First Solar, Inc. Q4 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR) Q4 2025 Earnings Call dated Feb. 24, 2026

Presentation

Operator

Good afternoon, and welcome to First Solar’s Q4 and Full Year 2025 Earnings and 2026 Guidance Call. This call is being webcast live on the Investors section of First Solar’s website at investor.firstsolar.com. [Operator Instructions]

I would now like to turn the conference over to your host, Byron Jeffers, Head of Investor Relations.

Byron Jeffers — Vice President, Treasurer & Head of Investor Relations

Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us on today’s earnings call. Joining me are our Chief Executive Officer, Mark Widmar; and our Chief Financial Officer, Alex Bradley. During this call, we will review our 2025 results and discuss our outlook for 2026. After our prepared remarks, we’ll open the line for questions.

Before we begin, please note that today’s discussion contains forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially due to risks and uncertainties. We undertake no obligation to update these statements due to new information or future events. For a discussion of factors that could cause these results to differ materially, please refer to today’s press release, our SEC filings and the earnings materials available at investor.firstsolar.com.

On this call, we will also reference certain non-GAAP financial information. This non-GAAP financial information is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for financial information presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP. A reconciliation of our non-GAAP items to their respective nearest U.S. GAAP measure can be found in our earnings press release and our earnings presentation.

With that, I’ll turn it over to Mark.

Mark Widmar — Chief Executive Officer

Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us today.

Beginning on Slide 4, I will share key highlights and accomplishments from 2025. We entered the year under the new U.S. administration with a back-weighted driven profile that required sustained production to fulfill contracted commitments concentrated in the second half, amid a persistently uncertain policy and trade environment. Over the course of the year, we navigated a budgetary reconciliation process, which created the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, evolving tariff scenarios, customer negotiations and regulatory developments, including Section 232 actions, FEOC restrictions and AD/CVD investigations that are still unresolved and could ultimately prove to be either headwinds or tailwinds.

Throughout, we remain anchored to a core guiding principle and a key differentiator valued by our customers, contract certainty, both in pricing and in timely delivery. To honor obligations, we maintained sufficient capacity to fulfill international module commitments and actively pursue various contractual protections to address shifting tariff dynamics, and in some cases, contract terminations.

Given that backdrop, we took a disciplined selected approach to customer contracting throughout the year. That approach is proving effective. Since our last earnings call, we secured gross bookings of 2.3 gigawatts, excluding domestic India volume and 0.1 gigawatt of low-bin inventory clearance, we booked 1 gigawatt in our key U.S. utility scale market at an ASP of $0.364 per watt, inclusive of applicable adjusters.

By remaining patient, selective and opportunistic, we capitalized on demand that recognizes the differentiated value of our product and contracting structure, strengthening the forward earnings profile of our backlog and positioning us to navigate and potentially benefit from ongoing policy and trade uncertainty. We are pleased to have delivered record sales of 17.5 gigawatts of modules in 2025. Net sales of $5.2 billion were at the top end of our most recent guidance range and represented a 24% year-over-year increase. Full year diluted EPS was within our most recent guidance range at $14.21 per share. We ended the year with $2.9 billion of gross cash and $2.4 billion of net cash, coming in above our guidance range.

Our growth continued in 2025 as we advanced our U.S. capacity expansion, highlighted by initiating commercial production in Louisiana, our fifth U.S. factory. In addition, we announced plans to onshore the finishing of Series 6 modules initiated at our international factories by adding U.S. finishing capacity with a new facility in South Carolina. We expect production from this facility to begin in Q4 of 2026 and ramp through the first half of 2027.

We also advanced our cad/tel-based CuRe semiconductor platform. Following a limited commercial production run from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025, we delivered initial CuRe modules to customers in the first half of 2025. Based on laboratory and field testing results, CuRe has demonstrated the expected advantaged energy profile driven by industry-leading temperature coefficient and long-term degradation rate with improved bifaciality. These results continue to support a disciplined factory-by-factory CuRe conversion rollout expected to begin next month, starting at our Ohio Series 6 factory.

In parallel with our cad/tel-based CuRe platform, we advanced our next-generation perovskite thin film program. Our focus remains on efficiency, energy attributes, reliability and a scalable path to high-volume, low-cost manufacturing of this potentially transformational thin film. We launched the perovskite development line at our Perrysburg campus and reached full in-line processing capabilities in Q3, marking an important step in the lab-to-fab transferability and enabling production of smaller form factor modules using anticipated manufacturing tools and integrated processes. In late 2025, we initiated sourcing for perovskite Series 6 module form factor pilot line, which we expect to reach operational readiness in early 2027. While we made promising progress in 2025, additional work remains before more broadly scaling our perovskite program.

Lastly, we continue to actively enforce our intellectual property rights, including our TOPCon patents in the U.S. Notably, in Q4, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied three separate petitions filed by foreign headquartered manufacturers that sought to invalidate aspects of our TOPCon portfolio. This outcome reinforces our confidence in the strength of our patent portfolio.

I will now turn the call over to Alex to discuss our most recent shipments and booking activities as well as our Q4 and full year 2025 results.

Alex Bradley — Chief Financial Officer

Thanks, Mark. Beginning on Slide 5. As of December 31, 2024, our contracted backlog totaled 68.5 gigawatts valued at $20.5 billion or approximately $0.299 per watt. For the full year 2025, we sold 17.5 gigawatts of modules, secured 7.4 gigawatts of gross bookings and recorded 8.3 gigawatts of debookings, primarily due to our termination of contracts as a result of contract breaches by customers, resulting in net full year debookings of 0.9 gigawatts.

We ended the year with a contracted backlog of 50.1 gigawatts valued at $15 billion. As a reminder, the contracted backlog reflects the base ASP. A significant portion of our existing contracted backlog includes pricing adjusters that may increase the base ASP contingent on achieving specific milestones within our technology road map and manufacturing replication plan. At year end, approximately 23.2 gigawatts of contracted volume included these adjusters, which we estimate could generate up to an additional $0.6 billion or approximately $0.03 per watt, the majority of which will be recognized in 2027, 2028.

Turning to the P&L on Slide 6. Q4 net sales were $1.7 billion, a $0.1 billion increase sequentially. Full year net sales were $5.2 billion, a $1 billion increase year-over-year, driven primarily by a 24% increase in module volume. Gross margin in Q4 was 40%, an increase from 38% in the prior quarter. The increase was driven by a higher mix of U.S. manufactured modules benefiting from Section 45X tax credits, lower non-standard freight charges due to reduced international shipments and the resolution of the glass supply chain disruption experienced in Q3 at our Alabama facility. These benefits were partially offset by ramp and underutilization costs for Louisiana, a higher proportion of sales into the India market and the termination amounts recognized in the third quarter related to the breach of contracts by affiliates of BP.

