Q1 2026 Earnings Call — May 7, 2026
Nate Pendleton (Texas Capitol): 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 those solutions?
John (Executive): Yeah, 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 we're excited about. You know, last week, I was in DC, we met with the Korean government on the discussions of their potential for $350 billion, of which, you know, 200 billion of that could be slated for AI data centers and new nuclear. We're also, you know, we're 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 interests in 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 James Rattling Leafs, 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, you know, it's just a complicated slow process. James Rattling Leafs. And so we're bullish that this thing's going to take off here, and you know, with the US government support that we're seeing and all the activity that's going on right now, we think we're hopeful that we're close to closure.
We're also, you know, we're highly encouraged by TVA's strong pro-nuclear stance yesterday from Mike Skaggs, the interim CEO.
Nate Pendleton (Texas Capitol): I appreciate that color there. And then I wanted to go back actually to the agreement with Framatome. You just mentioned the supply chain. And you guys have the advantage of years to build out these relationships. But broadly speaking with the nuclear industry and all that excitement, can you talk for a moment about the state of the nuclear fuel supply chain in the U.S. and where you see potential bottlenecks developing?
Carl Fisher (Chief Operating Officer): Yeah, this is Carl Fisher, Chief Operating Officer. I'm happy to answer that question. As you know, NuScale employs light water reactor technology using readily available low enriched uranium. As far as the low enriched uranium forecast for the long term looks very, very good. Unlike the uncertainty with high assay low enriched uranium, which you're hearing a lot of noise about and a lot of discussion due to the fact that the only long-term availability, at least at this point in time, is not through the United States. It's through Russia. So with that said, what we see 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. You know, Nate, this is John. I can remember many years ago, I guess 12 years ago now, because I've been with the company, I had asked, as part of the due diligence process, I had asked Dr. Jose Reyes, why did you stay with light water? Why not thorium? Why not? And 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. And when we entered into agreements, as Carl stated, you know, the fuel supply from Framatome, when I talk to them about being readily available, it's readily available. And so we're not, again, encumbered with some of the issues that others are facing currently. So that's not an issue for us currently.
As far as the low enriched uranium forecast for the long term looks very, very good.
Carl Fisher (Chief Operating Officer): Yeah, 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 yeah, Richland, Washington for the US and Lingen in Germany. And also, they have a facility in France.
Nate Pendleton (Texas Capitol): That's great. I really appreciate all the detail. And thanks for taking my questions.
Sharif El-McRobbie (BTIG): Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. You know, something a little different, just to start. Is there a need for the SMR space to maintain a certain level of domestic content for tax credit eligibility? It's something we're seeing elsewhere. And I wonder if, you know, the supply chain for NuScale and nuclear as a whole is concentrated in Korea and Europe. So I'm wondering if that's something we have to think about.
Clayton Scott (Chief Commercial Officer): Yeah, this is Clayton Scott, Chief Commercial Officer. So there are requirements that, you know, there's, to try and maintain as much U.S. content as possible. However, there are certain aspects that the industry has fell short on over the years, and large-scale forgings, for example, is one of those cases. So in that particular instance, you're allowed to position the supply inadequacy and where that's compensated from externally. So in those particular cases, there are alternatives and ways to get past that. But yes, in general, in order to meet the credits, there is certainly an interest to try and find 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.
Sharif El-McRobbie (BTIG): 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.
Carl Fisher (Chief Operating Officer): Yes, 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. So 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. So we've spoken to the NRC about this, is where can we take credit off Part 53 and apply it to where we are already way down the road with Part 52. So we are looking at, obviously, as John mentioned earlier, Part 52 pathway with enhancements, which has been recently deployed with Part 53 opportunities. And we will continue to have those, that dialogue with the NRC because we're looking for continuous improvement even as advanced as we are in Part 52 licensing space.
We are looking at, obviously, as John mentioned earlier, Part 52 pathway with enhancements, which has been recently deployed with Part 53 opportunities.
Carl Fisher (Chief Operating Officer): Yeah, I think it's important. We were just with the NRC, Carl and I here recently, and they made it very clear that this enhanced NRC process is going to benefit everybody in terms of streamlining a lot of the requirements. But the rigor of safety and health is not going to go away. Everybody's going to have to go through that same process. So where we see benefit, you know, in our COLAs and elsewhere, that's streamlining. Instead of taking 18 to two years to get it, hopefully it's going to be much shorter.
Sharif El-McRobbie (BTIG): Yeah, it's good to know you guys have options available. Thanks for taking my questions.
Eric Stein (Craig Hellam): Hi, everyone. Good afternoon.
