Fluence Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ:FLNC) Q3 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

Fluence Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ:FLNC) Q3 2025 Earnings Call Transcript August 12, 2025

Operator: Thank you for standing by. My name is Janice, and I will be the operator for today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to Fluence Energy, Inc. Q3 2025 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. And I would now like to turn the conference over to Lexington May, Vice President of Investor Relations. You may begin.

Lexington May: Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Fluence Energy’s Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. A copy of our earnings presentation, press release and supplementary metric sheet covering financial results, along with supporting statements and schedules including reconciliations and disclosures regarding non-GAAP financial measures, are posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at fluenceenergy.com. Joining me on this morning’s call are Julian Nebreda, our President and Chief Executive Officer; and Ahmed Pasha, our Chief Financial Officer. During the course of this call, Fluent’s management may make certain forward-looking statements regarding various matters relating to our business and company that are not historical facts.

Such statements are based upon current expectations and certain assumptions and are, therefore, subject to certain risks and uncertainties. Many factors could cause actual results to differ materially. Please refer to our SEC filings for our forward-looking statements and for more information regarding certain risks and uncertainties that could impact our future results. You are cautioned to not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of today. Also, please note that the company undertakes no duty to update or revise forward-looking statements for new information. This call will also reference non-GAAP measures that we view as important in assessing the performance of our business. A reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP measure is available in our earnings materials on the company’s Investor Relations website.

Following our prepared comments, we will conduct a question-and-answer session with our team. [Operator Instructions] Thank you very much. I’ll now turn the call over to Julian.

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Thank you, Lex. I would like to send a warm welcome to our investors, analysts and employees who are participating in today’s call. This morning, I will briefly review our Q3 results and then address the impact of recent legislation, which we believe provides a strong foundation for the future of our business. I will also provide an update on the current market environment and the progress we made in executing on our strategy. Ahmed will cover our quarterly financial results and 2025 outlook in more detail. Turning to Slide 4. I am pleased to report that since our Q2 call, as we expected, we signed 2 contracts in Australia worth approximately $700 million of combined revenue. One of these countries is the largest contract in our history.

Additionally, we delivered on our first domestic content product, which we believe is the first domestic content-compliant battery storage systems delivered in the U.S. We’re ramping up our U.S. production and working through some typical production ramp-up issues as we scale. And finally, all of our contracts that were halted in the U.S. market due to tariff and regulatory uncertainty are now reactivated and moving forward. Turning to Slide 5 and our Q3 performance. First, we ended the quarter with approximately $4.9 billion in backlog. Since June 30, we had added to our backlog approximately $1.1 billion of contracts, including the 2 Australia contracts that I mentioned. Second, we recorded approximately $603 million in revenue, which was below our expectations, mostly due to delays in ramping up volume at our U.S. manufacturing facility.

We expect to recover this revenue in fiscal ’26 as production rates at these facilities continue to improve and reach their targeted capacity levels. Third, despite this revenue shortfall, we generated a 15.4% adjusted gross profit margin, well above our target for the quarter. And our annual recurring revenue increased to $124 million. And finally, we closed the quarter with more than $900 million in liquidity, including approximately $460 million in total cash, which we believe allow us to continue operating from a position of financial strength and provide significant flexibility in the current market. Please turn to Slide 6. Since our last call, several developments have reshaped the energy policy landscape in the United States. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or the OB3, came out with strong support for battery storage.

It differentiates BESS from other sources of generation by recognizing our technology as a dependable and dispatchable source of electricity, much like nuclear or gas plant. This morning, I would like to highlight 4 provisions of the OB3 that provides support to Fluent’s U.S. strategy, centered on domestically produced energy storage system. First, the OB3 extends the investment tax credits for stand-alone storage through 2034. Second. It establishes new restrictions on the base ITC, limiting eligibility for Chinese equipment. Third, imposes tighter and increasing over time FEOC requirements on the 10% domestic content ITC bonus. And four, it has FEOC restrictions on Section 45X manufacturing credits. We believe that these provisions enhance our competitive position as one of the few companies currently capable of delivering domestic content energy storage systems at scale.

We’re seeing increased customer interest and growing opportunities that reflect the scarcity of compliance solutions in the U.S. storage market. Turning to Slide 7. As I noted, the OB3 adds FEOC restrictions to the Section 45X tax credit, limiting ownership, control and material sourcing from certain countries. We expect that the forthcoming treasury rules implementing these restrictions will be workable. And we are actively engaged with our suppliers to ensure compliance by the deadline next year. Here, I want to highlight 2 important topics. First, we are looking at multiple options, none of which requires any significant capital beyond liquidity needs we have previously earmarked, thus not requiring us to raise additional equity. And second, the increase in domestic content thresholds on the OB3 favors our established U.S. supply chain, which positions us well to deliver compliant cost competitive system in this evolving regulatory landscape.

