and 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 parameters fuel design, as an example, we remove a bottleneck from the critical path. Finally, on slide eight, you'll find the capitalization summary. With that, thank you again for joining us today. We will now take your questions. Operator, please go ahead.

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 Stein with Craig Hallam Capital Group. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey, this is Luke. I'm for Eric. Thanks for taking our questions. So first one here, do the sizable financial and trade commitments from Japan and South Korea play into the timeline at all for converting TVA to a firm PPA? How are you thinking about those in the equation here?

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. And I stress that New Scale builds reactors. Our commercial partner, InterOne, builds plants. I know they have a great relationship with the Japanese and the Koreans, as do we. So we remain hopeful. But 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.

But do remember that, as stated, a piece of these investments is slated for energy projects in the U.S., which also includes SMRs.

Understood. Thanks. So for our second question here, can you just maybe talk a little bit more about EntraOne's project pipeline and how that's evolving just in terms of that 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?

Yeah, we continue dialogue with hyperscalers, data centers. Our focus right now has been for readiness for TVA when the announcements get spayed, but 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 the lack of energy and water. We're an answer to that, and we're positioning ourselves to move forward as quickly. So 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 call, and I'll turn it over. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital.

Your line is open. Thanks for taking my question. 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 focused on the Gen 3 Plus Lightwater 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? And does that sit with design, commercial structure or supply chains?

I think we're in a position right now, over the last 10 years, we've been working steadily to get ready for deployment, and we are near-term deployable. I commented about the over 60 suppliers, which half of them we have massive services agreement. 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 two-year period. So if I look at the landscape moving forward, We're ready to deploy now, as I commented earlier. If you look at future state, you know, 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. And 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 Voyager 12 or 6 configurations, or will this be a distinct product? And then perhaps should we think, 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?

Well, José has been out promoting. In fact, he spoke at CERA week at the Petrochemical Conference. He's speaking here coming up again on, you know, 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. And we think we're in a very good position to, you know, and 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 the emergency planning zone, we're right up next to the end user. We can provide processes. We can provide electricity. You know, 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 on and probably have somebody operate the plan. You 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, hydro-reduction, 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, you know, 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.

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

Hi, everyone. Thank you for taking my questions. So 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.

Hey, George. All I can say at this time is that we're extremely encouraged by our conversations that InterOne and TVA are having. You know, 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 are progressing well. And I can tell you that when the agreement is signed, Newscale be ready to implement.

Thank you. And one more question, just a little bit of a minutiae item. I noticed that in your balance sheet the investments increased significantly. I haven't gone through your queue 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, 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. And that's what $1.9 billion gives us, the ability to plan long-term. It gives us optionality. And as you have that amount of cash on balance sheets, You tend to look into longer-term instruments. We're within a treasury strategy, all high-grade, but you look at longer-term instruments, so there's a reclassification on the balance sheet, but it's all cash and cash-like investments.

Great. Thanks, guys. Thank you.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Mark Bianchi with TD Cohen. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Thanks for taking the question. So I wanted to ask on the Romania project. I believe Road Power earlier this year had some new contingencies around an FID, including a proposal on sort of the purchase cadence of the power modules. And 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?

Yeah, I could probably, this is John speaking, and I appreciate the question. You know, we, as you know, we're a subcontractor to Floor Corporation, who is a prime contractor, and we 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. But we're ready to go. We're just waiting on the green light to finalize our contract agreements. But as I said, phase one 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.

Okay, thank you. And 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. And I think you're still engaged with the NRC with that. So I just wanted to get a little bit more color How much of that COLA is standardized and can be carried over to another U.S. project? You know, roughly how much time and probably regulatory costs that could save?

That's a great question. We're looking at what we have done for the previous budget you comment on. About 60% of that COLA can be utilized. And as soon as these PPAs are put in place, that's one of the first initiatives we'll have is starting to Construction Operating License Agreement with a customer. So again, about 60% of that, we can move over to this next project.

Okay, great. Thank you. I'll turn it back. Thank you.

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

Hi, this is Drew Norquist on the line for Derek. Thank you guys for taking questions. Just Going back on row power, can you guys just 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 row power's hands?

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 PPC. 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.

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

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 in the next year. So just kind of clear 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 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. It reflects a strong liquidity position. It reflects a conservative approach to liquidity. And 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. And so we took the opportunity last quarter to bolster our liquidity and set 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. You know, we've diverged from those startup metrics. We've diverged from burn rate. And we provide optionality. And now we think about capital allocation. And I think about capital allocation for a company that's engaging production, you know, first-of-a-kind technology. You know, one thing that comes to my mind is ideas around working capital. Changes are OPEX. and how cash enables the business to be a better position to deliver our product when we say we're going to do it and the cost we say we're going to deliver at. And so that's become some of the change. When do we expect that draws and 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. 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. So 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.

