SMR

A month has gone by since the last earnings report for NuScale Power Corporation (SMR). Shares have added about 3% in that time frame, outperforming the S&P 500. But investors have to be wondering, will the recent positive trend continue leading up to its next earnings release, or is NuScale Power due for a pullback? Before we dive into how investors and analysts have reacted as of late, let's take a quick look at the most recent earnings report in order to get a better handle on the important catalysts. NuScale Power reported a second-quarter 2026 loss of 13 cents per share, in line with the Zacks Consensus Estimate. Revenues of $0.1 million plunged 98.8% from $8.1 million a year ago and missed the consensus mark of $1 million by 92.5%.The revenue decline reflected the completion of Fluor’s front-end engineering and design Phase 2 work for the RoPower project in late 2025. That work contributed to the prior-year quarter but had no comparable activity in the second quarter of 2026. Operationally, NuScale continued advancing commercial readiness, supported by more than 60 specialized suppliers and over 30 executed agreements.Management expects product and services revenues to increase as project activity advances and additional commercial work moves forward. NuScale continued preparing for future reactor construction by expanding its supplier network. The company said the detailed designs for many of its most important reactor components are largely complete, and that it has signed agreements with more than half of its supplier base. One key partner, Doosan Enerbility, has already started producing large steel components for NuScale Power Modules, helping reduce manufacturing delays for future projects.Other suppliers are also making progress. Framatome is developing nuclear fuel for NuScale's reactors, while Paragon is completing the final design of an important reactor safety and control system. NuScale also plans to use commercially available low-enriched uranium, making fuel sourcing simpler than relying on newer fuel types that are not yet widely available. NuScale's expenses increased during the quarter as it continued investing in future growth. Research and development expenses rose by $6.6 million, mainly because the company spent $7.1 million more on improving reactor designs and preparing its technology for commercial deployment. This was partly offset by $0.6 million of lower regulatory costs.General and administrative expenses increased by $4.4 million, driven by $1.2 million of higher employee and stock-based compensation costs, and $3.9 million of higher organizational expenses. These increases were partly offset by $1 million of lower legal costs. Other expenses rose by $8 million as more engineering and project teams focused on preparing future commercial projects instead of current customer work, reflecting NuScale's continued investment in building its technology, supply chain and workforce. ENTRA1 Energy continues discussions with the Tennessee Valley Authority toward a definitive power purchase agreement using NuScale technology. Management described the negotiations as active and progressing and said the company is prepared to begin licensing, front-end engineering and OEM contracting activities once agreements are finalized.In Romania, NuScale is working with Nuclearelectrica and RoPower to satisfy conditions for advancing a six-module project at Doicesti. Management expects the next pre-engineering, procurement and construction phase to run toward a final notice to proceed, while roughly 60% of prior combined operating license application work can be reused for another U.S. project. NuScale ended June with $766.5 million in cash and cash equivalents, $305.7 million in short-term investments and $820.8 million in long-term investments. The company characterized its liquidity strategy as preparation for commercialization, working-capital requirements and investments needed to reduce deployment timelines.Investment income increased $8.5 million year over year, reflecting the stronger cash position and larger holdings of cash equivalents and investments. Management also emphasized disciplined operating spending while continuing to fund supply-chain agreements, design finalization and fuel-system development In the past month, investors have witnessed a upward trend in estimates revision. The consensus estimate has shifted 15.39% due to these changes. Currently, NuScale Power has a poor Growth Score of F, a grade with the same score on the momentum front. Following the exact same course, the stock has a score of F on the value side, putting it in the lowest quintile for value investors. Overall, the stock has an aggregate VGM Score of F. If you aren't focused on one strategy, this score is the one you should be interested in. Estimates have been trending upward for the stock, and the magnitude of this revision looks promising. Interestingly, NuScale Power has a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). We expect an in-line return from the stock in the next few months. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research

NuScale Power's (NYSE: SMR) big goal is to mass-produce small-scale modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). These factory-built reactors could help to revolutionize the nuclear power industry, but there's one small problem. NuScale Power has yet to get a customer to sign on the dotted line. And even then, that's just the start of the process of proving the company's SMR technology is a winner. Here's the trade-off investors have to consider when looking at NuScale Power today. NuScale Power is only appropriate for the most aggressive investors. To put the risk here into perspective, the company generated just $75,000 in revenue in the second quarter of 2026. However, its business expenses totaled over $64 million. To be fair, it's a start-up in a capital-intensive business, so the fact that it is losing money isn't shocking. But the yawning gap between revenues and expenses highlights the risk. Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue » Another risk, however, is that the losses here mean NuScale is burning through cash. It has to generate money in some way if it wants to keep supporting its business. And in this situation, a key source of funding is the sale of stock. It recently announced plans to sell up to $750 million in shares. Every new share issued dilutes the nuclear power upstart's existing shareholders. The truth is, most investors will probably be better off waiting until NuScale Power has at least signed a definitive contract for one of its SMRs. However, even then, the company still has a lot to prove. After a contract is signed, the company needs to successfully build and deliver an SMR. And that SMR needs to operate as expected. Assuming everything goes well with that first SMR, the company still needs to ramp up production to a level that allows it to operate profitably over the long term. There are a lot of puzzle pieces that need to fit together perfectly here. Surging electricity demand, especially from artificial intelligence data centers that could benefit from dedicated SMRs, suggests a significant opportunity for NuScale Power. However, the company's early stage of development means costs are likely to continue to outrun revenues for a while longer. And that means only the most aggressive investors should even consider owning NuScale Power today. Dilution is a big deal, but it is just one of many risks you'll need to keep in mind. Before you buy stock in NuScale Power, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and NuScale Power wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $440,710!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,335,252!* Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 978% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 213% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 30, 2026. Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends NuScale Power. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. NuScale Reported Just $75,000 in Quarterly Revenue and Announced a $750 Million Share Sale. Is The Dilution Worth the Dream? was originally published by The Motley Fool

Over the coming decades, nuclear energy will be a $10 trillion opportunity. That's according to Bank of America analysts, who are particularly excited about a relatively novel method of producing nuclear power: small modular reactors, or SMRs. "Amid surging electricity demand, driven in part by the rise in AI/data centers, nuclear energy offers a potential solution," Bank of America concluded in a recent report. "And new advancements in technology may now make the tipping point in sight for small modular reactors (SMRs) to reshape nuclear energy supply chains over the next decade." Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue » NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR) is currently the only company in the U.S. approved by regulators to build an SMR system. On a recent call with investors, CEO John Hopkins stressed that the company remains "the only SMR company in the world to have earned U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission standard design approval," adding that it has "done it for two separate designs, our 50-megawatt and our 77-megawatt modules." Many other companies are currently working through the approval process for SMRs. But NuScale has leveraged its early approvals to secure large deals, including a 6-gigawatt project for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). If built, that system would be the largest SMR facility in the world by a large margin. NuScale's second-quarter numbers are already in the books, and it's expected to report Q3 earnings on Nov. 5. Only one detail will likely matter from that announcement: Has a power purchase agreement (PPA) been signed with the TVA? A power purchase agreement would essentially lock the TVA into buying power from the project. This financial commitment would allow NuScale to begin construction. It's hard to understate how significant a PPA would be for NuScale's business model and stock price. Right now, the market seems skeptical that the TVA project will ever move forward, and NuScale's struggling stock price and market cap under $4 billion reflect that. To gauge how much shares could spike with a signed PPA, it's important to consider NuScale's history of failed projects. NuScale has signed major customers before, only to see them cancel the projects before major financial commitments were made firm. For example, in 2019, it inked a deal with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) to build SMRs to supply electricity to the utilities. The project's original scope called for six 77-megawatt SMR modules, generating a total of 462 MW. It was expected to enter service in 2029. Project delays and higher-than-expected costs led NuScale's utility partners to withdraw, which led to the cancellation of the whole project. "[S]ubstantial cost overruns and delays from its originally scheduled 2026 operational date spooked utilities ... leading several to withdraw from a 2019 agreement to buy 200 MW from the reactors once completed," one industry report observed. Before the cancellation was made public in late 2023, NuScale's stock price had already fallen by nearly 80% that year, signaling the market's lack of confidence that the deal would ever result in meaningful revenue, let alone profits. "Although there were problems specific to that project, the financial challenges and cost trends witnessed in this case will afflict any small modular nuclear reactor project," one industry insider warned at the time. "In a rational world, no utility or government would invest another dime on these theoretical reactor concepts." These fears have largely kept a lid on NuScale's stock price, even as the latest deal with TVA moves forward. A PPA would lift a large part of that uncertainty discount. And if NuScale's CFO is right, a PPA could be on the way as early as the company's next earnings announcement. Before you buy stock in NuScale Power, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and NuScale Power wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut are built for long-term growth and could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $431,488!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,279,584!* That performance is why people listen. With a track record of beating the S&P 500 by nearly 5x, Stock Advisor offers a distinct advantage. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built for the long haul. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 26, 2026. Bank of America is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Ryan Vanzo has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends NuScale Power. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Forget NuScale's Quarterly Numbers: Its TVA Deal Could Be the Biggest Nuclear Contract in U.S. History. was originally published by The Motley Fool