Turning to Slide 8. The significantly higher tariff from China proposed by the Trump administration and the uncertain tariff environment overall were the primary reasons for the halt in contracting activity last quarter. More recently, though, the tariffs on certain Chinese battery components have been reduced from 155.9%to 40.9%. This has restored a level of predictability that has prompted customers to resume contracting discussions. We are now seeing early signs of renewed U.S. order activity, supported by our foreseeable contracting model, global sourcing and strong customer relationships. As I mentioned earlier, all our contracts that were halted in the U.S. market due to tariffs and regulatory uncertainty are now reactivate and moving forward.

Separately, the Department of Commerce issued a preliminary 114% duty on certain Chinese-origin graphite material, with an estimated $5 per kilowatt hour cost impact that is manageable and reflected in our guidance. We are pursuing alternative sourcing and believe these rules, along with the recent legislation and tariff changes reinforce the value of our U.S. content leadership and diversified supply chain. Turning to Slide 9. I would like to touch on the competitiveness of energy storage. The data is increasingly clear: battery storage is now one of the most competitive solution for meeting capacity needs and is superior to gas turbines. It’s not just about cost. It’s also about speed and scalability. Generally, battery projects can be permitted, sited and deployed far more quickly than new fossil generation, making batteries a flexible tool for utilities and grid operators navigating rapidly growing demand.

We are already seeing this shift in real-world operations. In June, batteries supplied 26% on CAISO’s evening-peak demand, surpassing gas for the first time. That’s a landmark moment for our industry and a clear signal that grid-scale storage is no longer a futuristic concept. It’s here, it’s working, and it’s scaling. Turning to Slide 10. In addition to competitive costs, we’ve also seen an expanding addressable market for BESS. One of the most transformative trends we’ve seen in the energy landscape is the rapid growth of data center demand, driven by AI and machine learning workloads. These workloads are not only energy intensive. They are also highly variable. Training large AI models or processing inference tasks can lead to solid spikes in power consumption, placing immense strains on the grid and creating localized reliability challenges.

This is where battery energy storage can play a critical and unique role that cannot be filled by conventional sources of generation or renewables. BESS can act as a buffer, absorbing rapid surges in power and releasing it during high-demand intervals, effectively leveling out the fluctuations that come with AI-driven compute cycles. What’s more: batteries can be co-located at the data center itself or deployed at the transmission or distribution level, offering both behind-the-meter and grid-level flexibility. That’s a key advantage in markets with interconnection bottlenecks or constrained infrastructure. Fluence is engaging with leading data center operators to develop storage systems that meet this fast-changing power demand, providing real-time flexibility for some of the grid’s most dynamic loads.

Initial estimates place the demand for these solutions at $8.5 billion through 2030. Turning to Slide 11. Coming back to our Q3 performance. We delivered strong double-digit growth margin, driven by disciplined execution, cost control and supply chain optimization. Our product mix, pricing strategy and scale are sustaining higher margins in a dynamic market, reflecting a structurally improved margin profile and supporting long-term attractive returns. These results reflect the success of our commitment to profitable growth that we laid out a few years back. Turning to Slide 12. As of June 30, our backlog was approximately $4.9 billion, providing strong visibility into future growth. Since quarter end, we have signed approximately $1.1 billion in additional contracts, including the approximately $700 million from the delayed Australia projects.

The backlog is well diversified across North America, EMEA and Asia Pacific. Momentum remained strong in Asia Pacific and EMEA, and we are seeing early signs of recovery in the U.S. as tariff-related uncertainty eases and the enactment of OB3 addresses concerns about risk to the regulatory environment. Our domestic content- compliant product, flexible contracting and resilient supply chain position us to capitalize on this rebound. Our pipeline has grown to $23.5 billion from $22 billion last quarter, underscoring broad global demand. This concludes my prepared remarks. I will now turn the call over to Ahmed.

Ahmed Pasha: Thank you, Julian, and good morning, everyone. Today, I will review our third quarter financial results and then discuss our liquidity and updated outlook for the remainder of fiscal 2025. Turning to Slide 14. Starting with our third quarter performance. We generated $603 million of revenue. This brings our year-to-date revenue to $1.2 billion or 46% of expected full year revenue, which is consistent with our prior year results. Q3 revenue was approximately $100 million or 15% below plan due to a slower ramp-up at our new U.S. manufacturing facilities, particularly at our recently commissioned enclosure facility in Arizona. Enclosures are the final stage in the production process and, therefore, the gating item from a revenue standpoint.

