NUSCALE POWER Corp Q1 FY2026 Earnings Call

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, NuScale President and Chief Executive Officer; and Ramsey Hamady, 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 promising newcomer, but as 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 two 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. NuScale 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 needed to secure a construction permit based on a preliminary safety analysis report, pour 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 IV designs rely on new fuels, coolants and safety concepts never before licensed 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 and 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 Modules 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 fuel that is not currently available at commercial scale within North America. When your project timelines 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 a 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 techniques 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 as 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 arid regions, where water is scarce, expensive or subject to competing demands from agriculture, municipal use or ecosystems. It allows deployment in places where traditional wet-cooled nuclear or other thermal plants would face severe restrictions or high cost. Dry air-cooled condensers cut water consumption by more than 90% compared to wet cooling towers. Many SMR vendors market dry cooling options to highlight water independence. NuScale remains one 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 a viable option where water is expensive or restricted. And finally, a decisive NuScale 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 EPZ, a methodology that limits the EPZ 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 NuScale-powered plants to be sited 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: unmatched siting flexibility, dramatically reduced transmission costs, faster deployment timelines and the ability to deliver clean, reliable, resilient power exactly where the demand is needed most. NuScale dramatically reduces emergency planning costs and slashes siting timelines, transforming what has been a major regulatory hurdle into 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, NuScale doesn't just participate in America's clean energy transition, it is uniquely positioned to lead it. While it was a quieter 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 ENTRA1 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 RoPower project in Doicesti, Romania, where Nuclearelectrica shareholders voted to advance the project. We continue to strengthen our critical supply chain partnerships, particularly our fuel supplier Framatome and manufacturing partner, Doosan Enerbility. 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 ENTRA1 for up to 6 gigawatts of safe, reliable 24/7 baseload energy to help power growing demand in a seven-state service territory, utilizing NuScale SMR technology. ENTRA1 has updated us that discussions with TVA are advancing well toward a definitive PPA. We remain highly encouraged by the progress and the strategic alignment between ENTRA1, TVA and NuScale as we work to deliver this game-changing clean energy solution. Separately, two recent key international announcements indicate a strong desire to facilitate foreign investment in U.S. strategic interests, such as the TVA project. The first is the $550 billion U.S.-Japan framework agreement announced last year, in which ENTRA1 was the only developer named. And the second, and more recent, announcement by South Korea's National Assembly to facilitate $350 billion in 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 two countries and reducing tariffs. NuScale remains bullish about the TVA-ENTRA1 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 Doicesti SMR plant project. This was a step in the right direction as the project can now seek financing to conduct further feasibility studies and site-specific design work prior to construction moving forward. As a reminder, Fluor Corporation serves as the primary contractor, leading overall engineering and procurement construction delivery with RoPower, the project owner and Fluor's client. NuScale in turn serves as a subcontractor to Fluor providing SMR technology, design support and licensing expertise to the project. Should pre-EPC financing be secured, the next phase of the project is expected to last approximately 15 months. Project stakeholders, RoPower, Fluor, 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 with contractually secured supplier partnerships, strategic long-lead material positioning, and aligned manufacturing capacity across our critical components. Our approach is anchored in a structured readiness framework with recurring cross-functional supplier reviews to actively manage risk, validate mitigation actions and ensure alignment with project execution requirements. NuScale is not building a conventional product or supply chain. We are building a transformative deployment model for nuclear technology under intense scrutiny with high expectations and on timelines 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 NuScale 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 multi-sourcing 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 in active production by Doosan Enerbility, marking continued progression from design into manufacturing execution. Collectively, these actions materially derisk the supply chain, increase schedule confidence and position NuScale 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 and hard-to-abate industrial sectors. During the first quarter, our team actively participated in five 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 NuScale-generated high-temperature steam is rapidly moving from concept to commercial reality. This is strategically important. Industrial process heat is a true national security imperative as it powers critical supply chains, strengthens economic resilience, supports defense manufacturing and advances energy independence. NuScale 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 desalination just to name a few. Sectors that together represent hundreds of billions in economic activity. Before turning the call over to Ramsey Hamady, our Chief Financial Officer, I want to talk about the opening of a NuScale operations center in Houston. On April 29, we proudly opened our new NuScale operations center in Houston's prestigious 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. NuScale's overall liquidity stood at $1 billion at March 31, 2026, and increased to over $1.2 billion by early May of 2026. Our strong liquidity enables NuScale 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 three-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 three 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 Fluor announced that they had completed the sale of their remaining NuScale shares, removing a significant overhang on our equity. Fluor 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?

