associated with those moving to commercialization. Is that things that we're starting to look at now? Or is it more kind of getting everything in ready mode for when we eventually get the green light from our first commercial partner?

I'm sorry, go ahead.

No, we're working -- as I said, we've been working for years with these key suppliers, and they're strategic suppliers. Some of these suppliers are investors in NuScale. They're not looking for a one-off project. They're looking for the opportunity for sustainable supply, and it give us very competitive rates. As an OEM, about 30 -- maybe 30-plus percent is going to be our cost and then the rest is going to be the EPC and other contractors. So I believe we have a very good handle with what our suppliers are offering us in terms of being on a competitive basis. And the bottom line, they have to prove competitiveness. So it's not open-ended.

Your next question comes from the line of Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers.

So first, I mean you sound very confident about pending first-of-a-kind customer FIDs. So presumably around TVA. Would you expect with the first FID to be in a position to share with the Street NuScale level margin clarity? Or would that be a bit of a moving target with the first order?

No. I think internally, we have expectations of where we want our margins to come out. I think we all acknowledge that first-of-a-kind may be more challenging than nth-of-a-kind. I think we get to nth-of-a-kind pretty quickly with the type of manufacturing we're engaging. And look, we want to be able to provide guidance to the Street. But I want to be able to provide guidance based on our OEM contracts, our supplier contracts and doing it absent or prior to that real visibility, I think it just becomes a little bit problematic. So as soon as we can, as soon as we're confident, we'll start to provide guidance. And I think you as analysts will have a better construct to come out with your price targets and understand the value that we're creating within our business for our shareholders.

Understood. So I want to talk a little about speed to market because that was most of your prepared comments and your leadership there, given the fact that you're ahead on the regulatory and you've preordered these 12 modules. So obviously, we're getting other announcements that are more immediate and are not SMRs, right? I mean we're getting announcements of behind-the-meter CT projects for 18 months deployment, maybe 3 to 4 years on CCGTs.

Given the fact you've already deployed resources and relationships for your first 12 modules from FID on the first project, how quickly can that be producing power? And then is there a gap on the second project since you don't have that on order today? And given your great liquidity position, is that a reason to put more on order today or in the near future?

Our position right now, I just want to get the first module up and running to showcase. And remember, these are redundant systems. And the last thing that's going to happen after the plant is built and the balance of plant and the reactor building, NuScale will move that modules into the factory, and we'll erect them one at a time. Once the first 1 or first 2 are up and running, they're operational, we bring the second one in and we bring the third one in.

And if you remember, the NuScale module is predicated not on doing any given one plant at any given time, there's multiple plants. These are fungible assets. We build them in a factory and we ship them. Now with the magnitude of what we're talking about with TVA, I mean, anywhere from 6 to 8 gigawatts, it's massive. It's a massive undertaking. That is 1 project at a time.

Any thoughts on the first 12 modules being online given the progress you have there?

We've stated publicly that from a first pouring of safety-related concrete to mechanical completion will generally take a little less than 40 months, but that does not entail. We still got the upfront dealing with the NRC and the licensing process. So construction timeframes are within that window, we believe, within a 40-month window for construction, pouring a concrete to mechanical completion.

And so hopefully, with the NRC, we've had great conversations. In fact, the team was just with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week. They're doing a lot of things, particularly in that front-end advancement to help get contractor or get technologies to move quicker on the licensing front. So we're hoping maybe what would typically take a 2-year, it could be reduced significantly.

Your next question comes from the line of Ellen Page with Truist.

Maybe just to start, the power plant business had a negative revenue in the quarter due to a negotiation with Fluor. How do we think about that impact -- or how do we think about the RoPower progression going forward under that new price agreement? And any more color you can provide would be great.

Yes. I don't think the negative revenue number is really indicative of some ongoing trend with RoPower with our margins there. That was an adjustment. And what you really saw is we had work with Fluor related to Phase 2 in the prior quarter -- 2 prior quarters, pardon me, or in the same quarter period in the prior year, which we didn't have this year. So that revenue is gone. There's an adjustment. What you saw is negative margin. It looks a little funny, but it's not indicative of a trend. And we're talking about pretty small numbers on a pretty small basis. So I wouldn't read much into that.

Okay. Great. And then maybe just on TVA, is there any like milestones in particular or next steps you can call out ahead of the PPA? Or we're just kind of waiting for those negotiations to be complete?

I think as I stated in the comments, talks are progressing. We're very active with ENTRA1 in communications on a daily basis. Our Chief Commercial Officer is involved with it again on a daily basis. So we're in a mode right now that as soon as these PPAs are definitized, we're ready to move. And by move, I mean, enter into -- start the COLA position, start the front-end engineering design and initiate the OEM contracts or negotiations.

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.

This is Tyler Bisset on for Brian. There's been a lot of focus on TVA, but curious if you can discuss any other pipeline opportunities. So what other engagements are out there? And any other details you can provide on timing, geographies or types of customers that ENTRA1 is working with?

I'll just say, as I said earlier, we're in a lot of discussions with the hyperscalers, with the governments, with international. But our focus right now is to try to get these -- working with ENTRA1 to get TVA across the goal line. But as you know, I mean, everybody needs energy. We want to be part of the mix. And customers have different strategies. And our strategy right now is if they're ready to move and they need near-term deployment, we're willing to talk.

Your next question comes from the line of Soundarya Iyer with B. Riley Securities.

This is Soundarya on behalf of Ryan Pfingst. Most of my questions have been answered, but just a couple more. On the supply agreements that you mentioned have been signed with more than half of your suppliers. What are some of the long lead items left to achieve on that supply chain?

I think we're in pretty good shape. As I said, the real long lead items are forgings, which are being in production currently. They've been in production for the last 2 years. We mentioned we use conventional fuel. Framatome is our fuel supplier. That fuel will be manufactured in the state of Washington. Paragon, we mentioned for instrument and control for safety, that's ahead of schedule. So I think, again, I don't see any intent to -- I don't see any problems with being able to respond, as I said, we're good to go.

Yes, that's good to hear. And one more following up on that Romanian project, RoPower. Could that trigger any revenue-generating services in 2026? Or should we think about it in 2027 and beyond?

We certainly hope so. It's -- if you look at Romania in general and if you look at the success on the front-end engineering design, it's really up to the timeline of the customer and when we're going to start the next phase. So if we get the contract in place, yes, there will be revenue next year.

Your next question comes from the line of Vikram Bagri with Citi.

This is Vignesh on for Vikram. Just wondering, could you help us think about the cadence of OpEx over the next few quarters? I think you mentioned previously for it to ramp over time, but any color or range would be helpful in kind of some of the key drivers on the incremental spend.

Yes, sure. This is Ramsey Hamady. Look, I don't want to give too much of guidance on future OpEx. I don't think we're in a position to do that, and we generally don't give guidance yet. But I will look to the past 10 quarters, starting from the beginning of 2004 (sic) [ 2024 ] right through the end of 2005 (sic) [ 2025 ], this management team kept OpEx within somewhere around like a [ $2 million or $3 million band ] between like $41 million, $44 million per quarter. We were deliberate, we were targeted, we executed and we were consistent.

Over the past 2 quarters, as we moved -- we had worked with RoPower originally back in 2025, as we got to 2026, some of that work went away. We kept those same engineers. They went from the cost of goods sold line down to OpEx. So we saw a bit of a bump up in OpEx because we need those people. They're executing on projects, and we expect to continue executing on projects in the near future.

So we kept those people. You saw a bump up in OpEx. But again, our OpEx was within like $1 million or so this past quarter as it was within Q1. So without commenting or providing guidance, I think the lesson to take away is that management is deliberate. We're precise. We control OpEx. We're active on it. And what we won't do, which I think is maybe to heart of some of your question, is allow OpEx creep to come up and start to impact our liquidity. So I would just take the lesson away that we're pretty conservative, and we're pretty well focused and disciplined here. [indiscernible] model on valuation, but I think that's best we're going to get.

There are no further questions at this time. I would like to now turn the call back over to John for closing remarks.

Yes. Thank you, operator. And again, thanks, everyone, for attending. As we heard throughout this Q&A, we get questions about when is NuScale moving from potential to proven. And it's a fair question. We are in discussions regularly with hyperscalers and utilities and governments. The bottom line is the preconditions for us to move are in place. The regulatory approval exists. Our fuel supply exists. The engineering is mature. The supply chain is mostly contracted. As we stated, we've got long lead items in production. Our liquidity ramp-up for manufacturing is in place. The market is waiting for definitive agreements. And once they're in place, we're ready to move. So I'm looking forward to the next session we all get together. And again, thanks for joining us today.

Thanks, everyone.

This concludes today's call. Thank you all for attending. You may now disconnect.

Good afternoon, and welcome to NuScale's First Quarter 2026 Earnings Results Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. A replay of today's conference call will be available and accessible on NuScale's Investor Relations website. The web replay will be available for 30 days following the earnings call.

At this time, for opening remarks, I would like to turn the call over to Rodney McMahan, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. With us today are John Hopkins, New scale President and Chief Executive Officer; and Ramzi Home, Chief Financial Officer. We will begin by providing an update on our business followed by a discussion of our financial results, we will then open the phone lines for questions. This afternoon, we posted supplemental slides on our Investor Relations website.

As reflected in the safe harbor statements on Slide 2, the information set forth in the presentation and discussed during the course of our remarks and the subsequent Q&A session includes forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views of existing trends and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties.

For a detailed discussion of our risk factors that could contribute to differences in our expectations, please refer to our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, and our subsequent SEC filings. I'll now turn the call over to John Hopkins.

Thank you, Rodney, and good afternoon, everyone. We are at a true watershed moment for the nuclear industry. Global demand for reliable 24/7 baseload power is surging. -- and the appetite for proven advanced nuclear solutions has never been stronger. In this environment, NuScale stands apart. Not as a promise a newcomer, but is the clear global leader ready to deliver today.

Let me remind you why NuScale is uniquely positioned to capture this historic opportunity. As you can see on Slide 3, we are differentiated on the dimensions that matter: regulatory leadership, fuel supply availability, true modular factory fabrication, deployment readiness and safety. In addition, NuScale has the balance sheet to deliver to the commercial market.

First, unmatched regulatory leadership. NuScale stands alone as the only SMR company in the world to have earned U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission standard design approval. And we've done it for 2 separate designs, our 50-megawatt and our 77-megawatt modules. This isn't just a regulatory milestone -- it is the critical gateway to commercial operations. Without NRC design approval, no SMR can deliver power to the grid.

New Scale has already cleared the highest regulatory bar in the industry, giving us a significant competitive advantage and derisking the path to deployment for customers and investors. Additionally, what makes this regulatory milestone even more powerful is that NuScale achieved it under 10 CFR Part 52, the modern one-step licensing framework specifically designed for more efficient nuclear deployment.

Why does this matter? Under the traditional Part 50 licensing process Investors and utilities faced a higher degree of risk. They need to secure a construction permit based on a preliminary safety analysis report or concrete and potentially spend billions then hope to pass a second full safety review later to receive an operating license.

History shows how problematic this path can be. A problem that could persist today. Recently, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards or ACRS, has highlighted deficiencies of new reactor submittals and warned of delays ahead for Part 50 applicants. Most generation for designs rely on new fuels, coolants and safety concepts never before license in the United States.

This explains why the Department of Energy still classifies them as demonstration projects. Part 52 changes the game. It provides a single combined license that addresses major safety, design in operational issues before the first dollar is spent on construction. Even better, NuScale is the only SMR company to earn full NRC standard design approval under Part 52.

Our core technology is approved and proven. Every future project can simply reference our approved designs rather than reinventing the wheel. NuScale delivers the clearest, low-risk NRC approved pathway to commercial operation, a solution that is ready for deployment now. NuScale offers certainty you can take to the bank.

Second, fuel that is available today NuScale power tags run on proven widely available commercial low-enriched uranium or LEU. Fuel that has reliably powered upwards of 400 commercial reactors around the world for decades. In contrast, other advanced designs depend on high assay, low enriched uranium or HALEU, a field that is not currently available at commercial scale within North America. When your project time lines matter, NuScale removes a critical supply chain risk that others are still hoping to resolve.

Third, NuScale modular factory fabrication is uniquely comprehensive. Each NuScale power module is fully integrated, self-contained unit that includes the reactor vessel, steam generators, pressurizer and the high-pressure steel containment vessel. All of it is built in a factory and shipped to the site with virtually no nuclear grade field construction needed.

This goes far beyond what most other SMR vendors mean when they say modular. While competitors emphasize modular construction tech needs such as prefabricated large components, skids or structures assembled on site, NuScale delivers complete transportable reactor modules, including the primary containment barrier cells. This modularity allows NuScale power modules to be added incrementally of load grows with the first units generating revenue in power, while others are being deployed. This plug-and-play scalability with built-in redundancy is regulator validated and unmatched by any other SMR technology today.

Fourth, Water Smart nuclear power. Dry Cooling gives NuScale SMRs, a major siting and environmental advantage in air cooled regions. But water is scarce, expensive or subject to competing demands from agriculture, municipal use or ecosystems. It allows deployment in places where traditional wet cool nuclear or other thermal plants would face severe restrictions or high cost.

