Greetings, and welcome to the NET Power, Inc. Second Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce Bryce Mendes, Director, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to NET Power's Second Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. With me on the call today, we have our Chief Executive Officer, Danny Rice; and our Chief Operating Officer, Marc Horstman. Yesterday, we issued our earnings release for the second quarter of 2025 along with an updated presentation, both of which can be found on our Investor Relations website at ir.netpower.com. During this call, our remarks may include forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those stated or implied by forward-looking statements due to risks and uncertainties associated with our business. These risks and uncertainties are discussed in our SEC filings. Please note that we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. With that, I'll now pass it over to Danny Rice, NET Power's Chief Executive Officer.

Thanks, Bryce, and thanks everyone for joining our second quarter earnings call. Marc and I are excited to share some really positive developments. We're going to reference some slides in our latest investor presentation, so I'd ask you all to have those handy and follow along. And after our prepared remarks, we'll open the line for questions. So let's get started. So the energy market is experiencing unprecedented demand, driven largely by the surge in artificial intelligence and data center growth. As noted on Slide 4, grid load growth from AI is outpacing the ability to add 24/7 generation, putting pressure on prices and grid reliability. For example, the 2025 PJM capacity auction saw cleared prices rise to $329 per megawatt per day, an 11x increase over 2 years. Corporate sustainability goals are now competing with reliability and affordability concerns compounded by long interconnect queues and rising intermittency in local grids. From our conversations with prospective customers, the focus is now on securing reliable power as soon as possible and having credible pathways to decarbonize over time. We've seen more and more announcements along these lines, capture-ready gas projects, pairing gas projects with nature-based offsets, and we've even started to see next-gen nuclear link up with gas power developers to create a bridge. We think many of those solutions are optical at best with no tangible industrial, mechanical or thermodynamic bond between these gas solutions and these clean solutions. Be that as it may, the market is signaling its need to utilize gas because of its availability, reliability and affordability, but wanting a credible demonstrable pathway to lower emissions in the future. So what does this have to do with NET Power? Our NET Power cycle can be a fairly autonomous technology. It's sufficient in generating power from natural gas and inherently capturing the CO2 in the process, but it doesn't need to be self-sufficient, especially if integrating with other solutions that unlock a pathway to give the market what it needs now, more reliable power and what it wants in the future, lower emissions.

Turning to Slide 5. One of the unique aspects of our oxy-combustion cycle is its large auxiliary load. In a typical simple cycle gas turbine power plant, only 30% to 40% of the BTU energy from natural gas is converted into power with minimal power needed on site. However, in the NET Power cycle, nearly 80% of the BTU energy from the natural gas is converted into electricity. But the one caveat is the equipment needed to give us pure oxygen and run our semi-closed loop cycle at high pressure requires a lot of energy itself. In the power industry, we call that auxiliary load. So while the NET Power cycle has extremely high primary energy conversion into power, approximately half of this power is used for auxiliary load. So the basic question we ask ourselves is why are we using our clean, more expensive power to service our auxiliary load when we could integrate and utilize lower-cost power solutions? The answer is we can. And as you'll see in the next few slides, we selected gas turbines because they're the most deployable today to meet the market's need for reliable, affordable power, and they're the most synergistic with our product. But we could just as easily do it with geothermal, nuclear, solar and wind power if those energy solutions are available and economical in areas we want to deploy. Let's turn to Slide 6 and walk through the integration. The first and most obvious synergy is the ability to utilize lower-cost power to cover all or a portion of our auxiliary load, which is a unique feature that most other power generation solutions don't have. We discovered that integrating the waste heat from just 50 megawatts of gas turbines is more cost effective than piping in waste heat from our on-site air separation unit. It will boost our core cycle efficiency by roughly 15 megawatts. The combination of simple cycle gas turbines and the NET Power cycle essentially results in a higher efficiency combined cycle configuration without adding steam cycle systems and allows for better turndown and load following flexibility. There are other synergies too, specifically sharing OSBL infrastructure for land, gas, water, and power, enabling these gas turbines to be deployed at lower cost than in a stand-alone gas turbine configuration and also providing black start capability for our plant. From an economic perspective, the more low-cost power we can use to cover our auxiliary load results in more power that we can export and the lower cost the power becomes. There are some important commercial synergies we'll cover in a few slides too.

