Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) Cash Flow Statement

The OCF/NI ratio swings wildly (-1.94 in 2026Q2 versus 0.67 in 2026Q1) because the denominator is negative while D&A of $10-14M per quarter provides a stable cushion, meaning cash conversion appears structurally positive but is not evidence of profitable operations. With SBC collapsing from $20.5M to $2.3M between 2024Q4 and 2026Q2, a meaningful portion of the historical cash cushion has already evaporated, so investors should monitor whether operating cash flow can hold up as non-cash addbacks shrink.

FCF was positive in seven of ten quarters but the margin range of -15.8% to 23.8% shows the metric is dominated by timing effects, not stable unit economics. The 2026Q2 print coincided with a $11.4M working capital release and a $12.8M acquisition inflow, so the apparent recovery in FCF quality warrants further investigation before being annualized.

CapEx/Revenue halved from 17-24% in 2024 to 3-6% in the last three quarters, which mechanically lifts FCF but may also indicate reduced investment in the compression, station, and upgrading assets that underpin volume growth. Whether this is disciplined capital allocation or underinvestment is unclear from the cash statement alone; against peers like OPAL and AMTX still posting negative FCF margins, CLNE's low intensity is favorable, but maintenance capex levels are not separately disclosed, leaving replacement needs ambiguous.

Quarterly WC changes ranged from -$27.4M to +$16.3M over the period, frequently exceeding net income by an order of magnitude, which suggests receivables and payables timing tied to commodity purchases drive more of reported cash generation than operations do. The sign reversals quarter-to-quarter indicate no clear efficiency trend, so analysts should treat any single quarter's OCF as unreliable without normalizing for these swings.

D&A of about $163M and SBC of roughly $125M explain the bulk of the gap, implying the divergence is largely accounting-driven rather than a sign of hidden cash generation, though it also means reported losses understate true economic depreciation of the asset base. The 2025Q1 distortion alone—a $135M loss against $23.4M OCF with $62.3M D&A—accounts for a fifth of the cumulative gap, so multi-year comparisons excluding that quarter may give a cleaner read on the structural trend.