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 risk 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 31st, 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 in 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 US 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 de-risking 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 face a higher degree of risk. They need 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 in 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 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 itself.

This modularity allows NuScale Power Modules to be added incrementally as load grows, with the first units generating revenue and 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. 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 US 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 US history. We also saw progress on the RoPower project in Doicești, 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. 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 its 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 US strategic interests, such as the TVA project.

The first is the $550 billion US-Japan framework agreement announced last year, in which ENTRA1 was the only developer named. A second and more recent announcement by South Korea's National Assembly to facilitate $350 billion in Korean investments into US 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 Doicești 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, procurement, and 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 US 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 through 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 reoccurring 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 on 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 at Doosan Enerbility, marking continued progression from design into manufacturing execution.

Collectively, these actions materially de-risk 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 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.

José 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 desalinization, 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 29th, we proudly opened our new NuScale Operations Center in Houston's prestigious Energy Corridor at CityCentre, 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, 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 31st, 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 sturdy balance sheet.

Moving on to revenue. NuScale reported revenue of $0.6 million for the three-month period ending March 31st, 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?

Good afternoon. 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, additional contracts? Is it just the time it takes to get customers comfortable with these solutions?

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, in fact, we've had ongoing discussions.

Last week I was in DC, we met with the Korean government on the discussions of their potential for $350 billion, of which $200 billion of that could be slated for AI, data centers, and new nuclear. We are also 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 new nuclear technologies. As it relates to TVA, we've got very much a primary focus on that company.

That's not to say, however, that we're not talking to others as well. As a good example, my chief general counsel and I last night had a very good discussion with a potential company that's looking at mega gigawatts here in the United States.

We had dinner and it's a follow-up conversation with them. It's just a complicated, slow process.

We're bullish that this thing's going to take off here and with the US government support that we're seeing and all the activity that's going on right now, it's just we think we're close to closure.

That's awesome. I appreciate that color there.

Then I wanted to go back actually to the agreement with Framatome, but you just mentioned the supply chain and you guys have the advantage of years to build out these relationships. Broadly speaking, with the nuclear industry and all that excitement, can you talk for a moment about the state of nuclear fuel supply chain in the US and where you see potential bottlenecks developing?

This is Carl Fisher, Chief Operating Officer. I'm happy to answer that question.

As 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 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.

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 the high-assay, low-enriched uranium.

Nate, this is John. I can remember many years ago, I guess 12 years ago now, since I've been with the company, as part of the due diligence process, I had asked Dr.

José Reyes, "Why did you stay with light water? Why not thorium, or why not?"

He looked at me and he said, "John, all the regulators in the world know light water." He said, "I've worked with the NRC.

The NRC regulators know light water." When we entered into agreements, as Carl stated, the fuel supply from Framatome, when I talked to them about being readily available, it's readily available.

We're not, again, encumbered with some of the issues that others are facing currently, so that's not an issue for us currently.

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's—

Richland, Washington.

Richland, Washington for the US, and Lingen in Germany, and also they have a facility in France.

That's great. I really appreciate all the detail, and thanks for taking my questions.

Thank you, Nate.

Hi, thanks for taking my questions. 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, I'm wondering if that's something we have to think about.

This is Clayton Scott, Chief Commercial Officer. There are requirements that to try and maintain as much US content as possible.

However, there's certain aspects that the industry has fell short on 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.

In those particular cases, there's alternatives and ways to get past that. I guess, 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 US.

It's a really good question. This is Carl Fisher again.

The Part 53, what I would say, pathway was not available when we first pursued our licensing strategy. Part 53 is relatively new.

In fact, a lot of the industry is still trying to get their head around what does this actually mean. Primarily, it relies on a probabilistic analysis to go forward.

We've spoken to the NRC about where can we take credit off Part 53 and apply it to where we are already way down the road with Part 52? We are looking at, obviously, as John mentioned earlier, our Part 52 pathway with enhancements which has been recently deployed with Part 53 opportunities, and 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

to

note, 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. The rigor of safety and health is not going to go away.

Everybody's going to have to go through that same process. Where we see benefit in our COLAs and elsewhere, that streamlining, instead of taking 18 to 2 years to get, hopefully it could be much shorter.

It's good to know you guys have options available. Thanks for taking my questions.

Thank you.

Hi, everyone. Good afternoon.

Hello, Eric. How are you doing?

Doing well. Thanks.

I know a lot of this call spent highlighting kind of your differentiation, but there's also been a lot of activity on the advanced reactor side. 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?

