Hearings to examine Department of Energy's implementation of President Trump's May 2025 nuclear

Committee will come to order. Good morning to everyone and welcome. Before turning to my opening statement, I want to let all members know how we're going to proceed this morning. I also want to thank Senator Heinrich and his staff for working with us on today's hearing. On May 23, 2025, President Trump issued four executive orders concerning nuclear energy to help launch a renaissance in that really important area and that increasingly important area within the energy sector of the United States. These executive orders do the following: direct deployment of advanced nuclear reactor technologies for national security; require needed reforms at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to safely and expeditiously license nuclear facilities; employ existing Department of Energy authorities to accelerate nuclear reactor testing and the deployment of new designs; and direct comprehensive action to reinvigorate America's nuclear industrial base, secure supply chains, and prepare our workforce to ensure American nuclear energy dominance. Today the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hear testimony regarding the U.S. Department of Energy's implementation of these orders from President Trump. We'll receive testimony from three eminently qualified experts. They are the Honorable Theodore Garrish, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Energy; Dr. John Wagner, Director of the Idaho National Laboratory and President of Battelle Energy Alliance; and Dr. Mike Laufer, the co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Kairos Power. On behalf of the committee, I welcome each of you to the committee today. For much of the past century, the United States operated from a position that most countries have never had. We had reliable energy. It allowed American industry to thrive. It allowed the economy to grow. It gave the United States a level of independence that few nations enjoy. Whenever that advantage has slipped, the consequences have been immediate. In the 1970s, supply disruption drove prices up and gave foreign producers leverage. Decisions made overseas began to overshape outcomes at home more than they had previously. Now for the first time in decades, we're confronting some of those same pressures again. The question is no longer how we use energy; it's whether we have enough of it. Data centers are not going to wait. Advanced manufacturing is not slowing down. The systems driving artificial intelligence don't just scale down when power is scarce. They go to where the electricity is. If we cannot meet that demand here, it will be met somewhere else. We can be sure of that. Because when energy tightens, everything downstream follows. This requires constant, large-scale, reliable energy. And that is where nuclear energy comes in. So today we're examining whether the United States is moving quickly enough to deploy the next generation of nuclear technologies. What has long been a stable and essential part of our energy mix is becoming central to whether we can meet this demand at all. We are already seeing energy-intensive industries turn toward nuclear as a long-term solution. Russia and China both understand this. They're building reactors at scale. They're financing and exporting them across the world. They're locking in fuel supplier arrangements that tie countries to their technology and their influence for decades. To put it bluntly, energy will determine the global balance of power for the next generation. And if we hesitate now, we will not just fall behind; we'll be operating inside a system defined by others, dependent on supply chains and standards that we didn't write. That is not a position of strength and it's not a position that the United States can accept. So the question before us is no longer whether nuclear energy will play a role in our future; it's how much capacity we can build and how quickly we can build it. Recognizing that urgency, President Trump issued four executive orders last May to elevate the American energy industry to the next level. These orders build on previous work that's been done in Congress, bipartisan work that's been done on some of these issues. They focus on modernizing the regulatory framework, accelerating reactor testing, enabling deployment for national security applications, and rebuilding the domestic nuclear industrial base. At least three test reactors will achieve criticality by July 4 of this year. A microreactor will be deployed at a military installation by 2028. Ten new large reactors will be under construction by 2030. The Department of Energy has already begun implementing these directives, including standing up new programs and expanding the use of its existing authorities. In coordination with Idaho National Laboratory, it has rolled out initiatives such as the reactor and fuel line pilot programs to support advanced reactor development and deployment. Today's hearing provides an opportunity to examine that execution, assess programs, identify remaining barriers that we still face, and determine what additional actions may be necessary to ensure that the United States leads in nuclear energy technology. We're joined by witnesses who are directly involved in implementing and advancing these efforts and I look forward to hearing from them. I now recognize my friend and colleague, the ranking member, Senator Heinrich, for his opening remarks.