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

and so 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 the commercialization. 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?

I believe we have a very good handle on with what our suppliers are offering us in terms of being on a competitive basis. And the bottom line, they have to prove competitiveness, so it's not open-ended.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. So first, I mean, you sound very confident about pending, you know, first of a kind customer FIDs. So presumably around TVA. Would you expect with the first FID to be in a position to share with the street new scale level margin clarity, or would that be a bit of a moving target with the first order?

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 end-of-a-kind. I think we get to end-of-a-kind pretty quickly with the type of manufacturing we're engaging. And 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 it just becomes a little bit problematic. So 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're creating within our business for our shareholders.

Understood. So 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. So obviously, we're getting other announcements that are more immediate and are not SMRs, right? I mean, we're were getting announcements of behind-the-meter CT projects for 18 months deployment, maybe three to four 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. And then is there a gap on the second project since you don't have that on order today? And given your great liquidity position, is that a reason to put more on order today or in the near future?

Our position right now, I just want to get the first module up and running to showcase. And remember, these 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, New Scale will move our 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. And if you remember, the New Scale module is predicated not on doing any given one plant at any given time. It was multiple plants. These are fungible assets. We build them in a factory and we ship them. Now, with the magnitude of what we're talking about with TVA, I mean, anywhere from six 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?

Oh, we've stated publicly that from a first pouring of 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. So construction timeframes are within that window, we believe, within a 40-month window for construction, pouring the concrete to mechanical completion.

Great. Thank you.

And so 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. So we're hoping maybe what would typically take a two-year, it could be reduced significantly.

Understood. Thank you.

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

Hi, thanks for the question. Maybe just to start, the power plant business had negative revenue in the quarter due to a negotiation with Thor. How do we think about that? How do we think about the real power progression going forward under that new price agreement and any more color you can provide would be great.

I don't think the negative revenue number is really indicative of some ongoing trend with real power with our margins there. That was an adjustment. What you really saw is we had work with FLIR related to Feed Face 2 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. So 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. And we're talking about pretty small numbers on a pretty small basis. So I wouldn't read much into that.

Okay, great. And then maybe just on TVA, is there any like 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?

I think as I stated in the comments, you know, talks are progressing. were very active with InterOne and communications on a daily basis. Our chief commercial officer is involved with it, again, on a daily basis. So we're in a mode right now that as soon as these PPAs are definitized, we're ready to move. And by move, I mean enter into, you know, start the COLA position, start the front-end engineering design, and initiate the OEM contracts. or negotiations.

Great. Thanks.

Thank you.

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

Hey, guys, this is Tyler. Thanks for taking our questions. There's been a lot of focus on TVA, but curious if you can discuss any other pipeline opportunities. So what other engagements are out there and any other details you can provide on timing, geographies, or types of customers that EntraOne is working with?

You know, 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 these working with Inter1 to get TVA across the goal line. But as you know, I mean, everybody needs energy. You know, we were part of the mix, and, you know, 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 from us. Thank you. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Sundariya Lyar with B. Reilly Securities. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Thank you, team. This is Sundariya on behalf of Ryan Fingst. Most of my questions have been answered, but just a couple more. 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 four genes, which are being in production currently. They've been in production for the last two years. We mentioned we use conventional fuel. Framitone 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. So I think, again, I don't see any problems with being able to respond, as I said. We're good to go.

Yeah, that's good to hear. Thank you. and one more, 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 if you look at the success on the front end in engineering design, It's really up to the timeline of the customer and when we're going to start the next phase. So if we get the contract in place, yes, they'll be ready next year.

That's great. Thank you. I'll turn it over.

Thank you so much.

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

Hey guys, this is Ignis 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 for it to ramp over time, but any color or range would be helpful in kind of some of the key drivers on the incremental spend. Thanks.

Yeah, sure. Hi, this is Ramsey Hamady. I don't want to give too much of of guidance on future OpEx. I don't think we're in a position to do that, and we generally don't give guidance yet. But I will look to the past 10 quarters. Starting from the beginning of 2004, running through the end of 2005, this management team kept OpEx within somewhere around like a $2 or $3 million band between like $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 worked with Rope Power 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. So we saw a bit of a bump up in OPEX because we need those people. They're executing on projects, and we expect to continue executing on projects in the near future. So we kept those people. You saw a bump up in OPEX. But again, our OPEX was within like a million or so this past quarter, as it was within Q1. So 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 is maybe to the heart of some of your questions, is allow OpEx creep to come up and start to impact our liquidity. So I would just take the lesson away that we're pretty conservative and we're pretty well-focused and disciplined here.

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

Yeah, thank you, operator. And again, thanks, everyone, for attending. You know, 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. You know, 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. So I'm looking forward to the next session we all get together, and again, thanks for joining us today. Thanks, everyone.

This concludes today's call. Thank you all for attending. You may now disconnect.