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, I don't care if they're process or generally utilities, the general feedback we normally get is that process companies, whomever they are, they generally don't want to own a nuclear asset. What they want is reliable, resilient, clean power, and they want it now.

We're in discussions with these companies, and we still believe we're significant years ahead of others. I want everybody to be successful.

I'd like to see this US 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 I think collectively with ENTRA1 we're having the most concrete and serious conversations with. You see a lot of stuff out there and a lot of noise, but a lot of it is around a Part 50 movement, which I think has a large element of risk, which was mentioned earlier, but I do believe that the customers that were I'd say on a very serious level and engagement, they truly appreciate and recognize where we are.

Right, and then just sticking with that as my follow-up. I would assume that just the fact all of the things that have been done in the supply chain, that that's certainly a needle mover as well.

I guess that's not a question, more an observation, but I guess I'll turn it over. Thank you.

No, you ask 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.

They take years for these forgings to get developed. If you haven't ordered long-lead items, you're that much further behind the curve.

What thing Carl and his team does, you may want to talk about the suppliers session we just had.

Just to build on that one question, though. A lot of our suppliers are very nuclear-savvy as well, and they are aware of the opportunities with low-enriched uranium per se and light-water reactor technology.

That's not to say that they don't believe in the other technologies around advanced reactors, but they do spend a lot of their time with what they see is near-term deployable. These suppliers are very smart in that way, and they've put a lot of priority on the current SMR supplier fleet or suppliers.

The other thing just recently, to demonstrate that is we had our NuScale Supplier Working Group summit in Houston just a few weeks ago. In there, we had over 120, 130 people at this summit, a lot of excitement around that, representing well over half of our supplier base.

Once again, these are suppliers who are very nuclear-savvy. They've been around the block, and really was demonstrated there, what I would say, their interest and enthusiasm due to the fact that all the activity that's going on with ourselves and our business development partner ENTRA1.

Thanks for taking my questions, guys. In the presentation regarding RoPower, it says, "Should pre-EPC financing be secured."

I'm curious, is the participation in the next phase contractually committed, or is it more contingent on RoPower closing that third-party financing?

Good question. We have, in fact, we had one today, ongoing meetings every week with the Department of Energy, RoPower, Nuclearelectrica, Fluor, and others discussing the status of the project.

We continue to, as we said, build out our supply chain. We are, as I stated before, a subcontractor to Fluor Corporation.

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

Got it. Then as my follow-up, ENTRA1 is positioned to receive investment capital.

What size of commitment would largely de-risk the first phase of that project? Depending on the funding amount, would that reduce your need to provide milestone payments or broadly your funding obligations at all?

Thanks.

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

TVA. If ENTRA, sounds like they're in the market to raise capital, should they do that, depending on the size, does that at all reduce, in what way does it de-risk the project on your end?

Then depending on the funding amount, would that reduce your funding obligations at all? Thanks.

Sure. Thanks for the question.

Does it de-risk the project? Absolutely.

Funding is a massive component of putting these projects together. It's very complex.

For ENTRA1 to be, for example, named in the US-Japan Framework Trade Agreement with, I think, $35 billion earmarked, $25 billion, pardon me, earmarked, that sort of funding can really move the needle for a project, and subsequent really move the needle for NuScale. Funding at the project level, though, is completely separate from any of the PMA payments.

PMA payments are our partnership milestone agreement payments, and 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. Those are separate ideas, but you bring up a good point.

Project financing definitely de-risks our pathway forward because it de-risks the entire project, and these are NuScale-powered power plants.

Got it. Really appreciate it, guys.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thanks for taking my questions. Any update on the Japanese financing framework that you can provide more detail on?

Is this sort of going to be the gateway to FIDs on TVA projects? How do we think about that?

Hi, Moses. How are you doing?

This is Ramsey Hamady.

Hi, Ramsey.

It could be. TVA requires financing.

I know that ENTRA1 is in active dialogue with both sovereign-based or quasi-sovereign-based financial institutions, as well as private financial institutions. I wouldn't say exclusively, we require money under the US-Japan Framework Trade Agreement, but I think it's a strong possibility.

Rest assured, ENTRA1 is working on all available sources of financing to get this across the line.

This is John,

and

I think it's public domain information that a pretty large component of that $550 billion through the American-Japan framework was slated for energy and including SMRs. Then most recently, last week, we met with the Korean government on this potential of $350, as I stated before.

A significant piece of it that again 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, again, it's part of this whole groundswell we're seeing around the nuclear energy in this country. It's pretty phenomenal right now.

