John Hopkins: 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, or 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, the fuel supply from Framitone, 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.
Carl Fisher: Yeah, one last thing also with Framitone is that they have multiple sites for supplying the fuel, both in Europe and also in the United States. Yeah, Richland, Washington for the U.S. and Lingen in Germany. And also they have a facility in France.
John Windham: That's great. I really appreciate all the detail. And thanks for taking my questions. Thank you, Nate.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Sharif El-McRobbie with BTIG. Please go ahead.
Sharif El-McRobbie: 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: Yeah, this is Clayton Scott, Chief Commercial Officer. So there is, 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's 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 the supply chain as much as possible within the United States. But there are options to move from there if it's not available or not capable to do within the country.
Sharif El-McRobbie: 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: 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 that dialogue with the NRC because we're looking for continuous improvement even as advanced as we are in Part 52 licensing space.
John Hopkins: 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: Yeah, it's good to know you guys have options available. Thanks for taking my questions. Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Eric Stein with Craig Hellam. Please go ahead.
Eric Stein: Hi, everyone. Good afternoon. Hello, Eric. How are you doing? 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 The customers were talked to I don't care if the process or generally utilities the feedback we normally get is that process companies whomever they are are
John Hopkins: 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, you know, we're significant years ahead of others. And we, you know, I want everybody to be successful. I'd like to see this U.S. vendors out there competing against state owned enterprises. But bottom line is we want to be a first mover.
Clayton Scott: I think I think 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 EntraOne we're having the most concrete and serious conversations with. So you see a lot of stuff out there, a lot of noise, but a lot of it is around a part 50 movement, which I think has a large element of risk, which was mentioned earlier. I do believe that the customers that were, I'd say, on a very serious level in engagement, they truly appreciate and recognize where we are.
Eric Stein: 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.
John Hopkins: No, you asked a great question on supply chain because many of our suppliers are not only strategic partners, but they're also investors. As I often said, we've been in the process of ordering long lead items for years now. 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: Yeah, just to build on that one question, though, a lot of our suppliers are very nuclear savvy as well. And they are aware of the deployment 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, InfraOne.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald. Please go ahead.
Derek Soderberg: 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?
John Hopkins: Robert Marlayson, Good question, we have in fact we had one today ongoing meetings every week with the Department of Energy row power nuclear electric. Robert Marlayson, floor and 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. Robert Marlayson, floor is still in negotiations, what i'd call what they call pre EPC. So as we are aware today, those are those discussions are still ongoing.
Derek Soderberg: Got it. Got it. And as my follow up. So Entra 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?
Ramsey Hamady: Thanks. 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: 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
Ramsey Hamady: reduce um 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 sure thanks for the question um does it de-risk the project absolutely um you know funding is a massive component of pulling these projects together it's very complex and uh for intro one to be for example named in the U.S.-Japan Framework Trade Agreement with, I think, the $25 billion earmarked. That sort of funding can really move the needle for a project and 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.
Derek Soderberg: Got it. Really appreciate it, guys.
Ramsey Hamady: Thank you so much. Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Moses Sutton with BMP. Pariba, please go ahead.
Moses Sutton: Thanks for taking my questions. Any update on the Japanese financing framework that you can provide more detail on? Is this sort of going to be the gateway to FIDs on TVA projects? How do we think about that?
Ramsey Hamady: Hi, Moses. How are you doing? This is Ramsey Hamady. Hi, Ramsey. It could be. I mean, you know, 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, you know, 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 Hopkins: Well, this is john and I got public domain information with, you know, a pretty large component of that 550 billion to the American Japan framework was plated 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. We've been in discussions with both. We met with Korea last week and we're pretty excited about it. 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. We're at a tipping point, I think, as a country and in an industry. Something's going to break soon.
Ramsey Hamady: 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 potential, strong potential source of financing for projects.
Moses Sutton: Got it. Very helpful. And can you provide more detail on the fuel fabrication strategy with Framatome? Because our understanding, there are 444 assemblies on notice with 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?
Carl Fisher: 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 informed 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.
Moses Sutton: Thank you. Very helpful.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Craig Shear with Tui Brothers. Please go ahead.
Craig Shear: Good afternoon. So it sounds like a row power FID could take at least into 2027. If EntraOne 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: This is Ramsey Hamady, CFO. We're hopeful that TVA can come across the line at some point later this year. We believe that's a strong possibility. Our revenue stream, our cash flow this year, should TVA come across the line with, for example, PPA, we anticipate that we would have – site-specific services, so pre-OEM services. If we look at Rowe Power as an example, we had technology licensing, we had pre-feed, we had feed phase two. All in with Rowe Power, we realized about $8 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 kind of sounded 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 EntraOne gets a PPA with TVA.
Craig Shear: 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. Going forward before any major, you know, project news, is it fair to say that the cash burn should be, you know, improving?