We have already seen recovery milestone met across our cell, module and enclosure facilities and expect to reach targeted production levels by the calendar year-end. I would note that our delivery commitments have sufficient time contingency to cover this delayed ramp-up. Thus, we expect to continue delivering products to our customers on time and on budget. Our Q3 adjusted gross margin was 15.4%, which reflects solid execution across our portfolio, particularly in Europe and Asia, where we generated more than half of Q3 revenue. Our adjusted EBITDA was approximately $27 million, which reflects the higher margins carried by the international projects during the quarter. Turning to Slide 15. We remain focused on maintaining strong liquidity to support our operations.

We ended the third quarter with more than $900 million in liquidity. This includes approximately $460 million of cash, with the rest coming from availability under our credit facilities. I’m also pleased to report that last week, we executed a new $150 million of supply chain facility. This is Fluence’s first-ever unsecured facility, which carries an all-in interest cost of approximately 6% and is available to us to meet working capital needs. We appreciate the continued confidence of our relationship banks who share our vision and believe in Fluence’s long-term growth potential. On a pro forma basis, this brings our total liquidity as of June 30 to more than $1 billion, giving us additional flexibility to execute on our future growth plans.

As I mentioned on our second quarter call, we expected to require a couple of hundred million dollars of working capital during the second half of fiscal 2025. During the third quarter, we have already funded approximately $150 million of that, mostly to purchase inventory, which now totals $650 million. The majority of this inventory will be used to meet our near-term customer commitments. Accordingly, we don’t foresee any material additional funding needs in the near term, and we expect to maintain our strong liquidity, which is critical to supporting our growth plans. Turning to Slide 16. Next, I will review our financial guidance for fiscal 2025. We now expect revenue to come in at the low end of our prior guidance range or approximately $2.6 billion.

As I noted earlier, the delays in ramping up our U.S. manufacturing facilities have had the impact of shifting approximately $100 million of fiscal 2025 revenue into fiscal 2026. With respect to other guidance metrics, we are reaffirming our ARR of $145 million by the end of fiscal 2025. In addition, we are reaffirming our adjusted EBITDA guidance range of $0 to $20 million. We also continue to expect our full year 2025 adjusted gross margin to be between 10% and 12%. Despite the macro headwinds that have occurred this year, such as tariffs and legislative uncertainty, we have continued to take necessary steps to manage the business for profitability and cash flow, and this is reflected in our results. For 2026, we will provide formal guidance on our year-end call in November, consistent with our prior practice.

We intend to base guidance on backlog coverage of 80% to 90%, which will represent higher confidence in our revenue and EBITDA forecast compared to the historical practice of 65%. Today, we have fiscal year 2026 backlog of $2.5 billion. In summary, we remain confident in the long-term prospects of energy storage in general and particularly in Fluence’s ability to deliver maximum value to our shareholders and customers. With that, I would like to turn the call back to Julian for his closing remarks.

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Thank you, Ahmed. Turning to Slide 17. In closing, I will highlight the key takeaways from this quarter’s performance and our outlook moving forward. First, the market for energy storage remains robust globally. More importantly, we have started to see the U.S. market activity picked back up after the pause we saw earlier this year, driven by a very supportive backdrop from recent federal legislation and some easing of tariff uncertainty. Second, we are actively working with our supply partners to structure our supply arrangements to achieve compliance with the new requirements under OB3, including the FEOC provisions, and we’ll continue to do so as new regulations and guidance are issued. We are working towards these being completed ahead of the deadline under the OB3.

Third, there is a strong business case for battery storage as battery technology is now cheaper than gas and is uniquely positioned to adapt the growing AI data center power demand to grid conditions. Together, these factors reinforce our confidence in Fluence’s ability to excel in today’s environment and deliver value to our stakeholders. With that, I would like to open up the call for questions.

Q&A Session

Operator: [Operator Instructions] Your first question is coming from the line of Brian Lee from Goldman Sachs.

