Good afternoon and welcome to NuScale Power's Second Quarter 2025 Earnings Results Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. A replay of today's conference call will be available and accessible on NuScale Power's Investor Relations website. A web replay will be available for 30 days following the earnings call. At this time, for opening remarks, I would like to turn the call over to Rodney McMahan, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you, Operator. Welcome to NuScale Power's second quarter 2025 earnings results conference call. With us today are John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer. On today's call, we will provide an update on our business and discuss our quarterly financial results. We will then open the phone lines for questions. This afternoon, we posted a set of supplemental slides on our Investor Relations website. As reflected in the safe harbor statement on slide two, the information set forth in the presentation and discussed during the course of our remarks and the subsequent Q&A session includes forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views of existing trends and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties. You can find a discussion of our risk factors, which could potentially contribute to such differences in our 2024 annual report on Form 10-K and subsequent SEC filings. I'll now turn the call over to John Hopkins, NuScale Power's President and Chief Executive Officer. Thank you, Rodney, and good afternoon, everyone. To begin, I'd like to remind everyone who we are and why NuScale is a global leader in small modular reactor, or SMR technology, as outlined on slide three. Founded in 2007, NuScale is years ahead of the competition as the only SMR technology approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC. For more than a decade, our team has worked alongside the NRC to achieve the successful approval of our designs, including a second approval for our 77 MW electric design in the second quarter of 2025. A crucial step in moving NuScale and our exclusive commercialization partner, ENTRA1, closer to meeting the demands of energy users in need of clean baseload power. Our design approvals, combined with an established manufacturing ecosystem, a life-to-date investment of approximately $2 billion to de-risk plant licensing and operation, and unmatched safety capabilities make NuScale the only near-term deployable SMR technology with 12 NuScale Power Modules currently in production. Through 18 years, NuScale has capitalized on the maturity and strong foundation of light water reactor technology and has moved forward with confidence to develop unmatched capabilities with unprecedented continuity and consistency of vision. Our SMR technology offers a wide range of carbon-free, energy-intensive application possibilities, as outlined on slide four. Working with industry and national laboratories, NuScale has assessed the integration of these applications into facilities powered by NuScale Power Modules and published results in peer-reviewed journals or presented them at national conference proceedings. These applications include providing power to mission-critical facilities, water desalinization needs, and hydrogen production, and process heat to meet the needs of commercial-scale industrial applications. However, the application currently garnering the most attention and representing the biggest opportunity for NuScale's technology is a generation of uninterruptible, carbon-free baseload power to meet the energy demands of advanced data centers and sophisticated artificial intelligence systems. While there are other SMR technologies in development, NuScale's module architecture is the only one with NRC approval. It's the only one in the manufacturing stage and the only one that offers the flexibility to serve multiple energy applications within a single plant, as our design allows for different modules in the same power plant to be designated for a variety of applications. Turning to slide five, we summarize the NuScale and ENTRA1 global commercialization partnership. Under this partnership, NuScale, serving as a technology provider, sells its NuScale Power Modules directly to ENTRA1 for installation in the reactor buildings of ENTRA1 energy plants. ENTRA1, in turn, develops, finances, and, depending on the business model, may own and operate the energy production plants powered by NuScale's SMR technology. By providing customized plant development, ownership, and operating structures, ENTRA1 is able to de-risk projects and meet each customer's unique needs. We continue to be optimistic that the growing interest in our technology and its critical use cases, as well as NuScale's distinctive competitive edge in the module manufacturing and conventional fuel readiness, will result in an order in 2025 for our NuScale Power Modules. Since our last earnings call, we have seen strengthening of the regulatory tailwind supporting the nuclear power industry, driven by the President's executive orders to deploy advanced nuclear reactor technologies in support of national security. These executive orders, which we summarize on slide six, were issued in addition to ongoing bipartisan support for the advancement of carbon-free advanced nuclear projects through the Inflation Reduction Act, a $900 million appropriation for SMR-specific cost-sharing funding. In the Advanced Act, designed to streamline NRC approvals for faster deployment, NuScale supports these efforts to transform and modernize the NRC while maintaining the NRC safety standards. While