Thank you, Chairman. And welcome to our witnesses, Mr. Garrish, Mr. Wagner, and Mr. Laufer. Today we'll talk about the Department of Energy's implementation of President Trump's executive orders on nuclear energy and I'd like to start by just acknowledging the work Congress has done to support the growth of the U.S. nuclear energy sector. Congress has routinely affirmed the importance of nuclear energy as a key solution to meeting our national energy needs. The broad deployment of nuclear and renewable power together can foster a grid that is both reliable and affordable for Americans. And at a time when customers' energy bills are being driven upward by tariffs, by the war in Iran, and project delays and cancellations caused by the Secretary of Interior, we need to add large energy sources to the grid as fast as possible. Nuclear power especially has many valuable attributes that can help meet the energy and resource demands of artificial intelligence in an economically and environmentally responsible way. We'll hear today about efforts to advance new technologies that use novel coolants that could significantly reduce the water usage of new power plants. And we'll hear about the department's efforts to help innovate, validate, and demonstrate technologies that can one day help serve the industrial and defense sectors. These are outcomes that Congress has long sought to catalyze. For the past several years, Congress has repeatedly passed bipartisan legislation to advance nuclear energy in the United States. This committee has supported multiple bills to accelerate the development of domestic supply chains for nuclear fuel and to enhance nuclear energy innovation. The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Capabilities Act directed the DOE to assess its ability to authorize, host, and oversee privately funded advanced nuclear test reactors at the national labs or other DOE sites. The Energy Act of 2020 authorized DOE to develop a program to support the production of advanced nuclear fuels. The Nuclear Fuel Security Act expanded those DOE efforts to support the domestic supply for low-enriched uranium fuel. And the ADVANCE Act directed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to strengthen its workforce, develop responsible yet efficient licensing schedules, and fast-track processes for existing sites. The members of this committee have repeatedly supported America's civilian nuclear energy industry and I am pleased to have our witnesses here to update us on these efforts. However, achieving our shared goals will rely on responsible implementation by the executive branch. Frankly, this is an area in which I would love to have greater confidence. I believe the U.S. nuclear industry needs greater confidence in the administration's policies on nuclear energy. In the same year that the President signed the executive orders that we are discussing today, he also sought a budget that would have reduced funding for the Office of Nuclear Energy by over $400 million. A reduction that would have surely impaired the department's ability to execute on these important activities. And while the department's rhetoric on nuclear energy has been strongly supportive, it has not always been clear whether this support extends to the whole of the industry or just those most familiar with the White House and members of its inner circle. I've said before that right now the U.S. grid needs every electron it can get. We need to make affordable energy affordable again in this country. Doing so requires supporting early innovation to accelerate breakthrough technologies. This applies both to new reactor technologies but also to examining the fuel cycle. In October, I introduced a bill with Senator Cruz titled the Advancing Research in Nuclear Fuel Recycling Act, which would have the department study pathways to advance innovative nuclear fuel recycling technologies. Such pathways could provide a solution for harnessing the used fuel that is currently stored at 121 sites across the United States. These technologies could provide additional nuclear fuel streams and enhance the resilience of our domestic energy infrastructure. And I soon plan to introduce the WIPP Economic Assistance Reauthorization Act, which would continue economic support for communities that host nuclear waste and support our national security activities. I'm hopeful that this committee will have the opportunity to further discuss these issues and consider legislative proposals to promote U.S. nuclear innovation. I'll close by adding that addressing energy affordability also requires promoting certainty. In the case of nuclear, that includes certainty of safety, of regulatory process, and of the department's role under the law. The Department of Energy can be a tremendous partner to the private sector and to the states. Today we'll hear specific examples of how. These insights will emphasize how successful implementation of nuclear energy policy relies on strong partnerships. Partnerships with states, with the NRC, and with the civilian nuclear energy industry. Our witnesses today have hands-on experience in how the public and private sectors can work together to propel innovation and further our country's goals. I look forward to this discussion today, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks so much, Ranking Member Heinrich. As is evident, there's a lot of interest in this area and a lot of bipartisan enthusiasm to see these things move forward. We're going to recognize now each of our three witnesses for their opening statements. Your written statements will also be made part of the record, but we'll hear from each of you. Assistant Secretary Garrish, we'll start with you.

Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear today. I really do appreciate the work that this committee has done over the years. I have worked with this committee on both sides of the aisle and I'm looking forward to this year and the important steps that we need to take. The President, recognizing the importance of nuclear energy and the need to move forward, did four executive orders and I will talk today about how our objectives deal with those particular items. There are four areas I would like to cover briefly this morning. You have my written statement already. Number one is to reestablish the domestic uranium enrichment program. Number two is to foster new builds. Three is to expand international exports of U.S. nuclear products and finally to establish a complete fuel cycle. So let me go through each of those and tell you what we are doing on each. The first is domestic enrichment. This, when I first came on board, I recognized as really the biggest risk to the nuclear industry. With the pending shutoff of the Russian imports, that meant that we were losing three and a half million SWUs, separative work units, which was roughly 23 percent of our total production. When I had last held this job in the 80s, the U.S. had 70 percent of the domestic market. But now we had just a very small share and much was imported. We then had to deal with try to how do we reestablish the domestic industry. The Congress passed the very important enrichment bill providing very good funding for that possibility and that was approximately four years ago. And one of the first tasks I took on was to to establish what we had to do to get the domestic industry back and building capacity. We made awards for three companies to do that in the U.S. and I believe that we will be able within the timeframe of the next couple of years be able to have a very viable domestic uranium enrichment industry. If we still encounter some gap, we do have the authority from the President's executive orders under the Defense Production Act to take other steps as necessary, but I think the way we're currently operating we should be able to have a sufficient domestic supply to meet the gap. The second area of very important to us is new starts. And there are a number of areas that we have and one is really the DOE programs and that begins with the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, ARDP. Very large sums of money have been contributed in public-private partnerships and we have two companies, TerraPower and X-energy, that have received substantial funds in public-private partnership to get the advanced reactor business moving. We have a ways to go and additional funds were appropriated this year which we are in the process of now awarding to the companies. Secondly, we have the Gen III+ program which is to deal right now with potentially small modular reactors and we have made awards, one to TVA and GE and another to Holtec. And those are very important programs to get the SMR program moving forward. In addition to to that, there is a number of other programs that we are looking at. And one of them is how do we get reactors started in the U.S. and as you know, the Commerce Department has many programs and I think that there will be some announcements beginning today from the Japanese tariff money that will be help this process to get started. And then probably the next very important project is the pilot projects that we have in in Idaho and those are very interesting projects. They're very small reactors, these are micros. When I first saw the executive order which indicated that the President wanted from scratch at least three reactors critical by July 4th, our 250th anniversary of the United States, I couldn't imagine how that was going to be possible. We sent out requests for applicants and we received 11. And out of that 11, it appears as if at least three or four will be able to meet that deadline and I'm very hopeful that we'll be able to have these reactors operating this year. Other reactors that were also in the program are going to be also active a little bit later in the year. But but that's going to move forward very very well. A lot of people say why pilots? In other words, why is this important? Well, to me, what this indicates is the enthusiasm that the U.S. can get reactors in operation and this has been a very exciting program for us and I think it's going to lead to other activities going forward. The other thing that is important is that out of the four reactors, we now have safety analysis on these four and they're very likely to go forward in that date. Two of them have future lives already. One of them for potential military establishment and another in a foreign country that is very interested in this particular reactor. So we already have life of these reactors moving forward into the future which is very very important. The next area is international and I just wanted to speak about that briefly. In the first Trump administration, I was very fortunate to be able to intergovernmental agreements and two of them that were important to us was one with Poland and one with Romania. The Polish one was for six reactors and that process has now started, they've done the initial feed studies and three have been contracted with the government for Westinghouse to proceed. That is a very important program and what we are doing now is trying to also help the the Polish regulator with the process of establishing those reactors and getting them into operation. In addition now we have other countries, Bulgaria and Slovakia, that are also very interested in moving forward. And what we would like to do and we have a program that we're going to establish at the department to help these foreign countries with their certification so that we can at all possible not have to go through the same licensing rigor that we do in those countries to move forward. And the Polish government has indicated an interest in doing this. It would be my view that what we would do for the U.S. is we would sell not only the products, but we would sell the regulatory structure that they came from which would help expedite the process. And that is moving forward very well and we're going to make progress this year. Finally, the last issue is completing the fuel cycle and promoting industrialization. I think a lot has changed since 1982 when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was first enacted. What we did at that time, and Yucca Mountain was an example, we would take used nuclear fuel that was five percent used and we would bury it in its entirety. And I tell people it's like buying a new car at the dealership, taking the car, driving it for 8,000 miles and then taking it to the junkyard and not using it again. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We've got a lot of energy in the fuel and we have a number of companies that have come to us and said that they wanted in the private sector to recycle these products and make them usable and saleable into the marketplace. This is a very interesting idea which sort of changes the equation as to how we move forward. The second thing that has happened is the need for industrialization of this community. The thing that is amazing when you look at if you take all parts of the nuclear process, starting with conversion, enrichment, deconversion, fuel fab, recycling and advanced manufacturing and then couple that with the possibility of data centers and additional reactors. If co-located can save substantial money and be a very viable product for the future. This has led us to ask the states if they were interested in competing and requesting the ability to be designated as an area for this industrialization. Interestingly, we've had 24 states get back to us with interest and I would say that there were 12 to 15 that were very serious and probably four or five that have very serious proposals before us now. They will be provided to us by the April 1st and we will very quickly after that determine which ones are viable, go out and see these and see if we can begin the process of sort of reinvigorating the whole process of the fuel cycle and make sure that we can use these materials. The final fuel stream is substantially less than what we were anticipating at Yucca Mountain. So this is a major change in how we approach this, but this is a very positive development and very well received by the public. So these are the real issues that that I see before us. With the President's executive orders, I see a tremendous enthusiasm for nuclear that I have not seen before. And right now what we we need to do most of all is basically seize the moment and really capitalize on this enthusiasm and to the extent possible get shovels in the ground. And I look forward to working with this committee on these very complicated problems, many of which are going to require legislation and so this will be a cooperative effort. The unique thing about this industry, this is a bipartisan effort and we've had tremendous cooperation between both the Republicans and Democrats. So I'm looking forward to a bright three years for the rest of the administration to see if we make progress. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear today.

Thanks so much Assistant Secretary Garrish. We'll hear now from Director Wagner.

Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I also want to thank you...

Thanks so much Assistant Secretary Garrish. Now we'll hear now from Director Wagner.

Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich and members of the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I also want to thank you for all the work that you've done on these topics and the work that you will do. My name is John Wagner and I am the director of the Idaho National Laboratory, the nation's center for nuclear energy research and development. As you both mentioned in your opening remarks, we stand at an unprecedented inflection point in American nuclear energy. For the first time in decades, market forces, national security imperatives and federal policies have achieved remarkable alignment. The question no longer is whether America needs nuclear energy as a question that Senator Lee you mentioned, it's how much, how quickly and how to make it happen. And that's exactly why the four executive orders that the President signed are so important because they address those very questions. Speaking from the perspective of Idaho National Laboratory, I want to say this call for action did not find us unprepared. Executive Order 14301 states that the Idaho National Laboratory has principal responsibility for constructing and testing new reactor designs. At the laboratory, we embrace that role enthusiastically and with partners, we are executing on it. So let me tell you a little bit about what that looks like. Our DOME, repurposed from the historic EBR-II facility, will be complete and ready for its first demonstration reactor by the end of this month. Construction was accelerated by nearly a year specifically to meet the executive orders. Radiant's Kairos reactor is the first system scheduled to be installed beginning next month. Our Reactor and Critical Experiment facility, we refer to that as RACE, will support defense and space reactor systems, including Antares' reactor experiments. MARVEL, our 85 kilowatt DOE test reactor, received approval for its preliminary documented safety analysis just this month and is targeting initial criticality later this year. MARVEL for us is not just a reactor, it's a proof of process, restoring institutional capability in new reactor authorization that had atrophied over decades without new builds. Under the reactor pilot program established by Executive Order 14301, DOE selected 10 companies and 11 projects. INL is providing direct technical support to multiple participants in that program. Companies like Aalo and Oklo broke ground at INL for their reactors last fall. To address the expanding needs of this moment, we've established the Nuclear Energy Launchpad, a 2,000-plus acre site at the laboratory, with options for other locations as well, dedicated to enabling privately funded advanced nuclear prototypes. So think first-of-a-kind reactors, enrichment, fuel fabrication, recycling, and other emerging nuclear technologies. When the executive orders were signed, most people, including myself, were skeptical that three reactors could achieve criticality by July 4th. I am no longer