Brian K. Lee: I guess, first, when I look at the guidance for the rest of the year, fiscal Q4, it implies gross margin. I know you guys don’t like to focus on it too much, but you had a really good gross margin in Q3 here. Q4, it’s indicating something south of 10%. So below the low end of the guidance range for the year, even though it’s a big revenue quarter. So can you kind of talk about the puts and takes on margins into the year-end quarter? And then also, you got a decent amount of backlog heading into ’26, some really good Australia activity here that presumably is going to show up in your ’26 execution. What are you seeing in terms of margin outlook for the backlog? Are we tracking ahead of kind of the 10% to 12% that you did this year? I’m just trying to understand what to read into Q4, but also what you see in the backlog [ at the end of ] ’26.

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Great. Thanks, Brian. On the margins for the fourth quarter, the fourth quarter has a lot of U.S. revenue. A lot of the revenue in the fourth quarter comes from the U.S., and it has been affected by the new tariff. It’s roughly — we disclosed in the last call, roughly $30 million, which generally represents 1%. So that’s what’s driving, I will say, the softer margin number for the year. But from an execution point of view, from — putting that aside, the other parts of the execution are going — putting the tariff aside, I meant, the other parts of the execution are going very well. We’re working hard to take this as high up as we can. So we’re delivering. Things are working well. So — but that’s the driver essentially.

As you know, some — we had to take some of those tariff costs into our results. So that’s driving it. In terms of ’26 guidance, I mean, on gross margins for ’26, I don’t want to provide guidance today, but — on that number. But what we’re seeing is roughly in line with the 10% to 12% that we are giving you, that we set for this year. Still some work to do that we’re working on. And hopefully, things will work out better, but that’s where we are at this stage.

Brian K. Lee: Okay. Fair enough. And then Julian, I know you talked a lot about the — kind of you had a couple of slides here around the policy actions of late and how they impact your business. Can you — I know there’s been a lot of investor focus and concern around FEOC restrictions and how Fluence fits into the new landscape with your relationship and the ownership structure of AESC. Can you give us a bit more elaboration around how you’re navigating that and how you’re positioned with respect to FEOC and AESC and if there are actions you need to take, in what time frame and what potential investments you might need to make that happen?

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Yes. I’ll tell you — I know that you all have concern — or have expressed some concern around it. On the macro view, our view has always been that the U.S. battery storage market was going to be a domestic content market, has been our view even before the IRA and all of that. I think politically about the role that this technology was going to play, how this technology is built, it was going to be difficult to see it being dominated — that the U.S. will allow this to become dominated by Chinese suppliers. So that has been our view from day 1, and that’s the way we’ve been working on. And we started this ahead of the IRA. We’re clear when the IRA came in. We got in financial support. And I think now with the OB3, it kind of confirms our view of that case.

So we don’t see it as a threat. It has always been the basis of our assumption planning. So I just wanted to give you that general statement because that’s very, very important on how we see this company. In terms of AESC, which is what you’re asking, there are 3 drivers of 45X credits on the — for any supplier. And ownership, we cannot be owned by a company that is from certain countries. It cannot be controlled by a company from that group, and materials have a limitation of how much of the materials can come from one of the certain countries. We’re working on the 3 of them, ensuring that we have the supply chain that meets the OB3 requirements and we have developed with — or AESC has developed — we have worked together on developing that supply chain, which is from — sourced out of that area.

And we need to do — we are working on it. We already have converted some of it. We have many, many suppliers that are going through a process, and we believe our view and that we will be ready by the deadline under the act. Control is more of how you’re going to manage the O&M, and we’ve been talking to our lawyers, it can be managed effectively. Ownership is what you all are a little bit concerned about. It’s understandable. We have been working with AESC. AESC is looking at different options, and we are looking at different options. And we believe those options, they are good — there are a lot of — there are some opportunities. There are — some of them are very viable that we cannot execute them on time under the OB3 line. And when we look at us potentially entering into the ownership of the line, when we have looked at that option, it’s one of them, not the only one.

We believe that it can be — we can do it, and we can make it work within the cash flow, with the financial liquidity that we have today. We do not see any need for any capital raise, and we believe that transaction can be done on time with it, and it’s not that complicated. So I’ll tell you, when we looked at the act and we looked at the effort to convert to the act, the ownership has been one of them. I think we can — we — there are not — there’s — not only us. There are other opportunities here that they’re working on. We can do and we can transact on time to meet the act requirements. So that’s the view. And just if I can repeat the way I started, if you don’t mind. We don’t see the FEOC restrictions necessarily a threat. We see that this, in a way, confirms our view of how this market was going to evolve.

We have been investing on this. We have been moving supply chains to the U.S. It’s challenging, and everybody thought that we could not be done, and we’re doing it. And so we are optimistic that the regulatory environment is supporting our view of the market.