Image source: The Motley Fool. Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. ET President and Chief Executive Officer - John Hopkins Chief Financial Officer - Robert Hamady Need a quote from a Motley Fool analyst? Email [email protected] Operator: Good afternoon, and welcome to NuScale Power's Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. A replay will be available on NuScale's Investor Relations website for 30 days. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Ramsey Hamady, Chief Financial Officer. Please go ahead. Robert Hamady: Thank you, operator. Joining me today is John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of NuScale. We will begin by providing an update on our business, followed by a discussion of our financial results. We will then open the phone lines for questions. This afternoon, we posted supplemental slides to our Investor Relations website. As reflected in the safe harbor statement on Slide 2, the information set forth in the presentation and discussed during the course of our remarks and the subsequent Q&A session includes forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views of existing trends and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties. For a detailed discussion of our risk factors that could contribute to differences in our expectations, please refer to our Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2025, and to our subsequent SEC filings. I will now turn the call over to John Hopkins. John Hopkins: Thank you, Ramsey. I want to start with a simple observation about where the market stands now. Demand for reliable carbon-free power is not building slowly. It is accelerating. Every major hyperscaler, every large industrial offtaker, every utility with an eye on the next decade is now engaged in some version of the same conversation. We need power now, we need it to be clean, and we need it on a timeline that actually maps to our business. That urgency is real, and it is growing. What I want to address today is what separates a company that can meet that urgency from one that cannot. Because the answer to that question is not branding or ambition, it is readiness. And readiness in this industry is a function of years of deliberate work, work that does not generate headlines, but that determines more than anything else, whether a nuclear project gets built on time and on budget or does not get built at all. That distinction is what I want to focus on today. Let me start with context because I think the history here explains why engineering and design maturity matters more than most investors currently appreciate. The Vogtle AP1000 expansion, the most recent large nuclear construction project in the United States, is the clearest example of what happens when a project goes to construction before the engineering is substantially complete. When that project started, the detailed design was not in an advanced state of completion. Significant engineering decisions were still being made on active construction sites. That result contributed to years of delays and billions in cost overruns. This is not a story about nuclear being hard to build. It is a story about what happens when you start construction without a mature detailed design. NuScale has spent years deliberately applying the hard lessons of past large-scale nuclear projects. We've made significant, sustained investment so that when we go to market, the engineering is as complete as possible. That investment is the foundation of everything I'm going to share with you today. A brief word first on 2 pillars of our readiness position, regulatory approval and fuel readiness. NuScale remains the only SMR company to have received design certification from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including standard design approvals for 2 of our designs. The NRC's design certification is the global gold standard for nuclear safety. Certification takes years. There are no shortcuts. We'll operate using standard low-enriched uranium, a proven fuel source, which is available today from established suppliers from around the world. Several other designs being marketed today require high-assay, low-enriched uranium or HALEU, which is not available on a commercial scale. That dependency is a fundamental supply risk embedded in their programs that does not exist in NuScale. The combination of NRC approval, conventional fuel and a mature supply chain that are I'm allowed to describe that combination along with engineering is what commercial readiness actually means. No other company in this space has all 4. NuScale's role in an ENTRA1 Energy plant is that of technology systems integrator and engineer of record. We are responsible for the NuScale power modules and services. Supporting delivery of the NuScale power module, we have assembled a network of more than 60 specialized suppliers. Each supplier brings deep domain expertise in a specific system, fuel, safety and instrumentation and controls, valves, cranes and module handling. Each holds detailed design responsibility for their own scope with NuScale providing the overall integration. Here's where we stand. The detailed design for the critical path components of our modules, the systems that govern schedule and cost is mature. We've already negotiated supplier agreements with more than half of our 60-plus supplier relationships, many of whom we believe to be best-in-class. This means when we execute an OEM, many of our suppliers will already have designed, scaled, tested and in some cases, began production of components. Taken together, this shortens the path to actual power generation, not by months, but by years and supports certainty of execution. Let me highlight a few of our suppliers. Doosan Enerbility is one of the world's foremost manufacturers of heavy nuclear components. They are our strategic partner on the major components of our modules, the heavy forgings at the heart of every NuScale power module. What you see on this slide are photographs taken at Doosan's facilities in South Korea, actual components in active production for NuScale power modules. Framatome is one of the world's leading nuclear fuel companies. Fuel design has a long lead time, years, not months. Rather than wait for a signed customer contract before beginning that work, we entered into a dedicated agreement with Framatome to complete the fuel design. Our fuel supply will be ready as customers come online. This quarter, we announced that Paragon has been awarded a contract to complete the final design development of the safety instrumentation and control systems for our NuScale power modules. These 3 partners are examples of the depth of our supply chain ecosystem. Doosan on major portions of the modules, Framatome on fuel, Paragon on safety control systems. And we have comparable relationships across cranes, module handling, valves and more, with additional announcements expected. I'll briefly discuss key commercial updates from the quarter. ENTRA1 Energy, our strategic partner, continues to advance discussions with the Tennessee Valley Authority toward a definitive power purchase agreement for potentially the largest nuclear power deployment program in U.S. history, utilizing NuScale SMR technology. Our understanding is that these discussions are active and progressing. We look forward to providing a further update as milestones are achieved. Next is RoPower. NuScale is working with Nuclearelectrica and RoPower to satisfy conditions attached to Nuclearelectrica's shareholders vote to advance the RoPower project in Doicesti, Romania, which will deploy 6 NuScale power modules at a former coal plant site and represents the most advanced SMR effort in Europe. Finally, let me now turn to another area where NuScale is building massive advantage, our energy exploration centers. This quarter, we opened our 12th E2 Center at the University of Virginia's College at Wise, supported by a grant from the Virginia Clean Energy Innovation Bank. These centers deliver immersive, hands-on nuclear training in high fidelity simulation environments designed specifically for the next generation of plant operators, technicians and engineers. Another highlight is our liquidity position. NuScale closed the second quarter with approximately $1.9 billion in cash, cash equivalents and investments. Our cash position reflects a conservative approach to liquidity as we anticipate near-term commercial deployment. Now I'll turn the call over to Ramsey. Robert Hamady: Thank you, John. Good afternoon. Our financial results are available in our filings. So my focus will be on explaining major line items, which can be found on Slide 7. NuScale reported revenue of $0.1 million for the 3 months ended June 30, 2026, compared to $8.1 million in the same period last year. The year-on-year decrease reflects the completion in late 2025 of the Fluor front-end engineering design Phase 2 work in support of the RoPower project. That scope had no comparable activity in the current quarter. As project activity advances, we expect both our product and services revenue to grow. We closed Q2 with approximately $1.9 billion in cash, cash equivalents and investments, an increase of $900 million since March 31, 2026. As John said, this increase in liquidity reflects a proactive approach to conservatively positioning the business as we continue to deploy capital for commercial readiness. When we invest in supply chain agreements, we reduce the time to deployment and derisk the cost structure of our first projects. When we invest in Framatome fuel design, as an example, we remove a bottleneck from the critical path. Finally, on Slide 8, you'll find the capitalization summary. With that, thank you again for joining us today. We will now take your questions. Operator, please go ahead. Operator: [Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Eric Stine with Craig-Hallum Capital Group. Luke Persons: This is Luke on for Eric. So first one here, did the sizable financial and trade commitments from Japan and South Korea play into the timeline at all for converting TVA into firm PPA? How are you thinking about those in the equation here? Robert Hamady: This is Ramsey Hamady, CFO. I think those announcements and the ideas behind them are very promising. I don't know that's built into the particular capital structure for the plant. And I stress that NuScale builds reactors, our commercial partner ENTRA1 builds plants. I know they have a great relationship with the Japanese with Koreans as do we. So we remain hopeful, but I wouldn't say that the PPA or the capital structure is dependent upon that cash. I think it will benefit but not dependent. John Hopkins: But do remember that as stated, a significant piece of these investments is slated for energy projects in the U.S., which also includes SMRs. Luke Persons: Understood. So for our second question here, can you just maybe talk a little bit more about ENTRA1's project pipeline and how that's evolving just in terms of end users? Have you seen any particular customer type or use cases gaining particular traction for the NuScale applications and whether that's just within the data center industry or other applications? John Hopkins: Yes. We continue dialogue with hyperscalers, data centers. Our focus right now has been for readiness for TVA when the announcement gets made. But others that we talk to, and I think you recognize the need right now for clean energy. Texas just came out and stated here today that they have to shut down data center promotions because of lack of energy and water. We're an answer to that, and we're positioning ourselves to move forward quickly. So it's really the timing of the customer and when they need their energy, and we're ready to enter in discussions at any time. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital. Nathaniel Pendleton: John, I wanted to go back to where you really started the call and dig into the competitive landscape as you see it, really focused on the Gen III+ light water SMR segment on Slide 3. Beyond the head start you guys have with NRC approval, how do you view the durability of your technology advantage if we roll forward the clock a few years? And does that fit with design, commercial structure or supply chains? John Hopkins: Yes. I think we're in a position right now. Over the last 10 years, we've been working steadily to get ready for deployment, and we are near-term deployable. I commented about over 60 suppliers, of which half of them we have master services agreements. We have 12 modules of which a lot of them are currently in production, which are long lead items, and we've been working on those over a 2-year period. So if I look at the landscape moving forward, we're ready to deploy now, as I commented earlier. If you look at future state, nothing stays static. We'll continue to promote this project and look at ways to improve efficiencies and costs, but we feel like we're in a very good position. Nathaniel Pendleton: And then maybe shifting gears a little bit. I wanted to touch on the process heat opportunity. From recent disclosures, I think most recently a blog post from Dr. Reyes, the high-temperature steam potential seems really encouraging. Do you expect these applications to use the standard VOYGR-12 or VOYGR-6 configurations? Or will this be a distinct product? And then perhaps should we think -- how should we think about the potential parasitic load that's needed to support that compression step to boost the temperature to that 500-degree level? John Hopkins: Well, Jose is out promoting, and in fact, he spoke at CERAWeek at the petrochemical conference, he's speaking here coming up again on -- we worked with the National Labs and the ability for our reactor as a light water reactor to produce the steam and pressure requirements needed for process heat. And we think we're in a very good position to -- and again, compounded with an emergency planning zone, if you look at what these process companies are looking for, the further you are from a given site, the end user, it dissipates. Having the approval of the emergency planning zone, we're right up next to the end user. We can provide process heat, we can provide electricity. The ENTRA1 model also supports the fact if you go to an area like Baytown or Corpus or anywhere we have a high density of process companies, we can build, own and probably have somebody operate the plant, you could be Entergy or whomever, that allows us on that fence line, they're not inside the evacuation zone. It doesn't entail any business interruption to provide the requirements those companies are looking for, if it's electricity or ammonia production, hydrogen production or, to your point, process heat. Very enthusiastic about that opportunity. We do believe district heat and process heat is going to be -- and the ability to dry cool are very much distinctives that we have that are going to be -- again, I mentioned today, just earlier, I heard on a report that Texas, everywhere you go, there's droughts, there's water restrictions. Having a combination of emergency planning zone and being able to dry cool using air condensers is going to be extremely important going forward. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of George Gianarikas with Canaccord. George Gianarikas: So TVA made a few disclosures and I think some media comments today regarding their nuclear road map. I'd love to get your perspective on what you took away from the commentary, maybe an update on your bilateral discussions beyond what you've already said. And maybe any specific gating items remaining before reaching a definitive contract? John Hopkins: George, all that I can say at this time is that we're extremely encouraged by our conversations that ENTRA1 and TVA are having. We've heard similar that it was announced in a conversation today that TVA is actively engaged. It's the same what we're hearing. The conversations we understand are progressing well. And I can tell you that when the agreement is signed, NuScale will be ready to implement. George Gianarikas: And one more question, just a little bit of a minutia item. I noticed that on your balance sheet, the investments increased significantly. I haven't gone through your Q yet. Can you just sort of talk about what compelled that to move up to $800 million relative to last quarter? Robert Hamady: George, this is Ramsey. This is really just a treasury strategy as we bolster our balance sheet, we kind of pull away from this idea of traditional start-up burn rate and runway and more about cash allocation and long-term planning. And that's what $1.9 billion gives us the ability to plan long term, it gives us optionality. And as you have that amount of cash on the balance sheet, you tend to look into longer-term instruments. Within the treasury strategy, all high grade, but if you look at the longer-term instruments. So there's a reclassification on the balance sheet. But it's all cash and cash-like investments. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Marc Bianchi with TD Cowen. Esteban Mario Albarracin: This is Esteban Albarracin on for Marc. So I wanted to ask on the Romania project. I believe RoPower earlier this year has some new contingencies around an FID, including a proposal on sort of the purchase cadence of the power modules. And I think there was also a more recent update to stick with NuScale rather than considering other technologies for the project. Can you walk us through some of those updates and when we should expect further progress on the project? John Hopkins: Yes. I could probably -- this is John speaking, and I appreciate the question. We -- as you know, we're a subcontractor to Fluor Corporation, who is a prime contractor. We completed successfully the front-end engineering design. There is a new government that's coming in that's being seated as we speak. Myself and my COO are planning to go to Bucharest to meet with that government probably later this month. And -- but we're ready to go. We're just waiting on the green light to finalize our contract agreements. But as I said, Phase 1 went well. Now we're going into what's called the pre-EPC, which will take it up to the final notice to proceed, which is probably another year from now. Esteban Mario Albarracin: Okay. And my follow-up is on the combined (sic) [ construction ] operating license application. I know you had already completed a meaningful amount of work there on the COLA from the previous CFPP project. And I think you're still engaged with the NRC with that. So I just wanted to get a little bit more color on how much of that COLA standardized and can be carried over to another U.S. project and roughly how much time and probably regulatory costs that could save? John Hopkins: That's a great question. We're looking at what we have done for the previous project you comment on, about 60% of that COLA can be utilized. And as soon as these PPAs are put in place, that's one of the first initiatives we'll have is starting the construction operating license agreement with the customer. So again, about 60% of that, we can move over to this next project. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald. Drew Nordquist: This is Drew Nordquist on the line for Derek. Just going back on RoPower. Can you guys highlight what sort of conditions need to be satisfied in order to move on and if that's in your hands or if that's more in RoPower's hands? John Hopkins: Actually, in the first phase that needs to get done really is the completion of the prime contractor to come into contract arrangement with the customer. And then we will enter into contract negotiations with the prime EPC. So we're all kind of in a wait mode right now, waiting for things to progress, and that's one of the reasons we're heading over to meet with the new government to talk about what are the next steps. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Greg Lewis with BTIG. Gregory Lewis: Ramsey, I was hoping to talk a little more how you're thinking about the liquidity position. Clearly, you made some moves to really bolster that heading into the back half of this year and into next year. So just kind of clear, any kind of broad strokes you can give us around, let's just assume that we eventually get these contracts from TVA to move forward. Is there any kind of timeline you can give us in terms of when we're going to have to start deploying that capital? Just kind of curious around that. Robert Hamady: Sure. Thank you for the question. Let's talk about a few ideas. We did bolster our cash, $1.9 billion as it -- yes, it reflects a strong liquidity position -- it reflects a conservative approach to liquidity. And as finance people on the line, I think we all understand liquidity is one of those things where it's often there when you don't need it, and it's often not when you do. And so we took the opportunity last quarter to bolster our liquidity and put ourselves in a pretty good position. What this does is it changes -- and I think I mentioned this in an earlier question, it changes the framework by which we look at our cash. We've diverged from those start-up metrics. We've diverged from burn rate, and we provide optionality. And now we think about capital allocation. And as I think about capital allocation for a company that's engaging production, a first-of-a-kind technology, one thing that comes to my mind is ideas around working capital, changes in our OpEx and how cash enables the business to be in a better position to deliver our product when we say we're going to do it and the cost we say we're going to deliver at. And so that's begun some of the change. Like when do we expect that draws on cash will happen? I think that question is similar to when do we expect commercialization to happen. Some of our expectation has been reflected in some of the announcements we've seen, for example, with Framatome over the last quarter. We expect commercialization to happen soon. And so we're preparing for it. We're investing in the supply chain. We're investing in design finalization. We're investing in fuel systems. So you can read into our expectations based on our actions. But ultimately, the commercial contract is the main catalyst, and we're ready for it. And I think it's a great position for us to be in. Gregory Lewis: Okay. And so as we think about some of those parts of the supply chain that need to be addressed, I imagine we'll spend a lot of time thinking about the costs associated with those moving to commercialization. Is that things that we're starting to look at now? Or is it more kind of getting everything in ready mode for when we eventually get the green light from our first commercial partner? Robert Hamady: I'm sorry, go ahead. John Hopkins: No, we're working -- as I said, we've been working for years with these key suppliers, and they're strategic suppliers. Some of these suppliers are investors in NuScale. They're not looking for a one-off project. They're looking for the opportunity for sustainable supply, and it give us very competitive rates. As an OEM, about 30 -- maybe 30-plus percent is going to be our cost and then the rest is going to be the EPC and other contractors. So I believe we have a very good handle with what our suppliers are offering us in terms of being on a competitive basis. And the bottom line, they have to prove competitiveness. So it's not open-ended. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Ellen Page with Truist. Ellen Page: Maybe just to start, the power plant business had a negative revenue in the quarter due to a negotiation with Fluor. How do we think about that impact -- or how do we think about the RoPower progression going forward under that new price agreement? And any more color you can provide would be great. Robert Hamady: Yes. I don't think the negative revenue number is really indicative of some ongoing trend with RoPower with our margins there. That was an adjustment. And what you really saw is we had work with Fluor related to Phase 2 in the prior quarter -- 2 prior quarters, pardon me, or in the same quarter period in the prior year, which we didn't have this year. So that revenue is gone. There's an adjustment. What you saw is negative margin. It looks a little funny, but it's not indicative of a trend. And we're talking about pretty small numbers on a pretty small basis. So I wouldn't read much into that. Ellen Page: Okay. Great. And then maybe just on TVA, is there any like milestones in particular or next steps you can call out ahead of the PPA? Or we're just kind of waiting for those negotiations to be complete? John Hopkins: I think as I stated in the comments, talks are progressing. We're very active with ENTRA1 in communications on a daily basis. Our Chief Commercial Officer is involved with it again on a daily basis. So we're in a mode right now that as soon as these PPAs are definitized, we're ready to move. And by move, I mean, enter into -- start the COLA position, start the front-end engineering design and initiate the OEM contracts or negotiations. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs. Tyler Bisset: This is Tyler Bisset on for Brian. There's been a lot of focus on TVA, but curious if you can discuss any other pipeline opportunities. So what other engagements are out there? And any other details you can provide on timing, geographies or types of customers that ENTRA1 is working with? John Hopkins: I'll just say, as I said earlier, we're in a lot of discussions with the hyperscalers, with the governments, with international. But our focus right now is to try to get these -- working with ENTRA1 to get TVA across the goal line. But as you know, I mean, everybody needs energy. We want to be part of the mix. And customers have different strategies. And our strategy right now is if they're ready to move and they need near-term deployment, we're willing to talk. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Soundarya Iyer with B. Riley Securities. Soundarya Iyer: This is Soundarya on behalf of Ryan Pfingst. Most of my questions have been answered, but just a couple more. On the supply agreements that you mentioned have been signed with more than half of your suppliers. What are some of the long lead items left to achieve on that supply chain? John Hopkins: I think we're in pretty good shape. As I said, the real long lead items are forgings, which are being in production currently. They've been in production for the last 2 years. We mentioned we use conventional fuel. Framatome is our fuel supplier. That fuel will be manufactured in the state of Washington. Paragon, we mentioned for instrument and control for safety, that's ahead of schedule. So I think, again, I don't see any intent to -- I don't see any problems with being able to respond, as I said, we're good to go. Soundarya Iyer: Yes, that's good to hear. And one more following up on that Romanian project, RoPower. Could that trigger any revenue-generating services in 2026? Or should we think about it in 2027 and beyond? John Hopkins: We certainly hope so. It's -- if you look at Romania in general and if you look at the success on the front-end engineering design, it's really up to the timeline of the customer and when we're going to start the next phase. So if we get the contract in place, yes, there will be revenue next year. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Vikram Bagri with Citi. Unknown Analyst: This is Vignesh on for Vikram. Just wondering, could you help us think about the cadence of OpEx over the next few quarters? I think you mentioned previously for it to ramp over time, but any color or range would be helpful in kind of some of the key drivers on the incremental spend. Robert Hamady: Yes, sure. This is Ramsey Hamady. Look, I don't want to give too much of guidance on future OpEx. I don't think we're in a position to do that, and we generally don't give guidance yet. But I will look to the past 10 quarters, starting from the beginning of 2004 (sic) [ 2024 ] right through the end of 2005 (sic) [ 2025 ], this management team kept OpEx within somewhere around like a [ $2 million or $3 million band ] between like $41 million, $44 million per quarter. We were deliberate, we were targeted, we executed and we were consistent. Over the past 2 quarters, as we moved -- we had worked with RoPower originally back in 2025, as we got to 2026, some of that work went away. We kept those same engineers. They went from the cost of goods sold line down to OpEx. So we saw a bit of a bump up in OpEx because we need those people. They're executing on projects, and we expect to continue executing on projects in the near future. So we kept those people. You saw a bump up in OpEx. But again, our OpEx was within like $1 million or so this past quarter as it was within Q1. So without commenting or providing guidance, I think the lesson to take away is that management is deliberate. We're precise. We control OpEx. We're active on it. And what we won't do, which I think is maybe to heart of some of your question, is allow OpEx creep to come up and start to impact our liquidity. So I would just take the lesson away that we're pretty conservative, and we're pretty well focused and disciplined here. [indiscernible] model on valuation, but I think that's best we're going to get. Operator: There are no further questions at this time. I would like to now turn the call back over to John for closing remarks. John Hopkins: Yes. Thank you, operator. And again, thanks, everyone, for attending. As we heard throughout this Q&A, we get questions about when is NuScale moving from potential to proven. And it's a fair question. We are in discussions regularly with hyperscalers and utilities and governments. The bottom line is the preconditions for us to move are in place. The regulatory approval exists. Our fuel supply exists. The engineering is mature. The supply chain is mostly contracted. As we stated, we've got long lead items in production. Our liquidity ramp-up for manufacturing is in place. The market is waiting for definitive agreements. And once they're in place, we're ready to move. So I'm looking forward to the next session we all get together. And again, thanks for joining us today. Robert Hamady: Thanks, everyone. Operator: This concludes today's call. Thank you all for attending. You may now disconnect. Before you buy stock in NuScale Power, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and NuScale Power wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut are built for long-term growth and could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $403,337!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,334,946!* That performance is why people listen. With a track record of beating the S&P 500 by 4x, Stock Advisor offers a distinct advantage. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built for the long haul. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 12, 2026. This article is a transcript of this conference call produced for The Motley Fool. While we strive for our Foolish Best, there may be errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in this transcript. As with all our articles, The Motley Fool does not assume any responsibility for your use of this content, and we strongly encourage you to do your own research, including listening to the call yourself and reading the company's SEC filings. Please see our Terms and Conditions for additional details, including our Obligatory Capitalized Disclaimers of Liability. The Motley Fool recommends NuScale Power. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. NuScale Power (SMR) Q2 2026 Earnings Call Transcript was originally published by The Motley Fool

Download the Complete Report Here Key Takeaways: 2Q26 reinforced IMSR’s milestone-driven commercialization roadmap; the more important development was a material improvement in the long-term economics of the business. Terrestrial Energy advanced across all three execution pillars, engineering and regulation, supply chain, and commercial development, with Texas A&M moving into site execution, NRC and DOE programs progressing, and Riot advancing toward first-site selection. At the same time, management raised estimated lifetime revenue per IMSR Plant to approximately $2.7 billion from $2.1 billion and blended gross margin to 33% from 22%, with 79% of revenue expected after construction through Core-unit and Fuel Salt supply. Commercial and regulatory execution improved visibility into IMSR’s next phase of development. Site control and development agreements moved the flagship RELLIS project into active site-level work, while NRC approval of the PIE methodology added a second reusable foundational element to the IMSR licensing basis and continued TETRA/TEFLA progress further advanced the licensing and fuel-readiness pathway. We view these developments as strengthening the quality of IMSR’s flagship project while further de-risking the path toward commercial deployment. Liquidity remains a meaningful strategic advantage as IMSR moves into a more execution-intensive phase. The company ended 2Q26 with approximately $283.4 million of cash and investments, while quarterly burn declined to $6.4 million, or approximately $2.2 million per month, from $7.9 million in 1Q26. With spending expected to increase in 2H26 as site work, testing and program activity ramp, the balance sheet and absence of financial debt provide substantial flexibility to fund near-term de-risking without creating near-term financing pressure. Texas A&M-RELLIS made the most important project-level progression during the quarter, moving from commercial project selection toward site-specific execution. Terrestrial Energy signed ground-lease and research agreements covering approximately 77 acres at RELLIS, securing site control and enabling characterization and environmental work required for a future NRC construction permit application. The company subsequently engaged Zachry Nuclear to support site characterization and data collection, adding established nuclear engineering capability to the development effort. We view this as a meaningful step beyond the original project announcement, as RELLIS is now progressing from commercial intent toward a controlled development site with work underway to support permit preparation. The next phase should be measured by progress through site characterization, environmental review and construction-permit preparation. These activities are contributing to the expected 2H26 spending ramp, but successful execution would further reduce project risk and improve readiness for licensing, financing and eventual construction. The unit-economics reset meaningfully improves the revenue and gross-profit potential embedded in each successful IMSR deployment. Following roughly 12 to 18 months of additional engineering work, management increased estimated cumulative revenue per IMSR Plant to approximately $2.7 billion from $2.1 billion, or roughly 29%, while blended gross margin rose to 33% from 22%. The revision reflects refinement of the underlying economics rather than a change in the plant design or business model. The revised model includes approximately $98 million of pre-construction revenue at a 23% margin, $477 million of construction services and component supply at 26%, $1.58 billion of Core-unit supply at 33%, and $583 million of Fuel Salt supply at 40%. Fuel strategy remains a core IMSR differentiator, combining a simpler supply-chain pathway with a meaningful recurring revenue opportunity. Management estimates approximately $583 million of Fuel Salt revenue over the life of an IMSR Plant, representing 21% of lifetime revenue at a 40% gross margin. IMSR uses standard-assay LEU enriched below 5% U-235, avoiding the HALEU supply constraints facing many advanced-reactor designs, while Westinghouse is working with Terrestrial Energy on the supply of enriched uranium tetrafluoride and TEFLA is developing the downstream process required to produce commercial IMSR Fuel Salt. Because IMSR is liquid-fueled, the production chain eliminates a separate physical fabrication step involving fuel pins, assemblies or TRISO particles, while qualification is focused on establishing the thermophysical characteristics of the liquid fuel chemistry rather than demonstrating the structural performance of physical fuel elements and cladding. While commercial Fuel Salt production and qualification still need to be completed, the combination of standard enrichment and fewer fabrication steps could reduce an important source of fuel supply complexity and support a high-margin, long-duration revenue stream. Liquid fuel qualification remains less familiar to regulators, however, and still represents an execution requirement. NRC approval of the PIE methodology adds a second reusable element to the IMSR licensing basis. The broader regulatory program is now shifting toward the technical data required for plant licensing and commercial readiness. The approval follows the earlier Principal Design Criteria report, with both analyses able to be referenced in future applications without repeating the underlying regulatory review, an important feature for standardized fleet deployment. Management expects at least two additional Topical Report submissions during the remainder of 2026, while TETRA continues to generate reactor data for a future NRC operating license application, TEFLA advances the commercial Fuel Salt production process, and expanded graphite irradiation testing at NRG Petten supports materials qualification and supplier selection. Supply chain execution is also progressing through continued procurement of fuel, components and services for TETRA and TEFLA, alongside Westinghouse engagement on enriched uranium tetrafluoride supply. We view progress across these programs as continuing to reduce the key regulatory, technical and supply chain dependencies ahead of commercial deployment. The Riot collaboration remains IMSR’s largest incremental data-center opportunity, but the next meaningful milestone is conversion of the 4GW framework into an identifiable first project. Riot and Terrestrial Energy are evaluating multiple IMSR Plants representing up to 4GW of potential nuclear capacity within the broader 7.8GW commercial pipeline, with management now focused on down-selecting an initial site. We believe the opportunity should increasingly be measured by progress toward site control, development scope, financing and offtake rather than aggregate GW, as first-site selection would begin converting a broad commercial framework into a site-specific development opportunity. Project financing should become an increasingly important measure of commercial de-risking as IMSR’s project pipeline advances, particularly given Terrestrial Energy’s capital-light role. Management does not expect first-of-a-kind projects to rely solely on conventional non-recourse project finance, with early deployments more likely to require a combination of strategic customer capital, infrastructure partners and government support. Importantly, Terrestrial Energy intends to direct corporate capital toward