So on Slide 8, this is really the sequence the market is asking for, and this is what we'll be aspiring to deliver at Project Permian and future early projects. So with Permian and each of the projects we're originating, we're already working on securing the gas, water and grid access. So we'll aim to get the 200-megawatt gas turbines installed as soon as the OSBL items are ready to go, likely 1 to 2 years ahead of NET Power. This 200 megawatts can service data centers or the grid immediately. And then when the NET Power core facility is installed, this 200 megawatts shifts from in-front-of-the-meter service to behind-the-meter service to cover our cycle's auxiliary load. And then NET Power takes over delivering 400 megawatts of power to the customer. This transition from gas turbines to NET Power is where you realize a 50% reduction in emissions and with double the power output. And the pathway to further decarbonize doesn't stop there. There's the ability to install more NET Power plants, of course, but it opens up 2 additional pathways. The first is installing PCC on the gas turbines itself and the second is integrating renewables into the project. PCC is an interesting one because we'll have already established the CO2 infrastructure for transport and sequestration, which are the 2 biggest hangups with PCC today. We're taking a very altruistic perspective because we think that it's an important element of attractiveness to prospective partners, having multiple pathways to procure reliable clean energy. And if we're originating projects to accommodate a mix of energy solutions, we'll find ways to capture value above and beyond just our NET Power cycle technology.

Turning to Slide 9. In just a few short months, Project Permian LCOE has meaningfully improved from over $150 per megawatt hour to now under $100 per megawatt hour, and it's more than just the integrated configuration driving this meaningful reduction. As the slide illustrates, we've made excellent progress on SN1 value engineering and that, along with improvements on the tax incentives are equally as impactful as the product integration. I'll let Marc touch on some of the SN1 value engineering progress. Project Permian SN1 has progressed significantly in the last 3 to 4 months. We have work left to do, but thus far, the value engineering efforts have driven strong results. For example, pipe quantities are down 20%, pipe diameter reduced by 25%. And the overall plot plan site layout has shrunk by almost 25%. We've also received favorable pricing updates through work of the NET Power team and our partners with respect to the ASU equipment, costs coming in 15% lower than expected. Additionally, working with our EPC contractors and others, we've reduced the ASU installation cost by almost 10%. Furthermore, we're initiating secondary and in some cases, additional bids for the ASU installation in the overall plant itself. And finally, we've progressed our digital twin, which is important to validate the work that we've done thus far and it allows us to modify and mitigate additional changes in the equipment as we go forward. We remain focused on the disciplined execution and cost control as we move forward. We're focused and cautiously optimistic on the work remaining to be completed in the next 60 to 90 days.