Brian K. Lee: If I could just squeeze one last one in. I know, again, you’re not going to give ’26 guidance, but we’re here at the end of — almost end of fiscal ’25. You had a lot of good contracts come in, in July and August, so good momentum. But you’re almost done for the year. And you talked about at least high-level guidance should be 80% to 90% covered just as you think about maybe being more conservative and having more visibility into the upcoming guidance range that you’re going to give on the next call. But is that the way to think about it, you’re sort of 80% to 90% covered, and you got the sort of $2.5 billion of backlog thus far through end of July, early August and whatever you book between now and the rest of the quarter, sort of the starting point of reference for what guidance should look like for next year?

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: We will base guidance on the backlog we have for ’26 at the time of the earnings call. So a couple of months to move forward. We have a good pipeline going forward. So we expect the $2.5 billion to be a higher number at that time. But we — I mean I’m resolute of guiding to 80% to 90%. I think I don’t want to go over what happened this year. So we’re very — the market in the U.S. picked up. Things are moving forward. We see good prospects in — not only in Australia where we have done a good job, but also in EMEA. So stay tuned. We’ll provide you the actual guidance, but it will be based on the 80% to 90% of the backlog we have for ’26, starting on — at the end of the call. I think Ahmed will add to that.

Ahmed Pasha: Yes. I think — Brian, I think — I don’t think you need to leave anything in between the lines here. I think there’s more to do to tell you how we are thinking about the guidance when we give our guidance there on the number. I think it’s more — hopefully, we will continue to do what we have done in the first month. In July, we have signed a $1.1 billion contract. So I think, hopefully, we will maintain this momentum, but that is where we will end up. So goal is to give you guidance where we have more confidence unlike in the past where we had 65% coverage and we had to sign contracts, and then we missed the numbers. So that was the intent. I don’t think there’s anything beyond that.

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: That’s right.

Operator: Your next question is coming from the line of Dylan Nassano with Wolfe Research.

Dylan Thomas Nassano: Can we just start with opening comments on data centers? So correct me if I’m wrong, I mean, it sounds like maybe you’re engaging a little more directly with the data centers. Can you just kind of walk us through that? Have you actually signed any kind of new contracts there?

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: No. So this is a new and emerging need that — as you know, we’ve been serving data centers indirectly through our — through IPPs and other players who actually provide services to them. But now we have this emerging need that data centers — AI data centers that are training or managing AI, complex AI processes have very volatile energy consumption. And there’s no way — there’s no other way of resolving that issue and not affecting the grid than adding battery storage. So this is an emerging need. It requires a lot of technical work, especially the response time of the batteries needs to be very, very quick. I want to give you a number, not to provide — give my competitors a view. But it requires very, very quick response time to ensure that the electrons in no way affect the algorithms that are learning in the process.

So that’s picking up. We have a pipeline, but we do not — we have not signed an agreement. And as I said in the call, we’re working on the solution. The solution is we think we have it, but we need to test them and be sure that we have it available for our customers. It is our view. This in a way — the reason why we included in the script is not only because clearly it’s data center opportunity, but it also shows the expanding scope of products that battery storage are going to — can offer. And I think that’s where — or solutions, if you want to put it differently. And I think that’s where — have been our view from day 1 that the value of this technology to not be only looked at integrating renewables into the grid. It’s much broader, and we’ll continue to play a very broad jobs, more broad — more jobs both behind and in front of the meter as we move forward.

Dylan Thomas Nassano: [indiscernible]

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Dylan, you’re getting cut out — sorry.

Operator: Your next question is coming from David Arcaro with Morgan Stanley.

David Keith Arcaro: I was wondering if you could maybe give a little bit more color on just how the U.S. demand picture is trending following the passage of the OBBB. And I was curious if you’re seeing the executive order uncertainty impacting the pace of bookings, given that it might impact the solar outlook and any battery attachments to solar.

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Well, it’s picking up. We remember, we had to halt a few — the execution of a few contracts we have signed. All those contracts are now moving forward and are moving forward to execution. It will be generally ’26 revenue rather than ’25. So very active. We have signed a few contracts as of late. And we are seeing more and more opportunities come up. We haven’t seen people concerned today, at least with the projects. They have been concerned about the executive order. I think that the projects we’re working on are projects that people feel are very much solidly with the start of construction. They’re already buying the stuff and putting it into place. So I think at least the projects that are — that were signed in, which are projects that are very, very mature will not be affected or are not affected.

