Thank you, operator. Joining me today is John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of NuScale.

We will begin by providing an update on our business, followed by a discussion of our financial results. We will then open the phone lines for questions.

This afternoon, we posted supplemental slides to our Investor Relations website. As reflected in the Safe Harbor statement on slide 2, the information set forth in the presentation and discussed during the course of our remarks and the subsequent Q&A session includes forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views of existing trends and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties.

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

Thank you, Ramsey. I want to start with a simple observation about where the market stands now.

Demand for reliable, carbon-free power is not building slowly. It is accelerating.

Every major hyperscaler, every large industrial offtaker, every utility with an eye on the next decade is now engaged in some version of the same conversation. We need power now, we need it to be clean, and we need it on a timeline that actually maps to our business.

That urgency is real, and it is growing. What I want to address today is what separates a company that can meet that urgency from one that cannot, because the answer to that question is not branding or ambition, it is readiness.

Readiness in this industry is a function of years of deliberate work, work that does not generate headlines, but that determines, more than anything else, whether a nuclear project gets built on time and on budget or does not get built at all. That distinction is what I want to focus on today.

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

When that project started, the detailed design was not in an advanced state of completion. Significant engineering decisions were still being made on active construction sites.

That result contributed to years of delays and billions in cost overruns. This is not a story about nuclear being hard to build.

It is a story about what happens when you start construction without a mature, detailed design. NuScale has spent years deliberately applying the hard lessons of past large-scale nuclear projects.

We 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 US 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 I'm 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 the NuScale power modules and services.

Supporting delivery of the NuScale power module, we have assembled a network of more than 60 specialized suppliers. Each supplier brings deep domain expertise to a specific system: fuel, safety and instrumentation and controls, valves, cranes, and module handling.

Each holds detailed design responsibility for their own scope, with NuScale providing the overall integration. Here's where we stand.

The detailed design for the critical path components of our modules, the systems that govern schedule and cost, is mature. We've already negotiated supply agreements with more than half of our 60-plus supplier relationships, many of whom we believe to be best-in-class.

This means when we execute an OEM, many of our suppliers will already have designed, scale-tested, and in some cases began production of components. Taken together, this shortens the path to actual power generation not by months, but by years, and supports certainty of execution.

Let me highlight a few of our suppliers. Doosan Enerbility is one of the world's foremost manufacturers of heavy nuclear components.

They are our strategic partner on the major components of our modules, the heavy forgings at the heart of every NuScale power module. What you see on this slide are photographs taken at Doosan's facilities in South Korea, actual components in active production for NuScale power modules.

Framatome is one of the world's leading nuclear fuel companies. Fuel design has a long lead time, years, not months.

Rather than wait for a signed customer contract before beginning that work, we entered into a dedicated agreement with Framatome to complete the fuel design. Our fuel supply will be ready as customers come online.

This quarter, we announced that Paragon has been awarded a contract to complete the final design development of the safety instrumentation and control systems for our NuScale power modules. These three partners are examples of the depth of our supply chain ecosystem: Doosan on major portions of the modules, Framatome on fuel, Paragon on safety control systems.

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 US 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 Doicesti, Romania, which will deploy six NuScale power modules at a former coal plant site and represents the most advanced SMR effort in Europe. Finally, let me now turn to another area where NuScale is building 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, cash equivalents, and investments.

Our cash position reflects a conservative approach to liquidity as we anticipate near-term commercial deployment. Now, I'll turn the call over to Ramsey.

Thank you, John. Good afternoon.

Our financial results are available in our filings, my focus will be on explaining major line items, which can be found on slide 7. NuScale reported revenue of $0.1 million for the 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 2 work in support of the RoPower project. That scope had no comparable activity in the current quarter.

As project activity advances, we expect both our product and services revenue to grow. We closed Q2 with approximately $1.9 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and investments, an increase of $900 million since March 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 an example, we remove a bottleneck from the critical path. Finally, on slide 8, 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.

Hey, this is Luca for Eric. Thanks for taking our questions.

First one here, did the sizable financial and trade commitments from Japan and South Korea play into the timeline at all for converting TVA into a firm PPA? How are you thinking about those moving parts here?

Hi, this is Ramsey Hamady, CFO. Look, I think those announcements and the ideas behind them are very promising.

I don't know that that's built into the 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 and 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.

Do remember that, as stated, a significant piece of these investments is slated for energy projects in the US, which also includes SMRs.

Understood. Thanks.

For our second question here, could 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.

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've recognized 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.

All right. Thanks for the color.

I'll turn it over.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions.

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

Does that sit with design, commercial structure, or supply chains?