We're at a tipping point, I think, as a country and in an industry to something's going to break soon.

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

Can you provide more detail on the fuel fabrication strategy with Framatome? Because our understanding, there are 444 assemblies on notice 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 based on demand?

How do we think about that?

Right now we're in the preliminary design with Framatome. Fuel is a very long-term proposition in the sense of having the fuel ready in several years.

We've got ahead of it. You've probably saw the announcement.

That was so that we will be ready to support the market's needs. As far as capacity, as I mentioned earlier, Framatome has multiple facilities globally.

Part of that announcement was to inform that we have that ability to go global and not just rely on American capacity. As far as the pipeline in our discussions with our pipeline and discussions with our business development partner ENTRA1, and based on what Framatome's capabilities are, we don't see any bottlenecks or any kind of shortcomings there because we got ahead of it early.

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

Thank you. Very helpful.

Good afternoon. 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? To the degree either of these projects make notable pre-FID advancement, could that at least drive some notable NuScale revenue in the coming quarters?

This is Ramsey Hamady, CFO. We're hopeful that TVA can come across the line at some point later this year.

We believe that's a strong possibility. Our revenue stream, our cash flow this year, should TVA come across the line with, for example, PPA, we anticipate that we would have site-specific services, pre-OEM services.

If we look at RoPower as an example, we had technology licensing, we had pre-FEED, we had FEED Phase 2. All in with RoPower, we realized about $80 million worth of revenue, and that's pre- an OEM contract.

That's over, I think, 2024 and 2025. That's pre- an OEM contract, and that's pre- true FID on behalf of RoPower.

I know they had an announcement and it counts out like an FID, and we went out to the market and explained it was subject to financing. We would anticipate something potentially in that scale once we get to a PPA with, or once ENTRA1 gets a PPA with TVA.

Great. I wanted to kind of think through the potential reduction in the cash burn.

I noticed that the payables are down significantly. I think that's for some of the long-lead time equipment you had to pay for.

Given that and given the, I think, the OCF drag before working capital changes was attractively down versus the second half last year. Going forward, before any major project news, is it fair to say that the cash burn should be improving?

Interesting, interesting. Again, this is Ramsey Hamady.

Our AP was down. That's correct.

It it was principally because we recognized the payable under the PMA agreement at the time the PMA agreement was signed, because we acknowledged the the the term sheet, the the Stage 1 payable. Payables did go down.

You saw that reflected in our cash flow statement. Without getting into the, the real technicals of 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 with everyone else in this industry, we are pre-revenue companies focused on a technology which, to to this to this point has not yet been deployed, and which we strongly believe in, but which hasn't been deployed. We're we're dealing in tricky markets as well.

I I say this as a point of pride, now three years as CFO here, we've really positioned ourselves with this fortress balance sheet because we don't know what's around the corner. We anticipate, we expect, we we believe we won't be talking in terms of burn rate by the end of this year.

I hope to be operationally cash flow positive by the end of this year. I position myself conservatively for, for my company and for my investors.

What what's our burn rate? I think OpEx, this year was a very or this quarter was a low-revenue quarter compared to last quarter, our Q1 2025.

I think we went into that in the script. In Q1, we had revenues associated with with RoPower.

This quarter, we did not have revenues associated with projects. The OpEx was about, I think, $55 million this quarter.

We anticipate actually it will go up as we near commercialization, because we're focused on supply chain readiness. We're focused on design finalization.

We're focused on getting ready to actually deliver this product. As we focus on that, we're starting to spend a little bit more.

Rest assured to our investors, we've planned for this, and our balance sheet can withstand that additional spend.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, everyone. Thanks so much for taking my question.

To start,

I was just

hoping you could help us—hi there. I was just hoping you could help us think about what CapEx looks like per NPM and how we can expect this to change from first-of-a-kind to nth- nth-of-a-kind, especially now that you've started more procurement efforts.

Leanne,

I'm sorry, you're breaking up pretty bad.

Do you mind repeating yourself?

Sorry about that. Can you guys hear me now?

Better.

Yep.

Okay. I was just hoping you could help us think about what CapEx should look like per NPM 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.

I don't think we can provide guidance. On CapEx for 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.

Our apologies to that, but I think it's a little bit early for us to provide that sort of guidance. On your second question, you're talking about dollar per kilowatt-hour.

We've really gone away from this sort of metric, we don't provide guidance on that. It's too fuzzy really to provide guidance on dollar per kilowatt-hour.

Plus, we don't produce the electrons. We sell NPMs.

Okay. Yep, that's fair enough.