Dry air cooled condensers caught water consumption by more than 90% compared to wet cooling towers. Many SMR vendors market dry cooling options to highlight water independence. NuScale remains 1 of the most advanced and demonstrated integrations for light water reactor technology. The choice really depends on site climate, economics and whether the project prioritizes maximum power output or minimum water use.

Making dry cooling in a viable option where water is expensive or restricted. And finally, a decisive new scale advantage that truly sets us apart superior regulator approved safety as further described on Slide 4. We are the only nuclear technology approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for behind the meter operations paired with a groundbreaking emergency planning zone or EPC, a methodology that limits the EPC to the plant's own site boundary.

This is game-changing. It eliminates the need for any AC or DC interconnections to the bulk electric grid and allows new scale powered plants to be cited directly adjacent to where the energy is needed most, right beside hyperscaler data centers, industrial facilities, population centers and retired coal plant sites. The result unmatch siting flexibility, dramatically reduced transmission costs, faster deployment time lines and the ability to deliver clean, reliable, resilient power exactly where the demand is needed most.

NuScale dramatically reduces emerging planning costs and flashes siding time lines, transforming what has been a major regulatory hurdle enjoy a powerful economic and strategic advantage, all while delivering a critical boost to our nation's energy security and national security by reducing reliance on foreign energy and vulnerable transmission infrastructure.

By combining unmatched regulatory approval, a compact emergency planning zone and behind-the-meter capability, New Scale doesn't just participate in America's clean energy transition, it is uniquely positioned to lead it. While it was acquired a quarter from an announcement perspective, we have been active -- to that end, on Slide 5, let's review several key highlights from the first quarter.

These include continued advancement on the intern 1 and TVA power purchase agreement discussions. For what would be the largest nuclear deployment program in U.S. history. We also saw progress on the roll Power project in Door chest, Romania, where nuclear Electrica shareholders voted to advance the project. We continue to strengthen our critical supply chain partnerships, particularly our fuel supplier Framatome and manufacturing partner, Duson and earnability.

And separately, we closed the quarter with a strong liquidity position, approximately $1 billion in cash and other capital resources. This balance sheet strength gives us the flexibility to execute across a wide range of commercialization scenarios as we move towards large-scale deployment.

Turning to Slide 6. In September of last year, TVA announced a major agreement with Intra 1 from up to 6 gigawatts of safe, reliable 24/7 baseload energy to help powering growing demand in a 7 state service territory, utilize a new scale SMR technology. Intron has updated us that discussions with TVA are advancing well towards a definitive PPA. We remain highly encouraged by the progress and the strategic alignment between Intron and NuScale as we work to deliver this game change in clean energy solution.

Separately, 2 recent key international announcements indicate a strong desire to facilitate foreign investment in U.S. strategic interest, such as the TVA project. The first is the $550 billion U.S. Japan framework agreement announced last year in which Intron was the only developer named and a second and more recent announcement by South Korea's National Assembly to facilitate $350 billion and Korean investments into U.S. strategic industries with $200 billion for sectors like nuclear power, AI and semiconductors aimed at securing economic ties between the 2 countries and reducing tariffs.

NuScale remains bullish about the TVA, [ Intan ] opportunity. We believe it will be the catalyst for the commercialization of our SMR technology in the United States and around the world, while supporting fast-growing energy demand, creating thousands of high-quality jobs, and strengthening our nation's national security interests.

Moving to Slide 7. In February of this year, the Romanian government approved the investment decision for the Door chest SMR plant project. This was a step in the right direction. As the project can now seek financing to conduct further feasibility studies insight specific design work prior to construction moving forward.

As a reminder, Fluor Corporation serves as a primary contractor leading overall engineering procurement construction delivery with row power. The project owner and Flour's client. NuScale in turn, serves a subcontractor to Flour providing SMR technology, design support and licensing expertise to the project. Should free EPC financing be secured, the next phase of the project is expected to last approximately 15 months.

Project stakeholders, RoPower, Flour, NuScale, and both the U.S. and Romanian governments remain engaged. The RoPower project in Romania is currently the most advanced SMR effort in Europe. Moving to Slide 8. NuScale is well positioned to meet its near-term deployment objectives, driven by continued enhancement in supply chain readiness. We have established a robust foundation to contractually secured supplier partnerships, strategic long-lead material positioning, and align manufacturing capacity across our critical components.

Our approach is anchored in a structured readiness framewor with reoccurring cross-functional supplier reviews to actively manage risk, validate mitigation actions and ensure alignment with project execution requirements. New Scale is not built in a conventional product or supply chain. We are building a transformative deployment model for nuclear technology under intense scrutiny with high expectations, and on time lines that matter.

Our success will require more than capability. It will require alignment, transparency and trust across our entire supply chain. Last month, we convened for our annual new scale supplier working group, bringing together 37 key supplier partners to align our 2026 demand signals and near-term deployment milestones. This engagement strengthens forward visibility into production readiness and reinforces both contractual and operational alignment across our supply base.

NuScale is advancing a deliberate multisourcing strategy for critical components, reducing single-source dependencies and enhancing supply continuity in a constrained global market. In parallel, key NuScale power module components remain an active production by Dusan earnability. Marking continued progression from design into manufacturing execution.

Collectively, these actions materially derisk the supply chain, increased schedule confidence and position new scale to support near-term deployments with a high degree of execution certainty. Let's turn to Slide 9. You'll find a detailed summary of the extensive industry engagement by our Office of Technology team.

We continue to lead the conversation and drive innovation at the intersection of Nuclear Energy in hard-to-abate industrial sectors. During the first quarter, our team actively participated in 5 major industrial international conferences, engaging directly with the leaders from oil and gas, petrochemical, commodity chemicals, energy and hyperscaler communities.

A standout moment came at the World Petrochemical Conference where our Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Dr. Jose Reyes, delivered a compelling presentation on how New scale generated high-temperature steam is rapidly moving from concept to commercial reality. This is strategically important. Industrial Processing is a true national security imperative as it powers critical supply change strengthens economic resilience supports defense manufacturing and advances energy independence.

UCL Power modules are positioned to deliver commercial scale high-temperature thermal energy for direct industrial use. Applications include chemical production, petroleum refining, cement manufacturing fertilizer production and desalinization just to name a few. Sectors that together represent hundreds of billions in economic activity. Before turning the call over to Ramzi Hamey, our Chief Financial Officer, I want to talk about the opening of a new scale operations center in Houston.

On April 29, we proudly opened our new NuScale operations center in Houston's festives Energy Corridor at City Center, a strategic milestone that positions us right in the heart of America's Energy Capital. In short, we are not just building reactors. We are embedding ourselves where the biggest energy decisions are being made. This move shortens decision cycles. Deepens customer relationships and reinforces NuScale's leadership. We're excited about the momentum this new hub is already generating. Now over to Ramsey for the financial update.

Thank you, John. And hello, everyone. Our financial results are available in our filings. So my focus will be on explaining major line items, which can be found on Slide 10. We NuScale's overall liquidity stood at $1 billion at March 31, 2026, an increase to over $1.2 billion by early May of 2026. Our strong liquidity enables Nesco to further enhance supply chain and manufacturing readiness and fund obligations associated with advancing commercialization, all while maintaining a steady balance sheet.

Moving on to revenue. NuScale reported revenue of $0.6 million for the 3-month period ending March 31, 2026, compared to $13.4 million during the same period in the prior year. This decrease was primarily due to the revenue recognized from the RoPower technology licensing agreement completed during the first 3 months of 2025 as well as the work associated with Fluor feed Phase 2 engineering services, also in support of the RoPower project, which was completed in late 2025.

As projects progress forward, -- we expect to realize revenues and operating cash flow from the sale of products and services. I will conclude my remarks with a brief overview of our capitalization summary, as shown on Slide 11. Our total share count increased primarily due to the sale of 3.2 million NuScale Class A shares through our at-the-market program during the first quarter of this year, generating $37.9 million in gross proceeds.

Additionally, we note that just a few weeks ago, -- for announced that they had completed the sale of their remaining scale shares removing a significant overhang on our equity. Ferd did well on their investment in NuScale, generating a 4.3x return on an initial investment of $570 million.

With that, I'd like to thank you again for joining today and for your continued support of NuScale. We'll now take questions. Operator?

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital.

Good afternoon. John, you held pitch -- you make a compelling pitch on the readiness and advantages of your solution. Can you talk about what's holding back more near-term adoption of additional contracts? Is it just the time it takes to get customers comfortable with the solutions?

Yes, Nate, thank you. We're kind of like table dogs here waiting for the Belden. We're ready to go. We've been continually working on our supply chain. And the fact we've had ongoing discussions, we're excited about. Last week, I was in D.C. We met with the Korean government on the discussions of their potential for $350 billion, of which $200 billion of that could be slated for AI data centers and new nuclear.

We are also -- we're highly encouraged by TVA Strong nuclear stance yesterday from Mike Scag, the Interim CEO. He again affirmed TVA is a very pronuclear organization and highlighted interest in nuclear technologies. As it relates to TBA, we've got very much a primary focus on that company. That's not to say, however, that we're not talking to others as well. It's a good example.

My Chief General Counsel and I last night had a very good discussion with a potential company that's looking at mega gigawatts here in the United States. We had dinner, and it's a follow-up conversation with him. It's just a complicated slow process. And so we're bullish that this thing is going to take off here. And with the U.S. government support that we're seeing and all the activity that's going on right now, it's just we think we're -- that we're close to closure.

That's awesome. I appreciate that color there. And then I wanted to go back actually to the agreement with Framatome. -- you just mentioned the supply chain. And you guys have the advantage of years to build out these relationships -- but broadly speaking with the nuclear industry and all that excitement, can you talk for a moment about the state of the nuclear fuel supply chain in the U.S. and where you see potential bottlenecks developing?

Yes. This is Carl Fisher, Chief Operating Officer. I'm happy to answer that question. As you know, NuScale employees, light water reactor technology using readily available low enriched uranium. As far as the low endeuranium forecast for the long term looks very, very good. unlike the uncertainty with high assay, low enriched uranium, which you're hearing a lot of noise about and a lot of discussion due to the fact that the only long-term availability at least at this point in time is not through the United States is through Russia.

So with that said, we -- what we see is on the long-term forecast for low enriched uranium is not a risky area. It's not a bottleneck unlike the high assay, low enriched uranium.

Nate, this is John. I remember many years ago, I guess, 12 years ago now since I've been with the company, I had asked our part of the due diligence process. I'd asked or José Reyes, why did you stay with light water? Why not thorium why not? And he looked at me and he said, "John, all the regulators in the world know light water." You said "I worked with the NRC, the NRC regulators, double light water." And when we entered into agreements, as Carl stated, the fuel supply from remote when I talk to them about being readily available, it's readily available. And so we're not, again, encumbered with some of the issues that others are facing currently. So that's not an issue for us, currently.

Yes. One last thing also with Framatome is that they have multiple sites for supplying the fuel both in Europe and also in the United States. So that Yes, Bridgeton Washington for the U.S. and Lingan in Germany. And also, they have a facility in France.

Your next question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG.

You know something a little different, just to start -- is there a need for the SMR space to maintain a certain level of domestic content for tax credit eligibility. It's something we're seeing elsewhere. And I wonder if -- the supply chain for NuScale and nuclear as a whole is concentrated in Korea and Europe. So I'm wondering if that's something we have to think about.

Yes. This is Clayton Scott, Chief Commercial Officer. So there is requirements that there's -- to try and maintain as much U.S. content as possible. However, there are certain aspects that the industry fell short on over the years and large-scale forgings, for example, is 1 of those cases. So in that particular instance, you're allowed to position the supply inadequacy and where that's compensated from externally.

So in those particular cases, there's alternatives and ways to get past that. But yes, in general, in order to meet the credits. There is certainly an interest to try and find the supply chain as much as possible within the United States. But there are options to to move from there if it's not available or not capable to do within the country.

That's helpful. Shifting to regulatory -- you guys talked about how important Part 52 is I believe that since you guys last reported, the MRC came out with a framework for a new Part 53. And I'm curious if new licensing pathways could accelerate the regulatory process for TVA, anything coming in the future in the U.S.?

Yes, a really good question. This is Carl Fisher again. The Part 53, what I would say, pathway was not available when we first pursued the -- our licensing strategy. So Part 53 is relatively new. In fact, a lot of the industry is still trying to get their head around what does this actually mean. Primarily, it relies on a probabilistic analysis to go forward.

So we've spoken to the NRC about this is where can we take credit off Part 53 and apply it to where we are already way down the road with Part 52. So we are looking at -- obviously, as John mentioned, early Part 52 pathway with enhancements which has been recently deployed with Part 53 opportunities. And we will continue to have those -- that dialogue with the NRC because we're looking for continuous improvement, even as advanced as we are in Part 52 licensing space.

I think it's important we were just with the NRC, Carl and I here recently, and they made it very clear that -- this enhanced NRC process is going to benefit everybody in terms of streamlining a lot of the requirements. But the rigor of safety and health is not going to go away. Everybody is going to have to go through that same process -- so where we see benefit in our colas and elsewhere, that streamlining instead of taking 18 to 2 years to get in, hopefully, it could be much shorter.

Yes. It's good to know you guys have options available.

Your next question comes from the line of Eric Stine with Craig-Hallum.