Full year 2025 gross margin was 41%, a decrease from 44% in the prior year. The decline was primarily driven by tariff costs as well as the impact of tariffs exacerbating warehousing expense associated with a back-weighted revenue profile, detention and demurrage, partially driven by supply-demand imbalances following certain contract terminations due to customer default and underutilization from the curtailment of our Series 6 international facilities. These headwinds were partially offset by $1.6 billion of Section 45X tax credits recognized in 2025 relative to $1 billion in 2024, driven by a higher mix of U.S. manufactured module volumes sold.

As an update on warranty-related matters, we’ve resolved certain claims and have continued to advance negotiations with additional customers regarding warranty claims for select Series 7 modules produced prior to 2025. Based on our settlement experience, the estimated number of effective modules and projected remediation costs, we believe a reasonable estimate of potential future losses will range from approximately $35 million to $75 million. Within this range, we recorded a specific warranty liability of $50 million, representing our best estimate of the expected impact associated with this issue.

We’re aware of certain statements, including in recent counterclaim filings by affiliates of BP relating to overall PV plant underperformance. While we will not comment on existing litigation, we do encourage a review of our initial complaint filed last year as well as our answer to those claims in our motion to dismiss filed earlier this month.

As it relates to overall PV project output, we would note that solar plant performance relative to expectation is influenced by a broad set of environmental, design, operational and grid-related factors. These include, but are not limited to, third-party prediction modeling, weather variability, terrain variability, local microclimates, shading and soiling, procurement and design decisions relating to trackers, inverters, transformers and other plant components, design and construction parameters, including EPC quality, DC and AC system design, construction and handling and operational factors, including tracker algorithm design and fidelity, open circuit conditions and overall O&M scope and quality.

In short, the solar plant’s performance reflects its total environment system design. As we’ve consistently stated, First Solar fully stands behind its module warranty obligations. To the extent a customer has a valid module warranty claim, we remain ready, willing and able to perform our responsibilities pursuant to the procedures agreed to in our warranty.

SG&A, R&D and production start-up expense totaled $117 million in Q4, a decrease of approximately $27 million relative to the prior quarter. The decrease was primarily driven by the reduction of start-up costs associated with the Louisiana facility commencing commercial operations. For the full year 2025, operating expenses were $523 million, an increase of $59 million year-over-year. This includes a $42 million increase in R&D expense, driven by higher depreciation, maintenance and utility costs associated with our research facilities as well as increased headcount and compensation. SG&A increased by $15 million, driven primarily by higher allowance for credit losses on aged receivable balances and supplier loans.

Our fourth quarter operating income was $548 million, which included depreciation, amortization and accretion of $141 million, ramp and underutilization costs of $29 million, excluding depreciation and production start-up expense of $1 million and share-based compensation expense of $3 million. For the full year 2025, our operating income was $1.6 billion, which included depreciation, amortization and accretion of $529 million, ramp and underutilization costs of $140 million, production start-up expense of $86 million and share-based compensation expense of $19 million.

Interest income, interest expense, other income and foreign currency losses totaled $3 million in income in Q4 and $16 million of expense for the full year. Income tax expense for the fourth quarter was $30 million compared to a tax expense of $4 million in the third quarter. And this quarter-over-quarter increase in tax expense was primarily a function of Q3 benefits, including a $20 million discrete tax benefit associated with the acceptance of a filing position on amended tax returns in a foreign jurisdiction and incremental share-based compensation benefits recorded in the prior quarter. We recorded full year income tax expense of $53 million. Q4 earnings per diluted share were $4.84 compared to $4.24 in the previous quarter. For the full year 2025, earnings per diluted share were $14.21 compared to $12.02 in 2024 and within our guidance range.

Turning to Slide 7, I’ll cover select balance sheet items and summary cash flow information. The aggregate balance of our cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, restricted cash equivalents and marketable securities was $2.9 billion at year end, an increase of $0.8 billion sequentially and $1.1 billion year-over-year. Both the sequential and full year increases in gross cash were driven primarily by proceeds from the sale of Section 45X tax credits generated during the year and positive operating cash flows, partially offset by capital expenditures for our Louisiana facility.

We monetized $0.8 billion of 2025 Section 45X tax credits in the fourth quarter and $1.4 billion during the full year. Notably, in January 2026, we also received $118 million for 2024 Section 45X tax credits where we elected a direct pay option in our 2024 tax return filed in October of 2025. The sale transactions highlight the liquidity of the Section 45X tax credit sale market and the IRS refund provides insight into direct pay election turnaround times, providing additional visibility and flexibility to optimize credit monetization and manage overall liquidity.

Accounts receivable and inventory decreased both sequentially and relative to the prior year, reflecting improved customer collections and higher volumes sold. Capital expenditures were $172 million in the fourth quarter compared to $204 million in the third quarter. Full year 2025 capex was $870 million compared to $1.5 billion in 2024. Our year end net cash position was $2.4 billion, an increase of $0.9 billion from the prior quarter and an increase of $1.2 billion from the prior year.

I’ll now turn the call back to Mark who will provide an update on market conditions, policy and technology.

Mark Widmar — Chief Executive Officer

All right. Thank you. Turning to Slide 8. In 2025, the policy and trade environment remain complex. While we are experiencing significant direct and indirect tariff impacts, in our view, on balance, the environment is net favorable for First Solar, an example of genuine long-standing U.S. based solar manufacturing. In contrast, in our view, headwinds beyond reciprocal tariffs and commodity cost increases continue to build for the crystalline silicon industry, a combination of tighter trade enforcement, potential retroactive tariffs, pending Section 232 actions, expanding foreign entities of concerns or FEOC restrictions and greater intellectual property enforcement is increasing cost, timing and compliance risk for developers relying on crystalline silicon products with ties to China.

With respect to trade, it is notable that the Trump administration has withdrawn its appeal against the U.S. Court of international trade ruling and the auction litigation requiring the retroactive collection of previous suspended AD/CVD tariffs. If this ruling is maintained, which appears increasingly likely, mounting contingent liabilities for AD/CVD duties associated with this unlawful two year moratorium could represent an as of yet unrealized material financial impact on those foreign producers that relied on it. In fact, one recent industry publication noted that, U.S. customs is suggesting that no panels that came in during the moratorium qualified for the moratorium.