not all regulatory actions will directly benefit NuScale, as we have progressed beyond research and development to commercialization, we expect to benefit from shortened regulatory timelines for new deployments, a bolstered domestic nuclear supply chain, and the overall commitment of the U.S. government to prioritize the deployment of advanced nuclear reactor technologies. Importantly, interest in NuScale's SMR technology extends domestically and abroad. As discussed on slide seven, NuScale continues to support RoPower's goal of developing and deploying the first SMR power plant in Romania, at Doicesti, the site of a decommissioned coal-fired plant that is now entirely removed. To further advance the project, in June of this year, an International Atomic Energy Agency site and external events design advisory mission visited Doicesti to advise on the finalization of the site license application. The project continues to generate revenue and positive cash flow for NuScale from engineering and licensing fees, as well as pre-commercial operation date services, primarily in connection with the Fluor-led Phase II front-end engineering and design study. As this critical work on the RoPower project continues, we are also working with Fluor towards their input to a final investment decision. In the second quarter, we also continued our efforts to prepare the next generation of nuclear talent by opening two more energy exploration, or E2 centers, at South Carolina State University and George Mason University, bringing the total number of NuScale E2 centers to 11, with locations in the U.S., Europe, Asia, and Africa. As discussed on slide eight, these centers use state-of-the-art computer modeling paired with a fully integrated SMR control room simulator, supporting users to step into the role of control room operators and navigate a wide range of simulated plant scenarios. These workstations provide real-time visibility into the status of any unit across the plant model, enabling effective oversight of operations. It is worth noting that, unlike traditional nuclear energy facilities, our NuScale Power Modules are designed with advanced safety systems that operate independently of human intervention, offering a new standard for passive safety. We are proud of the progress we continue to make at NuScale as a leader in our space and excited to continue to build on this momentum through the remainder of the year. Now over to Ramsey for the financial update. Thank you, John, and hello everyone. Our financial results are available in our filings, so my focus will be on explaining major line items, which can be found on slide nine. NuScale's overall equity in capital resources, which includes cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments, and long-term investments, remains a robust $489.9 million in total at June 30, 2025. This represents a $31.5 million decline from the prior quarter, but an increase of $359 million from the same quarter in the prior year. NuScale reported revenue of $8.1 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2025, compared to $1 million during the same period in the prior year. This increase was primarily driven by fees received from the engineering and licensing work, as well as other pre-commercial operational date services we provide in support of the RoPower project. Operating expenses were $44.9 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2025, compared to $42 million during the same period in the prior year. While operating expenses increased slightly in the second quarter, our quarterly spend remains consistent with prior periods and reflects management's disciplined approach to cash management. Looking ahead, we expect operating expenses to increase beginning the second half of 2025, as purchases of long-lead materials increase to further enhance our manufacturing and supply chain readiness. I will conclude my remarks with a brief overview of our capitalization summary, as shown on slide ten. Additional information may be found in our 10-Q and earnings release, both of which are filed with the SEC. 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? Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question today, remember it's star followed by the number one on your touch-tone phone. Our first question for today comes from the line of Marc Bianchi with TD Cowen. Your line is live. Hey, thanks, guys. Ramsey, I guess just to follow up on that, you talked about the operating expense increase in the second half. Curious if you could quantify that. Is this related to the earlier plan to increase the long-lead item procurement, or are you actually increasing that again? There's, I think it was 12 modules. Are you going up to more than that, or is this just part of the original plan and the phasing of that spend? Yeah, Mark, I appreciate you asking that because we did want to indicate to our analysts and to the markets that we do plan an increase in OpEx for Q3 and an additional increase for Q4. That's really, Mark, I think you're aware we don't provide specific guidance on numbers, but that is in line with our efforts to continue to develop 12 modules and develop our supply chain and invest in the commercialization of NuScale. It's not that there is an intent to build more than 12 modules right now. We don't build speculatively, but we are investing in our supply chain in anticipation of commercial contracts and design finalization. Investing in your supply chain just takes additional money. We've maintained discipline over, I think it's been six quarters where we've held OpEx