Management: Hello, Eric. How are you doing?
Eric Stein (Craig Hellam): Doing well. Thanks. So I know a lot of this call spent highlighting kind of your differentiation, but I mean, there's also been a lot of activity on the advanced reactor side. And I'm just curious, you know, when you talk to customers, I mean, and I know you're part of it and it's more EntraOne, but just curious how do customers view it? I mean, do they appreciate the fact that it's Lightwater technology that you're using a readily available fuel that this is a technology that's been around, you know, since the inception of the industry? You know, what are your thoughts around that? Because obviously, ultimately, that's the most important metric.
Management: The customers we're talking, I don't care if the process or generally utilities, the 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. And so we're in discussions with these companies. And we still believe we're significant years ahead of others. And 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 enter 1, we're having the most concrete and serious conversations with. So, you know, I, you see a lot of stuff out there, a lot of noise, but, you know, a lot of it is around a part 50 movement, which I think has a large element of risk, which was mentioned earlier. But, um, I do believe that the customers that we're, I'd say, on a very serious level in engagement, they truly appreciate and recognize where we are.
Eric Stein (Craig Hellam): Right. And then just sticking with that as my follow-up, I mean, 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 it's not a question, more an observation. But I guess I'll turn it over. Thank you.
Management: No, you asked a great question on supply chain because many of our suppliers are not only strategic partners, but also investors. But as I often said, we've been in the process of ordering long lead items for years now. If you don't, and it takes years for these forges to get developed. And if you haven't ordered long lead items, you're that much further behind the curve. And one thing Carl and his team does, you may want to talk about the supplier session we just had.
Carl Fisher (Chief Operating Officer): Yeah, just to build on that one question, though, when we a lot of our suppliers are very nuclear savvy as well, and they are aware of the deployment 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 as near-term deployable. And so these suppliers are very smart in that way. And they put a lot of priority on the current SMR supplier fleet or suppliers. The other thing just recently we had just kind of to demonstrate that is we had our new scale supplier working group meeting 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 it really was demonstrated their, 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, InforOne.
Derek Soderberg (Cantor Fitzgerald): Yeah, thanks for taking my questions, guys. So in the presentation regarding roll power, 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 roll power closing that third-party financing?
Management: Good question. We have, in fact, we had one today, ongoing meetings every week with the Department of Energy, Real Power, Nuclear Electrica, Floor, and others, discussing the status of the project. And we continue to, as we said, build out our supply chain. We are, as I stated before, a subcontracted floor corporation. Floor is still in negotiations, what I'd call, what they call pre-EPC. So as we are aware today, those discussions are still ongoing.
Derek Soderberg (Cantor Fitzgerald): Got it. Got it. And as my follow up. So I'm sure one is positioned to receive investment capital. What size of commitment would largely de-risk the first phase of that project? And, you know, depending on the funding amount, would that reduce your need to provide milestone payments or broadly your funding obligations at all? Thanks.
William Boschelli (Management): I'm not sure I fully understand the question. You're asking about our funding obligations in relation to row power or in relation to projects in general or TVA?
Derek Soderberg (Cantor Fitzgerald): So TVA. So 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, you know, in what way does it de-risk the project on your end and then depending on the funding amount would that reduce your funding obligations at all thanks.
William Boschelli (Management): Sure, thanks for the question. Does it de-risk the project? Absolutely. You know, funding is a massive component of pulling these projects together. It's very complex and frontal one to be, for example, you know, named in the U.S.-Japan Framework Trade Agreement with, I think, the $35 billion earmarked, $25 billion, pardon me, earmarked. You know, that sort of funding can really move the needle for a project and subsequent, you know, really move the needle for NuScale. Funding at the project level, though, is completely separate from any of the PMA payments. PMA payments are 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. So 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 new scale powered power plants.
Moses Sutton (BMP Pariba): 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 PVA projects? How do we think about that?
Ramsey Hamady (Management): Hi, Moses. How are you doing? This is Ramsey Hamady.
Moses Sutton (BMP Pariba): Hi, Ramsey.
Ramsey Hamady (Management): It could be. I mean, TVA requires financing. I know that InterOne is in active dialogue with both sovereign-based or quasi-sovereign-based financial institutions as well as private financial institutions. So I wouldn't say exclusively we require money under the U.S.-Japan Framework Trade Agreement, but I think it's a strong possibility. But rest assured, InterOne is working all available sources of financing to get this across the line.