engineering, licensing, Core-unit manufacturing and Fuel Salt production rather than owning and funding multibillion-dollar generating assets. We therefore view evidence of third-party capital formation around Texas A&M, Riot and other projects as an increasingly important commercial KPI, as it would validate the ability to advance deployments while preserving the company’s capital-light business model. Leadership additions are increasingly aligned with the next phase of licensing and project execution. Pamela Cowan joined as EVP of Engineering in July with more than 35 years of nuclear-sector experience, while Kathryn McCarthy joined the Board following senior nuclear-project roles at Idaho National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The organizational buildout is also beginning to show in the cost base, with 2Q26 G&A expense rising approximately $0.7 million sequentially to $8.0 million, including roughly $0.5 million of higher stock-based compensation. We view the increase as primarily supporting execution capacity as RELLIS enters site work, additional NRC submissions are prepared, and TETRA/TEFLA activity advances. Financial performance remained consistent with IMSR’s pre-revenue development stage, with sequential loss improvement primarily reflecting testing timing and higher investment income rather than a change in underlying spending requirements. Net loss narrowed to $9.4 million from $10.5 million in 1Q26, while R&D declined approximately $1.1 million sequentially to $3.5 million as certain testing expenditures shifted between periods and G&A increased to $8.0 million from approximately $7.3 million. Other income improved to approximately $2.35 million, supported by $2.48 million of interest and dividend income and minimal interest expense. We continue to view GAAP earnings as a secondary KPI at this stage, with the more relevant measure being whether development spending translates into licensing, technical and commercial milestones. Liquidity remains a meaningful strategic advantage as IMSR enters a more execution-intensive phase of commercialization and project development. Terrestrial Energy ended June with approximately $283.4 million of cash and investments, compared with $289.9 million at the end of 1Q26, while quarterly cash burn declined to $6.4 million, or approximately $2.2 million per month, from $7.9 million in 1Q26. The improvement largely reflected timing and scope changes across testing activities, including the expanded graphite irradiation program, while management expects spending to increase through the second half as RELLIS site characterization, testing, DOE-backed TETRA/TEFLA programs and organizational capacity ramp. Working-capital requirements remain modest, with accounts payable and accrued expenses of approximately $4.3 million and total current liabilities of only $6.2 million at quarter end. With more than $280 million of liquidity and no financial debt, IMSR retains substantial flexibility to fund this higher level of activity without near-term financing pressure. A key monitorable is whether the 2H26 spending ramp converts into tangible regulatory, technical and project milestones that further de-risk commercialization. 2H26 should be defined by higher investment and additional de-risking across licensing, project development and the two principal supply businesses. Management continues to expect at least two additional NRC Topical Report submissions during the remainder of 2026, while work at the approximately 77-acre Texas A&M-RELLIS site should progress through characterization, environmental evaluation and preparation for a future construction permit application. TETRA and TEFLA remain central to generating licensing-quality reactor data and developing the commercial Fuel Salt production process, while additional graphite irradiation cycles support materials qualification and supplier down-selection. Commercially, the next steps include advancing Riot toward first-site selection within the previously announced up-to-4GW framework and developing the Core-unit and Fuel Salt production capabilities that underpin 79% of estimated lifetime plant revenue and the revised ~$2.7 billion per-plant economics. With spending expected to rise from the $6.4 million 2Q26 burn, we believe 2H26 execution should be judged less on near-term earnings and more on whether incremental investment converts into tangible licensing, site, fuel and manufacturing milestones that support the targeted 2034 first commercial operation. Disclaimer: Exec Edge does not publish proprietary estimates, ratings, price targets, or investment recommendations. The valuation discussion below is illustrative only and is based on company filings, management commentary, and third-party data and estimates. It does not constitute a recommendation, price target, rating, or prediction of future pricing. IMSR’s current valuation assigns a relatively modest enterprise value to the technology and development platform despite substantial liquidity and improving commercial economics. At $5.81 per share, Terrestrial Energy carries a market capitalization of roughly $616 million and adjusted enterprise value of approximately $332 million after netting $283.4 million of cash and investments at 2Q26 end, with no meaningful financial debt. Liquidity therefore represents approximately 46% of current equity value, while the remaining enterprise value reflects the company’s reactor technology and IP, two approved foundational NRC analyses, Texas A&M-RELLIS development site, DOE-supported TETRA and TEFLA programs, and commercial project pipeline. The valuation discount has widened despite continued regulatory, commercial and economic de-risking. At approximately $5.81 per share, IMSR trades well below the current Street target mean of $13.50. The shares also remain more than 40% below the $10.00 SPAC transaction price. More recently, adjusted EV has declined approximately 31% from the ~$482 million level at our May earnings update to ~$332 million currently, despite subsequent progress across Texas A&M site development, continued NRC and DOE execution, and the increase in estimated lifetime revenue per plant to ~$2.7 billion from $2.1 billion with blended gross margin rising to 33% from 22%. IMSR remains pre-revenue and meaningful licensing, engineering and project execution risks remain, but continued progress across NRC submissions, RELLIS development, Fuel Salt and Core-unit manufacturing, Riot first-site selection and project financing should incrementally reduce the probability discount applied to future deployments. Relative valuation provides additional context for the re-rating opportunity. Established Gen III operators command substantially higher EVs supported by operating assets and cash flows, while pre-revenue Gen IV developers trade primarily on regulatory progress, project visibility, fuel readiness and execution credibility. Within the advanced-reactor group, IMSR’s ~$332 million adjusted enterprise value remains toward the lower end of the peer range, despite substantial liquidity and continued progress across licensing, site development and commercial readiness. Given material differences in reactor technology, licensing maturity and business model, peer EVs are not directly comparable, but the current discount reinforces the extent to which commercialization timing and execution risk remain embedded in IMSR’s valuation. Successful delivery against upcoming regulatory, fuel, project and financing milestones provides the clearest pathway toward narrowing that gap. Read Exec Edge’s Initiation on Terrestrial Energy Here Subscribe to our Weekly Newsletter to Receive All Research Contact: Executives-Edge.com [email protected] The post Terrestrial Energy’s Lifetime Revenue Up 29%, Advancing in Texas A&M, DOE Fuel Program – Quarterly Update Report appeared first on ExecEdge.

NuScale Power Corporation SMR recently delivered a mixed second-quarter 2026 report, leaving investors to weigh weak near-term financial results against improving commercial readiness. The company’s loss of 13 cents per share matched the Zacks Consensus Estimate, but revenues of just $0.1 million fell 98.8% year over year and missed the $1 million consensus estimate. The decline mainly reflected the completion of Fluor’s Phase 2 engineering work for the RoPower project in late 2025, which left no comparable activity this year. Still, NuScale continues to prepare for potential large-scale deployments, making the investment case more about future contract conversion than current revenues. NuScale’s key advantage is that it has already made significant progress in preparing its reactor technology for commercial use. The company has received U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approvals for two designs and plans to use commercially available low-enriched uranium as fuel. NuScale has also built a network of more than 60 specialized suppliers and signed agreements with over half of them. Doosan Enerbility is working on major reactor components, while Framatome is developing the fuel and Paragon is completing a key safety and control system. This progress could give NuScale an advantage as competition in advanced nuclear energy grows. Oklo Inc. OKLO is developing a broader business covering nuclear power, fuel and isotopes, while NANO Nuclear Energy NNE is working on its KRONOS microreactor and fuel-related capabilities. OKLO is also investing in manufacturing and fuel infrastructure, while NNE has submitted a construction permit application for its University of Illinois project. NuScale’s approved designs, readily available fuel and established supplier network could help reduce some of the challenges involved in moving from development to actual deployment. For NuScale, turning potential projects into firm contracts is now the key challenge. ENTRA1 Energy is continuing discussions with the Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) on a potential power purchase agreement using NuScale’s technology. Management said the talks are progressing, with the proposed projects potentially covering 6-8 gigawatts of capacity. If agreements are finalized, NuScale could move ahead with licensing, engineering work and negotiations with equipment suppliers. The RoPower project in Romania is another potential growth opportunity. NuScale is working with Nuclearelectrica and RoPower to advance plans for a six-module project at Doicesti. The next stage would involve engineering, procurement and construction work, which could eventually lead to a final decision to begin the project. NuScale also expects to reuse about 60% of the licensing work completed for an earlier U.S. project, which could help reduce the time and cost needed for another domestic deployment. Image Source: NuScale Power Corporation Competition, however, remains strong. OKLO is developing its nuclear power, fuel and recycling businesses, while NANO Nuclear is targeting applications such as AI data centers with its KRONOS microreactor. NNE has completed a feasibility study for up to 1 gigawatt of power for a Texas data-center and manufacturing campus. These developments highlight the importance of NuScale securing firm customer agreements and turning its technology and regulatory progress into actual projects and revenues. SMR shares have gained 17.6% over the past month, suggesting renewed investor interest, but the stock remains down nearly 31% year to date. That compares with year-to-date declines of 32.6% for OKLO and 21.5% for NANO Nuclear. The weakness across SMR, OKLO and NNE highlights how advanced-nuclear stocks remain sensitive to project timelines, financing needs and expectations for commercialization. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research The earnings outlook also argues against becoming overly aggressive. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for NuScale’s 2026 loss is 45 cents per share, implying a 79.3% improvement from 2025. However, the estimated loss has widened to 79 cents per share for 2027, or 76.3% from the 2026 level. This uneven trajectory shows that NuScale may need substantial time before its commercial progress translates into consistent earnings improvement. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research NuScale ended the second quarter with roughly $1.9 billion in cash, cash equivalents and investments. That provides a substantial financial cushion for supplier commitments, design completion, fuel-system work and other commercialization needs. It also gives SMR flexibility while waiting for major projects to reach definitive agreements. Still, investors should not overlook the risks. Current revenues are minimal, operating expenses are rising as NuScale invests in readiness, and the timing of major projects remains dependent on customers and partners. OKLO and NANO Nuclear are also moving quickly, raising the competitive stakes. Although SMR appears well prepared technically, the next major proof point must come from converting negotiations into binding commercial activity. NuScale’s second-quarter results support a balanced investment view. Its regulatory approvals, conventional fuel strategy, mature supply chain, strong liquidity and progress with TVA and RoPower strengthen the long-term case. At the same time, weak current revenues, continued losses, uncertain project timing and growing competition from OKLO and NNE argue against chasing the stock after its recent rebound. Investors may want to wait for clearer evidence of contract conversion and better earnings visibility before becoming more bullish. SMR stock is currently a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold), appropriately reflecting its promising commercial position alongside meaningful execution and earnings risks. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) : Free Stock Analysis Report Nano Nuclear Energy Inc. (NNE) : Free Stock Analysis Report Oklo Inc. (OKLO) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research