David Keith Arcaro: Great. Got it. That makes sense. And let me see, I was wondering if you could just elaborate on the ramp-up issues that you had. I think you mentioned it was at your Arizona facilities. But are those now fully resolved, any lingering impacts or issues that you’re managing through the end of the year?

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Yes. We had some typical ramp-up issues that come out of putting in place these production lines. In the case of the Arizona facility was it — we were — we essentially did a technology transfer from what we were doing in Vietnam to the U.S., and some of the work processes and some of that needed to change to affect to the U.S., and that kind of delayed the start-up and the ramp-up. We believe we have it all under control, and we are in the process of starting to ramp up. And we believe that we will be — by the end of the year, we should be — we should have resolved the problem. Unfortunately, we would not believe today that we’ll be able to recuperate the $100 million of revenue that we have to move to next year.

So we will meet our ramp-up objective for the end of the year, but it will not be enough that we will do more than from now to year-end that will recuperate the $100 million in revenue. So that’s the reason why we have to be a little bit more. But they are typical ramp-up issues. It’s things that are small but get delayed, processes that need to be affected, process that needed to adapt to OSHA rules, things of that sort, that you only find out or you find out usually when you are trying to ramp up production out of that facility. So we are — the quality of the work is very good. I was also on that factory last week, meeting the employees, looking at the people. We have like 40 of our engineers working with them trying to resolve these issues very quickly or actually helping them resolve these issues very quickly.

And I’m really excited. And it’s also — if I can give a little bit of an add. Nobody believed we could by the — we can build the enclosures with U.S. steel. These are U.S. steel enclosures. The view was that you could not do it, that it was too expensive, that the steel industry in the U.S. is not going to be able to do it. We now — we are — these enclosures that are coming out of that line are made with 100% U.S. steel. So we’re very, very happy with the process. And we think this is the way to go forward, and then we are believers in the U.S. industry. And issues, that we have, but we’ll make it happen.

Operator: Your next question is coming from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Jefferies.

Julien Patrick Dumoulin-Smith: Just on this ’26 number here, on the $2.5 billion, how would you think about that teeing up here in the next year? I mean I know you talked about this 80% to 90%. I just want to understand like how you think about the line of sight and sort of the timing and cadence of when you see some of that backlog coming in? I mean do you really see that number accelerating into the end of the year based on OBBB? And then also, can you speak a little bit more — I mean it’s notable the non-U.S. acceleration that you’re seeing here, too.

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Yes. So I don’t want to guide — provide guidance for next year, unfortunately. And we highlighted that number, and we highlighted a conservative approach because remember, last year, we guided with $2.6 billion in our backlog. Not this year. And we guided to $4 billion. So I didn’t want to say $2.5 billion, and you tell me these guys are going to guide to $3.8 billion. So that’s kind of what we wanted to give you a sense. It’s going very well. Things are picking up globally. We are in a very good position, but we’re going to be a lot more conservative. That was the message. And I think that’s a message I can say. We are seeing very good momentum. And stay tuned. Unfortunately, I don’t want to give — we cannot provide a view today.

Ahmed Pasha: We’re not shutting down our shop. So I think our goal is to continue to grow and provide service to our customers and grow the business. So that’s the goal. So let’s stay tuned, but we will come and report. But our sales team is actively working, and we are adding more resources in sales. So…

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: That’s right.

Julien Patrick Dumoulin-Smith: Right. And then maybe can you speak to a little bit of what you’re expecting on FEOC here and how that’s going to be implemented and how you see yourself vis-à-vis like the cadence of bookings? I know someone kind of tried to ask the same question earlier, but how do you think about that driving acceleration? Or just at least the clarity, like when does that drive order activity? If folks are safe harbored here, perhaps they’re little [indiscernible] and a little bit of a lag.

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Can you repeat again, please? Sorry, the sound in my part got out — got cut out.

Julien Patrick Dumoulin-Smith: Okay. I got you. Look, keep it short. On the FEOC part, you’ve got the — you have contracts where perhaps folks have safe harbored, perhaps FEOC-exempt equipment. When do you think you’ll start to see FEOC-compliant equipment orders really start to come in, given what you’re seeing with the OBBB? What’s the time line there as you think about it, right? Again, in theory, that might be somewhat lagged. Is that near term? Or do you think that there could be some changes here with the safe harbor that would force folks to procure more FEOC-compliant type products? And how do you think about that fitting into your business?