to ± 5% or so. Now we're engaging a very focused and very methodical increase in OpEx in order to engage the supply chain and just get ready for the commercial contracts which we're anticipating. Yep. Okay, great, thanks. Another question on, so Fluor, when they had their quarter the other day, they also had an announcement about converting P-shares to A-shares and said they're looking at a stock market-facing solution rather than the strategic that they've been talking about for several quarters. I guess I'm curious, you know, I know you guys don't have anything to say probably about their plans for selling stock, but my question's more about, you know, this strategic transaction, you know, some presumed, you know, partner of NuScale's or would-be partner of NuScale's that could have an equity stake now no longer potentially having that equity stake. Does it change sort of the business outlook or the go-to-market strategy that you guys would have if, you know, that strategic weren't to be an equity holder of NuScale? Yeah, I think maybe a few comments there. One is a clarification item, Mark. Fluor owns Class B units, and so they're a Class B unit holder. Class B units may be exchangeable to Class A shares. Periodically, we offer B unit holders the opportunity to engage in exchange. The last time we approached the Class B unit holders, Fluor held their hands up and said, "Hey, we'd like to do an exchange." We permitted conversion of 50 million shares, subject to some bumpers because we just want to ensure that we maintained orderly markets. I can't read into whether or not Fluor will even sell those Class A shares. I have no idea. I don't know if their strategy has changed vis-à-vis a strategic shareholder. I'll tell you that our go-to-market strategy has not changed. Fluor's actions in relation to their shares are their own decisions. We don't have insight and we don't provide commentaries, but our go-to-market strategy hasn't changed at all. It's well-defined. It's been consistent. I think it's a winning strategy, and we maintain that regardless of what Fluor does with their ownership stake. Okay, thanks very much. I'll turn it back. Okay. Thank you, Marc. Our next question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG. Your line is live. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. Can you remind us how many modules Doosan can make in a year? You talked about maintaining discipline. What would it take for you to order long lead items for another of these modules this year? Yeah, this is John Hopkins. I'm sorry, go ahead. No, John, you go ahead, please. No, Doosan has commented to us that they can make up to 20 modules per year with the existing, and also they're going to continue to tune up. Interestingly, last month, we actually took a customer with us and a state government official to visit Doosan to actually see production ongoing. They were quite surprised at how advanced Doosan was in the manufacturing of our modules, not only the modules, but the helical coil steam generators. Going out and actually seeing end production and touching steel, so to speak, that's a major marketing tool for us that I don't believe anybody else currently could do that within the market. Thank you for your questions. Our next question is from the line of Eric Stine with Craig-Hallum. Your line is live. Hi, everyone. Thanks for taking the questions. Hey, how are you doing? Hey, doing well. Thanks. Obviously, in Q2, the operator approval was a very nice event to have that occur early. I'm curious, has that set off maybe a higher number of discussions, maybe taken those discussions to an elevated level of engagement? Obviously, that was a needed step to reach your goal of a firm commitment by the end of 2025. Just curious the response or the impact of that. Yeah, this is John Hopkins. I would say that the response, people were in a waiting mode to see if, in fact, we could go from the 50 MW to 77 MW. It was accomplished. We're there, and now we are, in fact, seeing more line of sight of potential customers. In fact, last week, we were with a new customer that I would say new. We've been in discussions with quite some time. They were kind of in a holding mode. Now that we're at 77 MW, it's prompted him to have additional conversations with us going forward. If I can add, let's call it, it wasn't just like a nice thing to have. We're the only company with two NRC approvals for small modular reactors. There's no other company with even one. We got through with two. There are a lot of people out there doubting, saying, "Hey, you're not going to get through. It's going to take too long. It's going to overrun this, and that, and the other." We came out very quietly, just like we always do. We got the work done. We got across the line early. Our team's working on that. They did an absolutely excellent job. They smashed it. It was a grand slam to get that done early, get it over the line, and just further differentiate us from the competition. That's a good point, Ramsey. We were scheduled for a July completion, and we made it two months earlier. I got to give credit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and our licensing team for staying on top of it and getting it accomplished because, to Ramsey's point, it has opened the aperture for other customers because we are near-term deployable. We got modules in production. We're ready to go. We have, under Part 52, both an operating license and a construction license. You're seeing a lot of construction permits that you cannot, you can build a plant, but you can't operate it