That's great, Marc. So on the other couple of items on this slide. So with the recent one Big Beautiful Bill Act tax legislation, which we just referred to as OBBA, bonus depreciation, it amounts to a good chunk of the LCOE value by allowing investors to fully depreciate qualifying assets in year 1. And that's actually a pretty meaningful benefit to LCOE. And 45Q parity was enacted for CO2 utilization, so $25 per ton higher than before. So it goes from $60 to $85 per ton for CO2 utilization, which is what we're planning to do at Project Permian, and that equates to a nearly $10 per megawatt hour lower power price. So the integrated configuration delivers immediate economic value with a declining emissions profile, aligning with customer priorities for affordability now and decarbonization over time. This is an exciting place for us to be. We estimate it would take us 10 to 20 deployments with a stand-alone NET Power configuration to get below $100 per megawatt hour LCOE, which we now believe we can achieve right out of the gates with this integrated configuration. So delivering Project Permian at these prices and carbon intensity levels illuminates a viable pathway to a highly competitive levelized cost of electricity for NET Power's entry into service units. It prioritizes speed to market and it maintains visibility to achieving a greater than 97% carbon capture end-state product. And as we think about future deployments, this is certainly a configuration we intend to deploy to help the market establish access to reliable power sooner by leading with the gas turbines. And with each deployment of NET Power and planned reduction in our core cycle CapEx and improvement in cycle efficiency, it will mean fewer gas turbine megawatts are needed to be installed to achieve target LCOE, progressively lowering the aggregate facility CI score with each deployment. The flexibility we have to toggle costs and emissions by project going forward will allow us to meet the needs of each customer, whether it's hyperscalers, independent power producers, oil and gas companies, or local co-ops, all of whom are seeking access to more reliable, cost-effective power with a clear and credible pathway to reduce emissions over time. So I'm going to turn it back over to Marc to provide a few operational highlights.

Turning to Slide 11. We shift focus to our LaPorte facility. I'm pleased to share meaningful progress in our turboexpander validation program in collaboration with Baker Hughes. During Q2, we've completed some key infrastructure repairs, including pump servicing and repair, upgraded our plant DCS, added additional plant automation and modifications to our test rig to improve overall plant performance. Over the past 4 to 8 weeks, our testing cadence has accelerated significantly. Thanks to plant automation, we've increased our start-up speed. We've executed multiple overnight fired runs and start-ups have become routine. And we validated that our operational models are aligned with our actual plant performance. Looking ahead, we expect to complete Phase 1 of the program this year. Phase 2 will commence later this year and most likely conclude in early 2026. Additionally, design and site preparations are already underway for Phases 3 and 4, which are scheduled for completion in 2026 and 2027, respectively. I'm incredibly proud of the team's momentum and commitment. I look forward to keeping you all updated as we continue to advance this critical program. With that, we'll turn the call back to the operator for Q&A.

Our first question is from Martin Malloy with Johnson Rice.

Great to see the progress since the last business update. I wanted to find out if you could maybe help us a little bit with timing and maybe some of the milestones in terms of FID for SN1 or other projects, time to get them up and running with the simple cycle gas turbine.

Yes. Marty, this is Danny, and Marc is here with me. I want to share some high-level milestones regarding Project Permian that I believe are significant. As you may know, we began working on the ERCOT interconnect years ago once we identified Project Permian as a candidate for SN1. This interconnect is currently in process and is designed for 300 megawatts, allowing us to draw power from the grid, making it a highly attractive site. We anticipate that it will be ready to deliver first power into the grid by around mid-2028. If we reach the final investment decision on the NET Power cycle sometime late next year, we expect the NET Power plant to come online as early as 2029, but more realistically in 2030. This positioning allows us to intelligently sequence the deployment of gas turbines a few years before the NET Power plant becomes operational in 2030. We plan to implement this strategy not only for Project Permian but also potentially for our MISO project. Our goal is to introduce the gas turbines first to establish the reliable power that is urgently needed in these grid systems, then follow up with NET Power to both double the output and significantly reduce the carbon intensity profile of the overall power. Today's call marks the first time we've publicly discussed this integrated product, emphasizing the gas turbine's capability to lead the initiative. Following this call, we aim to connect with various power developers, hyperscalers, and other interested parties to gauge their interest in participating in this complete sequence from gas turbines to NET Power and beyond.

Great. That's very helpful. And just for my follow-up, I wanted to ask about behind-the-meter opportunities with this new integrated approach.