So I know a lot of this calls spent highlighting kind of your differentiation. But I mean there's also been a lot of activity on the advanced reactor side. And I'm just curious, when you talk to customers, I mean, and I know you're part of it and it's more entrant -- but just curious how do customers view it?

I mean, did they appreciate the fact that it's light water technology that you're using a readily available fuel that this is a technology that's been around since the inception of the industry. What are your thoughts around that? Because obviously, ultimately, that's the most important metric.

The customers we're talking to, I don't care if the process or general utilities, the feedback we normally get is that process companies, whoever they are, they generally don't want to own a nuclear asset. What they want is reliable, resilient clean power. And they want it now. And so we're in discussions with these companies. And we still believe we're significant years ahead of others, and I want everybody to be successful.

I'd like to see this U.S. vendors out there competing against state-owned enterprises, but bottom line is we want to be a first mover.

I think the customers who are serious and truly understand the differentiation of Part 2 and Part 50 risk. They fully get it. And those are the ones that I think collectively with Entra one we're having the most concrete and serious conversations with. So you see a lot of stuff out there and a lot of noise, but a lot of it is around a Part 50 movement, which I think has a large element of risk, which was mentioned earlier. But I do believe that the customers that were, I'd say, on a very serious level and engagement, they truly appreciate and recognize where we are.

Right. And then just sticking with that as my follow-up, I mean, I would assume that just the fact all of the things that have been done in the supply chain that, that's -- that's certainly a needle mover as well. I guess it's not a question or an observation. But I guess I'll turn it over.

No, you great question on supply chain because many of our suppliers are not only strategic partners but also investors that as I often said, we've been in the process of ordering long lead items for years now. And if you don't -- and it takes years for these forges to get developed. And if you haven't ordered long lead items, you're not much further behind the curve -- and what thing Carl and his theme does, you may want to talk about the supplier set we just have.

Yes. Just to build on that 1 question though. When we -- a lot of our suppliers are very nuclear savvy as well. And they are aware of the deployment opportunities with low-enriched uranium per se and light water reactor technology. That's not to say that they don't believe in the other technologies around advanced reactors but they do spend a lot of their time with what they see as near-term deployable.

And so these suppliers are very smart in that way. And they put a lot of priority on the current SMR supplier fleet or suppliers. The other thing, just recently, we had -- just kind of to demonstrate that as we had our new scale supplier working group meeting Summit in Houston just a few weeks ago. In there, we had over 120, 130 people at the summit, a lot of excitement around that. representing well over half of our supplier base.

Once again, these are suppliers who are very nuclear savvy. They've been around the block and it really was demonstrated there, what I would say, their interest and enthusiasm due to the fact that all the activity that's going on with ourselves and our business development partner in for one.

Your next question comes from the line of Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald.

So in the presentation regarding roll power, it said should pre-EPC financing be secured. I'm curious is the participation in the next phase contractually committed? Or is it more contingent on RoPower closing that third-party financing?

Good question. We have -- in fact, we had 1 today ongoing meetings every week with the Department of Energy, Repower, Nuclear Electrica, Fluor and others, discussion the status of the project in we continue to, as we said, build out our supply chain. We are, as I stated before, a subcontracted Floor Corporation.

Fluor is still in negotiations, what I'd call what they call pre-EPC -- so as we are aware today, those discussions are still ongoing.

Got it. Got it. And as my follow-up, so Entra 1 is positioned to receive investment capital. What size of commitment would largely derisk the first phase of that project. And depending on the funding amount, would that reduce your need to provide milestone payments or broadly your funding obligations at all?

I'm not sure I fully understand the question. You're asking about our funding obligations in relation to RoPower or in relation to projects in general or TVA.

No TVA. So if Entra, it sounds like they're in the market to raise capital, should they do that depending on the size, does that at all reduce in what way does it derisk the project on your end? And then depending on the funding amount, would that reduce your funding obligations at all.

Sure. Thanks for the question. Does it derisk the project Absolutely. Funding is a massive component of building these projects together. It's very complex. -- and furniture on to be, for example, named in the U.S. Japan framework trade agreement with, I think, the $35 billion earmarked -- $25 billion, pardon me, earmarked that sort of funding can really move the needle for a project.

And subsequently, really moved the needle for NuScale. The funding at the project level, though, is completely separate from any of the PMA payments. PMA payments or partnership and Alston agreement payments. And those come with, for example, the term sheet, which we already did in the PPA, which we anticipate doing in respect of TVA at some point soon.

So -- those are separate ideas, but you bring up a good point. Project financing definitely derisks our pathway forward because it derisks the entire project. And these are new scale powered power plants.

Your next question comes from the line of Moses Sutton with BNP Paribas.

Any update on the Japanese financing framework like that you can provide more detail on, is this sort of going to be the gateway to FIDs on TVA projects? How do we think about that?

Moon this is Ramsey Hamady. So it could be. I mean CBA requires financing. I know that Entra 1 is an active dialogue with both sovereign based or quality sovereign-based financial institutions as well as private financial institutions. So I wouldn't say exclusively, we require money under the U.S. Japan framework trade agreement, but I think it's a strong possibility. But rest assured, Andrean's working from all available source of facing to get this across the line.

Well, this is John. And public domain information with pretty large component of that $550 billion through the American Japan framework was slated for energy, including SMRs. And then most recently, last week, we met with the Korean government on this potential of $350 million -- as I've stated before, a significant piece of that, again, is towards investment in energy projects, including SMRs into the United States.

So we've been in discussions with both. We met with Creo last week and we're pretty excited about. Again, it's part of this whole ground solar we're seeing around a nuclear energy in this country. It's pretty phenomenal right now. We're at a tipping point, I think, as a country and in an industry to something is going to break soon.

I think it's also important to acknowledge within the construct of either Korea or Japan as examples that NuScale historically has had very strong relationships with both the Koreans and Japanese as equity investors, supply chain partners, both through IHI and roduson. -- the relationships there are long-standing. They're deep. They're well established.

And while they're not the only source of financing, I think they are with the potential -- strong potential source of financing for projects.

Got it. Very helpful. And can you provide more detail on the fuel fabrication strategy with Framatome -- because our understanding there are 444 assemblies unnoticed for Amazon. Is that sufficient for about 12 module deployment there an annualized run rate or capacity you can provide there? Or is it more flexible from Frames 1 in terms of -- based on demand? How do we think about that?

Right now, we're in the preliminary design with Framatome. -- fuel is a very long-term proposition in the sense of having to fuel ready in several years. So we've got ahead of it. You probably saw the announcement that was so that we will be ready to support the market's needs.

As far as capacity, but as I mentioned earlier, Framatome has multiple facilities globally. So part of that announcement was to inform -- inform that we have that ability to go global and not just rely on American capacity. As far as the pipeline in our discussions with our pipeline and discussions with our business development partner, Entra One. And based on what Framatome's capabilities are, we don't see any bottlenecks or any kind of shortcomings there because we got ahead of it early.

In speaking with Framatome, the 1 thing they ask us to ensure is that to keep them informed on what's going on with the market and with our customer base, which we do so that they can plan ahead if they have time to plan ahead, then they can meet the demand that we require.

Your next question comes from the line of Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers.

Good afternoon. So it sounds like a RoPowerFID could take at least into 2027. If ENTRA1 has successful funding, could there be a TBA opportunity, finalized this year. And to the degree either of these projects make notable pre-FID advancement, could that at least drive some notable NuScale revenue in the coming quarters?

This is Ramsey Hamady, CFO. We're hopeful that TBA can come across the line at some point later this year. We believe that's a strong possibility. Our revenue stream, our cash flow this year, so TVA come across line with, for example, we anticipate that we would have site-specific site-specific services, so pre-OEM services.

If we look at RoPower as an example, we had technology licensing. We had pre-FEED. We had feed Phase 2. All in with Roper, we realized about $8 million worth of revenue. And that's pre an OEM contract. And that's over, I think, 2024 and 2025. That's pre an OEM contract, and that's pretty true FID of [ Apero ] RoPower. I

know they had an announcement and it counts sound like an FID, and we went out to the market and explain that was subject to financing. So we would anticipate something potentially in that scale once we get to a PPA with what Central gets a PPA with TVA.

Great. And I wanted to kind of think through the potential reduction in the cash burn, I noticed the payables are down significantly. I think that's for some of the long lead time equipment you had to pay for. Given that and given I think the OCF drag before working capital changes was attractively down versus the second half last year. Going forward, before any major project news, is it fair to say that the cash burn should be improving?

Interesting interesting. So again, this is Ramsey Hamady. So our AP was down. That's correct. But it was principally because we recognize the payable under the PMA agreement at the time the PMA agreement was signed because we acknowledged the term sheet, the Stage 1 payable. So payables did go down. You saw that reflect in our cash flow statement. But without getting into the real technicals of our financial statements, I think what's important is that we have positioned our balance sheet in a highly conservative fashion.

We, along with everyone else in this industry, we are pre-revenue companies focused on a technology, which to this point has not yet been deployed and which we strongly believe in, but which hasn't been deployed. And we're dealing in tricky markets as well. So I say this as a point of pride.

Now 3 years as CFO here, we've really positioned ourselves with this fortress balance sheet because we don't know what's around the corner. We anticipate, we expect -- we believe we won't be talking in terms of burn rate by the end of this year. I hope to be operationally cash flow positive by the end of this year.

But that position myself conservatively for my company and for my investors. So what's our burn rate? I think OpEx -- this year was a very -- this quarter was a low revenue quarter compared to last quarter, our Q1 2025. I think we went into that in the script.

In Q1, we had revenues associated with RoPower -- this quarter, we did not have revenues associated with projects. So the OpEx was about, I think, $55 million this quarter, but we anticipate actually it will go up as we near commercialization. Because we're focused on supply chain readiness. We're focused on design finalization. We're focused on getting ready to actually deliver this product.

And as we focus on that, we're starting to spend a little bit more -- but rest assured to our investors, we plan for this. And our balance sheet can withstand that additional spend.

Your next question comes from the line of Leanne Hayden with Canaccord Genuity.

To start, I was just wondering if you could help us I was just to talk about what looks like per NPM. We expect this to change from first-line to be kind, especially now that you've started more procurement efforts.

Leanne, sorry, you're breaking up pretty bad am I repeating yourself.

Sorry about that. Can you guys hear me now?

Yes.

Okay. I was just hoping you could help us think about what CapEx should look like per MPM and how we can expect that to change from first of a kind to end of a kind and maybe any sort of early indications on dollars per kilowatt hour as well would be great?

No, I don't think we can provide guidance. I think on CapEx per MPM, I think you're referring to COGS versus CapEx, and we're not providing guidance on the cost of the cost of building in PM, and we're not providing guidance on the maturation of those costs through from -- or from first content of a kind -- so our apologies step, I think it's a little bit early for us to provide that sort of guidance.

And your second question, you're talking about dollar per kilowatt hour. We've really gone away from this sort of metric. So we don't provide -- we don't provide guidance on that. It's too fuzzy really to provide guidance of dollar per kilowatt hour. And plus we don't -- we don't produce -- we don't produce the electrons. We sell MPMs.

Okay. Yes. That's fair enough. Got it. And then -- just curious, like after ENTRA1 signs the binding PPA with TVA, can you just talk about a little bit what that means from a near-term revenue perspective, if possible?

Yes, sure, Leanne. I think what I went to is I can't remember it was Moses or who I was speaking with. But I look to some of the early services that we provide specific services -- and I refer to our work with RoPower over 2024 and 2025. We had some technology licensing revenues along with pre-FEED and FEED Phase 2.

I said in the context of RoPower, what we saw was about $8 million worth of revenue, just on kind of like these pre sort of services. And I think that we can anticipate something similar in relation to ENTRA1 post signing of a PPA with -- post their signing of a PPA with TVA. And there could be -- there's licensing work as well. There's colo work, but I stick to the RoPower examples a good idea of what we may anticipate.

Your next question comes from the line of Jon Windham with UBS.

Perfect. Thanks for being patient with us. I appreciate the sort of regulatory review. It's been, I think, 3.5 years of covering you guys. It's good to refresh on that. There's been a lot of talk about PPI with TBA I just want to understand how we should think about the next 12 months -- and what does progress look on that?

I mean just looking at some of the things TVA has done with like TVA, Hitachi and some of the other nuclear development programs, they don't seem to start with a fixed price PPA and then now let's move forward. it's like more incremental, the site construction permit, PPA is still sort of up in the air, Everyone's sort of moving 1 step at a time. I'm just -- if you could just help me -- I'll be more articulate, just in the next 12 months, sort of time lines, key milepost on advancing the TVA project.

Yes, I think, it's a little bit of different scenario, I think. I mean PPAs are somewhat new to the nuclear industry and the process on how things move forward on a project perspective. So -- as we see it, ENTRA1 in those finalizations of that deal.

And once that's performed, the sites have been -- we've already kind of work with the collective to identify the sites that will be worked on. And most of those sites are -- have some level of preparation that have been progressed. So we would see us going into the coal activities into pre-FEED activities and supporting the supply chain for ENTRA1. So it's kind of different than what you've seen in some other sites that may not be as mature or in a PPA situation that's not necessarily secured or even working with reactor suppliers that are not as advanced.