Ramsey Hamady: Interesting. Interesting. So, again, this is Ramsey Hamley. So our AP was down. That's correct. But it was principally because we recognized the payable under the PMA agreement. At the time, the PMA agreement was signed because we acknowledged that 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, Um, which, you know, to, to this, 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. Um, so I, I say this as a point of pride, um, you know, now three years as 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, we, we believe we won't be talking in terms of burn rates by the end of this year. I hope to be operationally cashflow positive by the end of this year. But I positioned myself conservatively for, you know, for my company and for my investors. 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, 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. 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.
Craig Shear: Great. Thank you. Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Leanne Hayden with Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead.
Leanne Hayden: Hi, everyone. Thanks so much for my question. To start, I was just hoping you could help us. 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?
John Hopkins: I'm sorry, you're breaking up pretty bad. Yeah, I'm not repeating yourself.
Leanne Hayden: Sorry. Sorry about that. Can you guys hear me now?
John Hopkins: Yeah, better.
Leanne Hayden: Okay. 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.
Ramsey Hamady: 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 you know, the cost of building an NPM, and we're not providing guidance on the maturation of those costs through from first of a kind to end of a kind. So our apologies to staff. I think it's a little bit early for us to provide that sort of guidance. And your second question, you're talking about dollar per kilowatt hour. We've really gone away from this sort of metric. So we don't provide this. We don't provide guidance on that. Too fuzzy, really, to provide guidance on dollar per kilowatt hour. And plus, we don't produce the electrons. We sell NPMs.
Leanne Hayden: Okay. Yeah, that's fair enough. Got it. Thank you. And then, just curious, like after ENDR1 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?
Ramsey Hamady: 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 said 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, in relation to EntraOne post signing of a PPA with, post their 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 row power examples, a good idea of what we may anticipate.
Leanne Hayden: Got it. Okay, thank you, Randy. That's helpful.
Ramsey Hamady: Yeah, of course.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of John Windham with UBS. Please go ahead.
John Windham: 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 TBA. 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 TPA 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, the 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?
Clayton Scott: 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 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 COLA activities, into pre-feed activities, and supporting the supply chain for Intra 1. 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 not what you see today in the other in the other end.
John Hopkins: We're also all driven to once these days are to fantasize and. And put in place hopefully near term here. We also have been working diligently on our OEM contract, so it's in everybody's that your interest. As soon as these PPA's are defined, we quickly move into our OEM contract. You know we will do the color as Clayton mentioned, but getting that contract signed. it's everybody's benefit to get that done quickly. Yeah. Perfect.
John Windham: Appreciate the color. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thanks, John.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Bikram Bagri with Citi. Please go ahead.
Bikram Bagri: Good afternoon, everyone. I was wondering if you can talk about other customers, customers other than TBA 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 TBA and Ropower, TBA particularly, and other customers, do tariffs and logistics costs and higher commodity prices, they come up a lot, changing economics of building a reactor because of these things. And I asked this question while I saw a flash that the new 10% tariffs were deemed unlawful by the trade court just now. Are tariffs and, you know, the logistics cost changing economics, is that somewhat of a holdup? Are you talking to the customers other than TVA and Gopower?
Ramsey Hamady: 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. 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. The second part of your question, if you don't mind repeating, that might be helpful for us.
Bikram Bagri: 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?
Ramsey Hamady: I don't know if that's purely an SMR-related idea. I mean, tariffs and commodity prices affect everyone. Yeah, look, these are 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 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 on SMRs. That's kind of like U.S. wide, technology wide.
John Hopkins: And this relates to the couple of weeks ago we attended. There's an annual energy conference every year called Sierra Week. It 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 of coal-fired plants. We're going to see the need for, as I said, the elephant in the room is still the hyperscalers who demand energy. They want behind the meter. And recently, as the president announced, they're going to have to figure out how to incur those costs. So the demand poll right now that we're seeing is unlike anything I've ever seen. It's been a long cycle, but I believe we're finally starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel here that all these technologies are going to benefit. from the increase of our current government pushing this, needing energy security and national security and energy supply. So we're bullish on the market. We think the opportunity is near term.
Bikram Bagri: Got it. That's all I have. Thank you.
John Hopkins: Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Brian Lee: Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for squeezing me in. I missed a little bit of the earlier part of the call, so I apologize if some of this is redundant. And you did cover a lot with respect to TVA and related topics. But I wanted to ask specifically, given some of your comments, Ramsey, so I think a lot of focus on the PPA with TVA. And you kind of alluded to the fact that maybe it could happen later this year. Let's presume it does. Can you kind of walk us through what happens next, right? When does an equipment OEM offtake get finalized? Is that in conjunction with the PPA or is that a few quarters later? And so you're talking about 2027. And then you also mentioned pre-feed revenue. There was no mention about deposits. I think you've talked about deposits in the past, but is that something that's still on the table? Because it does seem like you would need that to be cash flow, you know, neutral deposit, as you mentioned, is sort of your ambition maybe later this year. But just trying to understand the sequencing here around some of those elements.