Yes, I believe everyone is focused on whether we can colocate. There is significant concern about the existing issues with grid queues and grid congestion. When it comes to introducing a first-of-a-kind technology, potential partners tend to be hesitant to colocate with a new facility like NET Power, nuclear, or even a new gas turbine due to the risks involved. However, we see an opportunity here with the integration of gas turbines. If we lead with those and ensure they are appropriately sized—not just a single 200-megawatt turbine but a fleet of smaller ones—we can reach that 200-megawatt target. By aggregating six to eight turbines, we can enhance reliability, which is crucial for establishing co-location. This opens up new possibilities for us, as we can consider co-locating Serial Number 1 with the reliable gas turbine power as its foundation. As we move forward with Project Permian and future endeavors, hyperscalers and other companies aiming to develop data centers are increasingly in need of reliable power. This integrated approach is a direct response to market feedback, indicating a strong demand for dependable power sources quickly. They want gas now, paired with a credible plan for decarbonizing power generation over time as the facility expands. Ultimately, this gives us a remarkable chance to co-locate right from the start with Serial Number 1, driven by the reliability of gas turbine power, while NET Power will soon follow to further decarbonize gas generation.

I just want to add on to what Danny mentioned regarding the sequencing and scheduling. When we discuss behind the meter and potential co-location with data centers, especially as we consider larger data centers of 500 megawatts, 1 gigawatt, 1.5 gigawatts, and 2 gigawatts, we can coordinate the ramp-up of gas turbines in a way that aligns with the construction schedule of the data centers. This enables us to adjust to the load requirements of the data center as we develop the overall power integration and power blend. Ultimately, this approach allows us to implement a significant firming load of over 200 megawatts from a NET Power facility to support the entire data center campus.

Our next question is from Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital Bank.

Congrats on the progress. Regarding the value engineering savings outlined on Slide 9, can you speak to any trade-offs you have had to make in the performance or plant operation in order to achieve those savings? And maybe if you could speak to any other areas your team is most focused on for additional savings?

Yes, that's a great question. As we've worked through the value engineering effort, we revisited the initial estimates from about 6 to 9 months ago, which indicated that costs were a bit higher than expected. We adopted a design-to-cost approach to refine the facility while maintaining the necessary product requirements. There have been some minor reductions in equipment related to reliability, but nothing significant that would compromise our reliability expectations for SN1 and future plants like SN2, SN5, and SN10. Moving forward, we're focusing on identifying additional cost reductions and optimizations over the next 45 to 90 days, primarily in collaboration with our partners and EPC teams, particularly concerning plant scheduling integration and overall layout reductions.

Appreciate the detail there. For my follow-up, now that 45Q has parity between sequestration and utilization pathways, how does that impact the potential addressable market for NET Power plants?

No, it's a great question, Nate. I believe having the parity for 45Q for enhanced oil recovery is significant for Project Permian. The value proposition, especially concerning the use of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, extends beyond implications for levelized cost of energy. Utilizing CO2 for enhanced oil recovery boosts U.S. energy security by increasing oil production, which has its own advantages and disadvantages depending on the customer. The reality is that the U.S. will rely on oil for a long time. Thus, the adjustment for CO2 utilization under 45Q is a response to the need to enhance U.S. energy security across all energy forms that the country currently relies on and will continue to rely on for the coming decades. For us, this means that regions like the Permian, where CO2 can be used for enhanced oil recovery, offer significantly lower power costs compared to attempting sequestration in other areas. This makes it much more attractive to consider projects in the Permian. When you combine the 45Q parity with our integrated product and the extensive work Marc and the team have completed on value engineering, which has further reduced SN1 costs, we find that Project Permian is truly an economical opportunity for a groundbreaking technology.

Our next question is from Noel Parks with Tuohy Brothers.

I was wondering thinking about the change to the process. Can you talk about just what you're aware of as far as the turbine market, availability of turbines? Do you have a sense of the vendors that might have units in their product line that would be appropriate to your needs with the new design?