(instructions to participants) Your first question comes from the line of Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital.

John, 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 Pavlov's dogs here, waiting for the bell to ring. 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 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 highly encouraged by TVA's strong pro-nuclear stance yesterday from Mike Skaggs, the Interim CEO. He again affirmed TVA as a very pro-nuclear organization and highlighted interest in nuclear technologies. As it relates to TVA, we've got 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 megawatts 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, we think 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 employs light water reactor technology using readily available low enriched uranium. As far as the low enriched uranium forecast for the long term looks, it 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, it's through Russia. So with that said, what we see is on the long-term forecast for low enriched uranium is not a risky area. It's not a bottleneck unlike 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 as part of the due diligence process, I asked Dr. Jose Reyes why he stayed with light water. Why not thorium? Why not other approaches? He looked at me and he said, 'John, all the regulators in the world know light water.' He said 'I worked with the NRC, the NRC regulators know light water.' And when we entered into agreements, as Carl stated, the fuel supply from Framatome, 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 includes Richland, Washington in the U.S., Lingen in Germany, and also 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 are requirements that try to maintain as much U.S. content as possible. However, there are certain aspects where the industry fell short over the years and large-scale forgings, for example, is one of those cases. 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 are 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 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 NRC 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. The Part 53 pathway was not available when we first pursued 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 this actually means. Primarily, it relies on probabilistic analysis to go forward. So we've spoken to the NRC about where we can take credit from Part 53 and apply it to where we are already way down the road with Part 52. So we are looking at, as John mentioned, early Part 52 pathway enhancements which have been recently deployed with Part 53 opportunities. We will continue to have 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 months to two 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 call 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, and I know you're part of it and it's more ENTRA1, but just curious how do customers view it? I mean, do 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, whether process companies or general utilities, the feedback we normally get is that process companies generally don't want to own a nuclear asset. What they want is reliable, resilient clean power. And they want it now. We're in discussions with these companies. We still believe we're significant years ahead of others, and I want everybody to be successful. I'd like to see 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 52 and Part 50 risk, they fully get it. And those are the ones that collectively with ENTRA1 were 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. But I do believe that the customers that are on a very serious level of engagement truly appreciate and recognize where we are.

Right. And then just sticking with that as my follow-up, I mean, I would assume that the supply chain work is 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 asked a great question on supply chain because many of our suppliers are not only strategic partners but also investors. As I often said, we've been in the process of ordering long lead items for years now. It takes years for these forges to get developed. If you haven't ordered long lead items, you're not much further behind the curve. One thing Carl and his team did was convene a supplier summit recently.

Just to build on that question, a lot of our suppliers are very nuclear savvy as well. They are aware of the deployment opportunities with low enriched uranium and light water reactor technology. That's not to say they don't believe in other technologies around advanced reactors, but they do spend a lot of their time on what they see as near-term deployable. These suppliers are very smart in that way, and they put a lot of priority on the current SMR supplier base. Recently, at our NuScale supplier working group meeting summit in Houston, we had over 120 to 130 people at the summit, 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 demonstrated their interest and enthusiasm due to all the activity that's going on with ourselves and our business development partner ENTRA1.

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

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

Good question. We have ongoing meetings every week with the Department of Energy, RoPower, Nuclearelectrica, Fluor and others, discussing the status of the project. We continue to build out our supply chain. We are, as I stated before, a subcontractor to Fluor Corporation. Fluor is still in negotiations of what they call pre-EPC. As we are aware today, those discussions are still ongoing.

Got it. And as my follow-up, ENTRA1 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. Are you asking about our funding obligations in relation to RoPower or in relation to projects in general or TVA?

No. TVA. So if ENTRA1, it sounds like they're in the market to raise capital. Should they do that depending on the size, does that at all reduce or 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. For ENTRA1 to be, for example, named in the U.S.-Japan framework trade agreement with significant earmarked funding, that sort of funding can really move the needle for a project and subsequently move the needle for NuScale. The funding at the project level though is completely separate from any of the PMA payments. PMA payments are partnership milestone agreement payments. Those come with, for example, the term sheet, which we already did, and 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 NuScale-powered power plants.

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

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

Moses, this is Ramsey Hamady. So it could be. TVA requires financing. ENTRA1 is in 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. Rest assured, ENTRA1 is working from all available sources of financing to get this across the line.

This is John. Public domain information shows a large component of that $550 billion through the U.S.-Japan framework was slated for energy, including SMRs. And then most recently, last week, we met with the Korean government on this potential $350 billion. A significant piece of that is towards investment in energy projects, including SMRs into the United States. We've been in discussions with both. We met with Korea last week and we're pretty excited about it. Again, it's part of this whole groundswell we're seeing around 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 where something is going to break soon.

