NuScale Power Q2 2026 Earnings Call - Commercial Deployment Locked Behind Definitive PPA Signings

Operator: Good afternoon, 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.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: 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 open the phone lines for questions. This afternoon, we posted supplemental slides to our investor relations website. As reflected in the safe harbor statement from Slide 2, the information set forth in the presentation, discussed during the course of our remarks in 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 31st, 2025, to our subsequent SEC filings. I will now turn the call over to John Hopkins.

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: 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 off-taker, 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, we need it on a timeline that actually maps to our business. That urgency is real, it is growing. What I want to address today is what separates a company that can meet that urgency from one that cannot. The answer to that question is not branding or ambition, it is readiness.

Readiness in this industry is a function of years of deliberate work that does not generate headlines, 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, 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 two 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 two 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 about to describe, that combination along with engineering is what commercial readiness actually means. No other company in this space has all four. NuScale’s role in an ENTRA1 Energy plant is that of technology systems integrator and engineer of record. We are responsible for 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 modular 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 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 instruments and control systems for our NuScale Power Modules. These three partners are an example of the depth of our supply chain ecosystem.

Doosan Enerbility on major portions of the modules, Framatome on fuel, Paragon Energy Solutions on safety control systems. 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 the 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 shareholders vote to advance the RoPower project in Doicești, Romania, which will deploy six NuScale Power Modules at a former coal plant site and represents the most advanced SMR effort in Europe.

Let me now turn to another area where NuScale is building lasting 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 equivalents, and investments. Our cash position reflects a conservative approach to liquidity as we anticipate near-term commercial deployment. I’ll turn the call over to Ramsey.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Thank you, John. Good afternoon. Our financial results are available in our filings, my focus will be on explaining major line items, which can be found on slide seven. NuScale reported revenue of $0.1 million for the three months ended June 30th, 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 two 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 equivalents, and investments, an increase of $900 million since March 31st, 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 de-risk the cost structure of our first projects. When we invest in Framatome’s fuel design, as a example, we remove a bottleneck in the critical path. On slide eight, you’ll find a capitalization summary. With that, thank you again for joining us today. We will now take your questions. Operator, please go ahead.

Operator: We will now begin the question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one to raise your hand and join the queue. To withdraw your question, press star one again. We ask that you pick up your handset when asking a question to allow for optimum sound quality. If you’re muted locally, please remember to unmute your device. Please stand by now while we compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Eric Stine with Craig-Hallum Capital Group. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Luke, Analyst, Craig-Hallum Capital Group: Hey, this is Luke on for Eric. Thanks for taking our question. First one here. Do the sizable financial and trade commitments from Japan and South Korea play into the timeline at all for converting TBA into the current PPAs? How are you thinking about those in the equation here?

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Hi, 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

I stress that NuScale builds reactors. Our commercial partner, ENTRA1, builds plants. I know they have a great relationship with the Japanese, with the Koreans, as do we. We remain hopeful. I wouldn’t say that the PPA or the capital structure is dependent upon that cash. I think it would benefit, but it’s not dependent.

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: Do remember that, as stated, a significant piece of these investments is slated for energy projects in the U.S., which also includes SMRs.

Luke, Analyst, Craig-Hallum Capital Group: Understood. Thanks. 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? Are they seeing 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? Thanks.

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: We continue dialogue with hyperscalers, data centers. Our focus right now has been for readiness for TVA when the announcement gets made. Others that we talk to, and I think you’d 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 as quickly. It’s really the timing of the customer and when they need their energy, and we’re ready to enter into discussions at any time.

Luke, Analyst, Craig-Hallum Capital Group: All right. Thanks for the color. I’ll turn it over.

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital. Your line is open.

Nate Pendleton, Analyst, Texas Capital: Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. 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 three. 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? Does that sit with design, commercial structure, or supply chains?

