Energy Recovery, Inc. Stock

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Energy Recovery's Third Quarter 2026 Earnings Call.

During today's call, Energy Recovery may make projections and other forward-looking statements under the safe harbor provision contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 regarding future events or the future financial performance of the company. These statements may discuss our business, economic and market outlook, growth expectations, new products and their performance, cost structure and business strategy.

Forward-looking statements are based on information currently available to the company and on the management's beliefs, assumptions, estimates and projections. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties and other factors. We refer you to documents the company files from time to time with the SEC, specifically the company's annual Form 10-K and quarterly Form 10-Q.

These documents identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in our projections or forward-looking statements. All statements made during this call are made only as of today, November 4, 2026, and the company expressly disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statements made during the call to reflect subsequent events or circumstances unless otherwise required by law.

Our host for today's call are Alex Buehler, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of Energy Recovery; and Aidan Ryan, Interim Chief Financial Officer. I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Buehler.

Thank you, operator, and good afternoon, everyone. Earlier today, we released a letter to shareholders on the Investor Relations section of our website that reviews business and financial performance during the quarter.

Before we open the line for questions, I would like to share a few business highlights that reinforce important updates in the shareholder letter.

First, Megaproject contracting is back, and our pipeline is uniquely strong. Contracting and construction activity in the Middle East has resumed with construction now underway on multiple large plants in Persian Gulf countries where work was paused earlier this year. In the last 30 days alone, we have signed over 30 million new Megaproject contracts.

Our total backlog now stands at over $60 million. And based on contracts executed and in current negotiation, we have line of sight to at least $50 million of Megaproject revenue in 2027. In short, a strong Megaproject rebound is already taking shape.

At the same time, our Megaproject pipeline has grown to a record of about $525 million. Zooming out, the picture gets even better. Our market is entering its largest build-out ever with roughly $30 billion of desalination and reuse capital spending expected from 2027 through 2030, increasingly flowing through multiyear national programs and spreading well beyond the GCC countries.

And our customers are staying the course. Not one has changed a long-term investment decision, and we are not aware of a single desalination project that has been canceled.

Second, I am especially excited about our position of technology leadership. The PX is the gold standard in desalination with more than 40,000 devices installed in virtually every major desalination plant around the world, many of them operating for decades with minimal or no failure. This year, we extended that lead with the launch of the PX Q650, which delivers the highest capacity and lowest specific energy consumption of any product available. Just six months after launch, it is already specified at several large desal sites, and we have signed our first PX Q650 contract at Jubail, a 600,000 cubic meter per day plant. Beyond the Q650, we have also broadened our portfolio with new standardized turbochargers and our ultra low-pressure PX.

In 2026, we have won every single Megaproject above 100,000 cubic meters per day and by accelerating our technology road map by more than 12 months, we aim to provide our customers with premium products to support the largest plants in the world through this next build-out cycle.

Third, we are attacking this opportunity from a position of real strength. With the closure of our CO2 business, we are now a pure-play water technology company with zero debt and almost $86 million of cash and investments, and we have generated about $26 million of free cash flow year-to-date.

Our operations are executing at a very high level, and our new facility in Dammam, Saudi Arabia will start manufacturing next year, putting lower cost capacity in close proximity to our largest customers. And with our technology road map pulled forward, you will see an accelerated pace of new product innovation in 2027 and 2028.

Finally, we are running the business with cost discipline and returning capital to our shareholders. Cost actions taken this year reduced quarterly operating expenses by 17% versus last year and almost 23% versus two years ago. And we have repurchased nearly $109 million of stock since the fourth quarter of 2024. We remain ready to take additional action as needed to protect shareholder value and position the company for continued success.

With that, we will now move to the question-and-answer portion of our conference call. Operator, please open the line for questions.

[Operator Instructions]

Our first question is from Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley Securities.

For the $50 million of Megaproject revenue visibility for next year and the growing pipeline more broadly, is that primarily driven by the Middle East still? Or are you seeing some of the other regions enhance more of the near-term opportunities for you guys?

No. I mean it's great to see that the pipeline is becoming increasingly well diversified. Obviously, I think you realize that we've been well concentrated historically in the Middle East or GCC countries as we look out five years and assess the pipeline, and we did report that it jumped from $500 million to $525 million quarter-over-quarter. So we are seeing that continue to materialize and increase.

We are seeing more projects, larger size per project and a better diversified pipeline when you look at sort of GCC versus non-GCC. That's inclusive especially of other sort of dry climates like North Africa, but even beyond that, some Asian countries and South American countries as well. So I would say larger pipeline, bigger projects, more projects and better diversification as we look out.

Got it. Appreciate that. And then for the 4Q Megaproject backlog of $17 million, could you size how much, if any of that has been delivered quarter-to-date? Or if there's a portion of it that you think is at risk of slipping into next year?

Yes. The $17 million in Q4 without commenting how much has already been delivered, I'll say we expect and hope that there may also be other contracting activity that happens in the next few months. So I think about that $17 million as a floor expectation for Q4 in Megaprojects.

Got it. I appreciate that, Aidan. And then maybe just lastly, can you remind us what the changes are that you're implementing in wastewater in that organization? And how we should think about the revenue ramp more broadly as we head into 2027 for that business?

Yes. I think historically or at least for the last couple of years, we were running with two entirely separate divisions, which kind of assumed or implied that there was limited overlap in customer sharing. I think what we learned over the course was that there is a lot of customer overlap and you can get a little bit more efficient on the sales and sales management side by merging those organizations.

That's what we announced last quarter. We have merged those sales organizations. So we've got one sort of water organization now from a sales and service perspective. That organization does have a renewed and more focused go-to-market strategy, segmentation, identification of target accounts, and they are hitting the market hard. Obviously, we're not happy with the level of quarterly performance.

However, we are expecting a nice tick up in Q4, which should support us into next year and beyond as well. So the other thing I'll say about wastewater, it too is becoming increasingly well diversified. Historically, we've been highly concentrated in China, especially in a couple of, call it, large end markets or segments. I think we're seeing China as a percent of total opportunity go down as we diversify to other markets like India, like North America, Europe and other places.

So we still believe in the market. Obviously, we've got a very strong value proposition. We benefit from about 300 reference cases around the world working across end markets. So now with this new organization intact and that go-to-market strategy, we're focused on driving pipeline and growth in Q4 and subsequent years.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question is from Ryan Connors with Northcoast Research.

I wanted to just keep on the theme of the contracting and construction activity rebounding in the Middle East. That's obviously very encouraging. But I wonder if you could kind of elaborate on that. What exactly that looks like? For example, are there more contingencies being built in and things like that? And why it was that, that wasn't enough, you didn't feel to get you over the hump in terms of reinstating guidance?

Yes. I mean, I guess the uncertainty is still trying to call the date of shipment or the month or quarter of shipment more specifically. As you know, Ryan, shipment is what drives rev rec for us. So as we look at the pipeline, we do see real visibility, but timing is still a little bit uncertain and difficult to call. I think as we watch project evolution and, call it, velocity becomes a little bit more definitive and predictable.