Yes, for sure. Thanks for the question. Relative to the larger gas turbines, we're hearing the same thing I think everybody else is from the standpoint of the larger gas turbines, the more industrial gas turbines are sold out to 2030, 2031, et cetera, et cetera. But relative to our needs, we're looking for more flexible generation. So the 200 megawatts that we've referenced today is primarily set up of multiple gas turbines, the smaller gas turbines, medium gas turbines, possibly air derivative gas turbines. We're not quite ready to highlight the gas turbines that we have in mind. We've got a line of sight on. But the key is that they fit into the overall flexible generation and give us a solid foundation to build and to install and deploy those gas turbines along with the data center phase construction approach if need be. And right now, that line of sight would potentially allow us to deploy them in the early to mid-2028 time frame from that standpoint.

Great. And given that the company has ownership by a number of large industry partners, do you have a sense of whether the updated design, does it sort of satisfy the needs and priorities of the various partners and players that kind of were assuming the original design was what you'd go forward with?

Yes. The answer is yes. We have been closely collaborating with three representatives from Oxy on the integrated configuration. The reality is that this integrated product allows us to enter the market more quickly because there is a strong demand for gas turbines to meet immediate power requirements. However, the market also needs a credible path to decarbonization. Companies are now considering solutions that may not be directly linked to gas turbines. One distinct advantage of NET Power is the real industrial synergies between these gas turbines and our core cycle. We discussed not only the low-cost power we contribute to the cycle but also the heat integration and the shared infrastructure that will support the initial deployment of gas turbines, which we will also need for NET Power. This opens up a range of possibilities for future developments, whether it involves enhancing the PCC aspect or incorporating renewable energy into these complexes to further lower carbon intensity, particularly where affordable and reliable renewables are available. We are adopting a more comprehensive approach to clean, reliable power generation, thanks in part to the skills we have cultivated over recent years, particularly with NET Power technology. This expertise applies to more than just our current technology, allowing us to explore avenues for capturing value beyond merely constructing power plants and selling power licenses. It positions us to offer broader and more integrated solutions to help companies meet their immediate energy needs while supporting their long-term sustainability goals responsibly.

If I could just add on or build on what Danny just said, I mean, it's a short term and it's a long-term strategy. One of the biggest challenges and responsibilities we have to our shareholders and customers is to get the first unit built, but then also deploy a commerciable product for years to come. So we do have estimates for our maturation curve from the performance of the plant potentially improving and then also the cost of the plant on subsequent deployments of reducing. But we only get to that if we're able to build it and to accelerate the adoption. And this integration strategy allows us to meet the needs of customers today, which is looking at speed to power and a bit more cost sensitive than potentially they were from an emission standpoint a couple of years ago. It allows us to deploy a product that meets those needs but also allows us to maintain the long-term goal, which is having the lowest, cleanest, reliable power out there.

Our next question is from Betty Jiang with Barclays. Our next question is from Wade Suki with Capital One.

Just for clarity, I see all shave a little bit off the cost of SN1. I'm assuming, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the $1.6 billion to $1.9 billion does not include the simple cycle turbine. So I'm just wondering, is it safe to assume on this kind of standard configuration we have in the presentation that adds maybe $250 million, $300 million to the kind of total installed cost of SN1. Is that ballpark in the range?

Yes, to clarify, the $1.6 billion to $1.9 billion includes the NET Power plant but does not account for the additional 200 megawatts. That 200 megawatts, which we are confident about, is expected to increase the total installed cost of the plant by approximately $300 million to $400 million. Regarding the range of $1.6 billion to $1.9 billion, as our comments have indicated, the team has made significant progress in the last 30 to 90 days. We have another 60 to 90 days ahead of us to finalize these estimates. In the next 2 to 3 months, we should be able to provide a more precise estimate for the NET Power plant, and we will certainly include the additional gas turbines then.

Great. Helpful. Just switching gears a little bit. Does the design change and sort of the sequencing of these simple cycle gas turbines, does this alter the business model at all, I mean, in terms of, let's say, ownership interest, direct investments in plants? And maybe you could speak to the impact on the licensing model, how you see that changing or evolving, I guess, with the new model?