I think we're in a position right now. For the last 8 years, we've been working steadily to get ready for deployment, and we are near-term deployable.

I commented about over 60 suppliers, which half of them we have master services agreements. We have 12 product We have 12 modules, which a lot of them are currently in production, which are long-lead items, and we've been working on those over a 2-year period.

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, but we feel like we're in a very good position.

Good deal.

Then

maybe shifting gears a little bit, I wanted to touch on the process heat opportunity. From recent disclosures, I think most recently a blog post from Dr.

Reyes, the high-temperature steam potential seems really encouraging. Do you expect these applications to use the standard VOYGR-12 or 6 configurations, or will this be a distinct product?

Then 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?

Jose has been out promoting, and in fact he spoke at CERAWeek at the petrochemical conference. He's speaking here coming up again on we've 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 at what these process companies are looking for, the further you are from a given site, the end user, it dissipates.

Having the approval of emergency planning zone, we're right up next to the end user. We can provide process heat, we can provide electricity.

The ENTRA1 model also supports the fact if you go to an area like Baytown or Corpus or anywhere we have a high density of process companies, we can build, own, and probably have somebody operate the plant, could be Entergy or whomever, that allows us, on that fence line, they're not inside the evacuation zone, it doesn't entail there any business interruption to provide 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 heating and process heat and the ability to dry-cool are very much distinctives that we have. Again, I mentioned today, just earlier I heard on a report that Texas, everywhere you go, there's droughts, there's water restrictions.

Having the combination of emergency planning zone and being able to dry-cool using air condensers is going to be extremely important going forward.

Hi, everyone. Thank you for taking my questions.

TVA made a few disclosures and I think some media comments today regarding their nuclear road map. I'd love to get your perspective on what you took away from their 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.

Hey, George. All 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 was announced in a conversation today that TVA is actively engaged, and it's the same what we're hearing. The conversations, we understand, progressing well.

I can tell you that when the agreement is signed, NuScale will be ready to implement.

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 Q yet.

Could you just sort of talk about what compelled that to move up to $800 million relative to last quarter? Thank you.

Hi, George. This is Ramsey.

How are you doing?

Good. How are you?

Good. This was really just a treasury strategy.

As we bolster our balance sheet, we've kind of pulled away from this idea of traditional start-up burn rates and runway, and more about cash allocation and long-term planning. That's what $1.9 billion gives us, the ability to plan long-term.

It gives us optionality. As you have that amount of cash on balance sheet, you tend to look into longer-term instruments.

Within the treasury strategy, all high-grade, but you look at longer-term instruments, there's a reclassification on the balance sheet. It's all cash and cash-like investments.

Great. Thanks, guys.

Thank you.

Thank you.

how's it going? This is Esteban Arbelo on 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 was also a more recent update to stick with NuScale rather than considering other technologies for the project.

Can you walk us through some of those updates and when we should expect further progress on the project?

This is John. Speaking appreciated the question.

As we're a subcontractor to Fluor Corporation, who is the prime contractor, and completed successfully the front-end engineering design. There is a new government that's coming in that's being seated as we speak.

Myself and my COO are planning to go to Bucharest to meet with that government, probably later this month. 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.

All right. 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 standardizes and can be carried over to another US project, roughly how much time and probably regulatory costs that could save.

That's a great question. We're looking at of what we have done from the previous project, as 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.

Good. Thank you.

I'll turn it back.

Thank you.

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 that's more in RoPower's hands?

Actually, in the first phase that needs to get done really is the completion of the prime contractor to come into contractual 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.

All right. Thank you.

I'll turn it over.

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 in the next year. Any kind of broad strokes you can give us around, let's just assume that we eventually get these contracts through from TVA to move forward.

Is there any kind of timeline you can give us in terms of when we're going to have to start deploying that capital? Just kind of curious around that.

Sure. Thank you for the question.

Let's talk about a few ideas. We did bolster our cash, $1.9 billion 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 it puts us 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 the 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 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 become some of the change. When do we expect that draws on cash will happen?

I think that question is similar to when do we expect commercialization to happen. Some of our expectations have been reflected in some of the announcements we've seen, for example, Framatome, over the last quarter.

We expect commercialization to happen soon, and so we're preparing for it. We're investing in the supply chain, we're investing in design finalization, we're investing in fuel systems.

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.

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. Honestly, is that things that we're starting to look at now, or is it more kind of getting everything in ready mode for when we eventually get the green light from our first commercial partner?

No,

as I said, we've been working for years with these key suppliers. They're not strategic suppliers.

Some of these suppliers are investors in NuScale. They're not looking for a one-off project.