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Good point, yes. As you know, safe harbor gives you a little flexibility on meeting some of the FEOC restrictions. What we set for ourselves and with our suppliers is to meet the actual act deadlines, which are all happening, as you know, in the first half of the year next year, unless there was — we see any changes going forward. So that’s generally our view. We want to meet the deadlines that are in the act even though we’ll have some flexibility meeting some contracts with things that are slightly different. So that’s our approach. That’s the way we take. We have taken — I wouldn’t to call it a conservative approach, but we do not want to lose any of our first- mover advantage of this. And I think that part of it is ensuring that we have that supply chain to that ownership and that control restructure in accordance with the law as soon as we can.

Operator: Your next question is coming from the line of Justin Clare with ROTH Capital.

Justin Lars Clare: I wanted to just follow up on gross margins here. It sounds like the tariffs in the U.S. might affect your gross margin into the fiscal Q4. So just wondering if you’re anticipating being able to offset the tariff-related costs in the U.S., whether through pricing, sourcing through your domestic supply chain here, other levers. And if this is a temporary issue, should we anticipate margins for the U.S. being similar to your international margins over time and what that looks like?

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Yes, that’s a very good question. I think this reflects the contracts we already signed that was already in our backlog and where we had some rules with our — some rules or some provisions in our contract, how we divided the tariff effect. This tariff effect on the contracts are a bigger number, but this is the amount — the $30 million is a net amount that we need to reflect in our numbers. And this applies to the contracts we already signed. I think new contracts come in, they will reflect the new cost structure, and we should see them going back to the normal margin levels of 10% to 15% that we have set for ourselves. So it should not — this is a temporary situation. There might be some in the first quarter of ’26 that still have these issues. So there will be some lingering ones, but I think the majority will be done by between this quarter and the first quarter of ’26.

Justin Lars Clare: Got it. Okay. That’s helpful. And then just on the domestic supply chain here, wondering if you could provide an update on the ramp- up of AESC’s second production line. I think that was expected to come online toward the end of fiscal — your fiscal ’26. Has that time line shifted at all given the recent policy developments? And then are you considering any alternatives for domestic cell sourcing at this point?

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: So good question. As I said, we do not need the second line until early ’27. So that’s still to be the case. And that’s when you look at — we can live with what we have, with the one line going forward. We kind of put that line on pause during the OB3. When things were moving up, people now forget, but remember the House came with very strict rules and they’ve liberalized now. So we kind of put a hold. Now we will bring it back on as part of our renegotiation on FEOC. And it should come, I would say, probably a little bit later than the first quarter of ’26, but it should be — it should work with our current volumes. However, as there are some challenges, we’re also looking at other options just to ensure we don’t play one — we don’t dance to only one tool.

So we are looking at other options just in case these were — gets delayed or we get a lot more volume than what we are thinking of or somehow the negotiations with AESC do not work as we expect for the second line. So…

Operator: Your next question is coming from the line of Ameet Thakkar with BMO Capital Markets.

Ameet Ishwar Thakkar: Just real quick on kind of OpEx you guys had historically tried to kind of, I think, grow that at half the rate of revenues. Looks like it’s up kind of year-to-date versus the same period last year. Any kind of — and I know you guys have embarked on some kind of cost savings initiatives. Can you just kind of give us an update on where that stands and kind of maybe the timing of when we might start to see some progress on that front?

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Okay. So I mean in terms of OpEx, I think generally, long term, our view is what we have said, keeping our OpEx at half of our ’26 — of our growth. However, for next year, most likely, we’ll keep OpEx flat compared to ’25. Why? We were expecting a significant growth in ’25 in revenue that we were not able to deliver, and our cost structure, in a way, reflects part of it. So that’s why I think that for next year, it will be essentially flat, but after ’27, it should go back to growing — after ’26 and ’27 onwards, it should grow at half the rate of our top line growth. That’s the way you should think about it. And just to give you a sense of what we’re doing, we are looking at our OpEx, especially taking a deep look at all our — all our costs are not sales or product development or R&D.

And we invested on SAP. So we’re looking at our financial cost, our control costs, human resources, all of that, G&A that is not connected to either sales or R&D and really taken a look and taking advantage of our investments in SAP and other systems that I think are helping. So that’s what you should see. Flat from ’26 and then growing back again at half the rate of the top line growth at ’27 onward.

Ameet Ishwar Thakkar: And then just one quick follow-up. It looks like ASPs were kind of in the low to the kind of mid-300s dollar a KWH during the quarter. If I look at your backlog, it implies something in kind of the lower 200s. I don’t think that’s necessarily a new phenomenon, but like is there any kind of additional kind of revenue that you guys end up kind of booking on the product side that allows you to kind of realize a higher kind of realized ASP versus what’s implied by bookings?