Got it. Thank you.

Then just curious, after ENTRA1 signs the binding PPA with TVA, can you just talk about a little bit what that means from a near-term revenue perspective, if possible?

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

I said in the context of RoPower, what we saw was about $80 million worth of revenue just on kind of these sort of services. I think that we can anticipate something similar in relation to ENTRA1 post-their signing of a PPA with TVA.

There's licensing work as well. There's COLA work.

I stick to the RoPower example is a good idea of what we might anticipate.

Got it. Thank you, Ramsey.

That's helpful.

Of course.

Hey, perfect. Thanks for taking all the questions and being patient with us.

Appreciate the sort of regulatory review. It's been, I think, 3 and 1/2 years of covering you guys.

It's good to refresh on that. 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 and what does progress look on that. Just looking at some of the things TVA has done with GE Hitachi and some of the other nuclear development programs, they don't seem to start with a fixed-price PPA and then now let's move forward.

It's more incremental of a site construction permit, PPA's still sort of up in the air, everyone's sort of moving one step at a time. If you could just help me, I'll be more articulate.

Just in the next 12 months, sort of timelines, key mileposts on advancing the TVA project.

I think it's a little bit different scenario, I think. PPAs are somewhat new to the nuclear industry and the process on how things move forward on a project perspective.

As we see it, ENTRA1's in those finalizations of that deal. Once that's performed, we've already kind of worked with the collective to identify the sites that will be worked on.

Most of those sites have some level of preparation that have been progressed. We would see us going into COLA activities, into pre-FEED activities, and supporting the supply chain for ENTRA1.

It's kind of different than what you've seen in some other sites that may not be as mature or in a PPA situation that's not necessarily secured or even working with reactor suppliers that are not as advanced. I think we're kind of in a different position.

We're ready to go, ready to deploy. I think once their deals have been secured, then we can start real activity that are COLA-driven, not what you see today in the other apps.

We're also all driven to, once these PPAs are definitized and put in place, hopefully near term here, we also have been working diligently on our OEM contract. It's in everybody's best interest, as soon as these PPAs are defined, we quickly move into our OEM contract.

We'll do the COLAs, as Clayton mentioned, but getting that contract signed is to everybody's benefit to get that done quickly.

Yep.

Perfect. Appreciate the color.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Thanks, John.

Hey, good afternoon, everyone. I was wondering if you can talk about customers other than TVA or RoPower that you or ENTRA1 may be talking about, or is it fair to assume the focus is squarely on these two potential opportunities?

When you talk to TVA and RoPower, TVA particularly, and other customers, do tariffs and logistics costs and higher commodity prices, they come up a lot, changing economics of building a reactor because of these things? I ask this question while I saw flash that the new Pentus [unclear] tariffs were deemed unlawful by the trade court just now.

Are tariffs and the logistics costs changing the economics, is that somewhat of a hold up, or are you talking to other customers other than TVA and RoPower?

I'll answer the first part of the question. TVA is an important opportunity, and it's currently our primary focus.

However, it's not the only one, as there are other engagements. These are ongoing with other potential offtakers and customers across different regions and segments.

We're working with ENTRA1 on a pipeline that includes other projects. They're also being contemplated other business models other than a PPA structure, such as a development structure.

I think we've said in the past ENTRA1 has a pretty deep pipeline of projects, and we're not tied to one. I'd like to highlight the importance of the secular growth drivers that make secure baseload nuclear power the only solution for both the US and the global energy sector.

It means there are a lot of people, a lot of customers looking for solutions like the power that we provide. Certainly TVA is an important and is our core focus today.

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

I was asking if the changing economics of building a reactor is also somewhat delaying the discussions with TVA and other customers in the US, given the commodity prices are rapidly changing, the tariffs have moved around a lot. Is that somewhat of a holdup delaying the process?

I don't know if that's purely an SMR-related idea. Tariffs and commodity prices affect everyone.

The provision of nuclear and deployment of nuclear is a very long-term type of idea. It has less to do with kind of short-term swings and more to do with long-term needs, especially when those short-term swings are really macro and they're not just focused on the nuclear industry or on SMRs.

That's kind of US-wide, technology-wide.

As relates to demand, a couple weeks ago, there's an annual energy conference every year called CERAWeek, and it brings together energy senior executives, government officials, NGOs from all over the world. Of the probably 15 years I've been attending that event, I've never seen so much focus as we did in this event on nuclear, across the board: international, global, US, domestic.

If you look at the markets that we've talked about over the years, they haven't gone away. We're going to see potentially a significant decline at the end of this decade if coal-fired plants.