Yes. No, I mean, I think it only enhances our business model. And as we've contemplated and as I mentioned a few moments ago, the challenge of getting the first couple of plants built from the standpoint of developing those projects or even licensing, we're flexible to do either one. As we move forward with the integrated product, the gas turbines that we would most likely look to integrate typically fall right in line with our overall methodology at NET Power from a standard product approach, in a modular approach. So it fits in quite well. And from the standpoint of the gas turbines that we'd integrate, one of the other benefits of the NET Power cycle is that we truly are GT agnostic. So depending upon if a customer has an existing site, whether a customer has a line of sight to existing gas turbines, we're very flexible in being able to integrate that properly into our cycle, into our plant in order to achieve whatever the particular mission or requirements that the customer is trying to meet.

Our next question is from Betty Jiang with Barclays.

Sorry, I got disconnected earlier. I wanted to ask about the cost trajectory to get to that $100 per megawatt. Danny, in your prepared comments, you talked about needing the 10 to 20 deployments to get there. So what do you expect to learn? And how do you expect that cost trajectory to come down over time?

Yes. I think on previous calls, we discussed how crucial our starting point on the cost curve is because it helps us determine how much cost we can reduce as we scale up and modularize our operations, particularly when deploying in multipacks to meet the growing demand for larger-scale power generation. We believe that starting in the $1.6 billion to $1.9 billion range allows us to aim for a cost of around $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion for the stand-alone NET Power unit. If we can reach that over our first 10 to 20 plants, which seems feasible, this would bring the stand-alone NET Power cost down to about $100 per megawatt-hour LCOE under normal conditions. Additionally, for Project Permian, we're starting the first plant below that $100 mark, which sets us up well in terms of accommodating both the CI score and LCOE score that potential customers desire. The flexible nature of our cycle allows us to optimize the output of gas turbines between 0 and 200 megawatts to meet customer needs, whether their focus is primarily on affordability or environmental impact. For instance, if a customer prioritizes affordability over environmental concerns, we would install the full 200 megawatts of gas turbines to support auxiliary load, leading to further reductions in LCOE as we decrease our core CapEx. Conversely, if environmental impact becomes a priority, we could reduce the number of installed gas turbines to enhance the CI score. Our ultimate goal remains to provide clean, affordable, and reliable power at less than $100 per megawatt-hour, with a CapEx of $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion, and capturing over 97% of CO2 emissions. This end state will achieve a CI score of 20 grams per kilowatt-hour or lower, alongside an LCOE below $100. The integrated product allows us to shift our commercialization strategy so that instead of beginning with a high LCOE and low CI score, we start with a moderate CI score and low LCOE. The market currently values reliable and affordable power and desires a clear path toward decarbonization over time. Thus, we are developing a product and deployment strategy that aligns with current and future market needs.

Got it. No, that makes sense with that commercialization strategy. My follow-up is on the cash burn expectations. I think your incurred cost for 2Q was a bit higher than the actual cash outflow, and it was also a bit higher than where we were at. Could you just give us some color on where you expect your cash burn on a quarterly basis, maybe out through the next year or 2? And any dynamic around the committed cash and committed payment versus what's not yet paid out yet?