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: I think we’re in a position right now. Over the last 10 years, we’ve been working steadily to get ready for deployment, we are near-term deployable. I commented about over 60 suppliers, which half of them we have asset services agreement. We have 12 modules, of which a lot of them are currently in production, which are long lead items, we’ve been working on those over a two-year period. If I look at the landscape moving forward, we’re ready to deploy now, as I commented earlier. If you look future state, nothing stays static. We’ll continue to promote this project and look at ways to improve efficiencies and costs. We feel like we’re in a very good position.

Nate Pendleton, Analyst, Texas Capital: Good deal.

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: Yeah.

Nate Pendleton, Analyst, Texas Capital: Maybe shifting gears a little bit. I wanted to touch on the process heat opportunity. From recent disclosures, I think mostly it’s 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 six configurations, or will this be a distinct product? Perhaps 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?

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: Well, José has been out promoting, and in fact, he spoke this year a week at the Petrochemical Conference. He’s speaking here coming up again. 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. We think we’re in a very good position. Again, compounded with an Emergency Planning Zone. If you look 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 intro and 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 could build, own, and probably have somebody operate the plant. It 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.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of George Gianarikas with Canaccord Genuity. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

George Gianarikas, Analyst, Canaccord Genuity: Hi, everyone. Thank you for taking my questions. TVA made a few disclosures and I think some media comments today regarding their nuclear roadmap. 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. Thank you.

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: Hey, 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, and 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.

George Gianarikas, Analyst, Canaccord Genuity: Thank you. One more question, just a little bit of a minutiae item. I noticed that on your balance sheet, the investments increased significantly. I haven’t gone through your queue yet. Can you just talk about what compelled that to move up to $800 million relative to last quarter? Thank you.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Hi, George, this is Ramsey. How are you doing?

George Gianarikas, Analyst, Canaccord Genuity: Good. How are you?

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Good. This is really just a treasury strategy. As we bolster our balance sheet, we kind of pull away from this idea of traditional startup burn rate and runway and more about cash allocation and long-term planning. That’s what that $1.9 billion gives us, the ability to plan long-term. It gives us optionality. As you have that amount of cash on the balance sheet, you tend to look into longer-term instruments. When I say treasury strategy, I’ll high grade, but you look at longer-term instruments, so there’s really concentration on the balance sheet, but it’s all cash and cash-like investments.

George Gianarikas, Analyst, Canaccord Genuity: Great. Thanks, guys.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Thank you.

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Marc Bianchi with TD Cowen. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Esteban, Analyst, TD Cowen: How’s it going? This is Esteban.

Operator: Hello.

Esteban, Analyst, TD Cowen: On the line for Marc. Thanks for taking the question. I wanted to ask on the Romania project. I believe RoPower earlier this year had some new contingencies around an FID, including a proposal on sort of the purchase cadence of the Power Modules. I think there’s 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?

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: Yeah, I could probably, this is John speaking. I appreciate the question. As you know, we’re a subcontractor to Fluor Corporation, who is a prime contractor, and we completed successfully the front-end engineering design. There’s 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. We’re ready to go. We’re just waiting on the green light to finalize our contract agreements. 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.

Esteban, Analyst, TD Cowen: Okay. Thank you. My follow-up is on the Combined Operating License Application. I know you had already completed a meaningful amount of work there on the COLA from the previous CFPP project. I think you’re still engaged with the NRC with that. I just wanted to get a little bit more color on how much of that COLA is standardized and can be carried over to another U.S. project. Roughly how much time and probably regulatory costs that could save.

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: 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, 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. Again, about 60% of that we can move over to this next project.

Esteban, Analyst, TD Cowen: Okay, good. Thank you. I’ll send it back.

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald. Your line is open. Go ahead.

Drew Nordquist, Analyst, Cantor Fitzgerald: This is Drew Nordquist on the line for Derek. Thank you guys for taking questions. 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?

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: Actually, 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. 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.