without an operating license. Absolutely. A clear differentiator. Maybe a good segue. Obviously, this took you, the uprate, clearly a shorter period of time, given that you'd already had the first uprate and that was an add-on. As you think about the regulatory process and the differentiator that is in the market, maybe some high-level thoughts on the regulatory environment and a lot of the talk about whether it's streamlined process, potentially the DOD or the DOE having some say in the regulatory side of it. Just maybe what you think that means for some of your competitors or just others in the market. That would be very helpful. Yeah, I think one, I think a big distinctive we have is we are using conventional fuel that's readily available in the marketplace. There's 400+ light water reactors around the world. We don't need high-assay low-enriched uranium fuel, which has been a, it's going to be an issue, I think, going forward. It's going to be costly. As it relates to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, having been through the process, what we're hoping for is more of the streamlining of getting through the construction operation license agreement. It's going into the build stage of our plants, having, again, we're not having to worry about going through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing per se. We are hopeful that, and it's to be seen, are other technologies going to be able to move quickly? I hope so. We don't necessarily want to be a monopoly or the only U.S.-based customer. The market is, and you could just read the headlines every day, the market potential on a global scale is phenomenal. Okay. Thanks, Eric. I would add to that, the other major differentiator is our progress with our supply chain. There's no one else that's engaged manufacturing supply chain like we have. Even with a group like Doosan, we've been working for seven years. They've invested, not just in an equity perspective, but in their facility, in new technologies, and building our LLMs. The supply chain differentiation is massive. There's a two-part dance here: regulatory licensing, but also you got to get the darn thing built. That takes a heck of an effort. We've been engaged in that for years now. Yeah, thank you, guys. Yeah, actually, I had dinner last week with the CEO of one of our suppliers out of Japan, IHI. Again, we sat down and looked through the pipeline of what the potential opportunities are and, you know, for them to gear up. If you look at some of these organizations, like Doosan as an example, they have many subcontractors that here in the United States we're engaged with too. Many of the suppliers, we had a phenomenal, over 100 people, I think it was 32 suppliers in North Carolina, kicking the tires and ready to get tooled up to take advantage of the opportunities that they see coming down the pike. Very good. Thank you for your questions. Our next question is from the line of Sundarya Iyer with B. Riley Securities. Your line is live. Hi, everyone. This is Sundaria on behalf of Ryan Pfingst from B. Riley Securities. Thanks for taking my question. I just wanted to touch on the macro part, like looking at the recent executive orders. What do you guys think are the mandates or directions in the executive orders which are most beneficial for NuScale specifically? Ramsey? Sorry to talk, John. When we look at the executive orders, I think there's more of a macro idea that promotes the whole industry. I mean, there's a lot that supports NuScale. There's a lot around licensing, but the licensing that we see in the executive orders that benefit us specifically is more site-specific licensing. I think when you're dealing with projects, and for us, remember, ENTRA1 does the project. They execute on projects. That type of licensing is more beneficial to us simply by the fact that we're so far ahead of the competition. I think there's some tailwinds for licensing in relation to technology, and that's great, and that's good for the whole industry, and we support that. In terms of the most recent executive orders, looking at how they seek to expedite site-specific licensing benefits NuScale more than anyone else. I think that just further pushes us ahead. Yeah, part of that answer, we spend a lot of time on the Hill with both sides of the aisle. The bipartisan support for advanced nuclear, for a variety of reasons, either national security or reliability or climate disruption, I think it's stronger now than I've seen historically. That bodes well for the industry. It's just a matter of time that we're going to see a big movement, I believe, within this country. This current administration is pressed to get success stories quickly. They have a limited period of time to make that happen. I think with the executive orders, with the possible streamlining of the NRC, and as I stated, where it benefits us is to move quicker on the construction and the operation side of the ledger, I think the tailwinds bode well for the industry and NuScale particularly. That's helpful. Thank you. If I may add in just one more, on your expectation on what would be the first project or how it would look like in terms of potential partners or the power users? As we stated, we're working with our developer, strategic partner, ENTRA1. ENTRA1 has been out in conversations with our government and with prospective clients. It's the hyperscalers, it's utilities, it's even process-oriented companies because what we're still seeing, many of these entities don't necessarily want to own the nuclear asset. They just want 24/7 clean energy. What