So I think we're kind of in a different position. We're ready to go, ready to deploy. So I think once -- once their deals have been secured, then we can start real activity that are cola driven, not what you see today in the other and -- and we're also all driven to -- once these definicized and put in place, hopefully, near term here. We also have been working diligently on our OEM contract -- so it's in everybody's at your interest.

As soon as these PPAs are defined, we quickly move into our OEM contract. We'll do the color, as Clay mentioned, that getting that contract signed is it everybody's benefit to get that done quickly?

Your next question comes from the line of Vikram Bagri with Citi.

I was wondering if you can talk about other customers, customers other than TVA or repower that you or none may be talking about, is it fair to assume the focus is squarely on these 2 potential opportunities. And when you talk to TBA and RoPower TVA, particularly and other customers. Those tariffs and logistics costs and higher commodity prices, they come up a lot and changing economics of building a reactive because of these things?

And I ask this question while I saw flash that the new 10% tariffs were be unlawful by the trade code just now. But are tenants and the logistics cost changing the economics, is that somewhat of a hold up? Are you talking to the customers the TVA and RoPower?

I'll answer the first part of the question. TVA is an important opportunity, and it's currently our primary focus. However, it's not the only 1 as there are other engagements. These are ongoing with other potential offtakers and customers across different regions and segments. So we're working with ENTRA1 pipeline that includes other projects. They're also being contemplating on other business models other than a PPA structure such as development structure.

I think we've said in the past, Central One has a pretty deep pipeline of projects, and we're not tied to 1 I'd like to highlight the importance of significant growth drivers that make secure baseload nuclear power the only solution for both the U.S. and the global energy sector. It means there are a lot of people, a lot of customers looking for solutions like the power that we provide. But certainly, TBA is important as our core focus today.

The second part of your question, if you don't mind repeating -- that might be helpful for us.

I was asking if the changing economics of building a react. There is also somewhat delaying the discussions with DBA and other customers in the U.S. given the commodity prices are rapidly changing. The tariffs have moved around a lot. Is that somewhat of a hold of delay in the process?

I don't know if that's purely a SMR related idea. I mean tariffs and commodity prices affect everyone. So look, these are -- the provision of nuclear and the appointment of nuclear is a very long-term type of idea. It has less to do with kind of like short-term swings and more to do with long-term needs, especially when those short-term swings are really macro and aren't just kind of -- they're not -- they're not just focused on the nuclear industry on SMRs, that's kind of like U.S.-wide technology wide.

A couple of weeks ago, we attended there was an annual energy conference every year called CERAWeek -- it brings together Energy Senior Executive, Government of Fintan NGOs from all over the world. And of the probably 15 years, I've been attending that event I've never seen so much focus as we did in this event on nuclear across the board, international, global, U.S. domestic.

If you look at the markets that we've talked about over the years, they haven't gone away. We're going to see potentially a significant decline at the end of this decade if coal-fired plants. We're going to see the need for -- as I said, the Dalafin the room is still the hyperscalers, who demand energy, they want behind the meter and recently as the President announced they're going to have to figure out how to incur those costs.

So the demand pull right now that we're seeing is unlike anything I've ever seen. It's just -- it's been a long cycle, but I believe we're finally starting to see the latest any in the tunnel here. The all these technologies are going to benefit from the increase of our current government pushing is needing energy security and national security and energy supply. So we're bullish on the market. We think the opportunity is near term.

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.

I missed a little bit of the earlier part of the call. So apologize if some of this is redundant. And you did cover a lot with respect to TVA and related topics. But I wanted to ask specifically given some of your comments, Ramsey, -- so I think a lot of focus on the PPA with TVA, and you kind of alluded to the fact that maybe it could happen later this year. So let's presume it does.

Can you kind of walk us through what happens next, right? When does an equipment OEM offtake get finalized? Is that in conjunction with the PPA? Or is that a few quarters later and so you're talking about 2027. And then you also mentioned pre-FEED revenue. There was no mention about deposits. I think you've talked about deposits in the past, but is that something that's still on the table? Because it does seem like you would need that to be cash flow neutral to positive, as you mentioned, is sort of your ambition maybe later this year. But just trying to understand the sequencing here around some of those elements.

Yes. Let me start with the OEM. I mentioned earlier, we've been working diligently on the structure of the OEM. Now we have to wait for the definitization of the PPA. However, it's in everybody's interest as soon as these PPAs are put in place so we quickly negotiate and finalize our OEM.

So we're hoping near term that once that's done, that's the first thing we got to get done. The other part of the question?

So I think I was sequencing. So once we have the PPA, what can we expect? Brian, we talked about -- and I don't know if is part or not, but I referenced RoPower. I think on top of that, you could add color work, so that site specific license we can anticipate to see post PPA and not necessarily tied to having an OEM because that's where the count needs to push forward.

On deposits, I may get -- may be getting a little tripped up on the nomenclature of how we describe it. within the OEM contract, we would expect payments and those payments would be staged over time. We're actively working to structure an OEM agreement now. but not the deposits per se. It's us producing NPMs under an OEM agreement and I think is essentially a pass-through as funds go from ENTRA1, the buyer of NPM to our supply chain, Tusona others to pay for the production of the NPMs.

I think the last point, I'm not sure if you asked this or I'm just kind of interpreting this the dialogue. But we anticipate the OEM then to be like OEM is a cash-positive event -- for new scale. I know that there are some payments to go out under a PMA. But ultimately, we anticipate payments coming in, more than offset that.

And then we have a runway TBD, and this is all to be negotiated in OEM agreement, but then we have a runway of payments coming in to ultimately pay for the modules. Did I answer that correctly, Brian?

Yes, I understand the scope of work and getting paid on delivery of components. I suppose it's maybe, as you said, Grambling, but my understanding was that there was going to be some structuring of upfront deposit, that would be quite significant once you have the OEM agreement in place, but maybe that's...

No, that's right. That's right. No, it's not just payment upon it's not like we produce and we hand over to PM and then we get paid for an MPM. And I think what you may be speaking to is like ideas of working capital, I think, cash and working capital as we go to produce NPMs we would anticipate that we have staged payments over time starting at the signing of the OEM agreement, and then pushing into the future as we progress manufacturing of the NPM and then determining in the delivery of the NPM

Last 1 for me, and I'll take it offline. When you said upon signing the equipment OEM, you expect to be cash flow positive. Are you talking about recouping in addition to the PMA that's made upon signing the PPA, also the initial milestone payment of, I guess, the $500 million that's already been paid of what you're referencing in terms of being cash flow positive once you hit the equipment OEM agreement?

Yes. I was really referencing in that particular statement, I was referencing Milestone 3 under the PMA of what we expect to pay out under Milestone 3 and what we expect to take in is that we'll be cash flow positive on that -- the total milestone payments overall, I think those are recoverable or we can recoup those over the course of over the course of delivering the NPM and the payments that come in.

But I was solely referring to that moment in time, Brian, and OEM assigned amounts are due under PMA amounts come in as a first payment under an OEM and the net of those, we anticipate being cash flow positive.

Your final question for today comes from the line of Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley Securities.

You're right. Ramzey area. Maybe just a follow-up on Power Ram, you just mentioned the revenue earned there over the last couple of years. But could you share what the revenue opportunity might look like if RoPower continues to advance? Or maybe what types of services you'd be providing in the next stage of that project?

This is Carl Fisher. The next phases of the project. It's just to back up a bit. We finished the fees just in November. Once again, we are a sub to Flour corporation and Fluor Corporation is now pulling together the next phases, which is what they call a pre-EPC approach. So the lion's share of that will most likely to Flour and we'll have a subcomponent and they're still working through what that scope actually is.

So until they get that finalized, we're not going to know exactly what kind of revenue streams we're going to be pulling in for what we call a pre approach.

That concludes our question-and-answer session. I will now turn the call back over to John Hopkins for closing remarks.

Thank you very much, operator. Our objective today, folks is try to level set as much as we could. There's a lot of chatter in the market right now. But NuScale didn't just happen. We've been -- and the team have been hard at work for nearly 2 decades with 1 clear mission. RoPower the global energy transition by delivering safe, scalable and reliable energy.

And with that, I'll sign off, and we thank you until next time.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.

Good afternoon, and welcome to NuScale's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings Results Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. A replay of today's conference call will be available and accessible on NuScale's Investor Relations website. The web replay will be available for 30 days following the earnings call.

At this time, for opening remarks, I would like to turn the call over to Rodney McMahan, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. With us today are John Hawkins, New skill President and Chief Executive Officer; Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer; and Clay Scott, Chief Commercial Officer. We will begin by providing an update on our business.

Followed by a discussion of our financial results. We will then open the phone lines for questions. This afternoon, we posted supplemental slides on our Investor Relations website -- as reflected in the safe harbor statements on Slide 2, the information set forth in the presentation and discussed during the course of our remarks and the subsequent Q&A session, includes forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views of existing trends and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties.

For a detailed discussion of our risk factors that could contribute to differences in our expectations, please refer to our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31 and 2025 and our subsequent SEC filings. I'll now turn the call over to John Hawkins.

Thank you, Rodney, and good afternoon, everyone. I'll start with some key highlights from 2025, a year marked by significant progress for new scale, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC approved our 77-megawatt electric standard design ahead of schedule, allowing us to support a wider range of off-takers and consumers seeking clean baseload energy. NuScale remains the only SMR technology to achieve in our speed design certification. And with 12 modules introduction, we retain our position as the industry's first mover.

Furthermore, our exclusive global commercialization partner, ENTRA1 Energy reached an agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority or TVA to supply 6 gigawatts of power by deploying the largest nuclear power program in U.S. history. In ENTRA1, we use NuScale SMR technology inside its power plants. Both are incredibly important milestones in our commercialization journey and gives us strong momentum going into 2026 to pioneer the SMR space as the only NRC certified SMR under in CFR Part 52 versus other technologies pursuing 10 CFR Part 50.

We believe this approach provides new scale SMR power plants with a much different risk profile. Now turning to Slide 3. We list the scale fourth quarter and recent highlights, which we will discuss in more detail in a moment. They include significant progress made by ENTRA1 and TVA on a power purchase agreement or PPA as well as the completion of our work on floor space 2 front-end engineering and sign or FEED II study for the proposed will Doicesti power plant in Romania. In the continued strain of our cash position to ensure new scale is well funded to pursue its activities.

Turning to Slide 4. In September of last year, TBA announced an agreement in connection with the purchase of power from ENTRA1 for 6 gigawatts, which would represent a total deployment of 72 new scale power modules or NPMs and 6 ENTRA1 Energy plans, providing power to support TVA 7-state service region. In the 5 to 6 months since the program was announced, we understand that ENTRA1 and TVA have advanced discussions, maintaining strong momentum in collaboration in their efforts.

Our understanding is that the following recent steps have been taken to move the program forward. First, ENTRA1 is assembled an infrastructure experienced team that includes design engineers, a construction contractor owners, engineers, investors and legal advisers. Second, on Project several major financial institutions are working with ENTRA1 in discussions are underway. And 1 major institution has already signed a multibillion dollar term sheet with ENTRA1.

Third, on the project execution side, site business has been conducted and site evaluations are underway by teams of qualified professional engineers and heavy infrastructure experienced individuals. Foresight identified that could each support into 1 plans powered by new scale SMR technology with respect to the 6 gigawatt program. The prospective site for the first plant employed has been identified.

Fifth, drafting of a definitive PPA is underway with robust engagement from legal teams and progress is being made on transaction documentation and structure. Finally, please note that TVA announced the deal last September, and the new TVA Board was confirmed just this January. Considering all of this, we believe that significant progress has been made relative to time Separately, we'd like to touch on the U.S. Japan investment initiative, which was discussed in our last earnings call.

As noted in recent government announcements under the U.S. Japan framework agreement, several American and Japanese companies were named as potential recipients of financing from Japan's groundbreaking commitment of $550 billion towards investments in the United States. 2 points here. First, we understand and as publicly known, ENTRA1 Energy was 1 of the several companies named on the fact sheet, chosen by the Japanese government. It is the only American SMR power plant developer on the list, others included engineering and construction firms, OEM companies, investment holding groups in industrial players.

Second, Japan has been NuScale's second largest investor since 2022. In their selection of interline would validate their continued interest to support new scale and our SMR deployment via interline energy power plants. While we are still on a subject of ENTRA1 Energy and in the spirit of being helpful to our listeners, I'd like to reiterate a few key points with respect to our ENTRA1 partnership. One, ENTRA1 is an American-owned in controlled development and investment platform that is focused on supporting the commercialization of next-generation base load energy technologies, which includes the new scale SMR technology; two, their mission is to support American and global energy security and economic growth by deploying baseload power infrastructure to generate power.

Three, the company has led by an American energy and technology investor and brings together experienced professionals with backgrounds in energy and infrastructure project management finance, development and asset management. Four, in our partnership, ENTRA1 as the project developer is responsible for financing, project development and deal execution management to build the infrastructure, ENTRA1 line works with seasoned engineering and construction firms. Five, ENTRA1 was established to address a need for a strategic development and investor in a first-of-a-kind industry and to be the first mover to bridge the gap between financing and execution of such first-of-a-kind technologies. Sixth, over the course of several years, ENTRA1 conducted due diligence and analysis on the various near technologies that have been under research and development, and we believe they recognize the value creation opportunity that they could capture around the need of a strategic partner and investor to support nuclear SMR commercialization.