John (Executive): Well, this is John and public domain information with, you know, a pretty large component of that 550 billion to the American Japan framework was slated for energy and including SMRs. And then most recently, last week, we met with the Korean government on this potential of 350. As I stated before, you know, a significant piece of that, again, is towards investment in energy projects, including SMRs into the United States. So 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 ground solar we're seeing around the nuclear energy in this country. It's pretty phenomenal right now. You know, we're at a tipping point, I think, as a country and in an industry to do 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, as equity investors, as 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.
Moses Sutton (BMP Pariba): Got it. Very helpful. And can you provide more detail on the fuel fabrication strategy with Framatome? Because our understanding, there are 444 assemblies unnoticed at 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, you know, based on demand? How do we think about that?
Management: 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. So we've got ahead of it. You 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. So 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, IntraOne, 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.
Craig Shear (Tui Brothers): Good afternoon. So it sounds like a row power FID could take at least in the 2027. If ENTRA one has successful funding, could there be a TVA opportunity finalized this year? And to the degree either of these projects make notable pre-FID advancement, could that at least drive some notable new scale revenue in the coming quarters?
Ramsey Hamady (CFO): You know, 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. So, so, so pre-OEM services, if we look at row power as an example, you know, we had technology licensing, we had pre-feed, we had feed phase two all in with row power. We realized about a million worth of revenue and that's pre an OEM contract. And that's over, I think 2024 and 2025 that's pre an OEM contract. And that's pre, you know, true FID on behalf of Rowe Power. 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. So we would anticipate something potentially in that scale once we get to a PPA with, or once InterOne gets a PPA with TVA.
We realized about a million worth of revenue and that's pre an OEM contract.
Ramsey Hamady (CFO): Great. And I wanted to, kind of think through the potential, you know, 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 I think the OCF drag before working capital changes was, you know, attractively down versus the second half last year. Is it fair to say that the cash burn should be, you know, improving?
Ramsey Hamady (CFO): So our AP was down, that's correct, but is principally because we recognize the payable under the PMA agreement at the time the PMA agreement was signed, because we acknowledged the term sheet, the stage one payable. So payables did go down. You saw that reflected in our cash flow statement. But without getting into the real technicals of our financial statements, I think what's important is that we have positioned our balance sheet in a highly conservative fashion. We, along with everyone else in this industry, we are pre-revenue companies focused on A, technology, which, you know, to this point has not yet been deployed and which we strongly believe in, but which hasn't been deployed and we're, we're dealing in tricky markets as well. So I say this as a point of pride, you know, now three years of CFO here, we've really positioned ourselves with this fortress balance sheet because, um, we don't know what's around the corner. We anticipate, we expect, 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. But I positioned myself conservatively for, you know, for my company and for my investors.
We anticipate, we expect, we believe we won't be talking in terms of burn rate by the end of this year.
Ramsey Hamady (CFO): So what's our burn rate? I think OpEx, you know, 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 Rowe Power. This quarter, we did not have revenues associated with projects. So the OpEx was about, I think, $55 million this quarter. But 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. You know, we're focused on getting ready to actually deliver this product. And as we focus on that, we're starting to spend a little bit more. But rest assured to our investors, we plan for this. Our balance sheet can withstand that additional spend.
Leanne Hayden (Canaccord Genuity): Hi, everyone. Thanks so much for taking my questions. To start, I was just hoping you could help us.
Management: Hi there. I was just hoping to help out what looks like per NPM and expect this to change from first of a kind to end of a kind, especially now that you've started more procurement efforts?
Management: I'm sorry, you're breaking up pretty bad.
Leanne Hayden (Canaccord Genuity): Yeah, am I repeating myself? Sorry. Sorry about that. Can you guys hear me now?
Management: Yeah, better.
Leanne Hayden (Canaccord Genuity): I was just hoping you could help us think about what CapEx should look like per NPM, how we can expect that to change from first of a kind to end of a kind, and maybe any sort of early indications on dollars per kilowatt hour as well would be great.
Management: Oh, yeah, I don't think we can provide guidance. I think on capex per MPM, I think you're referring to COGS versus capex, and we're not providing guidance on the cost of building npm and we're not providing clients on the maturation of those costs through from that of a conference for content of a kind. So our apologies stuff I think it's a little bit early for us to provide that sort of clients and your second question you're talking about dollar per kilowatt hour. We've really got away from this sort of metric so we don't provide this we don't provide clients on those two. Too fuzzy, really, to provide guidance on dollar per kilowatt hour. And plus, we don't produce the electrons. We sell NPMs.
Leanne Hayden (Canaccord Genuity): Okay. Yep. That's fair enough. Got it. Thank you. And then, just curious, like after ENTER1 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?