In support of true domestic manufacturing, we are encouraged by interim treasury guidance issued earlier this month that, in our view, clearly signaled the administration’s intent to address gamesmanship by Chinese tied solar manufacturers seeking to evade U.S. regulations and benefit from tax incentives by artificially shuffling ownership stakes, voting rights or IP licensing with the intent of evading FEOC status. We anticipate that the forthcoming FEOC restrictions will be aligned with the legislative intent of prohibiting access to tax credits for entities with sudden corporate restructuring lacking business purpose.

We also commend Commerce’s preliminary CVD determinations issued earlier today as part of the broader Solar 4 AD/CVD investigation into Laos, India and Indonesia, which reflect subsidy rates of approximately 81%, 126% and 104%, respectively. Note, these preliminary CVD rates do not include preliminary antidumping rates, which will be additive and are expected to be determined in April. It is expected that final aggregate AD/CVD rates will be determined by the end of September. We expect that the final AD/CVD duties applied in Solar 4 will again support a level playing field against the illegal and unfair trade practices of Chinese headquartered and other crystalline silicon manufacturers who strategically evade U.S. trade laws.

Finally, IP enforcement must be considered within the overall legal framework that includes these recent legislative and regulatory headwinds confronting the crystalline silicon industry. Earlier today, we filed a petition with the U.S. International Trade Commission or ITC, against 10 groups of foreign headquartered manufacturers that we believe are producing products infringing on one of our U.S. TOPCon patents. Note, this is a separate action from our three actions seeking monetary damages against affiliates of Adani, Canadian Solar and Jinko in the U.S. District Court.

If the ITC institutes an investigation based on our complaint, we expect that the matter would be decided in approximately 18 months. If our case is successful, the ITC may issue a general exclusion order preventing the importation of infringing TOPCon products made by foreign entities or an alternative may issue a limited exclusion order preventing the importation of infringing TOPCon products by the entities named in our complaint. In addition, the ITC may issue a cease and desist order preventing the sale of infringing TOPCon products currently in the United States.

Note, the IP-related headwinds confronting the crystalline silicon industry is reflected not just by First Solar’s recent decrease and continued enforcement efforts, but also by the recently reported $236 million settlement entered in between Maxeon and Aiko, just days before a JUVE Patent court was due to decide their patent dispute. In summary, the policy and trade environment, together with sustained intellectual property enforcement across the industry have continued to generate mounting uncertainties for U.S. developers that are dependent on suppliers tethered to China tied supply and/or IP.

On the top of the technology, turning to Slide 9. Our strategy remains anchored in a simple premise. Customers ultimately buy lifetime energy, not just nameplate efficiency. And our road map is designed to optimize the balance of efficiency, energy yield and cost, while leveraging our industry-leading thin film expertise.

We continue to believe the next step change in solar will be enabled by thin film platforms such as perovskites. We are well aware that many in the industry are seeking to crack the code of this potential next generation of advanced thin film technology. However, we believe the winner of the perovskite race will also need to have the ability to manufacture the product cost competitively in a high-volume manufacturing environment. As the world’s leader in thin film PV technology and the world’s only manufacturer of thin films at scale, we believe we are uniquely positioned to advance this prospective device given our nearly three decades of not only thin film R&D learnings, but high-volume thin film manufacturing experience.

Our technology strategy continues to be primarily concentrated on two core thin film focus pillars. Firstly, we are executing a disciplined phase-gate introduction of CuRe, responsibly bringing this new technology to market with proven laboratory results and expanding field validation. Consistent with our prior outlook, we expect to permanently convert the Ohio lead line to CuRe in Q1, providing a pathway to enhance the energy attributes and competitiveness of our Series 6 platform and then rolling out these enhancements to our Series 7 platform at successive factories.

Executing CuRe remains strategically important because it is designed to enhance the attributes that translate into lifetime energy, including improved temperature response and degradation behavior, which are highly valued by utility scale customers. When adding the improved energy attributes of CuRe to the current energy advantages of thin film cad/tel, such as superior spectral and shading response, CuRe can deliver up to 8% more lifetime specific energy yield than crystalline silicon TopCon technology in the markets we serve.

Our second pillar, perovskites, is a key part of our effort to develop next-generation thin film semiconductors that can be deployed at commercial scale in both our traditional utility scale markets, while potentially expanding our addressable market segments. To date, we have achieved reliability results we believe are comparable with best-in-class R&D efforts, while continuing to advance efficiency and stability, two of the industry’s key hurdles to scaling perovskite technology. A major enabler of these efforts is our dedicated perovskite development line in Ohio.

As announced prior to the beginning of the call, we have entered into an agreement with Oxford PV, the holder of what we believe is the most fundamental portfolio of perovskite-related patents. Under the terms of this agreement, Oxford PV will license to us on a non-exclusive basis, its existing issued and currently pending patent applications. We believe that this agreement will advance our freedom to develop, manufacture and sell crystalline silicon-free perovskite-based semiconductor modules in the U.S. utility, commercial and residential markets.

I will now turn the call back over to Alex, who will discuss our 2026 outlook and guidance.

Alex Bradley — Chief Financial Officer

Thanks, Mark. Before turning to our financial guidance, I want to briefly reiterate our approach to managing the business amid a dynamic market policy and trade environment. We entered 2026 with a backlog of 50.1 gigawatts despite taking a highly selective approach to bookings over the past two years. We expect to continue this strategy in 2026 as we await the outcome of and impact on forward module demand and pricing from the numerous political, regulatory and legal matters discussed earlier in the call. We believe our market position with non-FEOC and high U.S. content supply on our proprietary thin film platform remains long-term advantage and our existing contracted backlog relative to our production capacity provides us with the ability and flexibility to be patient.

Regarding 2026 U.S. deliveries, many of our customers continue to face both regulatory and commercial challenges, including federal permitting approval delays. As we previously stated, we will continue to work with customers to accommodate schedule shifts where possible, consistent with our philosophy of supporting our long-term partnerships even while we are not contractually required to do so. We entered 2026 with a fully allocated position for our U.S. production.

Given tariff uncertainty, our India production is assumed to be sold into the India domestic market. We’ll continue to monitor opportunities to export products into the U.S. where it is margin accretive to do so. Our guidance assumes our India facility operating at full capacity with the ability to flex production as needed through the year in response to changes in demand signals.

Demand for our Series 6 international products produced in Malaysia and Vietnam remains constrained. Our decision in Q4 of 2025 to establish a new finishing line in the U.S. allows us to make use of a portion of the front end of these Southeast Asian facilities, optimizing freight, tariffs and domestic content for the sale of incremental products into the U.S. domestic market. We intend to run our remaining end-to-end capacity in Malaysia and Vietnam at low utilization rates this year despite the financial impact of doing so, maintaining a near-term option to increase throughput should catalysts such as the political and regulatory matters discussed earlier, drive incremental profitable demand.