Seven, NuScale was selected among several of the reactor technologies to analyze by ENTRA1, along with their financial institutional fines. ENTRA1 has professionals with backgrounds in project finance, investment management, engineering, construction management, legal and infrastructure development. The name work with specialized technical partners, contractors, engineering firms, financial institutions and legal advisers for each project phase. It is important to note that TVA and NuScale have had a relationship for almost a decade. In Japan has been an investor in NuScale since 2022. We view these as long-standing follow-on relationships now supporting our commercialization along with our strategic partner, ENTRA1 wide.

NuScale has chosen to be a technology provider with our NRC approved small log reactors. We chose to pursue an asset-light business model, relying on outsourcing responsibilities outside our scope to reliable third parties. Currently, Doicesti interbility is our primary manufacturing arm. We chose not to be a manufacturer of the reactors, nor are we the developer of power plant infrastructure that helps the reactor equipment. ENTRA1 is the development arm that helps NuScale commercialize its reactor technology by installing our SMR technology into equipment into their new power plant infrastructure assets.

I'd like to remind everyone that the SMR space is a first of a kind within the U.S. nice industry, and there are no commercially operating SMR power plants in the United States. All stakeholders and participants in the SMR space are pursuing a first-of-a-kind activity. ENTRA1 and NuScale work closely together to advance the of the NuScale SMRs in the United States and in global markets. Both teams work in an integrated fashion and in close collaboration while maintaining a common professional work environment. In summary, we are very excited about the TVA ENTRA1 opportunity, which we hope will empower the local economy across TVA's Seventh State region, support the fast-growing energy demand for AI data centers, advanced manufacturing in national defense, all while creating thousands of high-quality American jobs, reinforced America's energy independence and strengthening our country's energy security.

Moving to Slide 5. Regarding Romania, by the end of 2025, NuScale completed FEED 2 Stork Fluor Corporation to further roll Power's goal of developing and deploying their 6 module SMR power plant in Romania. In total, NuScale recognized $63.1 million in revenue from license fees and engineering work from the FEED II study over an 18-month period ending in December 2025. Earlier in this slide, shareholders of Romania SN Nuclearelectric overwhelmingly voted in favor of progressing the RoPower project. We understand that this all allows the projects to see secured financial through further feasibility studies and site-specific design work and to advance the licensing and geotechnical work, finalize a pre-engineering procurement and construction, or EPC contract, and we get negotiated contracts for long lead items.

Therefore, we anticipate that they will have pre-EPC activities began in the second quarter of this year. and have an estimated duration of up to 15 months and will include, among other things, the development of a Class 2 cost estimate. We look forward to continuing supporting floor on their or chest project. Turning to Slide 6. You will find a list of our plant services broken out by pre and post commercial operations date. While the sale of APMs to ENTRA1 will make up the largest percentage of NuScale's future revenues. Those revenues will be complemented by the many different plant services we offer.

These plant-related services cover licensing, installation commissioning in post COD services. We have already seen services generate revenue for NuScale from the Repower project. And we expect that once the PPA between ENTRA1 and TVA is executed, we will begin generating service revenues related to those projects as well. Specifically from the combined operating license application, or cola process, plus services related to FEED work financial and power plants.

Now on Slide 7, we would like to provide an update with respect to an exciting use case for NuScale SMR technology. producing process steam and electricity for chemical plants. Just last month, in collaboration with Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee NuScale released the results of a technoeconomic assessment, examining the performance and profitability of company new skilled power modules with a U.S. chemical facility to provide need to a generated steam and electric power. The findings showcase that nuclear power Specifically, nuclear power generated by NuScale's SMR technology to help industries that use process team in electricity in a reliable and profitable manner.

A recent seen study conducted by Idaho National Labs demonstrated that NuScale's high-temperature process steam is on par with high temperature gas reactors. To further validate this use case, NuScale and Ebara Elliott Energy, a major Japanese industrial player established a collaborative program to fabricate in field tests, a high-temperature steam compression system at their plant in Pennsylvania. It is further intended that the compressor will be later deployed at a domestic industrial petrochemical site. NuScale and Ebara Elliott are actively in discussions, seeking a petrochemical industrial player for this effort.

The results of the Oak Ridge lab study and plans for high temperate compression demonstrator will be presented to the World Petrochemical Conference next month in Houston. In other news, NuScale has also launched a project at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee to use AI to enhance fuel efficiency for multi-module nuclear plants. Beyond what is achievable in nuclear plants with a single reactor, be it small or large. Next month, NuScale will be speaking at the National Academy of Engineering sponsored conference on closing strategy gaps for the future of AI, posted by the University of Maryland in College Park.

NuScale SMRs are the only nuclear technology, large or small that have been certified by the NRC for off-grid behind the meter application. At advance in Maryland, NuScale will be discussing the advantages of off-grid behind the meter, mono reactors to power data centers.

Now over to Ramsey for the financial update.

Thank you, John, and hello, everyone. Our financial results are available in our filings. So my focus will be on explaining major line items, which can be found on Slide 8. NuScale's overall liquidity increased to $1.3 billion at December 31, 2025, versus $754 million at September 30, 2025 and $442 million at the end of 2024. This liquidity allows the scale to further enhance supply chain and manufacturing revenues, fund obligation in connection with the advancement of commercialization and further strengthen our balance sheet.

As projects progress forward, NuScale expects revenues from products and services to support positive cash flow from operations. Moving on to revenue. We still reported revenue of $31.5 million for the year ending December 31, 2020 filing. Compared to $37 million during the same period in the prior year. This decrease was due to a reduction in revenue recognized in the RoPower technology licensing agreement, which was partially offset by higher Flour Phase 2 engineering and services revenue. I will conclude my remarks with a brief overview of our capitalization summary, as shown on Slide 10.

As you can see on this slide, the number of Class B shares was greatly reduced in the fourth quarter due to Fluor's conversion of their scale B shares into Class A common stock. We understand that Fluor continues to monetize their investments in NuScale via open market transactions subject to certain agreed upon restrictions. With that, I'd like to thank you again for joining today and for your continued support of NuScale.

We'll now take questions. Operator.

[Operator Instructions]

Our first question comes from the line of Eric Stine with Craig Hallum. Can you hear me?

So maybe if we could just start on the supply chain and specifically, Doosan, you did talk about that a little bit. But I know that it's committed to 20 modules a year committed to being able to take that higher. So just maybe some commentary on confidence in that, but also curious, it's a pretty differentiated position to actually those are actually being built. And so curious how is that playing into the process with ENTRA1 and TVA?

And also, just some of the other opportunities as they progress in your pipeline.

Yes. This is Karl Fisher, Chief Operating Officer. As you know, we've progressed significantly well with Doosan. We have 12 modules under production right now. So whether -- no matter what the project is, it gives us a significant timing advantage because we have ordered long lead materials and the modules are under production.

Okay. Got you. And in terms of just feeling confident in that Doosan is committed and able. I know that they've got a big facility and they are committed to this space, but that they are, in fact, in a position that should TVA should that move forward that they could -- I know it's a ways out, but that they could execute on that and help you get to potentially some big numbers.

Yes. We have extreme confidence with Doosan. The other thing that you should know is that they're increasing their capacity so they can move up to 20 modules per year and then eventually doubling that capacity. I just recently was at Doosan and seen the works that are being done. These 12 modules will set the stage for the next set of 12 modules that could be used with the ENTRA1 projects. And having these already in production, it really gives us a significant timing advantage because we do have the long lead materials are ordered and the modules ready to be fabricated.

Got it. And maybe just turn into the uprate approval. I know that 6-plus months ago, I asked this on the call, were there customers that were waiting for that upgrade from 50 megawatts to 77, what that potentially kind of set in motion. So I guess now that it's 6-plus months later, looking back, what has that impact been on your pipeline, whether it's overall growth of the pipeline or movement within that pipeline.

Yes. I think, first of all, the upgrade that was approved last year was approved ahead of schedule. And we've got -- there's a lot of confidence we have with the fact that we have that approval because a lot of questions and any concerns that may have had by the regulator were put -- were approved and put aside. In that case, after that and having that FDA approval, our customers, the ones that we've been speaking with and also basically just the general industry, it puts a lot of confidence in the fact that the NRC has made that approval.

I'll let Clayton Scott discuss the pipeline aspect of it. But I will say, even for our international projects, having that NRC approval is significant because of the respect that the international community and the international nuclear regulators have for the NRC.

Yes. This is John. We do regular quarterly generally drop-ins within to commissioners in the NRC. We're just there 2 weeks. And it was a pleasant surprise to speak with the commissioners in relation to expediting processes and et cetera. But -- they asked a lot of questions because as you know, we are the only 1 that's ever submitted a design certification application for the SMR space that have been approved. So we've been through the rigor. And so -- we're -- we've been ready to go and we're just sitting here as a company, wanted to get these things before.

And the bottom line still is, I keep saying this, we are the only game in town that has an NRC certified not only to construct but also to operate.

But I think in addition to the 77-megawatt approval, it's really given an 4ENTRA1, the opportunity to really push their pipeline, and it's given confidence from the industry to understand that, that regulatory hurdle has been completed. And now that we can reach capacity levels that I think are a little bit more satisfactory when ENTRA1 looks at their overall facilities.

Got it. Helpful. Last 1 for me. Just -- you mentioned it in your commentary here, but the term sheet with ENTRA1, you mentioned the 1 financial institution who has entered that. Can you just unpack that a little bit? Is that something that's firm that gets triggered on the signing of a -- or is that something where there would be some additional steps upon that signing to lock that in?

Thanks for the question. It's Bill Cooper, General Counsel at NuScale, and we're under NDA with intron, so we can't say any more about that.

Our next question comes from the line of yRyan Pfingst with B. Riley.

Maybe just a follow-up on that last one. To the extent that you can say, John, you mentioned the major institution that signed a multibillion dollar term sheet with ENTRA1. Is there anything you can share there around who the players might be? What exactly was signed for anything there, I think, would be super helpful.

Nothing we can share. I'm sorry.

Got it. I'll turn to Romania then could you talk about the next phase of the Rowpower project? What will entail for new scale in terms of services rendered or maybe the potential revenue opportunity there?

Yes. This is John. We met with the Romanian government last night, actually. So it's a timely question. We as we stated, FEED Phase 2 has been completed as of the last quarter. February, they did have a shareholders meeting that they voted in favor of moving the project forward. Road power is now authorized to advance the licensing in geotechnical moving towards a pre-EPC and we anticipate NuScale beat generating revenues as soon as no understand, we are a subcontractor to Fluor Corporation. And Florida is in negotiations right now with the Roll Power government, our contract is with floor. It's not with the Romanian government, and we explained this last night to the rating government, and they understood -- we view this as a very important project that right now, we're waiting for the next steps via floor and RoPower to do their deal and then we move on. It was an interesting conversation last night. They appreciated it.

Appreciate that. And then just 1 more. Could you give an update on the status of the material weakness in your financial reporting that you identified last year and where that stands today.

This is Ramsey Hamady. In our 2024 annual report, we disclosed a material weakness on internal controls over financial reporting, ICFR is what we term it, and specifically, we focus on something called ITGC, which is information technology general controls. We say the plan to remediate it. We work very hard I would give credit to David Tuttle, our Chief Accounting Officer and his team. And we've come through with a clean bill of health from EY. I think it's a remarkable feat, and so we no longer have that. We addressed it as we said we would.

Next question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG.

First, on floor, once they monetize their remaining stake, will they still have right of first refusal as your EPC provider for future projects? Hi, can you hear me.

Please first second.

This is Bill Cooper again, General Counsel. I'm not familiar with any right of first refusal, but the agreement is otherwise confidential.

Okay. Got it. And then the study you completed with the Oak Ridge National Lab, that study gives us a sense of power module pricing that is significantly lower than large-scale nuclear. Of course, that's part of the value proposition of SMR, but is that sort of the pricing you're aiming for in Romania and with the TVA or is it kind of for later-stage projects.

Yes, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?

The study that you guys did with the Oak Ridge National Lab, it talks about roughly I think, about $5,500 per kilowatt pricing for your modules. And I'm wondering if that's the sort of pricing that applies for Romania and the TVA.

Yes, I'll have to look into it. I apologize. I'm not familiar with that number. I think what's important here, if you remember over the years, we've said we see 3 significant markets. One was coal plant refurbishment, one was working with process companies for need of process heat, it could be for electricity. And the other one, obviously, the elephant rooms hyperscalers. And these studies, the prevailing notion was that high temperature gas can only produce steam requirements needed for high-pressure steam, we went into an analysis that Oak Ridge or actually INL did for us to show that NuScale light water reactor could provide the economics and efficiencies necessary to provide the steam requirements for these plants.

And why this is getting specific interest, remember, our emergency planning zone is that site boundary. So when I look at process plants in an area like Baytown, Texas, we have multiple companies that share a fence line. Interline could build that plant outside that fin side, close to the end user and provide if it's process heat, if it's, if they want to do hydro production, and it's not inside the evacuation zone typical of a large-scale nuclear reactor.

The other thing is, too, John. I think that's really important is we're also the only nuclear technology company period that is certified by the NRC for behind-the-meter off the grid applications, and that's a significant benefit.