At that point, we'll shift our position on guidance. But right now, we are not seeing project cancellations. People are moving forward with projects. I guess, probably acknowledging and accepting that maybe this is the new normal with the situation in the Middle East, and we can't just hold and wait. We've got work to do. We've got demand to meet, so we have to progress. So I think that is shifting. So insofar as there was any interruption, that was probably the reason for that interruption. We're trying to get back to business now and start building capacity to satisfy known demand as part of these multiyear national programs.

And that's very good news for us. However, the timing is still difficult to predict. Obviously, we're signing contracts. We're building backlog. We can see our pipeline years in advance, but to restore guidance on an annual or quarterly basis, you still need to put a large project shipment in a month and a quarter, right? And it's still a little bit hard to do that at the moment. However, it is improving. And hopefully, that will continue to improve, and then we could shift our position on guidance in the not-too-distant future.

Understood. And then in a sort of related question, you talked about the pipeline expanding to $525 million. That also is encouraging. But can you just remind us how that pipeline is calculated? Is there any timing component to that in terms of being capped with things that are going to ship within three years or five years or something like that? Or is that just sort of things that are on the drawing boards period?

No. I mean this is specific identification by project, by customer, by geo market. These projects are at various stages of maturity. And you can think through kind of the stages and cycles of a large capital project. So we have identified them. We are in close communication with the customer and stakeholders, and we are able to put that project in a year.

We have capacity for those projects based on that capacity, we understand the number of PXs we could put on those projects as well as for the ASPs that we normally charge to those customers. So I'd say the pipeline is very scientific. It's built on a bottom-up basis. and then we are updating it weekly in our business. So that's how we speak of the pipeline with a high level of conviction because these are known projects that occur years in advance. We do some reality checks on the pipeline. Like all these projects have a make water date and then we compare that to the contract date or the shipment date just to make sure that we're not getting out of whack in terms of our timing expectations.

We also validate our pipeline through independent research using third parties, trying to triangulate that way. We talk to lenders to try to sort of back door and get another channel of communication. So we are working that NPD pipeline very heavily at multiple levels, and that is increasing our level of conviction.

Yes. Okay. Yes. I mean what I'm trying to figure out is it's encouraging in the abstract. And obviously, we're not modeling '27 is difficult, but I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to use that number and that growth in that number as a -- some kind of from a modeling perspective about a two-, three-year horizon if we still think that the 12-month horizon is very limited in terms of visibility. That's kind of why I asked the question. It sounds like you do have things put into individual years, but you just don't necessarily disclose at that level.

Yes. We don't disclose at that level. And Ryan, as you can imagine, the things that are being added to the pipeline are being added towards the back end of the pipeline because these desalination projects take so long to plan for and contract for. So we don't see a lot of change in the near term in the pipeline, which is good with additions coming at the very end as we continue to progress year-by-year, we'll see more of that.

Yes. Okay. And then last one for me. I did notice there was a comment in the letter about aftermarket destocking, which is not necessarily material in its own right, but I'm curious what's driving that because on the surface, it does seem to run somewhat counter to all the other really positive things we have to say here about the landscape kind of getting a little better out there.

Yes. I'd say over the long term, we're quite excited about our aftermarket business. We see a lot of potential there for replacement demand as well as for ancillary products and services. in the near term, when we are serving customers with constrained budgets, they may decide to replace -- have one spare part on the shelf instead of two, something like that.

There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the floor back over to Alex for closing comments.

Thank you, operator. Just in summary, with Megaprojects contracting back, a record pipeline of about $525 million, product leadership that continues to set the standard and the largest build-out our industry has ever seen just getting started, we are increasingly excited about the road ahead for energy recovery. Thank you all for your continued support, and we look forward to updating you on our next call in February.

Thank you. This does conclude today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time, and thank you for your participation.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Energy Recovery's Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Call. During today's call, Energy Recovery may make projections and other forward-looking statements under the safe harbor provisions contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 regarding future events or the future financial performance of the company. These statements may discuss our business, economic and market outlook, growth expectations, new products and their performance, cost structure and business strategy.

Forward-looking statements are based on information currently available to the company and on management's beliefs, assumptions, estimates and projections. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risk, uncertainties and other factors. We refer you to documents the company files from time to time with the SEC, specifically the company's annual Form 10-K and quarterly Form 10-Q. These documents identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in our projections or forward-looking statements.

All statements made during this call are made only as of today, August 5, 2026, and the company expressly disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statements made during this call to reflect subsequent events or circumstances unless otherwise required by law. Our host for today's call are Alex Buehler, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of Energy Recovery; and Aidan Ryan, Interim Chief Financial Officer.

I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Buehler.

Thank you, operator, and good afternoon, everyone. Earlier today, we released a letter to shareholders on the Investor Relations section of our website that reviews business and financial performance during the quarter. Prior to opening the line for questions and answers, I'd like to highlight a few important takeaways from that letter.

We are focused on bringing our CEO search to a close and have been impressed with the breadth and the quality of the candidate pool. The combination of Energy Recovery's long-term tailwinds, technology leadership and platform strength have allowed us to attract accomplished leaders who are ready to lead our next chapter of growth. We look forward to updating you further as this search progresses.

As Interim CEO, I'm focused on ensuring the successful execution of our business initiatives and continuity with our customers and employees during this search process. In addition to my past career across water, energy and infrastructure services; I have also had the privilege of serving on Energy Recovery's Board for over a decade. With this background, I am ensuring that we keep pace on growth, innovation, manufacturing transformation and capital discipline.

Moving now to our outlook. We sit in attractive end markets with durable structural growth in the high single digits. While the war has temporarily impacted us and clouded our visibility, we are confident in our long-term pipeline and a return to growth as these headwinds pass. Lastly, we've demonstrated our discipline in operating costs this year and that practice will continue. In addition to a steady pace of improvements in overhead efficiency, our ongoing manufacturing transformation will provide significant cost improvement when our new facility in Saudi Arabia achieves planned run rate production.

With that, we will now move to the question-and-answer portion of our conference call. Operator, please open the line for questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question is from Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley Securities.

First, could you just talk about your current visibility on Megaproject in the Middle East as of the last call? I believe there were no formal delays given to you guys, but they were expected. Is that still the case?

Well, let me start kind of with the pipeline and then I'll specifically address the second part of your question, Ryan. I will say the pipeline is strong. I would even characterize it as uniquely strong. We do have really good forward visibility. Obviously in this market, we've got structural durable demand drivers and those certainly have not changed. So we are predicting a market recovery although we're unable at this juncture to kind of put a date and a timeline on that. When we look at our pipeline, we do have named projects in some cases with EPCs appointed, in other cases without, with named customers as well. And that forward visibility can extend out for 5 years.

So the pipeline looks good. It looks uniquely strong from my perspective, but we are still in this environment where we are seeing delays. Some of those delays to your specific question have in fact been formalized and communicated. Obviously those are caused by financing challenges in this current environment of geopolitical risk where risk premiums go up. Obviously we have procurement challenges from our EPCs. And then we just have logistic challenges as well in terms of getting things started and proceeding into the execution phases of these things. So good pipeline, but still with uncertain timing is the punchline there.

I appreciate that detail. And then secondly, could you dig in more on the cost impact that your new facility in Saudi Arabia is expected to have and the extent of the potential margin uplift there?