On paper, NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR) failed to meet expectations when it reported quarterly earnings on Aug. 5. The nuclear power stock reported a quarterly loss of $0.13 per share, in line with expectations. Revenue, however, came in at just $80,000 for the quarter, missing estimates by 93%. Sales were down 99% versus the quarter prior. These are poor figures for a company that supposedly has massive long-term growth potential. Yet shares traded mostly flat following earnings, with the stock price roughly where it was before the earnings announcement. Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue » The reality is that very little was expected of the company this quarter anyway. No major catalysts were expected to be revealed, and the company has no commercial projects underway, despite an impressive pipeline of interested customers. Revenue and profits, therefore, were always expected to be minimal and, in some ways, irrelevant to the company's long-term future. When might a meaningful growth catalyst arrive? Good news could be on the way later this year regarding NuScale's biggest project. Nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance. Some of that is due to climate concerns and a rising global need for low-carbon energy sources. Most of it, however, is due to rising energy demand across the board, driven by the rapid adoption of energy-intensive AI technologies. The Energy Information Administration observes: Still, a resurgence in electricity demand translates to just a few percentage points of annual growth, and getting new energy sources online can often take years. In short, this is a massive opportunity, but it will take decades to fully play out. Investors, therefore, shouldn't expect major revelations during every NuScale earnings release. That's especially true since the company has yet to break ground on any of its SMR deals. Why hasn't NuScale begun construction? None of its customers have committed to payments. NuScale will only start construction once funds are legally obligated to pay for the construction. NuScale's inability to reach this milestone is a big reason why its valuation remains under $4 billion despite operating in a long-term growth market. However, NuScale's CFO believes that a power purchase agreement could be signed by its utility customer in the U.S. by the end of 2026, committing it to buying power from the future facility, perhaps for decades to come. If a PPA is secured, construction can finally begin. A signed PPA would likely be a huge boost to NuScale's stock price. It would provide serious social validation of the company's technology and adoption potential. It would also clear up some of NuScale's financing concerns. To be sure, NuScale's management team has missed self-imposed deadlines before. But if you're looking for high-upside-potential stocks and are willing to take on extra risk, NuScale could be positioned for a stellar second half of 2026. Before you buy stock in NuScale Power, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and NuScale Power wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut are built for long-term growth and could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $399,832!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,374,595!* That performance is why people listen. With a track record of beating the S&P 500 by 4x, Stock Advisor offers a distinct advantage. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built for the long haul. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 10, 2026. Ryan Vanzo has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends NuScale Power. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. NuScale Power Stock Barely Budged After Earnings. Time to Buy? was originally published by The Motley Fool

Interested in NuScale Power Corporation? Here are five stocks we like better. NuScale says it is commercially readying its SMR technology, citing U.S. regulatory approvals, mature engineering, fuel availability and a largely contracted supply chain. The company highlighted partnerships with Doosan Enerbility, Framatome and Paragon Energy Solutions. Strategic partner ENTRA1 Energy is actively negotiating a potential power purchase agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority for a possible 6–8 gigawatt deployment. NuScale is also pursuing opportunities with data centers, utilities, industrial users and international customers. Second-quarter revenue fell to $0.1 million from $8.1 million a year earlier after prior engineering work was completed, but liquidity strengthened to approximately $1.9 billion in cash, equivalents and investments. The Romania project could generate revenue in 2027 if it advances through contracting and pre-EPC work. Nano Nuclear’s Air Force Contract Puts Its Short-Squeeze Setup in Focus NuScale Power (NYSE:SMR) said it is preparing for commercial deployment of its small modular reactor technology, citing regulatory approvals, supplier agreements, fuel readiness and a strengthened liquidity position as demand rises for carbon-free power from data centers, industrial users and utilities. During the company’s second-quarter 2026 earnings call, President and CEO John Hopkins said the nuclear industry’s near-term opportunity is increasingly shaped by customers seeking clean power on timelines that fit their expansion plans. He said NuScale’s strategy has focused on completing engineering and developing its supply chain before entering construction. → Sandisk Just Delivered a Blowout Quarter—Here's Why the Stock Is Falling 3 Nuclear Stocks for Investors Willing to Wait Out the Dip “The preconditions for us to move are in place,” Hopkins said in closing remarks. “The regulatory approval exists. Our fuel supply exists. The engineering is mature. The supply chain is mostly contracted.” Hopkins contrasted NuScale’s approach with the construction history of the Vogtle AP1000 expansion, saying projects can face delays and cost overruns when detailed engineering is incomplete at the start of construction. He said NuScale has spent years investing in design maturity to reduce execution risk for future projects. → No Hangover: Revisiting Microsoft One Week After Earnings AI’s Power Problem Is Turning Nuclear Stocks Into a Bigger Market Story The company said it remains the only SMR company with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission design certification and has received standard design approvals for two designs. NuScale also emphasized that its reactors are designed to use standard low-enriched uranium rather than high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, which Hopkins said is not commercially available at scale. NuScale acts as technology systems integrator and engineer of record for an ENTRA1 Energy plant, according to Hopkins. The company said it has assembled a network of more than 60 specialized suppliers and has negotiated agreements with more than half of them. Doosan Enerbility is producing heavy forgings and major module components for NuScale Power Modules, Hopkins said. Framatome is completing fuel design work under a dedicated agreement, with NuScale saying the arrangement is intended to make fuel available as customers come online. Paragon Energy Solutions received a contract during the quarter to complete final design development for the modules’ safety instrumentation and control systems. → 4 Oil and Gas ETF Plays as Prices Stay Sky-High In response to analyst questions, Hopkins said forgings are among the principal long-lead items and have been in production for roughly two years. He also said Framatome will manufacture fuel in Washington state and that Paragon’s safety-control work is ahead of schedule. NuScale said its strategic partner, ENTRA1 Energy, continues discussions with the Tennessee Valley Authority regarding a potential definitive power purchase agreement. Hopkins characterized those discussions as active and progressing, but the company did not provide a date for an agreement or identify remaining contractual conditions. Hopkins said NuScale is also in discussions with hyperscalers, data-center operators, utilities, governments and international customers. The company’s immediate commercial focus, however, is helping ENTRA1 advance the TVA opportunity. NuScale said a potential TVA deployment could range from 6 gigawatts to 8 gigawatts. Hopkins said the company has publicly stated that construction from the first pouring of safety-related concrete to mechanical completion could take less than 40 months, though that timeframe excludes NRC licensing and other preconstruction activities. The company also discussed potential industrial applications, including electricity supply, district heat, process heat, ammonia production and hydrogen production. Hopkins said NuScale’s emergency planning zone approval and ability to use dry cooling could be important differentiators for industrial sites facing water constraints. NuScale is working with Nuclearelectrica and RoPower to satisfy conditions associated with the Romanian utility’s shareholder approval to advance the Doicești project. The project is intended to deploy six NuScale Power Modules at a former coal plant site. Hopkins said NuScale completed front-end engineering design work as a subcontractor to Fluor, the project’s prime contractor. He said NuScale and its chief operating officer planned to visit Bucharest later in the month to meet with Romania’s incoming government. The next phase, described as pre-EPC work, would carry the project toward a final notice to proceed and could take about another year, Hopkins said. He added that if contracts are put in place, the Romanian effort could generate revenue in 2027. NuScale also said about 60% of the combined operating license application prepared for its prior Carbon Free Power Project could be used for a future U.S. project. Chief Financial Officer Ramsey Hamady said NuScale reported second-quarter revenue of $0.1 million, down from $8.1 million a year earlier. The decline reflected completion in late 2025 of Fluor’s phase-two front-end engineering design work for the RoPower project, which had no comparable activity in the current quarter. Hamady said the company closed the quarter with approximately $1.9 billion in cash, cash equivalents and investments, an increase of $900 million from March 31. He described the balance-sheet increase as a proactive measure intended to support long-term capital allocation and commercial readiness. The company said it expects capital to be directed toward supply-chain agreements, design finalization, fuel systems and working-capital needs as commercialization advances. Hamady said NuScale has not provided formal operating-expense guidance, but said management intends to maintain discipline over spending. NuScale also opened its 12th Energy Exploration Center during the quarter at the University of Virginia’s College at Wise. The center, supported by a grant from the Virginia Clean Energy Innovation Bank, is designed to provide simulation-based training for future nuclear plant operators, technicians and engineers. NuScale Power Corporation, trading on the NYSE American under the ticker SMR, is a pioneering developer of small modular nuclear reactors. Established in 2007 as a spinout from Oregon State University, the company is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. NuScale’s mission is to deliver zero-carbon baseload power through scalable modular reactor technology, aiming to transform traditional nuclear energy deployment. At the core of NuScale’s offering is the VOYGR small modular reactor design, featuring 77-megawatt electric (MWe) modules with passive safety systems. This instant news alert was generated by narrative science technology and financial data from MarketBeat in order to provide readers with the fastest reporting and unbiased coverage. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected]. The article "NuScale Power Q2 Earnings Call Highlights" was originally published by MarketBeat. View MarketBeat's top stocks for August 2026.