I think it's also important to acknowledge that NuScale historically has had very strong relationships with both the Koreans and Japanese as equity investors and supply chain partners, both through IHI and through Doosan. The relationships there are long-standing, deep and well established. While they're not the only source of financing, I think they are a strong potential source of financing for projects.

Got it. Very helpful. And can you provide more detail on the fuel fabrication strategy with Framatome? Our understanding is there are 444 assemblies on notice with Framatome. Is that sufficient for about 12 module deployments? Is there an annualized run rate or capacity you can provide there? Or is it more flexible from Framatome in terms of meeting 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 be fuel-ready in several years. We've gotten ahead of it. You probably saw the announcement that we will be ready to support the market's needs. As far as capacity, Framatome has multiple facilities globally. Part of that announcement was to inform the market that we have the 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, ENTRA1, and based on what Framatome's capabilities are, we don't see any bottlenecks or shortcomings because we got ahead of it early. In speaking with Framatome, the one thing they asked us to ensure is that we keep them informed on what's going on with the market and with our customer base 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.

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

We're hopeful that TVA can come across the line at some point later this year. We believe that's a strong possibility. Our revenue stream this year — so if TVA comes across the line with, for example, a PPA, we anticipate that we will have site-specific services, so pre-OEM services. If we look at RoPower as an example, we had technology licensing, pre-FEED, and FEED Phase 2. All in with RoPower, we realized about $8 million of revenue. That's pre an OEM contract. That's over 2024 and 2025. Those were pre an OEM contract. We would anticipate something potentially in that scale once we get to a PPA with or once ENTRA1 gets a PPA with TVA.

Great. And I wanted to kind of think through the potential reduction in the cash burn. I noticed 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 the operating cash flow drag before working capital changes was 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?

Our accounts payable was down. That's correct. But it was principally because we recognized 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 and you saw that reflected in our cash flow statement. Without getting into the 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, are pre-revenue companies focused on a technology which to this point has not yet been deployed. We've positioned ourselves with a fortress balance sheet because we don't know what's around the corner. I hope we won't be talking in terms of burn rate by the end of this year and I hope to be operationally cash flow positive by the end of this year. That said, this quarter was a low-revenue quarter compared to Q1 2025 because in Q1 2025 we had revenues associated with RoPower. OpEx was about $55 million this quarter. We anticipate OpEx will go up as we near commercialization because we're focused on supply chain readiness, design finalization and getting ready to deliver this product. As we focus on that, we'll spend a little more, but 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 think about what looks like per NPM. We expect this to change from first-of-the-kind to nth-of-the-kind, especially now that you've started more procurement efforts.

Leanne, sorry, you were breaking up pretty bad. Can you repeat the question?

Sorry about that. Can you hear me now? I was hoping you could help us think about what CapEx should look like per NuScale Power Module and how we can expect that to change from first-of-a-kind to nth-of-a-kind, and maybe any sort of early indications on dollars per kilowatt hour as well would be great.

No, Leanne, I don't think we can provide guidance. On CapEx per NPM, I think you're referring to COGS versus CapEx and we're not providing guidance on the cost of building an NPM, and we're not providing guidance on the maturation of those costs from first-of-a-kind to nth-of-a-kind. It's a little bit early for us to provide that sort of guidance. And on dollar per kilowatt hour, we've really gone away from that metric. We don't provide guidance on that. It's too fuzzy to provide guidance on dollar per kilowatt hour, and plus we don't produce the electrons. We sell NPMs.

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

I think the RoPower example is illustrative. In RoPower we had technology licensing revenues along with pre-FEED and FEED Phase 2. In that context, we saw about $8 million worth of revenue on those pre-services. We can anticipate something similar in relation to ENTRA1 post-signing of a PPA with TVA. There could be licensing work as well and COLA work, but the RoPower example is a good indicator of what we may anticipate.

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

I appreciate the regulatory review. It's been a while covering you guys. There's been a lot of talk about a PPA with TVA. I just want to understand how we should think about the next 12 months. What does progress look like on that? Some of the things TVA has done with other nuclear development programs seem incremental. How should we think about timelines and key mileposts on advancing the TVA project in the next 12 months?