Slide 10 shows our capacity and forecast production for 2026 and into 2027. Nameplate capacity reflects current output entitlement at full scale throughput and yield with downtime solely for planned maintenance. Production reflects nameplate capacity adjusted for factory ramp, other downtime, including the technology and tool upgrades and any planned reduction in throughput, including due to market demand.

As it relates to technology, as previously noted, we expect to recommence running Series 6 CuRe products in Perrysburg this quarter. Assumed in our 2026 production forecast for India is downtime associated with tool upgrades with the intent of beginning CuRe production on our first Series 7 line in India in early 2027, followed by the remainder of the Series 7 fleet thereafter. Additionally, our Southeast Asian capacity has reduced significantly in both 2026 and 2027 due to the removal of tools destined for our U.S. finishing line as well as the reuse in our perovskite development work.

By 2027, U.S. finishing capacity is forecast to be 3.5 gigawatts with remaining Southeast Asia capacity of 1.8 gigawatts for fully finished international Series 6 modules. With projected U.S. nameplate capacity of 14.9 gigawatts in 2026 growing to 17.1 gigawatts in 2027 with the scaling of Louisiana and South Carolina, we expect global nameplate capacity of 19 gigawatts in 2026 and 22.1 gigawatts in 2027. And note, we expect U.S. nameplate to continue to increase as we drive technology throughput and yield improvements.

In terms of production, as previously noted, we expect significant underutilization of our international Series 6 facilities. India is assumed to run high throughput with the ability to flex production as needed based on local demand and international sale options. With forecasted U.S. production of 13 to 13.3 gigawatts this year and 14.9 to 16.1 gigawatts next year, this results in total forecasted production of 16.5 to 17.5 gigawatts in 2026 and 18.9 to 20.5 gigawatts in 2027.

Turning to Slide 11 and other assumptions embedded within our guidance today. Expected volumes sold of 17 to 18.2 gigawatts is above forecast production as we reduce inventory levels by year end. We forecasted ASP of approximately $0.308 per watt for volumes sold in the U.S., slightly above our contracted backlog. This includes certain freight, tariff and commodity recovery and technology upside. Now we expect limited ASP upside from CuRe sales in 2026, largely as a function of contractual notification deadlines relative to the timing of the decision to recommence CuRe production.

Combined with India domestic sales, the majority of which we expect to book and deliver within the next year, we forecast a global ASP recognized of approximately $0.287 per watt. Cost per watt sold is forecast to remain relatively flat year-over-year at approximately $0.267 per watt, which includes the impact of tariffs and the impact of reshoring U.S. manufacturing, largely recognized through ramp and underutilization expense and excludes the benefit of Section 45X credits generated by domestic manufacturing. Including the benefit of Section 45X credits, cost per watt sold is projected to be down approximately $0.03 per watt year-over-year.

Cost watt released from inventory is expected to increase approximately $0.02 per watt year-over-year. Approximately half of this increase is forecast to come from a mix shift as both Southeast Asia production reduces and Louisiana and Alabama increases and the other half to come as a result of multiple factors, including increases in tariff costs, increases in core bill of material costs, increases in utility rates and downtime for technology upgrades. Period costs are expected to decrease by an equivalent approximately $0.02 per watt from a combination of lower standard sales rate due to greater domestic mix shift, the effective elimination of non-standard freight charges as a function of reduced international product imports, reduced warehousing costs and other period cost reductions.

To provide some more color, we forecast total net tariff cost impact across bill of material and finished goods imports recognized in both cost per watt produced and period costs towards cost per watt sold of $155 million to $175 million. Net of expected contractual recoveries on finished goods sold, we expect a total tariff impact of $125 million to $135 million. This assumes a Section 122 tariff in place for 150 days at 15%, impacting all bill of materials, works in progress and finished goods imports in that time period.

In addition, certain commodities, including aluminum, are subject to long-lasting higher rate Section 232 tariffs. And note that we recognize the P&L impact of tariffs at the time of product sale, our total tariff impact in 2026 reflects higher tariff rates paid on bill of materials, works in progress and finished goods imports incurred prior to the recent Supreme Court decision. Tariffs also indirectly due to underlying commodity cost pressure for our variable U.S. bill of material, including relating to aluminum, steel, glass, interlayer targets and spares. In addition, electricity rate hikes increased fixed costs. These cost increases are not contractually recoverable from our customers.

Sales rate is forecast to be approximately $0.014 per watt in 2026. Warehousing-related costs of approximately $200 million is down from 2025, but remains high in part of a function of underutilization of space driven by our forecasted Southeast Asian curtailment. Beginning in 2027, we expect to reduce warehouse costs to a longer-term run rate of approximately $100 million per year.

Forecast ramp and underutilization expenses of $115 million to $155 million are a function of curtailing Malaysia and Vietnam capacity as well as the ramp of our U.S. finishing line. Setup cost is expected to be $110 million to $120 million, driven primarily by the ongoing depreciation and logistics associated with idled finishing equipment in transit as well as certain tariff-related costs incurred to import that equipment and warehousing such equipment for use at our new South Carolina facility.

And finally, note on capital structure. Our strong balance sheet remains a strategic differentiator. It allows us to navigate periods of volatility, including near-term supply and demand imbalances in certain international markets, while continuing to support R&D investment, technology capital spend and capacity growth, including localizing the U.S. solar supply chain in support of energy security and national policy objectives. We ended 2025 in a strong liquidity position and have since enhanced our financial flexibility by entering into a new $1.5 billion senior unsecured revolving credit facility, improved commercial terms, greater flexibility and more relaxed covenants.

In 2026, we intend to fund capex through cash on hand and operating cash flow. We plan to prepay the remaining balances outstanding under our India credit facilities, including our loan with the DFC ahead of its scheduled maturity. Doing so enables us to optimize our jurisdictional capital structure, increase the capacity of our local working capital facilities while reducing exposure to India rupee volatility-related hedging costs.

Separately, while not assumed in our guidance, potential monetization of 2026 Section 45X tax credits provides additional liquidity optionality. Our capital allocation priorities remain unchanged. Firstly, we prioritize maintaining a resilient working capital reserve of approximately $1.5 billion to $2 billion to account for industry cyclicality and uncertainty and short-term supply and demand imbalances. Secondly, we deploy cash to fund growth and replicate technology improvements across the fleet. Thirdly, we invest in innovation through R&D and targeted capital investments as well as strategic enablers such as licensing arrangements to advance our technology road map, including perovskite optionality. Fourthly, we’ll consider M&A, which we’re actively evaluating to pursue complementary technology adjacent opportunities to reinforce our strategic differentiation.