Yes. So the Saudi Arabia facility is primarily strategic in nature. It's designed to get us closer to customers and to minimize freight and shipping costs to those customers and also to build a local presence in a region that's very important for us over time. It is, I'd say, complementary with our facilities in California. We plan to use both as we talked about in the letter. We do see it as a source of margin improvement in the future and a lot of those margin improvements come from just freight and shipping and procurement and then there are some generally lower operating costs in the region.

We'll see those margin improvements come gradually over time as the facility ramps in '27 and '28 and beyond as well as when we introduce new products, including our Q650 into the market. So don't think about it as a we open the factory, all of a sudden margins snap up. It is something that's going to happen over time and it's probably too early to quantify that, but we do expect improvement.

That makes sense. I appreciate that. And then last one for me on the wastewater side. What are some of the key actions that you're taking today to accelerate business there? And when do you think we'll ultimately see a commercial inflection point for Energy Recovery's products in that market?

Yes. Obviously we like the wastewater market that goes without saying. We continue to invest there. What we see is a growing market as we look at several use cases and applications for our products and technologies. You would have noted in some of our earlier press releases that we have achieved and announced product success and reference projects. We have also expanded and diversified our portfolio of products so we can do high pressure, ultra-high pressure, low pressure and ultra-low pressure that certainly broaden the aperture of our technologies in those range of use cases.

But certainly, we are also focused on accelerating market adoption and revenue growth. I think some things we're doing there are we are better allocating our resources to where the market opportunity is. For example, a lot of opportunity in Asia especially in places like China and India where they haven't really taken up MLB, ZLD as industrial or national policies in those markets for obvious reasons. We are also trying to balance kind of our key account management approach and our go-to-market strategy.

So we are trying to position with the right sort of OEM players in the right end markets and cover those accounts. Obviously if we can get spec-ed in with some of those RO companies, that could mean a significant uplift in revenue and an opportunity to scale more quickly. We are also thinking we're going to run this with more efficiency as well. So you would have probably picked up on that in the shareholder letter. So we're balancing revenue growth and efficiency and that's through better resource allocation and, in some cases, leaner operations on the sales management side.

And that certainly not reducing our sales resources especially as we think about our priority geo markets and target accounts, but running it more efficiently from a sales management perspective. So that's how we think about wastewater. Obviously the results were pretty soft, but we still feel really good about the market, its size, our product success and the case of project references that we are developing.

Our next question is from Ryan Connors with Northcoast.

I wanted to start off on the big picture and then kind of move down from there. But obviously the Iran conflict is a key part of the story right now. I'm just -- I think one of the unique things about it has been the on again, off again nature of it. One minute we're looking at a resolution and then we're not. I'm just curious what do you think is going to be the catalyst to open the market up and reduce those risk premium as you talked about, Alex. I mean when this thing keeps head faking that it's resolved and then not. Does it have to be resolved for 6 or 9 months very clearly before some of these countries open things back up? Just curious because it seems like a very -- something that just is coming and going almost every other day or week here.

Yes. Look, obviously difficult to say where things are going on the geopolitical side and yes, we can all acknowledge and appreciate that whiplash, right? There's a deal, there's no deal. Missiles are flying again, now we're in the ceasefire. I think what we need to see on our side is projects moving to financing, EPC appointments as well as sort of execution in terms of award to delivery. In certain cases, we get awards although delivery is pushed out. Obviously that doesn't help. That helps us from a backlog perspective, but not necessarily from a revenue perspective, right, because we're still dependent on that execution timeline.

It's one of those things we'll know it when we see it because we'll see normal order of operations, timing and velocity in our detailed pipeline, which is sort of the difference between an award date and a make water date and then earlier than that, the difference between a project manifesting in its award date. Right now we're just out of bounds there. So we will see it come inbounds hopefully soon, but one can never tell, right? How that correlates to geopolitical environment, I can't possibly say, right, like what needs to happen on that side; cease fire, a cessation of hostile activity, whatever that is. What I can tell you we'll know it when we see it in our project pipeline as we measure those key project milestones and then timing between those milestones.

That's very helpful perspective on it. And that kind of leads to my next question, which was totally understand the impossibility of reinstating guidance in this kind of environment like you described. But the one thing you do stress a couple of times in the release and the letter is the backlog so the $27 million. How do we think about that number? What does that number mean for us? Is that -- can we think about that as kind of a floor for the second half or is that -- I'm just curious? That is the one metric we have and I'm just curious how you would frame that for us. How we should be thinking about that from a modeling perspective?

Yes. I primarily look at our comments around the strength of the backlog in 2027 and beyond. I think that's when we're going to see growth start to reappear. We have seen some contracting activity this year resume, but there is also some delay in contracting activity. So we disclosed the backlog number, but the ability to use that to read through into the rest of our year I think is limited in this circumstance. So I think we're trying to get the focus to really be on the long-term pipeline and that's on the MPD side though. You've heard us say that OEM and aftermarket business we expect to be resilient through the rest of this year. So keep that in mind too.

Yes. Now you talked about the PX Q650 earlier. Obviously, this whole air pocket here with the Iran conflict ends up being poorly timed as it relates to that launch. I mean should we think about this as kind of pushing out the PX Q650 launch and rollout to where that's really going to impact the top line? And I guess you've mentioned it will impact the margins as well. I mean do we kind of think about that more as almost a late '27, '28 story at this point where it really moves the needle?

No, it shouldn't impact the product launches at all, right? So we have launched that product. We are seeing commercial uptake even from key customers and that too is a demonstration of our product leadership, our innovative spirit as well as the strength of our value proposition. We certainly think it makes sense as more countries are launching these multiyear national water programs and trains are getting larger, volumetric flow is increasing, right? So this just seems like a natural play into that changing market environment. It also strengthens our competitive position pretty well, very well I would say.

So when you look at our performance against any competitive benchmarks out there, which there aren't many on the MPD side anyway. But as we look at large Megaprojects in the pipeline, when you look at things like efficiency, specific energy consumption, [ tenant ] pressure, useful life, warranty coverage, et cetera. I just think it puts us in such a strong competitive position and strengthens our value proposition accordingly. So the short answer to your question is no, it won't delay the product launch. We are inking deals for the 650, both small and large, and we expect that we will continue to ink those deals.

Got it. Okay. And then going back to the new facility, the new manufacturing facility in Saudi Arabia. Congratulations on that. I know that's been something that's been in the works for a while. And I want to take that from the flip side as the earlier question on the margin benefit. But in terms of the capital cost there and the cash flow impact over the next I guess 1.5 years as that ramps up, Aidan, do you have anything you can share with us on the total capital cost for that and how that will sequence over the next year or however long that takes?

Yes. I think about it as a very limited capital cost. As a reminder, we're not greenfielding a new site. We are leasing a space. So the incremental capital cost is really around equipment and some fixed assets. We gave guidance this year for $3 million to $6 million of total CapEx. That still stands. You might remember maintenance CapEx is less than that. So we're talking about a few million bucks this year. There may be some next year as we build out that facility further, but it's a limited CapEx facility.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question is from Jeffrey Campbell with Seaport Research Partners.

You said that the O&M and aftermarkets are going to remain pretty resilient. Can you give us some kind of broad guidance on what that represents for the rest of '26? And is it going to be similar to the first 2 quarters? How do you think about that?