We're going to see the need for, as I said, the elephant in the room is still the hyperscalers who demand energy, they want behind the meter. Recently, as the President announced, they're going to have to figure out how to incur those costs.

The demand pull right now as 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 here that all these technologies are going to benefit from the increase of our current government pushing this, needing energy security and national security and energy supply.

We're bullish on the market, and we think the opportunity is near term.

Got it. That's all I had.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, guys. Good afternoon.

Thanks for squeezing me in. I missed a little bit of the earlier part of the call, apologies if some of this is redundant.

You did cover a lot with respect to TVA and related topics. I wanted to ask specifically, given some of your comments, Ramsey.

I think a lot of focus on the PPA with TVA, and you kind of alluded to the fact that maybe it could happen later this year. Let's presume it does.

Can you kind of walk us through what happens next, right? When does an equipment OEM offtake get finalized?

Is that in conjunction with the PPA, or is that a few quarters later and so you're talking about 2027? Then you also mentioned pre-FEED revenue.

There was no mention about deposits. I think you've talked about deposits in the past, but is that something that's still on the table?

Because it does seem like you would need that to be cash flow neutral to positive, as you mentioned is sort of your ambition maybe later this year. Just trying to understand the sequencing here around some of those elements.

Let me start with the OEM. I mentioned earlier, we've been working diligently on the structure of the OEM.

Now, we have to wait for the definitization of the PPA. However, it's in everybody's interest, as soon as these PPAs are put in place, that we quickly negotiate and finalize our OEM.

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

I think it was sequencing. Once we have the PPA, what can we expect?

Brian, we talked about, and I don't know if you heard this part or not, but I referenced RoPower, say, hey, within the context of RoPower as an example, we did pre-FEED, FEED Phase 2, and technology licensing. That was about $80 million in revenues.

I think on top of that, you could add COLA work, so that's site-specific licensing work, which we can anticipate to see post-PPA, and not necessarily tied to having an OEM, because that's work that kind of just needs to push forward. On deposits, I may be getting a little bit tripped up on the nomenclature of how we describe it.

Within an OEM contract, we would expect payments, and those payments would be staged over time. We're actively working to structure an OEM agreement now, but it's not deposits per se.

It's us producing NPMs under an OEM agreement and acting as essentially a pass-through as funds go from ENTRA1, the buyer of NPMs, to our supply chain, Doosan and others, to pay for the production of the NPMs. I think the last point, I'm not sure if you asked this or I'm just kind of interpreting this through the dialogue, but we anticipate OEM is a cash-positive event for NuScale.

I know that there are some payments that go out under the PMA, but ultimately, we anticipate payments coming in more than offset that. Then we have a runway, TBD, and this is all to be negotiated in the OEM agreement, but then we have a runway of payments coming in to ultimately pay for the modules.

Did I answer that correctly, Brian? I don't know if I straight answered—

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

No, that's right, Brian. That's right.

No, it's not like we produce and we hand over an NPM and then we get paid for an NPM. I think what you maybe speaking to is ideas of working capital, I think, cash and working capital as we go to produce NPMs.

We would anticipate that we have staged payments over time starting at the signing of the OEM agreement and then pushing into the future as we progress manufacturing of the NPM and then terminating in the delivery of the NPM. Okay.

Last one from me, and I'll take it off-line. When you said upon signing the equipment OEM, you expect to be cash flow positive, are you talking about recouping, in addition to the PMA that's made upon signing the PPA, also the initial milestone payment of, I guess, the $500 million that's already been paid?

What's the scale of what you're referencing in terms of being cash flow positive once you hit the equipment OEM agreement?

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

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

Makes sense. Appreciate the clarification.

Thanks, guys.

Sure. Thank you.

Hey, Brian. How you doing?

Hey, Ramsey. How are you?

Thanks for taking the question. Maybe just a follow-up on RoPower.

Ramsey, you just mentioned the revenue earned there over the last couple of years, but could you share what the revenue opportunity might look like if RoPower continues to advance, or maybe what types of services you'd be providing in the next stage of that project?

This is Carl Fisher. Just to back up a minute, we finished the FEED just in November.

Once again, we are a sub to Fluor Corporation, and Fluor Corporation is now pulling together the next phases, which is what they call a pre-EPC approach. The lion's share of that will go most likely to Fluor, and we'll have a subcomponent, and they're still working through what that scope actually is.

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

Understood. Thanks, guys.

Thank you very much, operator. Our objective today, folks, was 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 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.