I think it's a different scenario. PPAs are somewhat new to the nuclear industry and the process of how things move forward on a project perspective. As we see it, ENTRA1 is finalizing their deal. Once that's done, the sites have been identified and many of those sites have some level of preparation already progressed. We would see us going into the COLA activities, into pre-FEED activities and supporting the supply chain for ENTRA1. It's different than other sites that may not be as mature or are not working with reactor suppliers that are as advanced. We're ready to go and deploy. So once their deals are secured, we can start real activity that is COLA-driven.

And we're all driven to move quickly. Once these PPAs are finalized and put in place, we have been working diligently on our OEM contract. It's in everyone's interest that as soon as these PPAs are defined, we quickly move into our OEM contract and do the COLA work.

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

Can you talk about other customers, other than TVA or RoPower, that you or ENTRA1 may be talking to? Is it fair to assume the focus is squarely on these two potential opportunities? And when you talk to TVA and RoPower and other customers, do tariffs and logistics costs and higher commodity prices come up a lot, changing the economics of building a reactor? Is that somewhat of a hold-up? Are you talking to customers other than TVA and RoPower?

TVA is an important opportunity and it's currently our primary focus. However, it's not the only one — there are other engagements ongoing with potential offtakers and customers across different regions and segments. ENTRA1 has a deep pipeline of projects and we're not tied to just one. On the second part of your question, tariffs and commodity prices affect everyone. Nuclear project decisions are long-term and have less to do with short-term swings and more to do with long-term needs, especially when those short-term swings are macro in nature and not just focused on the nuclear industry.

A couple of weeks ago we attended CERAWeek and of the many years I've been attending, I've never seen so much focus on nuclear across the board — international, global and U.S. If you look at the markets we've talked about over the years, they haven't gone away. We're likely to see a significant decline in coal-fired plants by the end of this decade. Hyperscalers demand energy and want behind-the-meter solutions. The demand pull we're seeing is unlike anything I've ever seen. It's been a long cycle, but I believe we're finally starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. All these technologies are going to benefit from increased government support for energy security and supply. We're bullish on the market and think the opportunity is near term.

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

Apologies if some of this is redundant. Given some of your comments, Ramsey, a lot of the focus is on the PPA with TVA and you hinted it could happen later this year. Can you walk us through what happens next? When does an equipment OEM offtake get finalized? Is that in conjunction with the PPA or a few quarters later? You also mentioned pre-FEED revenue. There was no mention about deposits. Is that still on the table? Because that could be important for making the business cash flow neutral to positive, which you mentioned could be an ambition later this year. I'm trying to understand sequencing around those elements.

Let me start with the OEM. We've been working diligently on the structure of the OEM. We have to wait for the definitization of the PPA, but it's in everyone's interest that as soon as these PPAs are put in place we can quickly negotiate and finalize our OEM. We're hoping that can happen near term once the PPA is done.

Once we have the PPA, what can we expect? As I referenced with RoPower, we did pre-FEED, FEED Phase 2 and technology licensing and realized about $8 million in revenues. On top of that you could add COLA work which we can anticipate to see post-PPA and not necessarily tied to having an OEM because that's work that needs to be pushed forward. On deposits, within the OEM contract we would expect staged payments over time. We're actively structuring an OEM agreement now. The OEM is essentially a pass-through in terms of funds coming from the buyer to our supply chain, Doosan and others, to pay for production of the NPMs. We anticipate the OEM to be a cash-positive event for NuScale. There are payments to go out under the PMA, but ultimately we anticipate payments coming in that more than offset that. The net is expected to be cash flow positive in the context of those milestone payments and OEM payments.

Last one for me: 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 milestone that's been made upon signing the PPA, the initial milestone payment? What's the scale you're referencing in terms of being cash flow positive once you hit the OEM agreement?

I was referring to Milestone 3 under the PMA and what we expect to pay out under Milestone 3 versus what we expect to take in. The total milestone payments overall are recoverable and can be recouped over the course of delivering the NPMs and the payments that come in. In that particular statement I was referring to that moment in time. OEM payments are due under PMA, and when amounts come in as a first payment under an OEM and netted against payments we expect to make, we anticipate being cash flow positive at that juncture.

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

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

The next phases of the project — to back up a bit — we finished the FEED in November. We are a subcontractor to Fluor Corporation and Fluor is now pulling together the next phases, which is what they call a pre-EPC approach. The lion's share of that will most likely go to Fluor and we'll have a subcomponent. They're still working through what that scope actually is. Until they finalize that, we're not going to know exactly what kind of revenue streams we'll pull in for the pre-EPC 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 was to 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. The team and I have been hard at work for nearly two decades with one clear mission: help power the global energy transition by delivering safe, scalable and reliable energy. 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.