Our comment about the resiliency was really a full year comment. In the first half, we've obviously in OEM and aftermarket come down a little bit below where we were last year. But when we look at the second half of the year and when we look at the full year, I'd characterize our expectations as those businesses will remain resilient. There was a little choppiness obviously in the first half from everything that happened in the war. Those businesses are not immune by any means to the goings on there. But again resilient for the full year.

Okay. You noted that the low-pressure PX energy savings were 23% and 25% in real-world applications. I was just wondering what sort of improvement does that represent over what you were offering prior to the low PX development?

Pretty similar. Those products really just address other use cases within wastewater. So it's a product that will expand the TAM for us.

Okay. You mentioned that the Megaproject construction activity had resumed in some Middle East conflict areas. Those apparently are not producing deals for energy recovery at this point. I thought that might be a good opportunity to just review what's the typical lag between when a project starts actual construction and then when you receive a tender for your devices?

Usually we're on the early side of the procurement cycle. So I would let you know that we're kind of 1% to 2% of the capital value here. But in most cases because of our production schedule, slotting in production, right, they're going to want to order products from us and get those in hand and in-house, right? So we have seen a lag. We have seen that lag grow in this environment. But back to the earlier part of your question, obviously I mean we've got great comprehensive visibility of the MPD pipeline.

So there's not a project out there that we don't see and we don't see early and we're not in discussion with those customers. I mean the users are the offtakers, the developers, the EPCs, et cetera. So we've got incredible coverage and early and forward visibility on those projects. So that's the point I would want to reinforce there, right? So we're not going to miss an MPD project. We're going to see them all and we're going to be positioned early and be closely monitoring that project pipeline.

Okay. And then my last one that I'll ask is going back to this targeted changes that you're making in wastewater, you've already given some good color on that. But I wondered if you could zero in particularly on the synergies that you said you want to unlock with the broader organization. I'm wondering if those are -- are those organizational or are we talking about manufacturing? What kind of synergies are you thinking about?

Yes. I mean what we're finding is that there are some common customers here. So when we think about sales coverage in a territorial sense, we have sort of separate and parallel business units between water or desal and wastewater. I think what we've done is taken a view of what is the customer overlap, what are the key accounts and then how many salespeople or territory specialists do we need in any specific area to cover those key accounts in that territory. That's one area of, call it, synergies, right?

The other area of synergies is on the sales management side. Obviously we do have a sales management infrastructure for desal. We do have a sales management infrastructure for wastewater. In some cases, those are duplicative and overlapping. So we could certainly drive realize efficiencies and economize between those 2. So I would point to both of those kind of overlapping sales resources in certain cases and then overlapping sales management in other cases.

We have reached the end of the question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the floor back over to Alex Buehler for closing comments.

Thank you, operator. I want to thank all of our stakeholders for your continued interest and support and we look forward to updating you on our next call after the third quarter.

This concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Energy Recovery's First Quarter 2026 Earnings Call.

During today's call, Energy Recovery may make projections and other forward-looking statements under the safe harbor provisions contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 regarding future events or the future financial performance of the company. These statements may discuss our business, economic and market outlook, growth expectations, new products and their performance, cost structure and business strategy.

Forward-looking statements are based on information currently available to the company and on management's beliefs, assumptions, estimates and projections. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and other factors.

We refer you to documents the company files from time to time with the SEC, specifically the company's annual Form 10-K and quarterly Form 10-Q. These documents identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in our projections or forward-looking statements.

All statements made during this call are made only as of today, May 6, 2026, and the company expressly disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statements made during this call to reflect subsequent events or circumstances, unless otherwise required by law.

Our hosts for today's call are David Moon, President and Chief Executive Officer of Energy Recovery; and Aidan Ryan, Interim Chief Financial Officer.

I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Moon.

Thank you, operator, and good day, everyone. Earlier today, we released a letter to shareholders on the Investor Relations section of our website that reviews business and financial performance during the quarter. Prior to opening the line for questions and answers, I'd like to highlight a few important takeaways from that letter.

First is our new product, the PX Q650. We launched the product in March, have already received our first commercial order and are working with multiple large customers to design it into large desalination plants. It's off to a strong start, and we're excited about the commercial momentum that we've achieved in such a short time.

Second, two leadership updates. I've informed the Board of my intention to retire and a search for my successor is underway. Until that person is named, I'm fully engaged in my role. Behind me is a strong bench of talent here at ERI that will ensure a smooth transition. We're also announcing that Mike Mancini has resigned as CFO. Aiden Ryan, who joined in 2024, will take over as interim CFO and ensure business as usual from a finance and shareholder standpoint.

Third is the war in Iran. As we talked about in our letter, we have meaningful exposure to the Middle East, and we know the conflict will impact us. As such, our original financial guidance for 2026 is no longer reliable, and we're temporarily withdrawing guidance until we have better visibility on the evolving conflict.

We've seen these situations in the past. And while timing is a key factor, we know the demand is there, and we are building inventory to serve customers when they are ready. Our strategic direction will not change during this uncertain time. We remain focused on product innovation, cost discipline, manufacturing transformation and the growth of our wastewater business.

With that, we will now move to the question-and-answer portion of our conference call. Operator, please open the line for questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Ryan Connors with Northcoast.

David, congratulations on the retirement decision. And Aidan, congratulations on the elevation. Actually, a quick question on that. Will the search lean internal or external? Or is that just sort of everything is on the table in terms of your replacement, David?

Ryan, everything is on the table.

Okay. And then in terms of just unpacking the Middle East situation a little bit. I think we got two different types of issues, right? One is a short-term delay, a project gets pushed out six, nine months.

I think everyone -- that's totally -- that's not a big deal even from a modeling standpoint. But there's this sort of concern that the nature of this conflict and some of the images that were out there that people are seeing and potential investors in the region are seeing could kind of just sort of deflate confidence in the region for a little longer period and kind of just take away some of the growth economically and tourism and whatnot that underpins some of the project activity.

I mean, I know you don't have a crystal ball either, but what's -- I'd love to get your take on that issue and whether the delays are likely to be the first sort or more of the second sort, which would be a little more concerning.

Yes. So, I think, Ryan, obviously, it's still early days. But what we're hearing both internally and as we talk externally to others that are in the industry is that the project delays will be just that. There are likely to be some delays as we move from '26 into '27.

But the fundamentals that are driving desalination and wastewater, but primarily desalination in the Middle East is water scarcity and water security, right? And so, populations continue to grow. Those aren't going away. And so, while we may see some projects delayed, we still feel good about the long-term fundamentals of desalinization.

Yes. Yes. I have to just keep track of it, I guess, as it plays out.

And Ryan, we're not hearing anything that would tell us otherwise at this point.

Sure. One of my questions, David, you answered to some extent, which is I was going to ask how you're managing inventory and production schedules given that kind of uncertainty. But you did mention just there at the end of your prepared remarks that you're building inventory to be ready to serve customers.

So, I guess that was -- my question is twofold there. One is what gives you confidence to be building that inventory when things could push further right or not on a certain project? And b, given the good news on the 650 gaining traction, how do you know which inventory to build? Because might -- if some of these things are delayed a year or so, might you actually have the opportunity to try to spec in some of the 650s in place of what was supposed to go in? Or is that just not feasible?