Next question comes from the line of Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald.

Yes. Just on cash, $1.3 billion, what's sort of the expected cash burn range for -- and then can you talk about any sort of swing factors potentially in that as well.

This is Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer. As you pointed out, we ended 2025 with approximately $1.3 billion in cash. That's a tremendous achievement. It shows a very defensive position in terms of our liquidity. Post-close disclosure, I believe Note 9 in the financial statements. We noted a payment of about $250 million ounce.

Arithmetically, we can assume about $1 billion of cash on balance sheet today. If I look at my OpEx, apart from what I would call onetime type items. My OpEx stays fairly consistent between $170 million to, call it, $200 million, closer to $193 million actually in 2024 on an adjusted basis. The $1 billion in cash I think our investors and rest assured that we have taken a very conservative, very strong liquidity position. And burn rate or runway is not problematic item for us. NuScale has the legs to run this race.

Got it. That's helpful. And then, Ramsey, you mentioned just the onetime payment. I'm wondering if you can talk about how many more of these sort of onetime payments or milestone payments you guys expect to make associated with the project? And will those payments sort of be a similar magnitude? Or can you help us maybe quantify the potential there. Thanks

Sure. I think on this one, we have been very transparent in our disclosures in our filings. There is a partnership milestone agreement filing, which describes all the payments in great detail. And this is more decolored model, which I would refer you to.

Next question comes from the line of Mate Bendelton with Texas Capital Securities.

Good afternoon. After ENTRA1 signs a binding PPA with TVA, can you talk about what that means from a near-term revenue perspective? And would that revenue be comparable to what we've seen at RoPower thus far?

That's good. This is Clay Scott, Chief Commercial Officer. So what we expect after the PPA is signed, is that we would enter into COLA and FEED activities to generate revenue, which will allow us to move forward. But this is something that I would expect to be more than what we see in roll power just because the size of the plants are much larger, and we anticipate a little bit more revenue stream in that respect.

Got it. And as my follow-up, perhaps saying with you, Clayton, referencing Slide 7 in the chemical plant study. Has that study opened any new doors for the commercial team with that extra layer of validation there? And are there any other applications that you feel are underappreciated as well.

Yes, there's other discussions that are happening, and we're in concert with entrant to have those. But at this point in time, we're under NDA, and we can't really disclose anything.

Next question comes from the line of Leanne Hayden with Canaccord Genuity.

Just wanted to start by digging into progress of ENTRA1 and TVA. Can you please help us try to understand any sort of gating factors to securing a binding PPA? Understand that there has been some pretty strong progress since January and that you're in the process of drafting I do believe you previously guided for binding PPA execution by the end of 2025. So any color around what may have caused that delay would be much appreciated. Thank you.

We've said all that we can say [indiscernible] General Counsel. We've said all that we can say about the PPA in the prepared remarks. We can't say anything more.

To the extent that you're able to comment, when can we expect any sort of site permitting or early site submissions associated with the 4 identified sites.

Yes. No, we went through that in the script that laid that out with the 4 sites. So I would just reference that or if not we can circle up after the call.

And our last question comes from the line of Dimple Gosai with Bank of America.

I understand that you don't give guidance, but there's just many different pieces here with the Fed to coming to an end and Roper advancement now. Why are you also kind of prefunding Intranand/or Romania. Can you help us or give us a sense of how to think of the revenue and liquidity outlook or call it profile over the next 12 to 24 months, please?

Dimple, this is Ramsey Hamady. Thank you for your question. As we stated earlier and as you pointed out in your question, we do not give guidance at this point. However, I think looking at our balance sheet, we look at our liquidity position. The company is conservatively positioned and prudently raised capital towards the end of last year or to give us a balance sheet that has lasting power -- and as I said, run rate and in a pay runway is not an issue for us.

We have another question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.

All right. That concludes the question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the call back over to John Hopkins for closing remarks.

Thank you, operator. Thank you, operator, and thank you to everyone for joining us today. As we close this period for new scale, we are excited about the path ahead in 2026. We look forward to continuing to take meaningful strides to our deployment of the only NRC certified SMR technology to support American and global energy security. Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining in. You may now disconnect.

Good afternoon, and welcome to NuScale's Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Results Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. A replay of today's conference call will be available and accessible on NuScale's Investor Relations website. The web replay will be available for 30 days following the earnings call.

At this time, for opening remarks, I would like to turn the call over to Rodney McMahan, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Welcome to NuScale's Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Results Conference Call. With us today are John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive [ Officer ]; and Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer. On today's call, we will provide an update on our business and discuss our quarterly financial results. We will then open the phone lines for questions.

This afternoon, we posted a set of supplemental slides on our Investor Relations website. As reflected in the safe harbor statements on Slide 2, the information set forth in this presentation and discussed during the course of our remarks and the subsequent Q&A session includes forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views of existing trends and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties. You can find a discussion of our risk factors, which could contribute to differences in our expectations in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, and and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and our subsequent SEC filings.

I'll now turn the call over to John Hopkins, NuScale's President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Rodney, and good afternoon, everyone. NuScale continues to be ahead of the competition as we remain the first and only small module reactor technology provider to obtain design approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, making our technology ready for commercial deployment. The pipeline of potential offtakers for power generated by NuScale's technology is stronger than ever, and we believe we are nearing the realization of a commitment to deliver NuScale Power Modules at scale.

Now turning to Slide 3, we list NuScale's third quarter highlights, which we'll discuss in more detail in a moment. They included the recent Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA and ENTRA1 Energy announcement on the deployment of up to 6 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity using NuScale technology, to continue work on Fluor's Phase II front-end engineering design or FEED study for the RoPower Doicesti power plant and the critical strengthening of our cash position as we enter this vital stage of commercialization. We are excited about the significant momentum we have continued to build this quarter.

Turning to Slide 4. In September, our global strategic partner, ENTRA1 announced a landmark agreement with TVA to deploy new nuclear generation capacity powered by NuScale's SMR technology. This project marks the largest SMR deployment program in the U.S. history. It contemplates capacity of 6 gigawatts, which represents a total deployment of approximately 72 NuScale Power Modules and up to 6 ENTRA1 Energy plants in the TVA territory, which covers all of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. To put it in perspective, there is enough electricity to power the equivalent of the entire Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area.

NuScale is excited to support the development of new nuclear generation capacity in the U.S. in partnership with ENTRA1 and TVA. Additionally, just last week, the White House announced it will mobilize up to $550 billion in public and private sector investment to expand critical energy infrastructure and strengthening supply chains under the newly signed U.S.-Japan framework agreement. As part of this initiative, ENTRA1 is positioned to receive up to $25 billion in investment capital to develop a fleet of power plants utilizing baseload energy sources, the only developer that was included in this framework.

The program will serve fast-growing energy demand for AI data centers, advanced manufacturing and national defense, while creating thousands of high-quality American jobs and reinforcing U.S. energy independence. We anticipate the first ENTRA1 Energy plant to deliver power to TVA as early as 2030, with additional plants phased in as demand grows.

Before moving on, I want to take a moment to further highlight our relationship with ENTRA1. For over 3 years, we have been working with ENTRA1 on the deployment of our SMR technology. And with this historic TVA announcement, as well as the U.S.-Japan framework agreement. Our commercialization strategy is starting to resonate.

This is a pivotal time for the nuclear sector, driven by favorable regulatory policy and increasing power demand, as that demand for reliable, always on in carbon-free power grows, we believe our partnership with ENTRA1 enables offtakers to benefit from nuclear power without taking on pant ownership or operational risk. We believe that benefit, combined with our supply chain readiness and being the only company with NRC-approved SMR designs in modules currently in production uniquely positions NuScale to meet this important moment.

In conjunction with the TVA and ENTRA1 announcement, we entered into a partnership milestone agreement or PMA with ENTRA1 to accelerate the commercialization of our SMR technology as outlined in Slide 5. Under this agreement, NuScale will provide milestone-based payments to ENTRA1 as projects advance through key stages as outlined here.

As it relates to the PMA, Milestone 1 was met on September 2, 2025, when the agreement was announced. Ramsey will discuss this milestone later in the call, but I want to take a moment to explain a little bit more about the milestone payment structure.

These payments reflect project costs that NuScale would typically incur later in the process, such as development, project management and other services. By accelerating these payments, we are helping ENTRA1 reach key milestones more quickly, unlocking financing and speeding up construction. We believe this upfront commitment secures NuScale's technology as the foundation for the largest planned SMR program in U.S. history with a marquee energy offtaker in the form of TVA.

As we lay out Slide 6, establishment of PMA was a strategic decision to catalyze commercialization, motivate our supply chain to invest, facilitate multiple projects and accelerate the deployment of NuScale's technology. Looking ahead, this model is designed to be repeatable and scalable. We will discuss specifics in a moment, but it's important to note that our PMA with ENTRA1 is a template for additional projects, both in the U.S. and globally. And since the TVA and ENTRA1 announcement, we collectively have seen a strong uptick in interest from other potential offtakers who want to deploy SMR solutions as well as from our supply chain partners eager to support the commercialization of our technology.

Turning to Slide 7. With the 77-megawatt uprate now successfully approved by the NRC, our regulatory license affair team has shifted its focus to the combined operating license application, or COLA, management process to ensure the effective commercial development and deployment of NuScale's SMR technology at multiple intern power plants. For background, the COLA builds on the NRC approval NuScale already has, that is submitted by the customer, includes site-specific information. It is an integral step in bringing full-scale commercial nuclear power plants that will provide safe, scalable, reliable and carbon-free power to market.

We believe no company is more familiar with the licensing process for SMR technology, the NuScale. Not only do we have an in-depth technical knowledge of SMR plants but we have over 10 years' experience successfully navigating regulatory licensing processes and proven pre-application NRC engagement strategies. We believe this expertise makes NuScale uniquely qualified to lead COLA development, and we are eager to take this next step towards deployment.

Moving to Slide 8. NuScale continues to work with Fluor to support RoPower's goal of developing and employing the first SMR power plant in Romania at Doicesti, the site of a decommissioned coal-fired power plant. While the coal plant itself is now entirely removed, supporting infrastructure such as roads, switchyard and grid connection remain intact for repurposing as RoPower works towards deploying nuclear capacity.

The project continues to generate revenue and positive cash flow for NuScale in connection with the Fluor led FEED study. As this critical work on the RoPower project continues, we're also working with Fluor to obtain their input for a final investment decision expected in late 2026 or early 2027.

Before I hand it over to Ramsey, I want to take a minute to comment on the market tailwinds we see for NuScale. We all know the challenges and the opportunities facing the U.S. and global energy system. Demand for reliable, always-on electricity is increasing. And the key sectors of the U.S. economy is driving it, industries like data centers, AI, advanced manufacturing and critical infrastructure along with the broader electrification trend.

These sectors are expanding at a pace we have not seen before and may require power that simply cannot go offline. And NuScale is uniquely positioned to provide the power these [ industries ] seek by being the only technology approved to provide behind-the-meter power.

At the same time, the U.S. is focused on strengthening its energy independence, ensuring grid stability and supporting economic growth in regions that are attracting new investment in high-value jobs. Utilities and industry leaders are looking for solutions to deliver on reliability, scale and long-term value. We believe NuScale SMRs can deliver on these needs. The project involving NuScale, ENTRA1 and TVA demonstrates this. And that is why it is so significant, not just for our company but for the entire nuclear community. And NuScale as the leader in this space cannot be better positioned to meet other off-takers needs both in the U.S. and around the world.

Now over to Ramsey for the financial update.

Thank you, John, and hello, everyone. Our financial results are available in our filings. So my focus will be on explaining major line items, which can be found on Slide 9.

NuScale's overall liquidity has increased to $753.8 million at September 30, 2025, versus $489.9 million at June 30, 2025. This increase was driven by the sale, 13.2 million NuScale Class A shares through an at-the-market program during the third quarter, which generated $475.2 million in gross proceeds.

Partially offsetting this increase was $128.5 million payment in relation to the PMA milestone triggered by the recent landmark agreement announced by TVA and ENTRA1. NuScale reported revenue of $8.2 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2025, compared to $0.5 million during the same period in the prior year. This increase was primarily driven by fees received for services we have provided for during the quarter in support of the RoPower project.

I will conclude my remarks with a brief overview of our capitalization summary, as shown on Slide 10 and an overview of the recent agreement between Fluor and NuScale, which allows a structured [indiscernible] monetization of Fluor's investment in NuScale via open market transactions and subject to certain agreed-upon restrictions.

Under the terms of the agreement, Fluor may convert all its NuScale Class B units into Class A common stock through a controlled program intended to preserve the fair value of NuScale's equity during the process. In exchange, Fluor has agreed to support NuScale's planned increase in its authorized share count, significantly reduce Fluor's economic rights under the tax receivables agreement and [indiscernible] of certain claims discerned under its commercial agreements with NuScale.

With that, I'd like to thank you again for joining today and for your continued support of NuScale. We'll now take questions. Operator?

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald.

This is [ Drew Nordquist ] on on for Derek. I have 2 questions. First is regarding your supply chain. I saw that [indiscernible] signed an agreement to deliver 4 [ Westinghouse AP1000s ] for a different company. I'm just wondering how that's going to impact your ability to secure supply?