we're seeing is, if I look historically at what the market has been, coal plant refurbishment, that's not gone away. We still see a pretty big spike of coal plant closures coming up. Our process-oriented heat, we are the only company that has a legitimate emergency planning zone licensed by the NRC at site boundary. That has bode well for process-oriented companies that would like to see something outside the fence line where any disruption wouldn't have a material impact on their ongoing business operations. The big gorilla in the room is still the hyperscalers, data centers, and their thirst for energy going forward. A plus that they see in NuScale is the scalability of our units. With 12 modules online, that's 924 MW. You're pushing a gigawatt size. The beauty of that, any refueling cycle is only a 10-day cycle. You could take one down and you have 11 modules continue to run 24/7. It's not like a single screwed plan, as we state, that once that plant comes offline, you have to look elsewhere for energy. That's a big selling point for us. Thank you. If you want to take a look at some of the business model, I think also our presentation, I think on the third slide has a good explanation of the business model with ENTRA1 and how we intend to work together and then how they intend to work with power users and utilities. There's a good explanation there of how ENTRA1 builds and develops plants. Just since we're on the presentation, flip the page from there, and the next slide talks about the regulatory tailwinds. It goes in specific executive orders, most of them like the May 23, 2025 executive orders, and then the output of what we see from a macro basis. When I talk about kind of site-specific ideas, it was a response to the question of, "Hey, what benefits NuScale specifically?" I think site-specific ideas benefit us the most since we are licensed and we are near-term deployable. If you want a full rundown, there's a good kind of summary there within our investor presentation. Sure, I'll check that out. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you. Our next question is from the line of Vikram Bakri with Citigroup. Your line is live. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. This is Vignesh in place of Vikram. Just touching back on the customer agreements, I know you guys have talked about it. Just curious on any updates on the active customer negotiations. I believe you guys mentioned there's about 10 advanced discussions last quarter or so. What categories kind of these are focused on? I know you guys are focused on like these hyperscalers, utilities, but anything outside of that, any color on that would be great. Yeah, we're in discussions with the U.S. government. Somebody commented earlier about the Department of Defense. They have an interest in the utilities. We're focused on some of the utilities, and they'd like to see their licensed site. They'd like to see the hyperscalers come onto their facility. As I stated in earlier calls, it's a complex financial transaction. You're dealing with the utility owner or the owner in general. In our case, the owner is ENTRA1, who's in negotiations with these entities to bring hyperscalers, to bring the Department of Defense. We're kind of across the board. One thing we're finding is that we do have the ongoing Romania. There's a lot of interest outside this country right now, but we're finding within the United States, we have limited resources, so we're really laser-focused in on closure on maybe one or two sites or one or two customers. Now maybe it's a good time to define this a little bit more clearly. I know we have some newer analysts on the line, and we have some long-term, like Marc Bianchi. Marc, you've been with us since day one. I think you've seen the development of our business model. It's important to remember when we talk about our customers, ENTRA1 is our customer. ENTRA1 is a developer of power plants. They're ENTRA1 power plants with NuScale inside. It's like buying a computer with an Intel chip. We're the Intel chip inside, in this case, in the power plant. We're hand-in-glove with ENTRA1. I don't sell, we talk about discussions with the utilities, the hyperscaler, and the military, the U.S. government. Those are all end users, but we don't sell electrons, right? I just want to kind of reset and level with the idea that we sell NPMs, NuScale Power Modules. Those power modules go into the plant. ENTRA1 develops the plant and they own and operate the plant. There are different business models, but it's an ENTRA1 plant. ENTRA1 sells the energy to the customer, whether it be a utility or government or military, whomever it is, ENTRA1 has been out there buying the PPAs and selling the power. Just so we craft this correctly, I want the market to understand what the story is and what the business model is because that business model, the fact that we have ENTRA1 as our developer, is a differentiator, right? We're not out here trying to develop technology, develop power plants, get PPAs. That's a huge pull. We're a tech company. We develop technology. Technology is for a NuScale Power Module. NuScale Power Module is built as an, we're kind of an OEM seller. I'm sorry, not reseller, but we're an OEM seller of a piece of equipment. We outsource that equipment. We outsource the production. We deliver it to an ENTRA1 power plant. ENTRA1 puts it in the power plant and then sells the power. Again, we talk about customers. Let's be clear. I do this for some of our newer analysts. I think it's important. We have one customer. That customer is ENTRA1. ENTRA1 