Yes. I think the answer to that is yes, but we already know projects that are on the board over the next 12, sort of 24 months that are Q400 spec and frankly, are so far along in the design phase, it's unlikely that those projects will change product. And so, we've got a pretty good -- given where we're at today, we've got a pretty good crystal ball of sort of the Q650 transition time. And so that's sort of number one.

Number two is that we saw the Q300 Q400 transition sort of take sort of two-plus years to play out to get it to where the Q400 is our primary product today. And so, we think it's going to take even with sort of this early momentum around the 650, we think it's going to take a couple of years the 650 to become our primary product. And that's probably 2028 before we see that. So, we feel pretty good about how many Q400s we need to be building over the next couple of years and how many 650s that we should be building as well.

Yes. Okay. And then my last one, and then I'll pass it on is just obviously, the delays are focused on the Middle East and the conflict. But the conflict itself has led energy prices higher. Obviously, desal is very energy intensive no matter where on the globe people are doing it. Now the PX device is going to lower that energy footprint, but still versus a few months ago, any project is going to look a little more expensive. So is there any sign that there's any kinds of delays outside of the Middle East, just given the higher energy cost spike?

Yes, it's a really good question. So, the answer is no, not to this point. We have seen a few delays in some wastewater projects because of the cost -- input cost of materials. And so -- but there have been small projects and pretty small scale. So, nothing really at this point that would say desal projects in general globally are being impacted even given sort of the high energy price at this point are being impacted by the war. TBD, right, if it continues. But so far, the answer is no.

Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley Securities.

Maybe just a follow-up to the last one on the flip side with the Middle East uncertainty, are there other geographic regions where you're particularly enthusiastic about project development on the mega project side?

Yes. I think if you think about sort of the next two years, we're excited about China and some of the desal activity that looks to be ramping up there. And I would say South America, which would be the sort of second area where we see some activity that's starting to pick up there. So I'd say those are the sort of the two dual areas.

The third, I would say, is the wildcard would be Texas. There's been a lot of talk about desal projects for the last couple of years. Should some of those projects really start to prove out and start to happen, that could be some really nice business for us. And so I would say those are sort of the three areas that we're watching pretty closely.

Got it. And then has there been any change or update to how you're thinking about your manufacturing footprint expansion globally, just given the recent geopolitical events?

No. I think the strategic reasons for us looking in the Middle East are still the same regardless of conflicts, right? So first and foremost, it's our biggest base of business and looks like it will be over the next five to 10 years. And so that's sort of reason number one, right?

Reason number two is we've got customers there that are really, really pulling us for local content as it relates to building PXs on the ground. And so we're really -- and so that -- and that's not going away in the near term.

And then I think the third thing is that the sort of the icing on the cake would be the low-cost benefits that we get by moving a manufacturing facility to the Middle East. And so look, we continue to be full speed ahead in our planning. It's still our target by Q1 to be able to start manufacturing Q400s, assembly Q400s overseas. And so we continue to push down that path.

Appreciate that. And then maybe just one more on wastewater. The prior 2026 outlook was $10 million to $15 million in revenue. Is that still how you're thinking about wastewater revenue for this year? Or should we consider that on hold as well?

So, we are pausing -- Ryan, this is Aidan. We are pausing our guidance on both desalination and wastewater. So we're not going to comment specifically, but there's a lot of good things going on in wastewater. We also have some challenges, like David mentioned, and we look to update that when we update our overall guidance, hopefully here in Q2 or Q3.

Our next question comes from the line of Larry Solow with CJS Securities.

It's Pete Lucas on for Larry. You covered a lot in your previous answers. I guess just one for me. Given the short-term uncertainty, how do you think about cost cutting as a lever to pull to maintain free cash flow? And how should we think about that as an option for you?

Yes. Some of those things are definitely part of the existing plans, as we highlighted in the shareholder letter, our focus is on maintaining cost discipline. So we've talked about reducing manufacturing costs domestically with lean and Kaizen programs. David just talked about the manufacturing footprint strategy. That is part of our plans to reduce cost, and we're always focused on that.

Yes. I would say the other thing, Pete, is that we did we did a major reduction in force last year. We did a reduction in force to start at the beginning of this year. And so as we think about further cost cutting in SG&A other than the belt tightening and continuing to sort of turn around the edges, there's not a lot of big onetime opportunities left.

I think we've done a pretty good job of reducing there where we have the opportunity. I think where we see opportunities going forward is really productivity gains at the factory and sort of continuing to get smarter where we work in our SG&A to the extent that there are opportunities. But sort of no big time opportunities left.

And we have reached the end of the question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the floor back over to CEO, David Moon, for closing remarks.

Thank you, operator. So, I just want -- just to repeat what I had said in my opening remarks, our strategic direction will not change during this uncertain time. We will remain focused on product innovation. I think we've proven that with the Q650. We've got more products on the drawing board as we move forward, cost discipline, our manufacturing transformation efforts, both here and overseas and then the growth of our wastewater business are all things that we'll remain focused on as we move throughout the year. Thank you, operator.

Thank you. And this concludes today's conference, and you may disconnect your line at this time. We thank you for your participation.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Energy Recovery's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings Call. During today's call, Energy Recovery may make projections and other forward-looking statements under the safe hard provisions contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 regarding future events or the future financial performance of the company. These statements may discuss our business, economic and market outlook, growth expectations, new products and their performance, cost structure and business strategy.

Forward-looking statements are based on information currently available to the company and on management's beliefs, assumptions, estimates and projections. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and other factors. We refer you to the documents the company files from time to time with the SEC, specifically the company's annual Form 10-K and quarterly Form 10-Q.

These documents identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in our projections or forward-looking statements. All statements made during this call are made only as of today, February 25, 2026, and the company expressly disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statements made during this call to reflect subsequent events or circumstances unless otherwise required by law. Our host for today's call are David Moon, President and Chief Executive Officer of Energy Recovery, and Mike Mancini, Chief Financial Officer. I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Moon.

Thank you, operator. Thank you, and good day, everyone. Earlier today, we released a letter to shareholders on the Investor Relations section of our website. That reviews business and financial performance during the quarter, our outlook for 2026 and other important updates. Prior to opening the line for questions and answers, I'd like to highlight a few important takeaways from the letter.

First, I'm now excited to be fully focused on our water business. And what I've seen in the letter, this is a large, growing and profitable end market where we have the best pressure exchanger technology and continue to maintain our strong market position. As you can see from our results and guidance, we have hit an air pocket in 2025 and 2026 due to delays at several large desalination projects. Now this is a great use of one that remains lumpy.

We know investors find this frustrating and so do we. The good news is that we are confident in our growth for 2027 based on our pipeline and underlying demand trends. Second, as we've highlighted, we're winding down our CO2 retail grocery business. As conversations with customers involved over the last few months, I was clear this business couldn't achieve scale adoption without significant continued time, investment and risk.

It's a disappointing outcome and I'm generally grateful for the hard work our team members put in this effort over the past several years. Ultimately, we believe that the $7 million of annual savings was the optimal path for shareholder value creation. Now against this backdrop, we as a management team will continue to focus on optimizing performance and controlling what we can control. We're keeping a high bar for capital allocation, investing in innovation, growing our wastewater business, cutting operating expenses and buying back stock.