No. We've got -- our relationship with Doosan as we communicate almost every other day. The Doosan has come out and publicly stated they have the current capacity of producing 20 NuScale Power Modules per year and looking to expand that as needed. So they have a huge facility, so it's not just limited to NuScale, but we have -- the focus that they have on the NuScale modules is dedicated to NuScale.

And then you briefly mentioned the U.S. and Japan agreement. Can you just go into a little bit further detail on that and how it affects you guys?

Sure. Look, I think what we can surmise from that which is an absolutely incredible achievement with ENTRA1 is that we were named, we're the sole group that was named. NuScale and ENTRA1 Energy was the sole group named under Power Development for AI.

And so this is really a historic time, the agreement between Japan and the U.S. is extraordinary. It's [indiscernible] shown support from a long-standing strategic partner of NuScale. As you'll recall, we have great support from [ JB, Chubu, JGC and IHI ] and to be named specifically and solely in this 1 area, really shows that -- I think it's really a testament to the connectivity and importance of our technology, both to Japan as a manufacturing partner as well as potentially a customer into America and our stakes for clean power to drive AI. So this -- this was the duress accomplishments really.

I think constant from , if I can say -- to ENTRA1 group. And look at the other names that were named here. [indiscernible] [ CE, Hewitt, ] [indiscernible], Westinghouse, name it, Toshiba, Hitachi, these are -- Mitsubishi even. These are the biggest names in technology, these are big names in power. And for us and ENTRA1 to be named inclusive in that group, it's really a [indiscernible] I'm glad you brought that up.

Yes. I just add just to reiterate -- I'd like to add and reiterate what was stated. I mean ENTRA1 was the only developer mentioned. And ENTRA1, they're looking to develop a fleet of power plants utilizing baseload energy sources. And so the program will serve for fast-growing demand for AI data centers, as Ramsey alluded to, but also national defense and manufacturing. So we were quite excited about being mentioned in that group of companies.

I'm going to further add 1 other point. I think as people -- a lot of people would ask early on who's ENTRA1, where the capacities, what they -- and I think this past quarter, both with this agreement with Japan as well as the announcement in relation to TVA that control -- will be asked about we'll speak about later in this call. I think we've shown the markets. We've shown everyone just how far this combination of ENTRA1 and NuScale can take us.

And so this is, again, like -- I think the details are still emerging of this, but really just an accomplishment, we're super proud and we're grateful to including in this.

Your next question comes from the line of Eric Stine with Craig-Hallum.

Can we just start with the TVA setup you've got? I mean, just to be clear, because I've taken some questions, and it's clear that some people are a bit confused by it, but we should view this as this is a very critical step towards getting to your goal, which is a firm agreement by the end of 2025. This isn't necessarily that step, but it is a great indicator that you've kind of got all of the pieces in place, and now it's about getting that PPA signed. Is that right?

Yes, that's correct. I mean -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Ramsey.

No, go ahead, please.

No, no. I mean, this just didn't happen overnight. It was a long-term almost a year between TVA and ENTRA1 coming to terms of the term sheet. And to your point, what we're excited about for NuScale, this represents 72 potential modules and multiple sites with ENTRA1. So we are excited about it. And TVA also being a government entity, although they're -- they operate like a private or a public company, having the government's stature behind it, I think it's going to be a good thing.

So ENTRA1 is already in the process right now to hopefully finalizing these PPAs. And then these things becomes very real. I don't know if Clayton's on the phone. Clayton, who's our Chief Commercial Officer, who's been intimate and working through this process. Are you on Clayton?

Yes, John. I'm on. Thanks. And yes, this is something that, as John stated, we've been working for quite some time and it's an exciting opportunity. And like ENTRA1 is getting ready to move this forward, and we'll be prepared to support the path and bring this to fruition.

Got it very exciting, no doubt. So we'll stay tuned on that. And then maybe just on the agreement that you announced today with Fluor, just on the monetization. In there, you talk about waiving certain -- I'm trying to look -- waiving certain claims related to commitments. Can you just talk -- I mean, does that change at all or signal something on Fluor's commitment? Is it unchanged? Or is that maybe opening it up that you can work with Fluor and you can work with others.

I'm going to take your question and use [indiscernible] to talk more broadly about the agreement. So I think it just came out, and I think it requires some clarity here. Like take up 2 ideas. The first is there's a natural maturation of NuScale. Essentially, we're a technology company. We don't develop projects. ENTRA1 is a project developer, they're exclusive commercial partners, our strategic partner, and Fluor is an EPC company.

I think strategically, for an EPC companies to have such a heavy investment to your tech company, it may not may not align fully with the EPC company shareholders. And is the actual maturation Fluor's investments. They've been investing for a very long time. NuScale has grown significantly at some point. I think we're north of 80% or 90% of the market cap, I believe.

And look, we're all market savvy here. Like we understand that different investors have different objectives. NuScale investors have seen like a 15x return since our lows over the past 2 years. Amazing. An EPC investor doesn't necessarily look for that sort of risk-return profile.

So I think it's natural for Fluor just to see a maturity of their investment. That'll also support -- not breaking the relationship. We made content with Fluor, they're still -- we still provide engineering work to Fluor still sits on the Board. ENTRA1 still has had decades of experience with Fluor. So we just -- we designed a framework where we will change to monetize in like a very deliberate, very early manner. We're working together the program structure to have the impact. Even Fluor is a shareholder. So we expect Fluor has decided as well as we have to have the more impact on the market.

And then the idea of like the reduction of economic rights is value delivered to our shareholders because there are economic rights under the B units and Fluor has agreed to give some of those up. So that's a win for us. And it certainly explains commercial agreements with NuScale. I think it just -- it will lease of certain obligations of NuScale in relation to some EPC work. But again, as we've evolved, we're not really developing projects. So it's just a logical outcome of this.

Your next question comes from Leanne Hayden with Canaccord Genuity.

Just want to follow up on the ENTRA1 TVA agreement, discussed prior, what you view as the gating factors to ENTRA1 site evaluation or construction permit, NRC application?

Well, I think 1 of the -- yes, John, I think 1 of the benefits of working with ENTRA1 and TVA is they clearly have a number of sites that have gone through previous preparation approvals and early site permits. So that falls in well with the strategy of focusing on Tier 1 sites to move forward. So I think the valuations that I've seen and participated with ENTRA1 and TVA that we have a clear view on which sites make sense to progress. And the benefit is, is that TVA is well suited to support them.

Okay. And to the extent that there are any limitations on your ability to raise incremental equity given the monetization agreement with Fluor, how do you anticipate needing ENTRA1 milestone payments?

This is Ramsey. Look, I think as we demonstrated even during the quarter, we were able to raise a fair amount of cash from the markets, a sensible amount of cash, I should say. And in the quarter at over $750 million worth of cash. The restrictions that we put in terms of our ability to raise funds are in line with our budgeting and they're in line with our objectives to support shareholders and ensure that there's not selling pressure in the market that is acceptive or that distort market pricing. So we've taken a very careful consideration of what the milestone payments are when we anticipate to receive them -- or to pay them, pardon me. And are funding liquidity needs. There's been a lot of work that goes in behind that.

Your next question comes from Joseph Osha with Guggenheim Partners.

I was wondering if we could return to ENTRA1 a little bit. Obviously, [indiscernible] very well-connected guys and some taking there. But I'm trying to understand, has ENTRA1 ever built or owned or operated anything? And if they haven't, I guess, where are the boots on the ground there come from because it looks, all respect due to these guys, they are very well connected. There are pictures of them with Trump and so forth. But I'm trying to understand where the actual operational capabilities and history of ENTRA1 are.

Yes, I can start. They're an independent global energy company, and they have -- to your point, over 45 years as a Bush group, years of experience, delivering large-scale energy and infrastructure projects worldwide. In fact, part of the due diligence we went into the program was looking at their extensive knowledge of building coal-fired plants, combined cycle plants.

So they've had a lot of -- it's not -- it's a family name that is not well known in an industry, but they've had significant experience in building these plants globally. And you've been working pretty closely with them, Clayton and part of -- you're part of that due diligence process, do you have anything else to add?

I mean, they've built a lot of plants. They've also done a lot of large-scale infrastructure projects globally. They have the ability to ramp up and bring in significant partners. Their relationships are are far and wide, not just from a political perspective nor on the financial side. They're certainly tied in the infrastructure companies and they had [indiscernible] at 1 time, prior to them divesting it.

So they have a lot of experience, in my opinion, as far as building infrastructure and ramping. So they've done a lot of diligence on the technical side and on the construction side, and we're quite confident that they will be ready to promote these plants and moving forward.

Can I follow up here? It sounds to me like you're talking about [indiscernible] Group, which is fine. There's no information about any projects on ENTRA1, that ENTRA1 has done at all. And if it's [indiscernible] Group, that's fine, that's a big company, and they've done a lot, and that's great. Are you telling me that ENTRA1 has built and operated projects? And I guess it's still what because there's no information about any of them on their website.

Got it. Let me -- if I may. Yes, we are talking about the principles of ENTRA1 -- that have to project -- all right. ENTRA1 is really up [indiscernible] the purpose Entra, energy transition. That was the focus of the company. And so I would shy away from the idea that ENTRA1 hasn't developed, for example, and that some are -- projects because nobody has. I'd shy away from the idea that ENTRA1 may not be able to build power plants because ENTRA1 doesn't pour concrete and they're not operating yellow trucks, right? ENTRA1 hiring the biggest EPC companies and construction companies with experience in energy and infrastructure do this work.

They're a developer. It's not like they're out there building the power plants. But I think we just -- we need to pause for a second, separate what's the value ENTRA1 is and their ability to to coordinate projects, to bring in partners, to get deals and the partners they bring in that can execute and have executed on power plants in the U.S. and elsewhere. And that's really what we're talking about, guys.

Your next question comes from the line of Soundarya Iyer with B. Riley Securities.

I'm asking on behalf of Ryan Pfingst. So my first part would be like what your confidence level that we see a binding agreement with TVA in the near term? And what has to be done for that to happen in the near term? And secondly, is TVA agreement is the main 1 that we are looking for as a firm order? Or is there a possibility that we could see some -- another agreement jumping in line?

I'll let you handle this one.

I think there's limited information we can provide on the details of where they are contractually. But we're very confident that things will move forward in a timely manner, and we're excited about it. And also, in addition to what they've announced with TVA, their pipeline is fairly robust, and we anticipate to see some other things coming in the near-term future. And some of that is probably aligned with some of the reasons I mentioned earlier around the Japan deal.

So we're confident that ENTRA1 will be moving forward with some other announcements. But regarding TVA, all we can really say is that they're trying to finalize their documents and agreements at this point.

It was a few weeks ago, we had a -- it was at the combined Nuclear Energy Institute, American Nuclear Society. There's about, I don't know 1,600 people there. We were on stage with the CEO of TVA, [ Don Mall, ] myself and the CEO of ENTRA1. And we've kind of walked through the process of TVA and the CEO of TVA was very bullish on wanting to get -- they're working with other companies, as you know. Bottom line, we're still the nearest term and there's a company that's near-term deployable. And we can -- and in fact, we are the only company that can do behind-the-meter. We've gone through the NRC process.

So if you want to expedite and if this administration wants to move quickly, it's with NuScale.

Got it. No. Just to follow up on the financing question asked earlier. So once you hit the Milestone 2, could you give some color on your revenues to finance these payments, especially as they become greater in size, I think it's 35%?

Yes. Look, we have a number of avenues to finance the payments. We have cash on hand. We have capital markets activities. And it is our expectation that we'll have revenue per activity. And so I don't think we're very concerned about the ability to finance this. I think for us, it's more the idea -- look -- our idea is in how we finance the partnership milestone agreement, that I think we can see a way to and people who follow us, who understand their movements in the market, who see our to raise funds, understand that.

I think the important part of the partnership milestone agreement is that this is a catalyst. The money that we're investing here as a catalyst to commercialization. This is pushing projects forward. And so how we fund the PMA payments, well, it depends how many SMRs are in the PMA, it's 12 it's 24. The maximum within that bucket before this moves to OEM, is 24. Can we fund 24? Yes, we can absolutely fund. We can fund them from our balance sheet today, if we wanted to.

Your next question comes from Dimple Gosai with Bank of America.

Could you please help provide some clarity on how many of those 6 gigawatts under TVA are likely to reach a binding milestone under your partnership agreement? And what are the expected timing and economics for NuScale?

And then the second part to that is, have any payments being made today to recognize? And how do you envision recognizing revenue and cash from ENTRA1 milestones across 2026 to 2028.

Clayton, do you want to take the first part of that, I'll take second.

I didn't understand -- I didn't catch the very first part.

How many of the projects we do we hope to achieve with TVA and what time frame. I think the answer would be all 6. [indiscernible] time frame maybe you can provide some insight into what do you think of the balance time line?

I think as we mentioned earlier in the call that we're looking at time line as soon as 2030 for COD on the first plant and then a follow-up thereafter. But yes, the intention is to fulfill the full 6 gigawatts.

Yes. And don't forget, we've already got 12 modules under production for the first plant, which is hopeful by the end of the decade, will it be COD, as Clayton said, that each of these plans or 12 module plants, which ultimately represents 72 modules to -- for our suppliers and us to bring to these sites. So right now, where our focus is to get the first 1 in the ground and running.