John Hopkins: Yeah, let me start with the, I mentioned earlier, we've been working diligently on the structure of the now we have to wait for the definitive definition of the, however. It's in everybody's interest as soon as these are put in place that we quickly negotiate and finalize our. So, we're hoping near term that once that's done, that's 1st thing we got to get done. The other part of the question.
Ramsey Hamady: So I think it was sequencing. So, you know, once we have the PPA, what can we expect? Brian, we talked about, and I don't know if you heard this part or not, but I referenced row power. So, hey, you know, within the context of row power, as an example, we did, you know, pre-feed, feed phase two, and technology licensing. That was about $80 million in revenues. I think on top of that, you could add COLA work. So that's site-specific licensing work. which we can anticipate to see post-PPA and not necessarily tied to having an OEM because that's work that kind of just needs to push forward. On deposits, I may be getting a little bit tripped up on the nomenclature of how we describe it. Within an OEM contract, we would expect payments, and those payments would be staged over time. We're actively working to structure an OEM agreement now, but it's not deposits per se. It's us producing NPMs under an OEM agreement and acting as essentially a pass-through as funds go from EntraOne, the buyer of the NPMs, to our supply chain, Doosan and others, to pay for the production of the NPMs. I think the last point, I'm not sure if you asked this or I'm just kind of interpreting this through the dialogue, but we anticipate the OEM then to be like a, you know, OEM is a cash positive event for New Scale. I know there are some payments to go out under PMA, but ultimately we anticipate payments coming in more than offset that. And then we have a runway, TBD, and this is all to be negotiated in the OEM agreement, but then we have a runway of payments coming in to ultimately pay for the modules. Did I answer that correctly, Brian?
Brian Lee: I don't know if I was clear there. Yeah, I understand the scope of work and getting paid on delivery of components. I suppose it's maybe, as you said, Gramsci nomenclature, but my understanding was that there was going to be some structuring of a upfront deposit, that would be quite significant once you have the OEM agreement in place.
Ramsey Hamady: But maybe that's... Yeah, no, that's right, Brian. That's right. No, it's not just payment upon... It's not like we produce and we hand over an NPM and then we get paid for an NPM. And I think what you may be speaking to is like ideas of working capital, I think. You know, cash and working capital as we go to produce NPMs. We would anticipate that we have staged payments over time, starting at the signing of the OEM agreement, and then pushing into the future as we progress manufacturing of the NPM, and then terminating in the delivery of the NPM.
Brian Lee: Last one from me, and I'll take it offline. When you said upon signing Signing the equipment OEM, you expect to be cash flow positive. Are you talking about recouping, in addition to the PMA that's made upon signing the PPA, also the initial milestone payment of, I guess, the $500 million that's already been paid? What's the scale of what you're referencing in terms of being cash flow positive once you hit the equipment OEM agreement?
Ramsey Hamady: Yeah, I was really referencing, in that particular statement, I was referencing milestone three under the PMA of what we expect to pay out under milestone three and what we expect to take in is that we'll be cash flow positive on that. The total milestone payments overall, I think those are recoverable or we can recoup those over the course of delivering the NPM and the payments that come in. But I was solely referring to that moment in time, Brian. An OEM is signed. Amounts are due under a PMA. Amounts come in as, you know, first payment under an OEM. And the net of those we anticipate being cash flow positive.
Brian Lee: Okay. Makes sense. I appreciate the clarification. Thanks, guys. Sure.
Ramsey Hamady: Thank you.
Operator: Your final question for today comes from the line of Brian Feenst with B. Reilly Securities. Please go ahead.
Brian Feenst: Hey, Ryan, how you doing? Hey, Ramsey, how are you? Thanks for taking the question. Maybe just a follow-up on RowPower. Ramsey, you just mentioned the revenue earned there over the last couple of years, but could you share what the revenue opportunity might look like if RowPower continues to advance, or maybe what types of services you'd be providing in the next stage of that project.
Carl Fisher: This is Carl Fisher. The next phases of the project, it's just a backup event. We finished the fees just in November. Once again, we are a sub to floor corporation. And Floor Corporation is now pulling together the next phases, which is what they call a pre-EPC approach. So the lion's share of that will go to most likely to Floor, and we'll have a subcomponent. And they're still working through what that scope actually is. So until they get that finalized, we're not going to know exactly what kind of revenue streams we're going to be pulling in for this what we call a pre-approach.
Brian Feenst: Understood. Thanks, guys.
Operator: That concludes our question and answer session. I will now turn the call back over to John Hopkins for closing remarks.
John Hopkins: Thank you very much, operator. Our objective today, folks, is try to level set as much as we could. There's a lot of chatter in the market right now, but New Scale didn't just happen. We've been a team that's been hard at work for nearly two decades with one clear mission, help power the global energy transition by delivering safe, scalable, and reliable energy. And with that, I'll sign off, and we thank you. Until next time.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.