They're looking for the opportunity for sustainable supply, and it gives us very competitive rates. About 30, maybe 30-plus percent is going to be our costs, and 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 on a competitive basis. In the bottom line, they have to prove competitiveness, it's not open-ended.

Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions.

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

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 fit 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 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, and I think you as analysts will have a better construct to come out with your price targets and understand the value that we'll create within our business for our shareholders.

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 preordered 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 for 18 months deployment, maybe 3 to 4 years on CCGTs.

Given the fact you've already deployed resources and relationships for your first 12 12 modules, from FID on the first project, how quickly can that be producing power? Then 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?

I just want to get the first module up and running to showcase. Remember, these are redundant systems.

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 the 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, it's multiple plants. These are fungible assets.

We build them in a factory, we ship them. Now, with the magnitude of what we're talking about with TVA, anywhere from 6 gigawatts, it's massive.

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

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

We've stated publicly that from a first pouring of safety-related concrete to mechanical completion will generally take a little less than 40 months, but that does not entail we've 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 of concrete to mechanical completion.

Great. Thank you.

Hopefully, with the NRC, we've had great conversations. In fact, the team was just with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week.

They're doing a lot of things, particularly in that front-end advancement, to help get technologies to move quicker on the licensing front. We're hoping maybe what would typically take a 2-year could be reduced significantly.

Understood. Thank you.

Hi, thanks for the question. Maybe just to start, the part plant business had negative revenue in the quarter due to a negotiation with Fluor.

How do we think about that impact or how do we think about the RoPower progression going forward under that new price agreement and any more color you can provide would be great.

I don't I don't think the negative revenue number is really indicative of some ongoing trend with with RoPower or with our margins there. That that was an adjustment and what what you really saw is, we had work with with Fluor related to Phase 2 in the prior quarter, two prior quarters, pardon me, or in the same quarter period in the prior year, which we didn't have this year.

That so that so that revenue was gone. There's an adjustment.

What you saw is is negative margin, and it looks a little it looks a little funny, but but it's not indicative of a trend, and we're talking about pretty small numbers and pretty small basis. I I wouldn't read much into that.

Great.

Then

maybe just on TVA, is there any milestones in particular or next steps you can call out ahead of a PPA, or we're just kind of waiting for those negotiations to be complete? No,

I think, as I stated in the comments, that talks are progressing. We're very active with ENTRA1 and in 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 have been finalized, we're ready to move.

By move, I mean start the COLA position, start the front-end engineering design, and initiate the OEM contracts or negotiations.

Great. Thanks for the color.

Thank you.

Hey, guys. This is Tyler Visserida on for Brian.

Thanks for taking our questions. There's been a lot of focus on TVA, but 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?

I'll just say, as I said earlier, we're in a lot of discussions with the hyperscalers, with the governments, with international, but our focus right now is to try to get working with ENTRA1 to get TVA across the goal line. As everybody needs energy.

We want to be part of the mix, and customers have different strategies, and our strategy right now is if they're ready to move and they need near-term deployment, we're willing to talk.

All right. That's it for most.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, team. This is Soundarya on behalf of Ryan Siggs.

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

I think we're in pretty good shape. As I said, the real long-lead items are our forgings, which are being in production currently.

They've been in production for the last 2 years. We mentioned we use conventional fuel.

Framatome is our fuel supplier. That fuel will be manufactured in 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.

That's good to hear. Thank you.

One more, on following up on that Romanian project, RoPower, could that trigger any revenue-generating services in 2026, or should we think about it in 2027 and beyond?

We certainly hope so. If you look at Romania in general and 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.

That's great. Thank you.

I'll turn it over.

Thank you so much.

Hey, guys. This is Denis Shch...

on for Vikram. 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 to expect to ramp over time, but any color or a range would be helpful, and kind of some of the key drivers on the incremental spend.

Thanks.

Sure. Hi, this is Ramsey Hamady.

Look, I don't want to give too much of guidance on future opex. I just don't think we're in a position to do that and we generally don't give guidance yet.

I will look to the past 10 quarters. Starting from the beginning of 2024 right through the end of 2025, this management team kept opex within a $2 or $3 million band between $41, $44 per quarter.

We were deliberate, we were targeted, we executed, and we were consistent. Over the past two quarters, as we moved, we had work with RoPower originally back in 2000 and 5.

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 our projects and we expect to continue executing our 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, and what we won't do, which I think may be 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. That's helpful on valuation, but I guess that's best we're going to get.

Thank you, operator. Again, thanks everyone for attending.

As we heard throughout this Q&A, we get questions about when is NuScale moving from potential to proven, and it's a fair question. We'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've 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, and again, thanks for joining us today.

Thanks, everyone.