As we near the conclusion of recent years of sustained high capex associated with manufacturing capacity growth, we will evaluate applying cash generation in excess of the above capital priorities to share repurchases. We’ll provide an update on this later in the year, pending clarity around certain factors, including policy catalysts, realization of new bookings volume and any decisions around 2026 Section 45X tax credit monetization.

I’ll now cover the full year 2026 guidance ranges on Slide 12. Our net sales guidance of between $4.9 billion and $5.2 billion. Gross margin is expected to be between $2.5 billion and $2.6 billion or approximately 49.5%, which includes $2.1 billion to $2.19 billion of Section 45X tax credits and $115 million to $155 million of ramp and underutilization costs. SG&A expense is expected to be between $215 million and $225 million and R&D expense between $285 million and $290 million. The primary driver for our increase is due to higher investment in advanced research, including expanded perovskite innovation center activity and planned headcount additions.

SG&A and R&D expense combined is expected to total $500 million to $515 million and total operating expenses, which includes $110 million to $120 million of production start-up expense, are expected to be between $610 million and $635 million. Included within our R&D expense guide for 2026 are approximately $100 million of costs associated with perovskite development. Going forward, we intend to guide on an adjusted EBITDA basis, which we believe provides the clearest view of our underlying operating performance, enhances comparability across periods. We forecast full year adjusted EBITDA of $2.6 billion to $2.8 billion.

From a first quarter earnings cadence perspective, we expect module sales of 3.4 to 4 gigawatts, Section 45X tax credits of $330 million to $400 million, resulting in adjusted EBITDA of between $400 million and $500 million. Capital expenditures in 2026 are forecast to range from $0.8 billion to $1 billion. Approximately half of the spend will support capacity expansion, primarily the South Carolina finishing line and the Louisiana plant. Remaining spend is expected to be split evenly between CuRe in India and R&D technology replication and maintenance. We expect to end 2026 with gross and net cash balances between $1.7 billion and $2.3 billion and assume a full repayment of our India credit facility with the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation by June 30, 2026.

With that, we conclude our prepared remarks and open the call for questions. Operator?

Question & Answers

Operator

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs & Co. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Brian Lee

Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. I guess just on the ASP front, Mark, you mentioned the $0.364 per watt, including adders for the U.S. bookings this quarter. How much did the adders add there? And then is that sort of the level of entitlement, $0.36 and above that you would expect for U.S. bookings through the rest of the year? Maybe can you comment on visibility you have on the pricing environment from this point forward?

And then just secondarily, on the gross margins, I’d be curious, I mean, this is implying kind of a 10% component gross margin in the guidance, even if I factor out underutilization and the 45X credit. So, I know there’s a lot of moving pieces, Alex, but when do you guys kind of get back to high teens, 20% type of gross margin for components the way you were at in 2024? And kind of what are some of the big bridges to get back there? Thank you.

Mark Widmar — Chief Executive Officer

All right. I’ll do the ASP conversation and then Alex, obviously take the gross margin. So there’s about, call it, $0.025 to $0.03 of the value of the adder in terms of the ASP, that $0.30 to $0.34 — or excuse me, $0.364. So that’s about the number. So the CuRe attributes will give you close to 3%. Not everything that was booked in that 36.4% actually had the adder. So if you sort of broke it out a little bit, you potentially going to see slightly higher prices for the CuRe attributes for the product that we booked with the CuRe attributes. But look, I think the entitlement wise, I mean, I feel good about the pricing that we’re at now, but I think there’s some more catalysts that could still happen.

I think some are leaning in with all the uncertainty that we referenced on the call in terms of what happens with 232 and what window are they trying to book into given the constraints with FEOC. And I think if we see — continue to see more momentum there, we just obviously saw the Solar 4 announcements, which obviously are going to address imports coming in from those three countries that we referenced. So there’s potentially more tailwinds depending on how they play out that could support even better pricing as we move forward. But I think visibility-wise, I think that’s kind of a good indication of where we expect the market pricing to be relative to the CuRe technology.

Alex Bradley — Chief Financial Officer

Yeah. Brian, on the gross margin, so if you back out the 45X, it’s about a 7% gross margin. And if you think about that against the $5 billion revenue profile, it’s about $350 million of gross margin. So if you try and walk that back up to, call it, the 20% number we’ve talked about before. This year, we’ve got about $165 million of tariffs sitting in there and about $135 million on utilization. So you have about $300 million or so there, about 6 points of margin. You’ve got about $200 million of warehousing.

I think we said in the prepared remarks, that will come down to about $100 million on a run rate basis next year. So pick up another $100 million in there, another 2 points of margin. And then if you look at the adjusted, we talked about $600 million of the backlog mostly recognized in 2027, 2028. So, you take $300 million across each of those years, that’s another 6 points of margin. That kind of walks you back up to around about $1 billion of gross margin and a 20% number.

So, tariff is obviously still in that. That’s an impact that we’re still wrestling with. But I’d also say you’ve got incremental volume coming in next year, which is not factored into that and the contribution margin benefit of that even ex-IRA is going to be meaningful. I’d also say it’s — we’re trying to look at this on an ex-IRA basis, but it’s challenging to do that to some degree because we are adding incremental costs, both by U.S. manufacturing and also by the mix shift to bringing more production into the U.S.

And we’re doing that, and that allows us and enables us to capture that 45X credit. So, I know we’re looking on an ex-IRA basis. But if you think about it with the IRA included with that 45X, yes, the core also is 7% this year and the walkup that we talked about just now, but you’ve got 43 points of IRA. So the gross margin on a GAAP basis will be 50% this year relative to 41% last year, which is the highest we’ve seen.

So obviously, we want to keep growing the core underlying non-IRA, and there’s a path there, as I said, to take you back up to that $20 million and we’re about $1 billion at that $5 billion revenue profile. But you can’t ignore the two and the interconnectedness of the fact that we are reshoring capacity and that does come at a cost, both direct cost and mix shift cost that enables us to capture those 45X benefits.

Mark Widmar — Chief Executive Officer

Yeah. And Brian, maybe I want to add a couple of things to. One back to on the pricing environment. I also want to make sure this is clear is that, that product or that ASP is also reflective of largely influenced by a domestic content product, right? Now what we do a lot of times is it’s agreed to around some number of points, which allow us to bring in some amount of international volume, assuming the tariff rates are amenable such that we can blend international. But if we ended up doing a straight up international deal, for example, with some of the capacity we have available with our Malaysia, Vietnam facilities, I would expect that price point to be closer to $0.30.

So, I just want to make sure that, that’s clear. So if we actually end up booking some of that international volume as we go forward, that you may see a lower ASP there because of that dynamic. I want to make sure that’s clear. And then the other one, just to Alex’s point around tariff. The other thing that’s kind of creating some headwind for us this year is — and we’ve mentioned this before, I mean, there is insufficient glass supply in the U.S. And we’ve been working to bring in basically brownfield and mothballed facilities and getting them up and operational.