And then ENTRA1 is working on what that model layout is, and that's -- they'll reveal that to us at the appropriate time.

Yes. In terms of our accounting treatment, I think a precise explanation of how we have accounted for the first set of payments, so stage 1 of the PMA agreement, it's included in our 10-Q under our accounting policy, and there's more details about the PMA. And I think that's better for you to refer there. I will say that the expense as it shows up as an expense in our income statement. PMA payment 2, TBD. I think our preference obviously is to capitalize [indiscernible], but that's TBD. We'll figure out where we get to the PPA and what several looks like we term what the appropriate account is.

I think on the third stage of the milestone payments, OEM. I think we're fairly certain there of our ability to capitalize those expenses, which will then be deducted from future revenues. But again, I would refer you to the Q to just take a look at our accounting policies, how we've analyzed the first PMA payments.

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.

I know a lot of questions around this ENTRA1, TVA so apologies in advance because I have a few more. So the the agreement here is targeting 6 gigawatts. And it looks like based on the first milestone payment you made this quarter, you're targeting the full 6 gigawatts. As you mentioned during part of the call, TVA is looking at other options across the nuclear technology spectrum. I won't name the names, but it's been in the press. And so if TVA decided rather than doing 6 gigawatts, they want to do -- just throw a number out there, 1.5 gigawatts, 1 gigawatt with NuScale. Do you get that money back from ENTRA1? Or does it roll over to another development? Like you're paying basically gigawatts on a nonbinding basis, but what happens if they never take that to fruition and get to PPA on the full 6 gigawatts?

Yes, Brian, it's a great question. And so the payments would roll into the next project that those term sheets not materialize into a PPA agreement. So we -- it's not like it's money out the door [indiscernible], that may has stayed in the system.

And I think another important concept here is that once we start the machine and once you have continued movement from term sheet to PPA to OEM, as we expect, as we commercialize as we scale up. you'll start to see those payments kind of rolling through, and they'll become -- they'll almost become self-funding through projects because that's really what it is, Brian. This is -- it's like we develop technology. We manufacture an SMR. ENTRA1 is a wholesale distribution partner, and they place those SMR into projects. And so these PMA payments, these are all just baked into the business plans, baked into the economics, really, this is a question of timing for us rather than a question of like absolute financial impact.

So by forwarding the timing of some of those payments, forwarding that central line, that allows them to commercialize faster, allows us to catalyze like this kind of this progress, this great momentum that we have. And ultimately -- and we say this firmly, we think this is the best interest of shareholders to push this forward.

Yes. Understood. That makes sense. Second question I had was just Ramsey and Clayton, I think you guys have spent a lot of time on this call sort of talking about ENTRA1 and articulating why that's the right partner, the right approach to go to market? And then also on the financial terms, lots of commentary around how the payments work and having the funding in place to be able to satisfy the milestone payments all the way through PPA.

I guess the big question that we all have on our mind is when does NuScale get paid from ENTRA1? And I would presume it's at PPA, but if you get to PPA on the 6 gigawatts based on, again, you said it's in the Q, there's over $3 billion of payments you will have paid to ENTRA1 over the course of all these milestone payments to get to PPA. So my simple question would be when you get to PPA and you get into an equipment agreement with them, do they -- do you anticipate you'll get $3 billion on day 1 to pay that money back? Or is that a ratable sort of revenue rec over multiple years where you still don't accrue $3 billion plus that you spent with ENTRA1 until year, pick a number, T plus, I don't know.

But just can you give us a sense -- I understand the milestone payments, that's specified in very clear detail. How are you guys going to monetize this? And what's the time line for at least recapturing the $3 billion plus you would have paid to ENTRA1 by that point in time?

Yes, Brian, I'll give you a partial answer, and then maybe Clayton can hop in as well. I think the example of getting 6 gigawatts worth of SMR orders immediately or within a very short period of time, aspirational, incredible probably not likely outcome, even just given supply chain and constrain our ability to deliver SMRs.

It's not to say that we don't expect to get every single 1 of those and we hope to, that's not going to happen all at once. When we talk about the PMA payments, I think that we can discern between some of the early-stage PMA payments, like the term sheet and OEM -- excuse me, term sheet on PPA versus the OEM payment. I think on the OEM payment, that will be a net cash positive for NuScale because as money is out in relation to an OEM contract that we receive, -- the final stage of that PMA in relation to an SMR, we also received money for production.

So I would kind of cut in half what they anticipate the actual cash out because we can really net we anticipate getting a third also payment. So just to say, yes, like when you look at an overall scale, like do we pay out $3 billion if we're going to be an order for -- probably not because we do think that there's gearing effect on the third payment. And we think that, well, the orders will come in stages, Brian.

As I said, once that engine starts running, once we start moving projects through the pipeline [indiscernible] the pipeline, those PMA payments will become self-funding. Is that fair for you?

Yes. No. I mean we're all searching for more details, but we'll take some of this offline.

Your next question comes from the line of Marc Bianchi with TD Cowen.

I guess you kind of talked about this earlier and then mentioned it in the conversation just now with Brian, like the first projects that move towards this next milestone of a PPA, it wouldn't be the full 72, but maybe it's 12 or 24 modules and first part is maybe just correct me if I'm understanding that incorrectly.

And then the real question is, how do you -- or how does ENTRA1 anticipate entering into a firm PPA agreement with TVA if the cost might be a bit of a moving target. How do they -- that's a kind of a classic challenge with all of these first-of-a-kind projects. So I'm just kind of curious how that's being addressed.

Clayton, I'll let you or John take that one.

Well, I have to be -- I think we have to be cautious. I mean I can I think the discussions around the PPA and the cost structure or the pricing structure I think, is somewhat established. And I don't think they're going to get into a firm PPA unless that it resonates to allow them to move the project forward positively. So I don't think we can really go into details. But that's really not a part that would be of concern to me.

Clayton, does that mean that there needs to be a long series of front-end engineering work to kind of clearly identify that cost to give certainty and comfort to TVA as an off-taker and to ENTRA1 who would be presumably taking the risk if there is a cost overrun?

I think all of that is kind of factored into the final net number, on the cents per kilowatt. But I think, yes, they're all contributory, but I think they've all been kind of identified from what I can understand.

Got you. Okay. And then the other 1 I have was just on RoPower. So still looking for end of '26, early '27 for an FID. Are there going to be any interim updates on that project as the FEED study progresses? Is there anything that we can look out for on the horizon that would be an intermediate update?

Yes. We talked to RoPower, Marc, almost once a week. In fact, I was just talking with the CEO of Nuclear Electric who RoPower comes under. So -- as you remember, we're a subcontractor to Fluor on this. We're doing a FEED Phase 2 right now. They're paying us. We got our licensing payment. They look at FTP, final notice to proceed towards end of 2026, 2027. So we'll definitely keep you updated as this project goes along quarter-by-quarter.

But right now, to your point, I mean, we're not -- as I stated before, we're getting paid and it's been a good project. It's -- Romania is very aggressively trying to establish their own Central Eastern European manufacturing hub SMR. So we're hopeful they're successful. They have they have their own regulator. They were into the nuclear with [indiscernible] reactors. So it's not that they run from here. It's hopefully, we're hoping to get the funding necessary to carry it on to the final phases of the projects.

Yes. Yes. Okay. And just 1 more real quick to go back to the ENTRA1 arrangement and TVA, so the $500 million or $495 million that's going for this first milestone, you guys talked a little bit about it in the prepared remarks, I think, about sort of giving supply chain certainty and stuff. But that's a lot of dollars. Could you maybe go through a little bit more about what ENTRA1 is going to use that money for and kind of how it helps move the project forward.

Sure. I can answer that. I think the short answer is that ENTRA1 pushes that money into project development. I don't have a source and uses to share, but we know that ENTRA1 has pushed forward with this term sheet. There's 6 projects to develop. There are sites that have been named. There's early work to be done. So a lot of that just goes into catalyzing the commercialization of our technology. We thought -- yes, we say there -- and we're not saying there and kind of taking like taking like a [indiscernible] to the spend, except that the spend is towards projects at stores development of our projects. And I think this is the most critical thing for NuScale is to forward these, right?

We know that ENTRA1 has done a lot of work here. They put a lot of effort into these projects, they continue to put a lot of effort. First dollars in are very difficult and very challenging to get. And this is supporting of the commercialization. I think that's -- you've developed more nuclear plants than I have. So you probably can articulate how worthy development looks like better than I can on this one.

I think you stated it well. I mean there's 6 projects up to 6 projects, and there's a lot of there's a lot of front-end work that needs to be done. So it's all catalyze and move this forward.

Your next question comes from Vikram Bagri with Citi.

I wanted to follow up with a few questions asked previously. Obviously, [indiscernible] of the principals at ENTRA1 and they're standing in the industry, but the entity itself is new and appears that the entity does not have much in terms of assets as of yet. And as you're aware, nuclear deals are complex. So if for any reason this deal doesn't go forward or so to say, is this [indiscernible], corporate maraging diverse -- how do you protect your interest?

The payment you're making is quite substantial, $500 million. Are there any safeguards in place to protect your interest if things don't go as planned -- is there anything in place to sort of like safeguard or protect that payment there?

Yes. Look, I'll tell you -- yes. Are there safeguards? Absolutely. The money that we put up now for the term sheets in relation to TVA were rolled to other term sheets for other projects so TVA somehow disappear. Right. But I still struggle, and I guess the market continues to struggle with this idea of who ENTRA1 is and what they've done, right? There was so much questioning about the ENTRA1 team about the principles of ENTRA1, the backing of ENTRA1. And now they come out and they signed a term sheet for 6 gigawatts, 5.5 gigawatts of power with TVA, with the U.S. government, and we're still getting the same questions.

And then they go and they secure with the Japanese, they secure a place and is tremendous that this landmark Japanese investment into the U.S. We were the sole group, TVA -- sorry, ENTRA1 and NuScale. We're the sole group that was named under this, right? There's 1 like -- number two, if you look at the joint fact sheet, number two, power development for AI, NuScale and ENTRA1. At what point, I'm asking our analyst group collectively. At what point do you stop doubting this partner?

TVA, 6 gigawatts, the term sheets in a place with the Japanese government named for investment. Let's come back to reality guys. We picked a partner, we take an amazing partner. The partner has delivered and is delivering -- and yet we're still questioning what if, what if. We're committed to the partner. The partner has done a great job. I think we need to recognize that.

Sure, obviously. I mean, I'm asking because it's just good core practice to protect your interest and put safeguards in place, but I get the point. The second question I have is I was wondering like you had -- you're targeting a deal by year-end. Does this deal with TVA meet that commitment to sort of like deliver [indiscernible]? Or should we look out for something else?

John, Clayton, I'll let you guys answer that.

I didn't hear the part of the question. It was muffled.

I was asking you were targeting a deal by year-end. -- the deal announcement with TVA meet that commitment? Or should we look out for another deal by year-end?

Okay. So I think we're still looking at the construct of the deal when it gets signed and how that contributes to our classification of a dealer by the end of the year, and we're kind of working through that right now.

Your last question comes from the line of Moses Sutton with BNP Paribas.

This is [indiscernible] on for Moses. Within the PMA agreement, we see a 5% annual escalator on new milestone payments. And in our math, that increases the all-in payment per project from 600-kilowatt up to 1,200 kilowatt by 2040, while it may be premature to think that far out. Can you confirm this escalator point? And how do you weigh against pricing your modules? Will you keep pricing stable near term to maybe incentivize module orders, or should we assume you increased ASPs in tandem with milestone payments?

I'll [indiscernible] yes, I think projecting out to 2040 is probably a bit of a long projection in relation to where we're selling modules for I think the escalation is the escalation is like it's an inflationary plus is the escalation. Where we see the cost of production of modules, I think would be the be the right question because it has relocated margins. For us, we believe that the cost of production is going to go down as we go from first to a kind to producing in the case of TVA potentially up to 72 modules, but really much more.

So we view this as kind of a very positive idea where we break down our costs while we have an escalator to our pricing. And we're always going to keep pricing in line with what is necessary to be commercially competitive in the market, but this is a great deal for NuScale, right? We all know we've gone from first of a kind [indiscernible] bring down production costs. Our manufacturing gets better, it gets more efficient. We optimize the supply chain. So I think that was a big win for us.

And with no further questions in queue, I would like to turn the conference back over to John Hopkins for closing remarks.

Thank you. I apologize, I'm losing my voice here. But A lot of good questions today, a lot of speculation of how this is going to get done. I think Ramsey made a good point. It just was an arbitrary that TVA picked ENTRA1, NuScale in the 6 gigawatt potential, it wasn't just hit or miss that in the Japanese framework, $25 billion was allocated for a developer that we're working with in our exclusive partner ENTRA1. And again, we're excited about this not only for us. We're excited about the whole industry in general in terms of -- you see the market signals in what's happening, demand pull is there. So we're excited about it.

This next quarter, hopefully, we'll have a lot more to report. [indiscernible] and I can tell you there's a lot of effort and work that's gone into where we are today. So we're excited about the future. We believe we have the right partners, the right model and collective expertise. And my team and I certainly believe that we're ready to deliver and continue to lead in this market. So I really would like to thank you all for participating today and until next time. Thank you very much.

This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect. Thank you.