Drew Nordquist, Analyst, Cantor Fitzgerald: All right. Thank you. I’ll turn it over.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Greg Lewis with BTIG. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Greg Lewis, Analyst, BTIG: Yeah. Hey, thank you, and good afternoon, and thanks for taking my question. 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. Just kind of clear up 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 curious around that.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Sure. Thank you for the question. Let’s talk about a few ideas. We did bolster our cash. $1.9 billion reflects a strong liquidity position. It reflects a conservative approach to liquidity. 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. We took the opportunity last quarter to bolster our liquidity and get 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 startup metrics. We’ve diverged from burn rates, and we provide optionality, and now we think about capital allocation.

As I think about capital allocation for a company that’s engaging production, 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 at the cost we say we’re going to deliver at. That’s the downside of the change. When do we expect that the 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, so we’re preparing for it. We’re investing in supply chain. We’re investing in design finalization. We’re investing in fuel systems.

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. I think it’s a great position for us to be in.

Greg Lewis, Analyst, BTIG: Okay. 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 cost associated with those moving to commercialization. Is that things that we’re starting to look at now, or is it more getting everything in ready mode for when we eventually get the green light from our first commercial partner?

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: No.

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: I’m sorry, go ahead. No, 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 they give us very competitive rates. As an OEM, about maybe 30-plus% is going to be our cost, then the rest is going to be the EPC and other contractors. I believe we have a very good handle with what our suppliers are offering us in terms of being in on a competitive basis. The bottom line, they have to prove competitiveness, so it’s not open-ended.

Greg Lewis, Analyst, BTIG: Thank you very much.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Craig Shere, Analyst, Tuohy Brothers: Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. First, you sound very confident about pending first-of-a-kind customer FIDs, presumably around TDA. 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?

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: 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. 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 just becomes a little bit problematic. As soon as we can, as soon as we’re confident, we’ll start to provide guidance. I think you, as analysts, will have a better construct, come out with your price targets and understand the value that we’re creating within our business for our shareholders.

Craig Shere, Analyst, Tuohy Brothers: Understood. 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 pre-ordered these 12 modules. Obviously we’re getting other announcements that are more immediate and are not SMRs, right? We’re getting announcements of behind-the-meter CT projects

Tyler Visserida, Analyst, Goldman Sachs: For 18 months deployment, maybe 3-4 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? Is there a gap on the second project since you don’t have that on order today? Given your great liquidity position, is that a reason to put more on order today or in the near future?

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: Our position right now, I just want to get the first module up and running to showcase. Remember, these are redundant systems. When 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 done modules into the factory, and we’ll erect them one at a time. Once the first one or first two are up and running, they’re operational, we bring the second one in, and we bring the third one in. 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. With the magnitude of what we’re talking about with TVA, anywhere from 6-8 gigawatts, it’s massive.

It’s a massive undertaking, it’s one project at a time.

Tyler Visserida, Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Any thoughts on the first 12 modules being online given the progress you have there?

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: 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. Construction time frames are within that window, we believe, within a 40-month window for construction. Pouring the concrete to mechanical completion.

Tyler Visserida, Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Great. Thank you.

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: Hopefully with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 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 contractors or get technologies to move quicker on the licensing front. We’re hoping maybe what would typically take a two-year, it could be reduced significantly.

Tyler Visserida, Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Understood. Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Ellen Page with Truist. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Ellen Page, Analyst, Truist: Hi. Thanks for the question. 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? How do we think about the real power progression going forward, under that new price agreement? Any more color you can provide would be great.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Yeah. I don’t think the negative revenue number is really indicative of some ongoing trend with growth power, with our margins there. That was an adjustment. What you really saw is we had worked with Fluor related to FEED two in the prior quarter. There are two prior quarters, pardon me, or in the same quarter period in the prior year, which we didn’t have this year. 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. We’re talking about pretty small numbers on a pretty small basis. I wouldn’t read much into that.

Ellen Page, Analyst, Truist: Okay, great.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Yeah.