Management: Yeah, surely, and I think what I went to is, I can't remember if it was Moses or who I was speaking with, but, you know, I looked to some of the, you know, the early services that we would provide, site-specific services, and I refer to our work with Rho Power over 2024 and 2025. We had some technology licensing revenues along with pre-feed and feed phase two. I'd say in the context of Rho Power, what we saw was about a million worth of revenue, just on kind of like, you know, these pre sort of services. And I think that we can anticipate something similar in relation to ENDR1 post signing of a PPA with TVA. And there could be, there's licensing work as well, there's COLA work, but I stick to the road power examples, a good idea of what we may anticipate.
John Windham (UBS): Hey, perfect. Thanks for taking all the questions and being patient with us. I appreciate the sort of regulatory review. It's been, I think, three and a half years of covering you guys. It's good to, you know, 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? I mean, just looking at some of the things TVA has done with IT, 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. You know, it's like more incremental of a site construction permit. PPA is still sort of up in the air. Everyone's sort of moving one step at a time. If you could just help me so I'll be more articulate. Just in the next 12 months, sort of timelines, key mileposts on advancing the TVA project.
Management: Yeah, I think it's a little bit different scenario, I think. I mean, you know, PPAs are somewhat new to the nuclear industry and, you know, the process on how things move forward in a project perspective. So as we see it, and for ones, you know, in those finalizations of that deal, and, you know, once that's performed. You know, the sites have been, you know, we've already kind of worked with the collective to identify the sites that will be worked on. And most of those sites have some level of preparation that have been progressed. So we would see us going into coal activities and to pre-feed activities and supporting the supply chain for intro 1. So 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. So I think we're kind of in a different position. We're ready to go, ready to deploy.
So I think once their deals have been secured, then we can start real activity that are COLA-driven, not what you see today and the other, and the other, and we're also all driven to once these days, it's been to fantasize and put in place, hopefully near term here, we also. I've been working diligently on our contract. So it's in everybody's that's your interest as soon as these are defined, we quickly move into our contract. You know, we'll do the color as Clayton mentioned, but getting that contract signed is it everybody's benefit to get that done quickly.
John Windham (UBS): Perfect. Appreciate the color. Thanks so much.
Bikram Bagri (Citi): Good afternoon, everyone. I was wondering if you can talk about other customers, customers other than TVA or Ropower that you or anyone may be talking about, or is it fair to assume the focus is squarely on these two potential opportunities? And when you talk to TVA and Ropower, particularly, do tariffs and logistics costs and, you know, higher commodity prices, they come up a lot, you know, changing economics of building a reactor. Because of these things, and I have this question why I saw flash that the new 10% tariffs were being unlawful by the trade coaches now but.
Dhanushka Samarakoon (Management): I'll answer the first part of the question. The TVA is an important opportunity; it's currently our primary focus, however, it's not the only one, as there are other engagements. These are ongoing with other potential off-takers and customers across different regions and segments. So we're working with EntraOne on a pipeline that includes other projects. They're also being contemplated in other business models other than a PPA structure, such as a development structure. I think we've said in the past, EntraOne has a pretty deep pipeline of projects, and we're not tied to one.
The TVA is an important opportunity; it's currently our primary focus, however, it's not the only one, as there are other engagements.
Dhanushka Samarakoon (Management): I'd like to highlight the importance of significant growth drivers that makes secure baseload nuclear power the only solution for both the U.S. 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. But certainly TVA is important as our core focus today.
Bikram Bagri (Citi): The second part of your question, if you don't mind repeating, that might be helpful for us.
Dhanushka Samarakoon (Management): I was asking if the changing economics of building a reactor is also somewhat delaying the discussions with TVA and other customers in the U.S. given the commodity prices are rapidly changing, the tariffs have moved around a lot. Is that somewhat of a holdup delaying the process?
Dhanushka Samarakoon (Management): I don't know if that's purely an SMR-related idea. I mean, tariffs and commodity prices affect everyone. Yeah, like these are the, you know, the provision of nuclear and deployment of nuclear is a very long-term type of idea. It has less to do with kind of like, you know, short-term swings and more to do with long-term needs, especially when those short-term swings are really macro and aren't just kind of, you know, they're not just focused on the nuclear industry or SMRs.
The provision of nuclear and deployment of nuclear is a very long-term type of idea.
Dhanushka Samarakoon (Management): That's yeah, that's kind of like US wide. Yeah, technology wide. And this relates to a couple of weeks ago, we attended there's an annual energy conference every year called Sierra week. And brings together energy senior executive government officials, NGOs from all over the world. And 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, U.S. domestic. You know, 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.