faces the market. They develop the power plants. They sell the power. We just sell the NuScale Power Module. We're the Intel inside to the laptop, if you use that analogy, or whatever analogy you want to use. We're the tech inside the power plant. We're not the power plant developer. Yeah, that coincides with what I said earlier, that many of these entities, they don't necessarily want to, you know, the asset. They don't want to own nuclear. They just want 24/7. With our developer and their banking relationships and source of funding, they're able to offer a build-own-transfer, build-own-operate, or be flexible enough to work out scenarios that's providing solutions to these entities that Ramsey just mentioned. Got it. That's super helpful. Thanks for the breakdown. Just one more question, if I may. Would you be able to quantify kind of the progress on the Phase II feed study for RoPower and how the next steps kind of might look like in terms of timeline or any other developments around that? Thanks. Yeah, as you know, we're a Fluor Corporation as a prime. We're a subcontractor of Fluor. RoPower and the Romanian government, they continue to pay their bills, and we're keeping our finger on the pulse, watching it very closely. We have ongoing, almost weekly conversations on progress. They're looking at their final notice to proceed. Now it looks to be probably in the timeframe of mid to late 2026, early 2027. We continue to support Fluor as the prime, providing the engineering requirements for the modules. So far, so good. Thank you for your questions. Our next question is from the line of Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Your line is live. Hi, good afternoon, and thanks for taking the questions. On Sherif's question and the answer about the supply chain having the ability to make up 20 modules annually, does that mean you have the ability to shoulder two orders somewhat concurrently of a 12-module and a 6-module order, but you couldn't shoulder, say, two dozen orders simultaneously? To the degree there's any, you know, kind of competition in terms of getting it to the customer on time by 2030, 2031, what kind of negotiation, discussion, coordination do you have with ENTRA1 if maybe you have a 6-module order ready to go, but that might slow down a 12-module order? No, you know, our model has always been predicated on the fact, you know, we manufacture our models in a factory. They're fungible assets with the intent to have multiple projects going at any given time. However, we're also very cognizant of the fact of what our capacity to execute is, so we don't want to get out over our ski tips. Quite frankly, I just want one right now. I want to get a hard contract near term, and we continue to build out our supply chain, which is critical for us. We have ongoing meetings because many of the suppliers, as you know, once you get the order booked, they'll start gearing up. As for Doosan, we've got 12 modules coming online right now. That's a gigawatt-sized plant. In our discussions with them, they're willing to tool up and even do more, IHI and the other suppliers. We're limited to our supply chain and to get those modules. That's why long lead items are so critical. Anybody says they can get to 2030 COD without these long lead items, I don't see it as a possibility. We're still focused on getting modules in the ground by the 2030 timeframe. That's helpful. You have mentioned, I believe, historically that you're on the hook if you don't get a customer, covering it for over a couple hundred million dollars of CapEx the next couple of years on what you've already ordered. You just said you're going to be ramping OpEx and presumably having a wider cash burn. Is it fair to say that this is carpe diem time, that the second half of this year is a critical time to get signed, sealed, and delivered customer commitment or two that can start shouldering some of this so you don't have to do it all on balance sheet? I'll take that question. Look, there's a fine line to walk here as we're pushing forward. I often state that I don't wish to, and I don't think my shareholders wish for me to use their money to build an inventory of NPMs. That's not the way this goes. When I enter contracts, I enter contracts that have pathways out, they have pathways to slow down, they have pathways to speed up. We do this and we enter in and we want to build at least the long lead materials in relation to 12 NPMs so that we can expedite delivery of the first plant to a customer. It's not, I'm not out there with this idea that I'm going to invest a billion dollars into building these power modules just on my own dime, absent an order. I think we have to, we refine the dialogue a little more eloquently than that. We do invest into our LLMs. We do want to speed up the process by which we can deliver. We want to invest in the supply chain. The suppliers, they're not sitting around twiddling their thumbs. They want to see orders. As I mentioned before in an earlier question, having our regulatory approval is one thing. That's great. Having two, amazing, excellent. The best of the best. Supply chain is also another tough nut to crack. There's not a ton of nuclear suppliers worldwide, right? In America especially, the nuclear industry has been stagnant for a long time. For us, I think there's a fine line there where we're activating our suppliers, working with them, we're investing in them, and we're investing in our inventory. As a management team, we also are very careful about shareholder funds and we're not, we're not going like spec. It's not