But to support the scaling that we have right now, we are bringing in some glass internationally and using it in our U.S. production, and that is creating a cost headwind. My inbound freight costs are higher. I’m bearing the cost of the tariffs. And what we would expect to do as we scale up our supply chain here in the U.S., which we’re in the midst of doing, we’ll see less of a dependency on that import of that glass, which will also help us a little bit on our gross margin profile.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Jefferies LLC. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Julien Dumoulin-Smith — Analyst, Jefferies LLC

Thank you. Thank you all very much. Appreciate the opportunity to connect here. Appreciate it. Look, if I can ask you, first off, just to reconcile on the volumes produced versus sold, can you comment a little bit about just what you’re seeing here of late? And then separately, can you comment a little bit about what you’re actually seeing in terms of sell-through on volumes out of Asia? I know your prepared comments had some nuance on this, but just elaborate a little bit about what both Southeast Asia/India are assuming here in ’26 and what you’re seeing preliminarily ’27 as well?

Alex Bradley — Chief Financial Officer

Yeah. So if you go to the slides, we give you a walk on what we’re expecting to produce versus sell. The delta between the two is about 700 megawatts coming out of inventory. So that’s the gap you’re seeing between produced volume and sold volume. And we gave you the U.S. number for sold. You can see it in there. It’s 12.9 [Phonetic], what was it? 129.33 [Phonetic]. It’s in the script, I’ll come back to you. But yes, the delta is coming out of inventory.

And what was your second question, Julien?

Mark Widmar — Chief Executive Officer

I think part of your question was on sell-through of Southeast Asia, I think, is what you…

Julien Dumoulin-Smith — Analyst, Jefferies LLC

Yeah, on sell-through. What are you seeing?

Mark Widmar — Chief Executive Officer

So yeah, let’s talk through that. So, India is going to produce, call it, 3 gigawatts or so this year and will be sold into the India market. We’re actually going to have a really strong quarter. We had a really strong Q4, and we’ll have a strong Q1 in India. So, demand in India is strong. Som we got 3 gigawatts or so, a little bit north of that because we got some inventory sell-through that we’ll sell in 2026 in India domestically manufactured, sold into the India market, okay?

Now on the Southeast Asia, those factories are kind of running 20% or so. I mean they’re extremely underutilized. And what Alex said in his prepared remarks is that we’re looking at this almost as option value. Now some of that capacity will be fully utilized once we get our South Carolina facility up because the front-end capacity for, call it, half of the Southeast Asia manufacturing will come to the U.S. So, that will solve a piece of that underutilization. The other half is going to continue to be underutilized at a very low utilization rate. But what we’re looking at this is really an option to allow some of these potential tailwinds around 232 and other things to play itself out to see what the impact of that could be to create more demand for those international operations.

We also, I think, as we indicated in our last call, we are trying to work with a couple of counterparties on potentially meaningful volume offtake for those international production — for that international production. But that’s all still in the works. It’s still going to be largely tethered back to what happens with the policy environment. But we are incurring significant underutilization and cost headwinds because of what we’re trying to do right now is figure out, let’s create an option, let’s evaluate what we continue to see in the market. And we’ve been sort of wearing this for over a year now. It was about a year ago when these tariffs came in place, and we started to throttle down kind of towards the end of Q2, beginning of Q3, and we’ve kind of run at a very low utilization rate to try to sort of buy some time to see how these tariffs ultimately get played out.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Mark Strouse with JPMorgan. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Mark Strouse — Analyst, JPMorgan

Yes. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking our questions. Within the last couple of months, there was an individual with a vast amount of resources that is talking about ramping up supply of U.S.-based solar panel production over the coming years. Just curious if that is having any real impact on the conversations you’re having with your customers, especially if you look out to later this decade? And I’ve got a quick follow-up. Thanks.

Alex Bradley — Chief Financial Officer

Yeah. Look, obviously, very much aware of the announcement and the ambitions. From my understanding, a lot of that is not necessarily focused for kind of our utility scale market that we’re primarily focused on. I think it’s primarily to be captive for their own consumption for their own programs that they’re envisioning. It’s also out in our horizon. And I think there’s also a pretty strong realization of some pretty significant challenges to try to get to that type of scale. And if you’re really thinking about this as fully vertically integrated all the way from polysilicon forward, you not only are trying to solve the constraint at, let’s say, the cell level, you’ve got to think through how do you sell the wafer and how do you think through the polysilicon. And the capital investment to try to move all that forward is going to be pretty overwhelming. And the technical aspects around it as well of understanding freedom to operate issues.

We’ve already talked about there are IP infringements all over the place within the crystalline silicon world, and everybody is going to stand up and try to protect their IP where it makes sense. So it hasn’t really impacted our conversations yet. I think if they got to a realization where you started to see sites being announced, actual equipment being purchased, operations being commenced, then I think you could — maybe it starts to sort of inform our customers’ views of other thoughts and ideas. But as of right now, it’s having very little impact.

Mark Widmar — Chief Executive Officer

Mark, just one other comment around that. As you’re well aware, the biggest constraint that we’re seeing in the market for hyperscalers right now is access to power. And as we’ve just gone through the process of looking to site our new finishing line, the biggest constraint we faced around that was land with available power to connect. So again, Mark mentioned, you’ve got kind of capital constraint, which even that could be overcome, IP constraints, just knowledge and know-how. You’ve also got the constraint of how you would power these facilities if you’re trying to build to that scale, you’d be in the same constraint that the hyperscalers have today.

Mark Strouse — Analyst, JPMorgan

Okay. Thank you for that. That makes sense. And then I just want to ask a clarifying follow-up to Brian Lee’s question earlier. Mark, when you said the $0.364 is for the domestic content, are you saying that, that is the blended rate? So it would be a higher amount than that for the U.S. domestic content average with whatever, $0.30 for international? Or is that $36.4 how we should be thinking about the domestic content portion?

Mark Widmar — Chief Executive Officer

Yes. So the way we — and I tried to mention this a little bit last time. The way we actually price is we negotiate with the customer some number of points that they need, given their, the already procured strategy around — procurement strategy around the tracker in particular and then what are the incremental points that they need relative to the window that they plan on putting the project into service. And so we will negotiate a points construct, which then gives us the optionality to blend whatever percentage we can internationally. And we’re in a pretty good balance between the domestic S7 and the domestic — excuse me, international S7.