NuScale Power Corporation SMR reported a second-quarter 2026 loss of 13 cents per share, in line with the Zacks Consensus Estimate. Revenues of $0.1 million plunged 98.8% from $8.1 million a year ago and missed the consensus mark of $1 million by 92.5%. The revenue decline reflected the completion of Fluor’s front-end engineering and design Phase 2 work for the RoPower project in late 2025. That work contributed to the prior-year quarter but had no comparable activity in the second quarter of 2026. Operationally, NuScale continued advancing commercial readiness, supported by more than 60 specialized suppliers and over 30 executed agreements. Management expects product and services revenues to increase as project activity advances and additional commercial work moves forward. NuScale Power Corporation price-consensus-eps-surprise-chart | NuScale Power Corporation Quote NuScale continued preparing for future reactor construction by expanding its supplier network. The company said the detailed designs for many of its most important reactor components are largely complete, and that it has signed agreements with more than half of its supplier base. One key partner, Doosan Enerbility, has already started producing large steel components for NuScale Power Modules, helping reduce manufacturing delays for future projects. Other suppliers are also making progress. Framatome is developing nuclear fuel for NuScale's reactors, while Paragon is completing the final design of an important reactor safety and control system. NuScale also plans to use commercially available low-enriched uranium, making fuel sourcing simpler than relying on newer fuel types that are not yet widely available. NuScale's expenses increased during the quarter as it continued investing in future growth. Research and development expenses rose by $6.6 million, mainly because the company spent $7.1 million more on improving reactor designs and preparing its technology for commercial deployment. This was partly offset by $0.6 million of lower regulatory costs. General and administrative expenses increased by $4.4 million, driven by $1.2 million of higher employee and stock-based compensation costs, and $3.9 million of higher organizational expenses. These increases were partly offset by $1 million of lower legal costs. Other expenses rose by $8 million as more engineering and project teams focused on preparing future commercial projects instead of current customer work, reflecting NuScale's continued investment in building its technology, supply chain and workforce. ENTRA1 Energy continues discussions with the Tennessee Valley Authority toward a definitive power purchase agreement using NuScale technology. Management described the negotiations as active and progressing and said the company is prepared to begin licensing, front-end engineering and OEM contracting activities once agreements are finalized. In Romania, NuScale is working with Nuclearelectrica and RoPower to satisfy conditions for advancing a six-module project at Doicesti. Management expects the next pre-engineering, procurement and construction phase to run toward a final notice to proceed, while roughly 60% of prior combined operating license application work can be reused for another U.S. project. NuScale ended June with $766.5 million in cash and cash equivalents, $305.7 million in short-term investments and $820.8 million in long-term investments. The company characterized its liquidity strategy as preparation for commercialization, working-capital requirements and investments needed to reduce deployment timelines. Investment income increased $8.5 million year over year, reflecting the stronger cash position and larger holdings of cash equivalents and investments. Management also emphasized disciplined operating spending while continuing to fund supply-chain agreements, design finalization and fuel-system development. NuScale Power currently carries a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell). Some other top-ranked stocks in the broader Zacks Computer and Technology sector are Celestica CLS, Amphenol APH and Broadcom AVGO, each carrying a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) at present. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here. Shares of Celestica have gained 6.4% year to date. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Celestica’s 2026 earnings is pegged at $10.61 per share, up 4.4% over the past 30 days, indicating an increase of 75.4% year over year. Amphenol shares have gone up 26.3% year to date. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for APH’s 2026 earnings is pegged at $5.25 per share, up by 11.7% over the past 30 days, indicating an increase of 57.2% year over year. Shares of Broadcom have gained 21.5% year to date. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Broadcom’s 2026 earnings is pegged at $11.74 per share, up by a penny over the past 30 days, indicating an increase of 72.1% year over year. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) : Free Stock Analysis Report Amphenol Corporation (APH) : Free Stock Analysis Report Celestica, Inc. (CLS) : Free Stock Analysis Report Broadcom Inc. (AVGO) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research

This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Revenue: $4.3 billion, up 9% year-over-year. Adjusted EBITDA: $149 million, compared to $96 million a year ago. Adjusted EPS: $0.91, compared to $0.43 last year. Backlog: $26.9 billion at quarter end, reflecting strong Q2 awards and the removal of over $650 million related to the former JV in Mexico. New Awards: Over $6 billion in the quarter. Urban Solutions Segment Profit: $38 million, compared to $29 million a year ago, including $44 million in additional losses on the Gordie Howe project. Energy Solutions Segment Profit: $88 million, compared to $15 million a year ago. Mission Solutions Segment Profit: $44 million, versus $35 million last year. Operating Cash Flow: Negative $317 million, including a $357 million tax payment related to the NuScale share conversion; normalized positive OCF would have been $40 million. Cash and Cash Equivalents: $3 billion at quarter end, compared to $3.2 billion at March 31. Revised Adjusted EBITDA Guidance: $500 million to $525 million for full-year 2026. Revised Adjusted EPS Guidance: $2.70 to $2.80. Adjusted Operating Cash Flow Guidance: $300 million to $320 million, excluding tax payments related to NuScale and the JV sale. Share Repurchases: 6 million shares repurchased in Q2, deploying $300 million; modeling $1.4 billion for all of 2026. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 4 Warning Sign with FLR. Is FLR fairly valued? Test your thesis with our free DCF calculator. Release Date: August 07, 2026 For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. Fluor Corp (NYSE:FLR) reported strong new awards of over $6 billion in Q2, leading to a backlog of almost $27 billion and supporting a book-to-bill ratio well above 1 for the full year. The company is seeing growth across a range of end markets, including nuclear fuels, fertilizers, copper, and midstream, with clients accelerating project decisions. Fluor Corp (NYSE:FLR) completed two legacy infrastructure projects in the quarter and expects to complete the remaining two by the end of the year, reducing risk and freeing up management focus. The company is building a strong presence in the nuclear value chain, with the Centrus Fuel Enrichment award and a full suite of capabilities from power generation to decommissioning. Fluor Corp (NYSE:FLR) delivered strong financial results with revenue up 9% year-over-year to $4.3 billion and adjusted EBITDA increasing to $149 million from $96 million, while also raising its full-year adjusted operating cash flow guidance. The company is seeing improved margins on new awards, driven by selective commercial negotiations and a focus on reimbursable contracts, which are lower risk. Fluor Corp (NYSE:FLR) is well-positioned in the power market, with multiple front-end projects for gas-fired power that are expected to translate into meaningful backlog growth in the first half of 2027. The sale of its Mexican joint venture for $175 million sharpens the company's focus on targeted growth areas and bolsters its already robust liquidity. Fluor Corp (NYSE:FLR) recorded an additional $44 million loss on the Gordie Howe project in Q2, impacted by foreign currency fluctuations, a subcontractor bankruptcy, and client-driven changes. The company's operating cash flow was negative $317 million in Q2, largely due to a $357 million tax payment related to the conversion of NuScale shares, which weighed on cash generation. Fluor Corp (NYSE:FLR) lowered its full-year adjusted EBITDA guidance to $500 million to $525 million, partly due to the foregone profit of about $23 million from the divested Mexican joint venture. The company continues to face uncertainty in the Middle East due to ongoing hostilities, which could impact clients and supply chains, although no direct impact has been seen so far. The remaining legacy loss projects, including LAX and I-35 Phase II, still require additional funding of $94 million, which is expected to be concluded in Q3, creating ongoing execution risk. The company's backlog duration is extending, with peak execution expected in late 2027 and early 2028, meaning the earnings growth profile from new awards will be more back-end loaded. Fluor Corp (NYSE:FLR) is still working to resolve additional scope items on the mining project, which could impact the timing and schedule, adding uncertainty to its completion. Q: Can you provide more detail on the favorable closeout in Energy Solutions and how we should think about normalized margins for that business? Also, given the strong $6.1 billion in new awards, how are you thinking about the book-to-bill ratio and are other projects moving faster than expected?A: John Regan (CFO) explained that the Energy Solutions closeout profits stem from subcontractor settlements and warranty satisfaction on mega projects, which were largely included in original guidance but accelerated from the back half into Q2. Looking ahead, segment profit margins in Energy Solutions will diminish as they reload with new projects like LNG and power. Jim Breuer (CEO) added that the Q2 awards were strong, and with a robust prospect pipeline for Q3 and Q4 across LNG, copper, and rare earth magnets, they feel confident in achieving a book-to-bill ratio "well above 1" for the full year. Q: Can you update us on the remaining legacy projects, particularly the mining project, and its progress and timing?A: Jim Breuer (CEO) stated that the mining project continues to advance, with early portions already being handed over to the client. However, they are in discussions with the client regarding additional scope items that could impact the project's timing and schedule. He noted that conversations are ongoing and it would take a couple of months to resolve these scope changes. Q: You sound more positive on the power and data center ecosystem projects. Do you sense a wider variety of projects available on your terms, and what does that mean for bookings and earnings over the next few quarters?A: Jim Breuer (CEO) confirmed that power is the best play in the data center ecosystem, with several front-end projects advancing with various clients. He emphasized a methodical approach to avoid converting to lump-sum until risks are properly priced, expecting meaningful awards in the first half of 2027. For data centers, they are working closely with one client on a Kentucky project but remain selective, pursuing only opportunities that fit their sweet spot. Q: Regarding the Centrus award, when should we start to see revenue burn, and what is the margin profile compared to current Mission Solutions margins?A: Jim Breuer (CEO) said they have been working on the project for at least six months, with a full team of several hundred people now in place. Since it's a percent-of-cost completion contract, margin take-up will depend on procurement and construction, with some impact this year but heavier impact next year and beyond. John Regan (CFO) added that the Centrus award is part of the pull-forward effect in the EBITDA bridge. Q: Are you including any potential charges or positives on the mining project, LAX, or LBJ in the new EBITDA guidance?A: John Regan (CFO) declined to detail the mechanics of guidance development but stated they are looking across the portfolio with a risk-adjusted outcome suite, and they feel comfortable with the landing spot for the revised guidance. Q: Are the margins on new bookings improving relative to the existing backlog, and are these contracts derisked with better terms?A: Jim Breuer (CEO) confirmed that margins on new awards are ticking up compared to the existing backlog, driven by selective commercial negotiations. While most awards are reimbursable, even those margins are improving. He expects higher margins on future lump-sum work in LNG and power, with adequate contingency to protect margins, and plans to continue driving backlog growth and margin improvement. Q: Can you share more about your inorganic opportunities strategy, including size and skill sets needed?A: John Regan (CFO) stated that any acquisition would be aligned with strategic end markets like power, mining, government services with security clearances, and life sciences/pharma. He declined to discuss specifics on size but expressed confidence in management's bandwidth to execute deals. Q: Regarding the $30 billion mining and metals pipeline, are these projects where Fluor is the FEED agent, and what hurdles remain for FIDs? What is the risk and margin profile?A: Jim Breuer (CEO) confirmed the $30 billion is an in-house pipeline where they are performing studies. The primary commodities are copper, fertilizers, and aluminum, with a global geographic spread. The main hurdle is capital efficiency, as clients want to ensure investments are profitable. They are working on minimum viable solutions to minimize escalation and supply chain impacts. He noted commodity prices are high, supporting demand, and expects a good chunk of these projects to proceed. The vast majority of work will be reimbursable, with lower risk and historic margins for the mining and metals business. Q: The within-one-year RPO content is trending lower. Does this mean backlog duration is extending, and when should we see EBITDA acceleration?A: John Regan (CFO) explained that the RPO trend reflects large energy mega projects rolling out, while new awards have multi-year execution horizons. Peak execution for the reload is expected in late 2027 and early 2028, with EBITDA growth accelerating accordingly. Q: Is the $90 million pretax gain from the Mexican JV sale factored into the EBITDA guide? What are the moving pieces between Q2 and the back half, and is the guide covered by existing backlog?A: John Regan (CFO) clarified that the $90 million gain is outside the guidance. The back half implies a similar trajectory to Q2 but with a different segment mix: Mission Solutions remains stable, Energy Solutions contributes less, and Urban Solutions picks up meaningfully. He confirmed that new awards in the back half are not critical for achieving guidance, as the majority of expected EBITDA is already in backlog. For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript.