As always, I want to thank our employees here at Energy Recovery, our progress in 2025 and continued transformation in 2026 cannot be done without the great team that we have. With that, we'll now move to question-and-answer portion of our conference call. Operator, please open the line for questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Larry Solow with CJS.

Just to quickly summarize. So essentially, the Q4 shortfall, 2 contracts, 2 projects, excuse me, pushed into '26, and then for 26, essentially, you're saying $45 million, if I take kind of the mine, plus or minus. I realize it's not exact science, but 3 particular projects are shifting into '27, and then you're adding kind of another, I'll call it, wiggle room, but I don't want to turn it, about $15 million to $20 million to sort of what you call derisking the revenue outlook. Is that a good way to summarize it? .

That's right. The only clarification I'd say is that the 3 projects kind of get us to the high end of guidance, things we are highly confident will slip. And then the additional buffer is as we scrub the pipeline to really look at things that we think could also slip throughout the course of the year. That sort of sets the low end of our guidance. .

So the -- but the -- you're assuming those 3 projects don't occur, right? And --

The guidance assumes those 3 projects, correct. And that is on the order of $25 million to $30 million of projects. .

And then you slip another $15 million to $25 million other things that kind of creates.

Other things that we think are at risk of slipping throughout the course of the year, yes.

Yes. As we look at of course over the last 30 days, sort of those are the projects that sort of come up in our radar.

And is there any -- so you mentioned a bunch of the host of things, construction delays. I mean that's kind of usual stuff. -- but these are these delays are -- seem a little bit as a percentage of your total business may be larger than normal. Is that fair to say? I mean is that -- is there any common theme that they're being pushed out, it sounds like a bunch of things, right?

It did happen kind of surprisingly fast and more widespread. It's only 3 projects. So there's 2 things going on. One is that products are getting bigger, right? So Five years ago, we didn't have many projects that were of this size, and now we do. So we will feel the pain on the large project lifts. And secondly, with those large projects, they're more susceptible to slipping, right? They're just bigger. A lot of them are in non-Gulf countries that are sort of newer to desalination. So I think we're seeing that.

One is just a very project-specific land issue. And then generally, if there's a trend, I'd say we see some fewer EPCs bidding on desalination projects, given broad-based construction demand, and that can sometimes extend the tendering process. for our products in our pipeline because there's fewer EPCs bidding. That's the kind of the only major trend we've seen. But importantly, no disruption in demand, right? So this isn't that people don't need water. All those underlying demand trends are still in place. It's really just about timing and project complexity and time lines.

No. That's all fair. And the cost savings, you spoke about irrespective of the CO2 stuff, you said your OpEx, I guess, from 77% to 64%, And I assume, again, to get into CO2 I have 1 question on that, but your OpEx 64 core or whatever that is XO2, that -- you plan further cuts in 2016? Yes. So -- so CO2 comes

Of that number. adjust for CO2. And then I'd say there's some other room for additional cost savings we're getting toward the bottom of the curve there of getting quite efficient. But there's still ways for us to improve margins and OpEx. And

I guess the big thing eventually the magnitude we might grow, we get a little bigger or lower hanging fruit is when you relocate some of your manufacturing, I guess, is more of a...

Beyond there's margin benefit there from lower cost manufacturing for sure. And so we're incurring some of the cost of that this year. and we'll get it next year.

Do you realize the full 7 this year or maybe not quite from the CO2 exit.

Not quite, but not too far off, but not quite. That is an annualized number.

Your next question comes from Sandra with B. Riley.

I'm asking on behalf of Ryan Pfingst from B. Riley Securities. Yes. So just on this PxQ 650, your new product, it presents a meaningful step function improvement over your existing products? So can you maybe help us understand how is it priced relative to the existing product? And is it a premium product with ASP uplift? Or what's the strategy bringing cost down or improving the revenue, how do we look at that?

Yes, sure. This is Mike. So the way that we think about it is that any given desalination plans we price more on a sort of a cubic meter per day, the total CapEx for the plant. So when we introduce a product that has a higher flow rate, we're assuming we get similar dollars per plant, but then we deliver fewer units. And so we end up with a higher effective ASP per product. And that effective ASP typically grows more than the cost of the product, the increase in cost of the product. So we see some gross margin expansion.

In the past, we have also priced at a premium because these products deliver a better specific energy consumption and the specific energy consumption or the amount of energy that the plant uses over its lifetime is a massive factor in the profitability of a plant. And so when we can deliver better SEC, we can typically eke out some pricing increases as well sharing some of that savings with the customer and us.

And one more on the manufacturing expansion outside of U.S. So what's the expected time line on the selection and selection of the new site? And what's the total capital commitment beyond given for 2026?

Yes. So we're working on the site selection now -- and that should be -- we should be able to finalize that by the end of the first half, with the thought that we'd be in -- we'd start phasing production by the first quarter of 2027. So we'll take this year to plan, to start executing to start building up equipment with the idea that we'd be on ground in first quarter of next year.

It's a our capital costs, we're earning a lot of the CapEx this year. You saw in our guided range. We've been spending about $1.5 million for the last 2 years. This year, we're guiding $3 to $6 million. Next year, maybe a similar range or a little bit lower next year, and that would be all of the capital we need to get into a new facility.

That's helpful. And on the revenue cadence for 2026, is that similar to 2025, we expect like heavily back-end weighted?

I would expect similar cadence, yes.

And then just last one for me. On the CO2 business, are there any other applications we use are looking into potentially developing now that -- this one is -- so -- or is it like too early to say? Any other potential projects in development other than the CO2 thing?

No, I think in terms of products, nothing. We think there might be application for our current CO2 product potentially and some other CO2 markets like heat pumps. But we have a long way to go to prove that out. And so still more work to do, nothing immediate.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from Jeffrey Campbell with research Seaport Research Partners.

Yes. First of all, thanks for the expanded guidance. Very helpful. And a quick one, do the savings from the wind down of the CO2 represent a further reduction in head count SP1 There was about

There was about 20 heads associated with the wind down of CO2. And that was both salaried and manufacturing. .

Going back to the question about the PX, QX6500. I was just wondering how will it -- I understand what Mike said about how you market. The device and arrive at your number, what you charge and so word. But I just wondered how is it going to affect the rest of your lines, meaning the PX Q400 was the top of the line before. mean I guess that gets knocked down a peg with the 650 coming. Is there a point where some of these more legacy pieces of equipment, do they migrate to wastewater? Or do you just quit making them? Or how do you manage that?

So when we had introduced the Q400 about 2 years ago, we thought that the Q300 is the transition of the would take us about 2 to 3 years. That's proving out to be the case. We'll still be making 300, 300 this year and should be making much fewer in 2027. And so we suspect the same sort of transition from the $400 million to the $650 million. We'll start manufacturing the $6.50 per sale in the second half of the year. And so my guess is we'll start seeing the Q4 ramp down as we get into -- back half of '27 sort of 2028. So I think it will take a couple of years, 2 to 3 years. for us to read down the Q400.