We can optimize there pretty well, assuming we choose not to sell into the Indian market. Where we’re a little bit more of misaligned is really with the only having, call it, 3 gigawatts of capacity for S6 in the U.S. and then try to match that up with 7 gigawatts of international production, which makes it harder because you can’t really blend that much international to achieve, let’s say, a 30- or 40- or 50-point requirement that a customer has. Now moving some of that finishing capacity in the U.S. also brings in some domestic content. So that helps move that equation a little bit. But what I was trying to say that if you have no domestic content at all embedded into a blended price construct, you’re going to see a much lower.

So if I go out and say, okay, I want a customer to buy 500 megawatts of international only with no domestic content value. And you may see some of that in some customers that are doing PTC project, as an example, because the uplift on the PTC is not as meaningful as it is on the ITC. Those prices are going to be lower. And I just want to make sure that’s clear and that’s understood that you could see a delta. I said $0.30 or somewhere in that range. If you’re selling just a pure international S6 product into the U.S. market, you would see a lower ASP clearing price.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Philip Shen with ROTH Capital Partners. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Philip Shen — Analyst, ROTH Capital Partners

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. First one, just was wondering if you could give us a little more color on why no EPS guide for ’26. And then secondly, in terms of the ASP implied for the 2026 guide, it seems like the U.S. ASP might be a little bit low. I think in 2025, it was closer to $0.324, but the implied U.S. ASP in the ’26 guide seems to be closer to $0.308. So, I was wondering if you might be able to give some color on that.

And then finally, on Oxford PV, can you share what kinds of efficiencies you’re able to generate? What are you seeing in your test modules, if any? And then what’s your sense of timing as to when commercial volumes could actually ramp? Thanks, guys

Alex Bradley — Chief Financial Officer

Yeah. So on the EPS piece, we’re moving to guiding to EBITDA. We think it gives a better view of operational performance. It’s better comparability year-over-year. And especially a year like this year, we’ve got significant costs associated with both underutilization of our Southeast Asia facilities as we’re deliberately curtailing those, as Mark mentioned, waiting for an option around whether there’s profitable capacity or profitable production to be had there to serve the market. And we’ve got significant start-up costs as we’re moving that equipment from Southeast Asia to the U.S. And so historically, we haven’t done that around start-up and ramp production, but this is a little different where effectively taking tools we already have in the ground and idling them for a significant period of time. So, I think it makes it more comparable.

On the tax side, also, we’ve got potential challenges around Pillar 2 this year, which will make the tax number very noisy going down to EPS. So on a kind of core non-Pillar 2 basis, we expect very low tax expense for the year. But because the agreement has not yet been finalized, there’s a potential chance we’ll have to accrue significant Pillar 2 expense, which ultimately we don’t believe will ever get realized on a cash basis. But until those agreements are finalized, we’d have to accrue that. So, we think it helps us with comparability as well.

On the ASP side, so I think your number is right, $0.308. If you look at what’s in the backlog, it’s around $0.30. So it’s about what’s in the backlog coming out of that ASP with a little bit of uplift relative to some adjusters we get around freight, around commodities. And then there’s a little bit of upside on the tech side as well there. If you think about — we mentioned on the adjustments going forward, there’s about $600 million or about $0.03 a watt on average of adjusted value sitting aligned with the CuRe platform, and most of that we said will be realized ’27, ’28, which is when we’ll start having much more CuRe product available to us. So this year, we have limited CuRe production. And given the timing of our decision to run that CuRe relative to the notification timings in the contracts, we’re going to see very limited upside from that this year. So, that’s why you’re seeing that U.S. ASP around 30.8%.

Mark Widmar — Chief Executive Officer

I think the other thing, Phil, when you’re looking at your year-on-year, you have to remember that last year, as we realized throughout the year, a handful of terminations, obviously, the largest one being the Lightsource bp termination, which obviously impacts revenue, but you’d have to normalize, pull that out of your top line revenue and then do your math from that standpoint. But that clearly provided some incremental uplift to the reported ASP last year because of some of those terminations.

As it relates to the Oxford PV, or just our perovskite program, I mean, basically, what we’re doing right now, Phil, is we have a development line where we’re doing small form factor modules. So, thinking they’re like 60 centimeters by 20 centimeters or so. So, these are actual fully functional small form-factor modules that we’re producing in an actual integrated production process and doing all of our kind of conversion of some of the efforts that we do in our advanced research, whether it’s in California, whether it’s in Sweden, and we’re doing all that testing within our development line. And if you look at our — as we said in the prepared remarks, if you look at our efficiencies and what we’re seeing in stability, we’re best-in-class from many, many ways, right, many different dimensions.

So, I feel good about where we are from a program standpoint. But there are still fundamental challenges that have to be addressed. And we are very good at understanding the nuances of thin films, right? We understand the issue of metastability, right? We understand the impact of encapsulating the thin film, right, to protect the thin film. So, we have a number of what have been identified as best-in-class, in particular, Chinese perovskite product. And if you put those out into a test field as we have, first off, they’ll even tell you in their literature that they give you do not expose the module to open circuit, which means effectively once you install it, it has to be immediately energized. And if you choose to expose it to open circuit, it degrades almost instantaneously in some cases.

There’s others that because their encapsulation is so poor that the film just starts to, over time, effectively pull apart, right? So, there’s a huge significant delamination that happens with the film and it can sustain itself over extended periods of time. And so there’s a lot of many factors — many, many factors that factor into how do you commercialize the product. We are working on all of those dimensions, right? So, our view is we need to think about the development, not just to drive the efficiency, also drive the attributes to a point where they’re competitive and then to manufacture that in a way that creates an enduring product that can be into the field for 30-plus years and perform at attributes that are relatively close to the current thin film technology that we have, and then we can do that all in HVM and do that in a way that we can do it cost competitively.

So, there’s many different things that we’re working on in that regard, Phil. So, I would just say we’re pleased with where we are. Our next phase is we will be investing. We’ve already started our procurement process to put it together a pilot line that will make full-size modules largely still for development purposes. We will deploy those modules in the field as well, some commercially with customers. And then as we evolve the development program, as we evolve the HVM issues in larger form-factors because any time you scale from something that’s, call it, 2.6 centimeters to something that is 2.5 square meters, there’s issues that you’re going to have to deal with through that scaling process and especially the informity of the film.

Once we have better informed around how well that’s progressing, that will determine overall commercial readiness. But the entitlement here is an efficiency number that is 20-plus percent. It’s an LTR that is competitive, bifaciality that’s, call it, 70% and a temp-co that’s somewhere in the mid-teens, which is better than we have now with CdTe. That’s the aspiration of what we’re trying to accomplish, but a lot of work between now and then.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Vikram Bagri with Citi. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Vikram Bagri — Analyst, Citi

Good evening, everyone. I wanted to ask sort of a two-part question about India capacity and potential for cancellations. First on India, can you talk about the pricing environment? I was wondering if you can give us confidence that the sales in the market are viable, the pricing is stable and is expected to stay stable throughout the year. I understand there is no sizable spot market in the U.S., but is there a possibility some of that volume can be rerouted to the U.S. given the 15% tariffs now in place?