Ellen Page, Analyst, Truist: Maybe just on TVA, is there any milestones in particular or next steps you can call out ahead of a PPA? We’re just kind of waiting for those negotiations to be complete?

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: I think, as I stated in the comments, that talks are progressing. We’re very active with ENTRA1 and communications on a daily basis. Our Chief Commercial Officer is involved with it again on a daily basis. We’re in a mode right now that as soon as these PPAs are definitized, we’re ready to move. By move, I mean enter into, start to call a position, start the front-end engineering design, and initiate the OEM contracts or negotiations.

Ellen Page, Analyst, Truist: Great. Thanks.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Tyler Visserida, Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Hey, guys. This is Tyler Visserida for Brian. Thanks for taking our question. There’s been a lot of focus on TVA, curious if you can discuss any other pipeline opportunities. 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?

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: I’ll just say, as I said earlier, we’re in a lot of discussions with the hyperscalers, with the governments with international, our focus right now is to try to get these working with ENTRA1 to get TVA across the goal line. As you know, everybody needs energy. We were 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.

Tyler Visserida, Analyst, Goldman Sachs: All right. That’s it from us. Thank you.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Soundarya Iyer with B. Riley Securities. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Soundarya Iyer, Analyst, B. Riley Securities: Thank you, team. 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?

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: I think we’re in pretty good shape. As I said, the real long lead items are forgings, which are in production currently. They’ve been in production for the last two 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. I think, again, I don’t see any problems with being able to respond. As I said, we’re good to go.

Soundarya Iyer, Analyst, B. Riley Securities: Yeah, that’s good to hear. Thank you. One more. Following up on that Romanian project, RoPower, could that trigger any revenue generating services in 2026? Should we think about it in 2027 and beyond?

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: We certainly hope so. 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. If we get the contract in place, yes, there’ll be revenue next year.

Soundarya Iyer, Analyst, B. Riley Securities: That’s great. Thank you. I’ll turn it over.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Thank you so much.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Vikram Bagri with Citigroup. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Vikram Bagri, Analyst, Citigroup: Hey, guys. This is Vik. Thanks for taking the question. 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, any color or range would be helpful and some of the key drivers on the incremental spend. Thanks.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Yeah, sure. Hi, this is Graham Hanley. I don’t want to give too much of guidance on future OpEx. I don’t think our position should do that, we generally don’t give guidance yet. I will look to the past 10 quarters. Starting from the beginning of 2004 right through the end of 2005, this management team kept OpEx within somewhere around a two or three million dollar band between $41 million and $44 million per quarter. We were deliberate, we were targeted, we executed, and we were consistent. Over the past two quarters, as we moved, we had worked with RoPower originally back in 2005. As we got to 2006, some of that work went away. We kept those same engineers. They went from the cost of goods sold line down to OpEx. We saw a bit of a bump up in OpEx because we need those people.

They’re executing the projects, we expect to continue executing the projects in the near future. We kept those people. You saw a bump up in OpEx. Again, our OpEx was within a million or so this past quarter as it was within Q1. Without commenting or providing guidance, I think the lesson to take away is that management’s deliberate. We’re precise. We control OpEx. We’re active on it. What we won’t do, which I think may put the heart of some of your question, is allow OpEx creep to come up and start to impact our liquidity. I would just take the lesson away that we’re pretty conservative and we’re pretty well-focused and disciplined here. Model on valuation, I think that’s the best we’re going to get.

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

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power: Yeah. Thank you, operator. Again, thanks everyone for attending. As we heard throughout these Q&A, we get questions about when is NuScale moving from potential to proven, it’s a fair question. We’re 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’s waiting for definitive agreements, and once they’re in place, we’re ready to move. I’m looking forward to the next session we all get together, again, thanks for joining us today.

Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer, NuScale Power: Thanks, everyone.

Operator: This concludes today’s call. Thank you all for attending. You may now disconnect.