And just to add some color on that too, Jeff, is we saw a fair amount of Q300s in our OEM business. And in our wastewater business. We sell some Q400s there -- if some systems get bigger, that might be a thing, but I can see the Q400 being lower than the Q300 a few years when to make that transition. And that transition happens mostly in the mega project space.

So does that imply when you said earlier, you thought the Q300 would worse out in like 2 years. Is that projects? It is doing a project. But the idea is you may still make it, and it may find an implementation of wastewater. Is that what you're saying?

It already does. Yes, we sell it in our OEM cell business and our wastewater business today. And I expect that to you. And you pointed out that the new device is going to start being manufactured in the

Second half of 2026 that we're sitting here talking about project delays. Does that create an opportunity to try to move some of these 50 into some of these projects that haven't quite born their fruit yet -- that would be

That would be the absolute plan is to just try and do that. Okay.

Greater CapEx being spent -- on manufacturing footprint, I just would like to understand how does this differ from the moves that you made during that period of tariff uncertainty, where they just short-term opportunities, and now you're taking a different tact and going someplace else or how do we put those 2 together?

The move to Korea was short term in nature. -- and that was to protect our China business over tariffs, right? And so we were able to -- in 6 months' time, we were able to quickly put that in place. It's an assembly-only operation. we take advantage of the Korea, China tariff free trade agreement. And so that was always meant to be a sort of short-term solution. As we look at our longer-term solution for a factory outside of the U.S., we'll take into account China, India and places like that to ensure that the Fenix rate that we're looking at going forward, our newest factoring will sort of be holistic in terms of where we can ship product to a longer term in nature.

And you mentioned that Korea was assembly only, but these new facilities you're thinking of, are these still -- I think in the past, you've told me that the stuff you manufactured overseas was not what you would consider to be rich in -- so is it still going to be that whatever you consider to be more mission critical to screen in the U.S.? And then are there some overseas? Or are you actually paying about building IT valuable stuff overseas.

Yes, it's a good -- so I think to start, it will be sort of mission critical, but over time, over a 2- to 3-year period. will be full on manufacturing in that new site. So that's how to think about it. over a 2- to 3-year period, there'll be a self-sustaining full-on manufacturing Okay. Without meaning to suggest a lack of faith, you've invested meaningfully in wastewater in 2026 to suggests a huge amount of revenue growth on an absolute basis just yet.

So I'm just wondering, what are your gaining items for deciding that this business is not meeting investment goals similar to what you've demonstrated with CO2? Or is that just not part of the thinking.

Yes, this is Mike, Jeff. No, I think, look, 2025 was a tough year from a tariff standpoint. And so heading into 2026 here, we just hired a lot of salespeople in the last few months. And so the key thing for me is it is difficult to know exactly what their ramp-up time will be. And so I think we expect significant growth out of that business. and really expect this year to build that fly. We all let and get that mechanism in place. And so the wider range is probably more about timing of salespeople than our faith in the business.

That said, right, this business has done $10 million to $12 million in the past before is a high 60% -- mid- to high 60% margin business. And it's just a different footing than CO2 was still beholden to our strict capital allocation policies, but is scoring well on that as we look at it today.

I would say the gating item for the waste war business over the course of 26 is adding reference cases. So as we think about China, we've done that. Continue to do that because we have an existing smarter business there today. But as we think about continue to think about India, South America, but the U.S. about Europe, continuing to add reference cases in advance of 2027 is going to be a really important benchmark for us.

And finally, we've noted that you have taken Flowserve to court for patent infringement. I wondered how you arrived at the decision to move forward here, particularly since we sort of select device that's not to our knowledge, granted any large contractor date.

Yes. Look, I think the court cases are proceeding, and we're still going through the early additional phases of the corporate savings, and that's all I can really say as it relates to that at this point. We're going to protect our IP that I will say. And so this case reflects us protecting our IP.

And there are no further questions at this time. So I'll hand the floor back to David Moon for closing remarks.

So thank you, operator. So look, thank you, everyone, for listening in today. I want to thank all our stakeholders for your continued support, and we look forward to updating you on our next call after the first quarter. Enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you, operator.

Thank you. And that concludes today's call. All parties may disconnect.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Energy Recovery's Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. During today's call, Energy Recovery may make projections and other forward-looking statements under the safe harbor provisions contained in the Securities (sic) [ Private Securities ] Litigation Reform Act of 1995 regarding future events or the future financial performance of the company. These statements may discuss our business, economic and market outlook, growth expectations, new products and other performance, cost structure and business strategy.

Forward-looking statements are based on information currently available to the company and on management's beliefs, assumptions, estimates and projections. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and other factors. We refer you to documents the company files from time to time with the SEC, specifically the company's annual Form 10-K and quarterly Form 10-Q. These documents identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in our projections or forward-looking statements.

All statements made during this call are made only as of today, November 5, 2025, and the company expressly disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statements made during this call to reflect subsequent events or circumstances, unless otherwise required by law. Our hosts for today's call are David Moon, President and Chief Executive Officer of Energy Recovery; and Mike Mancini, Chief Financial Officer. I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Moon.

Thank you, and good day, everyone. Earlier today, we released a letter to shareholders on the Investor Relations section of our website that reviews business and financial performance during the quarter. Prior to opening the line for questions and answers, I'd like to highlight a few important takeaways from that letter. First, we had a strong quarter of sales execution. Mega-project shipments improved during the quarter and wastewater revenue continued to rebound such that we are reiterating our full year revenue guidance. Second, the team has done a nice job this year controlling costs, and we are reducing our full year OpEx guidance even further.

We have made a number of decisions to drive efficiency and lower costs while still investing in our growing wastewater business. We expect growth in Q4 and next year to be achievable with only modest increases in operating expenses. And finally, our CO2 business had a nice summer season of testing. While OEM engagement is strong, we remain in the very early days for commercialization.

We are focused on gaining traction in 2026 and plan to provide clear updates on our progress. As always, I want to thank our employees here at Energy Recovery. Our sales execution and cost control were strong this quarter, and this could not have been done without a lot of great teamwork. With that, we'll now move to the question-and-answer portion of our conference call. Operator, please open the line for questions.

[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley Securities.

I'll start where you left off there on CO2. Just curious, what were some of the main takeaways from the recent white paper that you think customers and investors should most be aware of?

Yes. So I think there are 3. So the first, similar to the white paper from last year, we just validated the fact that we save energy and up to 15% at peak times. And so strong energy savings performance. So that's number one. Second is to the extent that a store is located in a part of the country or in Europe, in Southern Europe where adiabatic coolers are required, we can save tremendous amounts of water. So that's number two. And we validated that as part of our summer season of testing here in California.

And then I think the third and a really important part of our value proposition that we didn't talk about, we should have talked about more last year was the fact that we provide an increased performance during high heat load days. So when the system is working its hardest, the PX G allows for additional capacity during those high heat load days. And so those are the 3 critical parts of the value proposition that we proved out over the course of this summer.

Appreciate that. And then you touched on this and maybe you want to save it for your next update. But I was wondering if you could tell us about your progress with OEMs and your confidence in signing a commercial agreement with an OEM partner over the next few months.

Yes. So I think -- so look, this summer season of testing was about working closely with OEMs to prove our value proposition in the field. And I think we checked the box on that. So where -- so what's the next step? So what is happening now is that OEMs are now beginning to have conversations with some of their largest end users about the PX G, and to the extent that they already haven't done so.