NuScale Power Corporation SMR used its second-quarter 2026 earnings call to emphasize commercial readiness rather than current revenues. Management said regulatory approvals, conventional fuel, mature engineering and supplier preparation position the company to move after customers sign definitive agreements. The company reported a loss of 13 cents per share, in line with the Zacks Consensus Estimate. Revenues of $0.1 million fell short of the $1.0 million consensus mark. NuScale Power Corporation price-consensus-eps-surprise-chart | NuScale Power Corporation Quote President and chief executive officer John Hopkins said ENTRA1 Energy’s discussions with the Tennessee Valley Authority remain active and progressing. The proposed deployment could involve 6 to 8 gigawatts of NuScale-powered capacity. A Canaccord Genuity analyst asked about milestones before a definitive power purchase agreement. Hopkins did not identify specific gating items, but said NuScale would be ready to begin licensing, front-end engineering and OEM negotiations after agreements are finalized. A Craig-Hallum analyst asked whether foreign investment commitments could accelerate the project. Chief financial officer Robert Hamady said those funds could benefit the capital structure, but the PPA does not depend on them. Hopkins said NuScale holds U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approvals for two designs and uses standard low-enriched uranium available from established suppliers. He contrasted that position with competing programs is dependent on constrained fuel. The company has more than 60 specialized suppliers and agreements with over half. Doosan Enerbility is producing long-lead module components, Framatome is completing fuel design and Paragon is advancing the safety control system. A Texas Capital Securities analyst questioned how durable the company’s lead would remain. Hopkins said a decade of regulatory, engineering and supplier work has made NuScale near-term deployable, with further efficiency and cost improvements planned. Hamady said NuScale ended the quarter with approximately $1.9 billion in cash, cash equivalents and investments, up $900 million from March 31. The press release tied the balance to near-term commercial readiness. Management framed the balance sheet as a capital-allocation resource rather than a start-up runway. Potential uses include working capital, supplier commitments, design completion and fuel-system investments needed before delivery. A BTIG analyst asked when larger cash deployments could begin. Hamady tied the cadence to commercialization, while noting that recent supply-chain actions reflect management’s expectation that commercial activity will advance. Hopkins said the six-module RoPower project in Doicesti, Romania, completed its prior front-end engineering and design phase. The next step is pre-engineering, procurement and construction work after contracts are completed. A TD Cowen analyst asked about timing and project conditions. Hopkins said NuScale representatives planned to meet Romania’s new government and placed final notice to proceed roughly a year beyond the next phase. Management said services revenue could begin once the next contract is in place. The timetable remains dependent on the customer, RoPower and prime contractor Fluor. A Tuohy Brothers analyst pressed management for construction timing. Hopkins said the period from the first pour of safety-related concrete to mechanical completion should be less than 40 months, excluding licensing. Hopkins added that about 60% of combined license application work from an earlier U.S. project can transfer to another domestic deployment. NuScale expects to begin that process after PPAs are completed. Hamady declined to provide margin guidance before OEM and supplier contracts offer firmer visibility. He said first-of-a-kind economics could be more challenging than repeat projects, while factory manufacturing should support standardization. Management’s tone was confident about technical preparation but restrained on commercial timing. Hopkins repeatedly returned to approved designs, available fuel, mature engineering and contracted suppliers as the foundations for execution. The next phase depends on definitive customer agreements. Until then, NuScale is prioritizing liquidity, design completion and supply-chain readiness so it can mobilize when a project reaches commitment. SMR carries a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell), with F scores for Value, Growth and VGM Score and a C Momentum Score. The combination reflects an unfavorable earnings-estimate-revision signal alongside weak value and growth characteristics. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Style Scores complement the Zacks Rank, with A or B scores carrying the strongest significance alongside Zacks Rank #1 or #2 stocks. The Zacks Rank can change as analyst estimates are revised following the reported results. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research

Yesterday, Aug. 5, NuScale Power (NYSE:SMR) reported what, on the surface, looked like a brutal quarter. Its net loss came in at about $50 million, while its second-quarter revenue sank 99%, from roughly $8 million reported a year ago to about $75,000. It’s the kind of quarterly report that can sink a stock at market open. And yet, as of this writing at about 10:45 a.m. ET, NuScale was up nearly 1%. Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue » What kind of wizardry sends a nuclear energy stock higher after a revenue collapse of nearly 99%? None, really. Truth be told, it’s a reflection of a company whose value has almost nothing to do with what it earns today. And, despite the ugly losses, NuScale gave investors reasons to keep believing in its future business. Let’s take a look. First, let’s put that 99% revenue decline into context. Really, it’s not what you think. Last year, NuScale reported $8.1 million, largely from services connected with the RoPower project in Romania. That was one-time work, now completed, and it now looks therefore lumpy. The same thing happened in its Q1 2026 update, when it reported $0.6 million, down from $13.4 million a year prior. The bigger news that came out of this second-quarter update, I think, was a statement by President and CEO John Hopkins -- or a reminder, really -- that NuScale is “ready to deploy.” Indeed, for much of his presentation, Hopkins focused on the over 60 suppliers that make up NuScale’s supply chain. These include Paragon, which supplies the module protection system, and Honeywell (NASDAQ:HON), which supplies parts for the reactor’s control systems. In focusing on these suppliers, NuScale was emphasizing its readiness to deploy. It’s like the company was saying: True, we haven’t deployed a reactor for a power plant yet. But don’t forget who we are and where we stand: We’re not a start-up clawing our way through the NRC’s certification process. We have our NRC certificate, we have our suppliers, and we have the manufacturing foundation to put our design into concrete and steel. Image source: The Motley Fool. “Well, so what?” you might retort. Tomorrow is not today, and NuScale has had an NRC-approved SMR design since 2023. Where are the power plants? The deployment timeline? The PPAs? Yes, the absence of a definitive PPA -- especially for the potential TVA project being developed through ENTRA1 -- was somewhat disappointing. If ENTRA1 signs a PPA with TVA, which would involve purchasing electricity generated by as many as 72 NuScale modules, NuScale would gain something it still conspicuously lacks: a binding commercial contract for its technology at an enormous scale. I don’t want to diminish the importance of a first solid customer. At the same time, I also don’t want to understate the importance of a safe, functional reactor. Hopkins puts it well: Slow but steady, as they say, wins the race. This deliberate progress from one of the most advanced SMR companies in the U.S. helps explain why NuScale stock can rise even while quarterly revenue falls. It’s also why NuScale investors today have to buy the stock with a timeline of years and decades, not quarters. For those with that kind of patience and risk tolerance, adding a few shares of NuScale to a diversified portfolio could be worthwhile. Before you buy stock in NuScale Power, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and NuScale Power wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut are built for long-term growth and could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $400,155!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,345,502!* That performance is why people listen. With a track record of beating the S&P 500 by 4x, Stock Advisor offers a distinct advantage. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built for the long haul. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 6, 2026. Steven Porrello has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Honeywell Technologies. The Motley Fool recommends NuScale Power. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. NuScale's Revenue Plunged 99% Last Quarter, But the Stock Has Gained 1% So Far. Here's What Investors Need to Know. was originally published by The Motley Fool