And then finally, on India, it seems there is a lot of domestic capacity for panels being ramped up. How do you think about that capacity in the long term and the viability of that market for first solar panels?

And then as a follow-up on cancellations, you’ve historically mentioned pricing and EU players pulling back investments from renewables in the U.S. market has created this risk of cancellations. With lower tariffs, how are the conversations going with customers? Is that risk much lower now? And if you can quantify how much of the contracts are potentially at risk of cancellations? Thank you.

Mark Widmar — Chief Executive Officer

All right. I’ll deal with the India question first, and I don’t know if you got the tariff question. Okay. All right. So look, what I would say is right now, pricing is a point to look at in India, it is lower. What I would say though we’re effectively realizing high teens to low 20% gross margin. So if you want to look at it from a gross margin standpoint, I think you have to understand the cost of manufacturing in India is significantly lower than what the cost of manufacturing is in the U.S. So yes, lower pricing, but you basically balance that out with a lower cost of production and you’re realizing kind of high teens to low 20% type gross margin in India. So, that’s obviously where we stand right now.

And if you look across the horizon of what — how would we optimize that production. And one of the things I think you said is the risk of overcapacity. Look, I agree that there is that risk, but there’s also what’s counterbalancing that and why there’s also robust demand for our product and technology in India is that the approved list of model and manufacturers in India is now moving further upstream. So it started off with the module itself now effectively for any project that is commissioned in April of this year or Q2 will now have a cell requirement to be made domestically.

And then there’s also in — they foreshadowed already a wafer requirement that effectively starts to come into effect in 2028. And there’s not existing vertically integrated manufacturing capability in India at this point in time. And I think what has seen — what some of the manufacturers have seen is that it has become more challenging as they try to get into cells and then even more so if they try to get into the wafer. And then, obviously, they’re trying to figure out the poly side of the house as well. So, a lot still needs to happen from that standpoint.

We also believe that from a cost standpoint, even if that vertically integrated supply chain were to happen, we will be cost advantaged with our vertically integrated manufacturing facility with everything being done within the four walls of a factory, right? So there’s a cost advantage, we think. We also believe we have an energy advantage, which will be further enhanced when we implement our CuRe technology in India, which will start beginning of 2027.

So I look across the horizon. I feel like I got a better product, better technology. I’ve got a better policy environment that should continue to advantage us in terms of India. As a backdrop, to your point, we will continue to evaluate the construct of potentially bringing some of that product into the U.S. market, and we’ll do some of that with a view of creating some competitive tension into the domestic market because I don’t want customers to believe that they don’t have an alternative path other than selling into the domestic market. I’d like to be able to say, sure, at the right tariff construct, we can also redirect that product and blend it in with some S7 domestic product and still command pretty good pricing.

It’s a little bit choppy to continue to move back and forth because today, we primarily make a fixed tilt product for the India market and then to have to convert the factory to make a tracker product for the U.S. market or export market that’s a little clunky and you incur some downtime and some cost and the transportation of bringing that product into the U.S. is more expensive than we would like. So ideally, if we can just harmonize and keep running that factory all out serving the domestic market, getting good ASPs, that’s our preferred path, but we clearly would look at bringing some of that into the U.S. market if the situation and the dynamics are right.

Alex Bradley — Chief Financial Officer

Vikram, you asked around cancellation risk and whether tariffs are playing a part there. Look, tariffs coming down are clearly helpful, but I don’t think what you’ve been seeing on the cancellation side over the last year has really been tariff related. So the two aren’t necessarily linked. I mean, what we said before and what we’ve been seeing is more of a strategic shift by certain players, especially oil and gas and the European utility players to reallocate capital away from renewable development in the U.S. into some of the more core business on oil and gas development or European utility development.

So, where we’ve seen some of those players move away, we’ve seen others enter into the space in the U.S. and pick up some of that slack and see an opportunity in taking over those projects to develop them. So it’s hard to handicap the cancellation risk in the backlog. Sure, it could exist. I think, historically, what we’ve seen has been potentially more risk around the international product just given the value of domestic content. If you look at today, the amount of international product sitting in our backlog is pretty small. You can see that by how much we’re producing out of Southeast Asia this year relative to U.S. product.

And so that product has potentially been more challenged. I think the U.S. demand has been strong. And even if there were cancellations, there are much more opportunity to move any terminated U.S. product back into the U.S. market. I’d also say that clearly, we’ve been enforcing termination penalties and fees and making sure that we capture the value in the contract. So if there’s a contractual obligation to someone to pay an amount for terminating those contracts, we’ve been enforcing that and we’ll continue to do so.

Operator

This will be our final question. Our final question will come from the line of Ben Kallo with Baird. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Ben Kallo — Analyst, Baird

Hey, guys. Thanks for putting me in here. I just wanted to square, time to power is a big question or big emphasis out there. And I know you have so many moving pieces. And just bookings, I’m trying to square time to power and the need for electrons with how you guys are doing bookings with your different moving pieces right now? Thank you.

Mark Widmar — Chief Executive Officer

Look, I think, Ben, I mean you got to remember, we’ve got a luxury — we’re kind of in a nice position. We’ve got 50 gigawatts of contracted volume that is going to carry us forward. There’s a clear sense of urgency from customers around execution and time to power. I mean, there’s customers that obviously have safe harbored under Section 48 and they need to get their projects commissioned by the end of 2028. There’s others that are safe harbor under 48 and those who are continuing to safe harbor because they can do that up through the middle of this year. We then get an opportunity to get projects done through the end of 2030. So, there is quite a bit of demand.

Our customers are also dealing with a lot of angst of trying to figure out permitting issues and other things they’re trying to do, financing issues, getting things in place for the current projects that they’re executing against in construction and what have you. And then thinking through a longer position around across their portfolio, both earlier stage and then obviously, late-stage development. So that sense of urgency is there. People are being really creative looking to do more on-site generation, try to get out underneath the constraint of the interconnections. But if a customer does have an interconnection agreement, I mean, they’re running hard and they’re making sure they’re lining up their modules as well as their EPC agreement and balance of system equipment to make sure they can execute on time. So it’s a clear catalyst. I also think it is helping us as we engage and we talk with customers around pricing as well.

Operator

There are no further questions at this time. [Operator Closing Remarks]