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: No. It’s in line with what bookings [indiscernible].

Ahmed Pasha: No, I think if you look at our order intake last year, Ameet, we were in $300. So I think it’s a timing lag, if you wish, in the revenue that you are seeing in Q3. Those are the contracts we have signed last year. And if you go back last year, we had in that range, $300 plus. The only other thing you have to consider is the EPC, the scope of the projects. For example, in Europe, this quarter, we have large of our — more than 50% of my revenue this year is from international businesses, where I have EPC as part of the scope. And that, by itself, increases the price 20%, 30%…

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: 20%, depends on the component.

Ahmed Pasha: Then the base equipment price, which, in the U.S., for example, we normally don’t do EPC, just a product.

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: And then, Ameet, if — I’m in the promotion mode today, but that’s true. I mean we have been able to follow the ASP reductions in line with whatever — with our competitors. And we have signed in good projects with good margins at significant lower ASPs. I mean some of you had concerns of our ability to do it. We’ve been able to do it with investments in R&D and thinking about our projects. So in a way, clearly, the ASP is a threat. But at the same time, it’s an opportunity for us. So…

Operator: Your next question was coming from the line of Chris Dendrinos with RBC Capital Markets.

Christopher J. Dendrinos: I wanted to go back to just kind of some of the manufacturing commentary here. And I guess I’m curious, are you in a position going forward to support a ramp from, I guess, AESC? And then separately or related, if you do look at a different supplier, can you support the — I guess, the cells coming off that line, maybe if they’re prismic or pouch and just trying to understand, I guess, your flexibility to support a different cell structure if you switch suppliers like…

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: We — currently, our supply chain is designed to integrate the AESC batteries. If we were to bring another supplier with another technology, there will be a little bit of a work in bringing them up. It’s not a lot of work, but it will require some work. However, we do not have any need for new supply during the rest of ’25 or ’26. It will be an early ’27 needs that we will have enough time to adapt to it.

Christopher J. Dendrinos: Got it. Okay. And then as a follow-up, maybe just going back to the last question on pricing dynamics. And maybe just broadly, are you — it sounded like in response to a question from ROTH that maybe there’s pricing increases going on a bit in the U.S. as a result of tariffs. I guess is that true? And then I guess, globally, are you still kind of seeing some incremental pricing pressure? Or is it kind of dying down?

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Yes. Good question. I think the U.S. will — over time, we’ll see some pressure on costs. However, today, most of the projects that we are looking at are projects that are safeguard under the old IRA provision. So I don’t expect that you will see significant price increases for the next maybe 6 to 12 months. They will be under the current — under the older system. So — but generally, I think that we should expect some additional increases going forward. That’s the way you should think about it.

Operator: Your final question is coming from the line of Dimple Gosai of Bank of America.

Dimple Gosai: What are you seeing in the market as far as Chinese players front-running FEOC and tariff escalations ahead of the end of 2025? And maybe anything you can add on what customers are saying on that front? And then I have a follow-up.

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Well, we’ve been selling domestic content production, mostly in the U.S. So those are the customers we’re working with. So the customers who like Chinese equipment, we have not necessarily. So I don’t know, to tell you the truth, where we are. They don’t — Chinese equipment does not compete with our domestic content offering. So people are probably front-running it, maybe they are, but it’s for other customers, not the ones we’re working or for projects that are not within our own. The economics of domestic content on the projects that are safeguard under the IRA and the new projects is very, very strong and continues to be very strong. And we feel very, very confident that, that market will continue to this expand.

Dimple Gosai: Okay. And then in the current backlog, what is the tariff sensitivity that perhaps wasn’t already baked into the contracts, if any? And are there any potential cancellation risk or mutual terminations that might still be on the cards?

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: In the — no, we don’t see any terminations due to tariffs. I think that we have — as I said, the contracts that we stopped because of the tariff risk and how this all reactivated. And now with the 40% tariff this year going up to 58%, I think everybody kind of — the provisions that we have in the contract…

Ahmed Pasha: Those are already taken care of in our current backlog.

Julian Jose Nebreda Marquez: Yes, and they’re already — they are in our guidance for this year. And so you shouldn’t expect any other additional changes.

Operator: I will now turn the call back over to Lexington May, Vice President of Investor Relations, for closing remarks. Please go ahead.

Lexington May: Thank you for participating on today’s call. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me. We look forward to speaking with you again when we report our fourth quarter and full year results. Have a good day.

Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today’s call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.