like, I'm not going for broke in H2 and just going to build as many as I can. That's not the way we operate a company, right? We take a more measured approach. Fair enough. I appreciate the time. Thank you. Our next question is from the line of Leanne Hayden with Canaccord Genuity. Your line is live. Good evening, everyone. Thanks so much for taking my questions, and congrats on the NRC upgrade approval. Thank you. Thank you. Of course, of course. Just to start, I was curious if you've noticed any industry trends in terms of project financing. Just curious broadly if you've noticed any sort of third-party ecosystem or anything of that nature taking shape. John, do you want to go or should I go? Go ahead. I'm thinking on the question. Yeah. Look, we work, again, like I'll take the opportunity to continue this distinction of the roles between NuScale Power and ENTRA1 and this kind of, you know, hand-in-glove sort of relationship that we have. We don't finance projects at NuScale Power because we don't build projects. You know, we build a piece of equipment for a customer, and the customer finances that through orders and through payments. We finance, you know, there may be some finances through working capital, but it's not project finance. To get to your question, it doesn't mean we don't have visibility into some of the discussions and the dialogue. We've seen remarkably, you know, pretty significant interest from large-scale U.S. and, you know, even like, you know, go out, look at large pools of capital outside the country, Commonwealth funds or others. We've seen significant interest from those groups in financing as kind of like scale capital outlay, scale investment theme, is financing projects for ENTRA1 using NuScale Power technology. I think part of that comes down to the fact that we use, A, we're the only, like, you know, we're the only licensed technology, and we got two of them. We use conventional fuel. It's light water reactor technology. It's everything that's commonly understood within the nuclear world. It's everything that financing wants. Plus, it's built offsite in a controlled environment without doing complex nuclear fabrication in the field. We've seen a ton of interest. We see it through it, like, and when we talk about project finance interest, we see it through ENTRA1. I see some interest through the equity markets, right? I see people wanting to own NuScale Power. I see money coming into the company. I also see when we go out and we talk to potential customers of ENTRA1 in coordination with ENTRA1, we see these third parties supporting those dialogues. That's, you know, I think that's something where, you know, this is what it takes to kind of reinvigorate nuclear America. These are big projects. They cost a lot of money. This is scale infrastructure investment from very large sources of capital, and we're seeing them pile in. [crosstalk]. That's very interesting. I think also, yeah, and just to add to that, you know, as was stated in there, we have over $2 billion invested in this asset. A lot of that went through scaling up of our components within this model to where, when you say first of a kind, the first of a kind really is you need to put one together and get it operational. The components themselves are typically, as Ramsey said, conventional fuel. Our turbine generators are skid mount units that are used in the oil patch. I mean, there's not really, the helical coil steam generators have been scaled and tested in Vicenza, Italy, and Doosan's building them currently. I don't see where we are right now. I don't, from the supply chain, it's just that we got to be careful that we don't exceed expectations. We do what we say we can do, and we treat our suppliers fairly, and we continue to build out our supply chain, which is what we're doing right now. Certainly. Yeah, completely agree. Just one more from me. Of course, there's been a lot of exciting momentum domestically in the nuclear space. Just curious if you're seeing any sort of similar trends internationally in terms of customer interest specifically. Yeah, we do. I commented earlier, we're getting a lot of, you know, Finland, Sweden, you know, even seeing Germany's now talking about possibly re-energizing reactors because of, you know, energy requirements. It gets back to where I'm saying right now, I would like to stay focused right on the U.S. base, building out our U.S. supply chain. Romania is a great project that we have currently right now that we're working on. Romania has aspirations of being a provider of SMRs in Central Eastern Europe. We hope we're part of that. The whole groundswell, desalinization, hydrogen production, none of that's gone away. In fact, it's ramping up. We've been working on hydrogen for quite some time with some process companies, and for hydrogen, it's really about the ability to get down to about $1.50 pkg. We're making progress. Again, our focus right now is with U.S.