Yes. No, certainly. And we certainly have some flexibility around the cash spend. I think the big portion of our cash spend right now since we've sort of paused releasing long lead items for Project Permian, it's really 2 big items. It's just continuing to cover our G&A, which is sort of like at a $40 million a year just run rate. That's sort of stagnant at this point, and that will just continue to be sort of the expectation going forward. And then it's just continuing to LaPorte testing with Baker Hughes. And I would say that's the one piece that will just continue through '26 into '27 as we go into Phase 2, Phase 3 and Phase 4. We're still maintaining sort of where we expect cash to be at the end of the year, which is around $340 million. I think we sort of guided to that on the last earnings call. So we're going to be in a position where we're in a fairly good cash position going into the end of the year. I think the big focal area for us, Betty, it's probably less on like the cash burn and where we're sitting cash-wise. I think for us, it's more of now starting to get indications of interest from folks on signing up for offtake for Serial Number 1 because I think as we really think about the important sequence of things, that's being able to get commitments or at least indications of commitments on offtake for this new integrated product. And then being able to get those indications will enable us to be able to secure the financing so that we can actually move ahead with both the gas turbine piece, but also continue to forge ahead with the NET Power piece because I think the big thing for us is we want to make sure that we're spending our capital prudently. And I think prudent capital spend for us is we have visibility in the commercialization of the technology. And so I think we're going to learn a lot over the next 60 to 90 days as we really get out there in the market and talk to folks about this integrated product. Like I mentioned earlier on the call, this is really like the first time we're talking about this publicly. Certainly, we've had conversations with a small, small handful of folks about this potential integrated configuration. But really, coming out of today's call is really going to be the first time that we're going to be talking to folks about it, specifically around Project Permian. So we're going to learn a lot. And I think what we learned in terms of interest is really going to help us to be able to make sure that we're spending the boatload of cash we have in a really, really responsible manner.

If I could just sneak in one more. Like when would you expect the timeline around securing an offtake agreement?

I mean in an ideal world as soon as possible, right? But I think if we're really trying to hit certain like key milestones, which is we want to be in a position where we can get NET Power, our core cycle online by 2030, in the 2030 timeline. That really kind of means if you back up to when you actually have to start procuring these items, you're really talking about a mid-2026 kind of FID, end of '26 FID. So that's for the NET Power piece. I think the gas turbine piece is a really interesting one because if we're going to have an interconnect that's ready in early 2028, we're going to have the ability to try to FID the gas turbine piece in the next 60 to 120 days. So I would say like the gas turbine piece could come first. And I think the gas turbine piece can come first as long as there is this credible pathway of continuing to advance the technology with NET Power with the anticipation of getting to FID and constructing this plant to get it online in 2030. So we really want to get to work on the gas turbine piece. I think the gas turbine financing is probably a little bit different than NET Power if I'm being candid just because we're talking about reliable proven technology that will have performance expectations that people have come to expect from gas turbines. And just with the dynamic around that with what's happening in Texas, there's additional unique funding opportunities on the gas turbine piece that NET Power really just doesn't have access to today. Like, for example, the Texas Energy Fund. If we're not going to be co-locating the first batch of these gas turbines with a hyperscaler in a colocated mode, and we're going to be putting this power onto the ERCOT grid, these gas turbines could be eligible to participate in the next round of the Texas Energy Fund if they open it up to new capacity. And I hope they will because the Texas grid needs as much reliable capacity added to the system as it possibly can. And so these gas turbines could be eligible for test financing if it's something that we want to pursue. So there's just a lot of unique ways for us to be able to finance and structure around each of these 2 technologies independent of each other, knowing that collectively, they come together to create that complete solution.

There are no further questions at this time. I'd like to hand the floor back over to Danny Rice for any closing comments.

Okay. Thanks, operator, and thank you, everybody, for joining us today. The entire NET Power team has been working tirelessly to be able to come up with creative, unique, credible ways for us to be able to help the world achieve its near-term energy needs while also achieving its long-term environmental goals. That's been our mission from the beginning is to transform natural gas into the lowest cost form of clean firm power. That end state and vision is still intact today. I think this integrated product gives us a much more credible, realistic commercial pathway to get to that end state. And we're really excited to get back to work after we get off this call and come back to you all in another couple of months with additional progress. So I appreciate everybody's support. We can't do it without you, and we certainly can't do it with the hard team members that we have working tirelessly every day to create value for you all and deliver clean, affordable, reliable natural gas power. So thank you all again, and we'll see you next quarter.

This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.