And what's going to happen, Ryan, is that most likely, those customers are going to want to test the PX G themselves over the course of next summer. So I think we have another summer season of testing in front of us. And I think because of that, we're probably a year away from being able to sign a commercial agreement with a large OEM. I think the large OEMs are going to want to see that summer season of testing, a successful testing season with some of their larger customers before they're going to sign a commercial agreement. Now we've signed an MOU with Hillphoenix already. And so we're on a path to being able to sign a commercial agreement with them, but it's likely going to be in 2026.

Got it. Appreciate that. And then turning to the water side. We've seen the U.S. administration kickstart efforts across different industries, such as nuclear energy or critical minerals. Do you think there's a possibility that we could see something like that on the water front maybe for desalination?

Ryan, this is Mike. Look, I think that all of the AI and the energy that's going to serve it only goes to improve our long-term water trends, right? There's a long-term desalination trend already, and I think it does help the long-term trends. I think what we're really cautious about is translating that to near-term results for us as this infrastructure takes a long time to build. So I think we're highly encouraged with the long-term trends and some additive stuff there. We want to be cautious about near-term expectations on it.

Appreciate that, Mike. And then I'll just sneak in one more, somewhat related to your comments there. On the data center opportunity, curious if there's anything new to report there, either on the wastewater front or refrigeration.

No. Look, Ryan, we continue to monitor it closely. So -- and I think we said on the last call that because CO2 is still a very small part of the refrigeration portion of data centers, that there likely wasn't going to be any near-term opportunity for us. Now should CO2 jump to the front of the refrigeration line, then that could change.

And so I think as it relates to refrigeration, still nothing near term that we see. I think as it relates to water reuse and water treatment for data centers, that's something that we're just starting to better understand. And I think we'll have a better view of that over the next couple of quarters.

The next question comes from the line of Larry Solow with CJS.

I guess just a follow-up on the CO2 question first. So it sounds like the white paper takeaways and the data were in line or with your expectations and good. So your -- maybe your confidence in the adoption hasn't changed or maybe even better, but timing sounds less certain. I'm just curious, I know it's more, but you changed your strategy more to a top-down OEM to customer versus vice versa.

But I guess at the end of the day, some of these larger customers still -- do they normally make the decision? Or is it in conjunction with the OEM? Or do the OEMs -- since their reputation is on the line on a big switch like this, do they -- is it just taking them more time and they just need to -- they want their customers to be on board as well? Or is there just anything that's holding up the adoption or pushing it out a little bit?

No, it's a good question. Look, large retailers, both in U.S. and Europe, rely on OEMs, not only for the design of the -- the equipment design, but the install and in some cases, the service [ afterwards ]. And so they really want to pull along their OEMs, especially when it comes to new technology. And so as we -- and then -- so that's what we're -- we knew that was going to be the case, and that's certainly what we're finding. And so our path to a large retailer like a Walmart is going to go through a large OEM like Hillphoenix.

And so the 2 are going to have to be in lockstep. And so what we expect to happen as the next step now that we've gotten through a successful summer season of testing is that we expect Hillphoenix will now start promoting us to the likes of a Walmart, and we'll get test stores in the first half of the year with them. And so we'll start that process with -- confirming the technology with a couple of these large retailers over the course of next year. But it's going to be with these large retailers pulling the OEMs along in lockstep. That's just the way it's going to work.

Okay. So it doesn't sound like your confidence has changed at all, right? Or the inevitable -- listen, the ROI, I guess, goes down a little bit because it's pushed out 1 year, but it doesn't feel like -- right, that's kind of the one change. I guess I know you're not ready to make any major decisions today, but it sounds like you're not going to get to that sort of 4 or 5 customer adoption next year, but that doesn't necessarily mean your confidence in the overall program has changed. Is that a fair assumption?

No. Larry, look -- no, I think -- look, I think we had a good summer season of testing. That's what we know. And we know that OEMs are now starting to talk to some of their larger customers, which is a good thing. We know that we're going to have another season of testing in front of us in 2026, and that real commercialization is likely going to happen in 2027. So our view, OEMs are still very, very interested in the product, still very interested in the product. We're getting pull. And so it's just a question of speed.

Okay. That's fair. I appreciate that. Just quickly on the desal. It sounds like -- I know the long-term fundamentals don't change much. Just so fast that is just curious, we're somewhat newer to the name. Your visibility, I know always could move around a little bit from quarter-to-quarter. But this time of year, as you look out to the next year to '26 without giving us numbers, but does your visibility start to fill in as we look out on a 12-month rolling basis, even though I know quarters could slip a little bit?

Yes. We should start to see backlog building now for 2026. So now it will be relatively small because if you think about our last -- now what's going on in year 3, the sort of the pattern of backlog build for us has been sort of slow first half, very heavy second half. And that's not going to change for 2026. We expect the same sort of pattern. So we should enter the year with some backlog. It's likely not going to be significant, but the second half is where the story will be told. And that's been the MO for the last 3 years.

The next question comes from the line of Jeffrey Campbell with Seaport Research Partners.

Congratulations on the solid results. I wondered -- David, I wondered if the impressive operating cost reduction that you have highlighted, did it benefit in some way from your efforts to establish an international footprint? Or did they occur in spite of those changes? Or were they just completely unrelated to each other?

Yes, they're unrelated to each other. Jeff, we were able to reduce costs, and we've been very mindful of costs since starting last year. And so we've been able to really, really watch our costs over the course of the year, especially when tariffs hit us so hard in the first quarter. So we took action very quickly. That's why we've been able to be so successful this year to be able to drive OpEx down. But it hasn't stopped us from investing in growing wastewater nor did it stop us from investing in this manufacturing option to be able to forgo the tariffs from China. So we've been able to do both.

Okay. The announced lithium project is an application of PX that I was excited to see progressing from a pilot to a project. I'm just wondering, is there enough potential work in this area to make it a meaningful niche in wastewater treatment.

Yes. I mean this lithium extraction project that we just won, which is in Argentina, that's a $350,000 project, and that should hit us this quarter. And so we think this is the first -- and we've had several projects in China already where we've been able to win lithium extraction projects. And so we think there are more to come here.

Okay. I was just curious, you've talked intermittently about hiring new people for the wastewater effort as your confidence in this growth has increased. I just wonder what do you look for in these kind of hires? Are you looking for existing relationships or industrial knowledge or something else?

Yes. So we're looking for people that have a track record in the wastewater space. That's number one. Number two, a track record within at least 1 or 2 of the 5 verticals that we're focusing on. So that they bring experience, they bring relationships with OEMs, with end users. And so those are the 2 primary attributes that we're looking for when we're hiring these -- hiring new salespeople and technical support people.

And the last question, regarding these retailer tests for next year that you kind of laid out for us in CO2, are these likely to be skid installations as you've done in the past?

Yes, more than likely, Jeff, there'll be -- I would say majority will be skid. Existing CO2 locations with the skid install.

There are no further questions at this time. I'd now like to turn the call back to David Moon for closing remarks.

So thank you, operator. So thank you to all of our stakeholders for your continued support, and we look forward to updating you on our next call. Enjoy the rest of your day.

This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time, and we thank you for your participation.