-based customers, aside from Romania, to get closure and near-term deals. Got it. That's very helpful. Yeah, I just received, and we receive great information all the time, but it's by kind of U.S. and their allies and the drivers for nuclear and kind of expectations, primary GW they expect to see. I'm looking at this now, people expect about demand for 100 GW of nuclear by 2040, at least among America and our allies. The Euro area of probably about 40 GW and UK and Scandi, probably about 16 GW. Just for the reasons that John mentioned, like reducing vulnerability, creating alternative energy supply, making liquid fuels and hydrogen, for example, for the EU from EU sources, high reliability for power, all these ideas that just make sense. If we go to China and other parts of the world, you have very significant numbers there as well, but we tend to focus on the U.S. and our allies here. For those who have been following us, it was only three, four years ago, we had customers asking for four module plants, six module plants. What we're hearing today, the more the better. It's 12 module plus. It's an interest, and again, a lot of it is because of hyperscalers, data centers, and the energy requirements that even outside this country, we're seeing requests for a minimum of 12 module plants, which has been a shift over the last, I'd say, two to three years. Got it. That's very helpful. Thank you both. Thank you. We have a final follow-up question for today from the line of Marc Bianchi with TD Cowen. Excuse me. Please go ahead. Marc, are you there? Give you another line here. One sec here. Marc, are you there? I am. Can you hear me? There you go. Go ahead, sir. Yes. Okay. Thanks. Thanks for squeezing me back in, guys. John, I heard you comment on, in reference to the RoPower project, that they would be, I think you said, looking at FID later in 2026 or early 2027. If I recall, that's a little bit later than we previously talked about. Can you talk about what's going on there and when we should be kind of expecting the cost estimate and Phase II FEED to wrap up? Yeah, we're at about a cost class four estimate right now with Fluor. We've recently been informed that they're pushing it out a little bit, and they're going to have a phased approach for a final investment decision. We've been told their final notice to proceed is probably looking towards the latter part of 2026. We continue to move forward under the direction of Fluor, providing the engineering deliverables that they and the customer are requesting. That's all I know right now, Marc, in terms of what we've been told by the customer themselves. They're still very bullish on the project. It's just timing. Got it. Got it. Okay, thanks so much. Thank you, Marc. Operator, are we complete? John, I can't hear anything either. I hope it's not just you and me on the line. My apologies. We're here. We do have a final call, a final question from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs. Go ahead, Brian. Your line's live. Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for squeezing me in. Apologies. I jumped on late, so some of this may be redundant, but I caught the last tail of the question right before me. Could you provide us an update kind of on RoPower timing and kind of what the milestones are? I thought that was one where originally you guys were maybe targeting as early as end of calendar 2025 to see something kind of FID there. Could you give us the latest on where RoPower stands? I had a follow-up. Yeah, certainly. We just commented earlier that we are a subcontract with Fluor Corporation, who's the prime. The customer, we've been working with them on a regular steady-state basis, and we've been told that their final investment decision is a phased approach. However, the final determination to proceed with the project is probably looking to be 2026, later part of 2026 is what we've been informed right now. That could change, but that's what we're working towards. Okay. Fair enough. Presumably, I think you guys have been public about targeting maybe a U.S.-based customer being your first to move forward sometime by the end of this year. Is that still kind of the target? What are the latest discussions you're having with some of your key constituents on the U.S. customer side of things? Maybe if I could just squeeze one last one in. The Trump executive orders, obviously, we've all gone through those. It seems like there's some action happening behind the scenes, things kind of moving forward, solicitations, etc. Could you give us a bit of an update as to where your visibility stands around some of the executive orders and maybe where NuScale Power is best positioned to potentially see some benefits from those moving forward? Thank you. Yeah. For us, on executive orders, from an NRC perspective, as I've commented earlier, we did get our 77 power upgrade license. Much of what we're working with the NRC today is the construction operations license agreement. We're hopeful that through the executive orders, that process will streamline. We can get to, you know, we can obviously construct earlier, but from an operating perspective, we could hopefully streamline that and get in the ground quicker. As it relates to customers, we're getting inundated now. We're focused, as I said, with our resources, working with our developer partner, ENTRA1, on two or three major customers that we're still forecasting having what I call hard contracts in place by the end of this year, 2025. Those are all U.S.-based customers. Super helpful. Thank you, guys. I'll pass it on. Thank you for your questions. Ladies and gentlemen, that will conclude our Q&A session here for today. I would like to turn it back to Mr. Hopkins for any closing comments. Thank you, operator. Again, NuScale continues to make strides towards deploying our technology. As I commented earlier, with strong tailwinds at our back, we believe we are well positioned to meet increasing global energy demands with safe, reliable, and sustainable energy. Right now, as I stated again, those tailwinds appear to be pretty strong moving forward. I would like to thank all of you for your interest in NuScale and for joining us on this call today. Until next time, thanks.