skeptical. I am optimistic we will see it happen, and with the full adherence to the gold standard of safety and security that the American public expects. Want to talk about Executive Order 14302 directed action across the full fuel cycle, and INL has critical role to play there too. The fuel line pilot program selected five companies for domestic fuel fabrication. INL provides direct technical support, leveraging our unique capabilities at our materials and fuels complex. Today we are recycling highly enriched used fuel from our Experimental Breeder Reactor-II, downblending it to high-assay LEU, or HALEU, and providing that fuel for Oklo's first core for their reactor and possibly others. We are also developing advanced processes to recycle other used fuels, providing additional domestic feedstock while commercial production scales up. Our work extends across all four executive orders and a wide spectrum of companies and federal partners. I want to also say INL is also harnessing AI to accelerate implementation under DOE's GENESIS mission. Our goal with our Prometheus project is to demonstrate an autonomous reactor designed, analyzed, manufactured, and operated by AI with minimal human intervention. Our project Vulcan is working to compress materials discovery and qualification timelines from decades to years. Early results show these AI tools have already more than doubled our development speed for key tasks. So these are not future promises, these are things that are happening today. But, as we all know, challenges remain, and your continued support is essential. In my opinion, we need to build new commercial power reactors at scale and we need to get started now. I look forward to announcements in the coming days. We need to continue building our domestic fuel cycle capabilities, which was mentioned. The fuel cycle remains a crucial vulnerability, and no commercial-scale HALEU production exists outside of Russia and China. We need continued progress on regulatory efficiency, although we have seen good progress there. And we need to update the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which reflects priorities from four decades ago. In closing, the executive orders set an ambitious course. INL has a critical role and we're executing with urgency, with rigor, and with an uncompromising commitment to safety. We are grateful for this committee's leadership in building the policy foundation and we look forward to your continued partnership. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thanks so much, Director Wagner. We'll hear now from you, Mr. Laufer.

Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify and thank you for the bipartisan engagement and support of advanced nuclear energy. My name is Mike Laufer. I'm the CEO and co-founder of Kairos Power, an advanced nuclear engineering and manufacturing company headquartered in California with manufacturing operations in New Mexico and a reactor demonstration campus in Tennessee. Kairos is a Greek word meaning the right or opportune moment. That is where our nation stands today. The U.S. faces a pivotal moment as electricity demand surges due to AI, data centers, and reshoring American manufacturing. The executive order signaled the urgency of the investments needed to meet this demand. As a nation, we must ensure that our energy supply is reliable, affordable, and secure. To meet these goals, it is vital that nuclear energy rise to meet its full potential. Kairos Power grew out of a research effort led by the Department of Energy, universities, and national laboratories to establish the technical basis for commercially attractive reactors using molten salt coolant. As the first advanced reactor mover with NRC construction permits and the only nuclear facility under active NRC-regulated construction, we're happy to serve as the industry voice here today. In less than a decade, Kairos Power has matured to a company with more than 550 employees across multiple states, all singularly focused on bringing safe and affordable nuclear energy to the U.S. electricity market as quickly as possible. Our fluoride salt-cooled high-temperature reactor pairs TRISO fuel with molten salt coolant. This hybrid design ensures robust inherent safety at low pressure, simplifying the footprint of safety-related systems and reducing capital costs. Building on the molten salt pioneering legacy at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, with a focus on de-risking project delivery, we utilize an iterative design, build, and test approach that mitigates the risks that have hindered many past nuclear builds. We're validating our technology and delivery strategy through a series of non-nuclear engineering test units that demonstrate our reactor systems at prototypic scale. In this effort, we are training our nuclear workforce with real experience running the largest molten salt systems ever built and operated. Our engineering test unit series is followed by our two demonstration reactors in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Hermes, a low-power reactor now under construction, and Hermes 2, a 50-megawatt demonstration plant. Our goal is for Hermes 2 to be the first commercial-scale Gen IV reactor to supply power to the U.S. grid. Kairos Power has made significant investments in establishing in-house manufacturing, testing, construction, and other critical capabilities to accelerate this process. This approach continually builds on the lessons from our non-nuclear test program and our demonstration reactors to enable fleet deployment for our first customers, Google and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Our commercial agreement with Google is the first nuclear contract to include multiple advanced reactor deployments. Hermes 2 is the first reactor to be built under this agreement, and our contract with TVA is the first-ever nuclear power purchase agreement. Through the combination of our development approach and commercial agreements, we have established a credible pathway to establish cost certainty in our reactors, the proficiency and discipline to build and operate nuclear system, and confidence in our ability to deliver future commercial plants on time and on budget, which this industry desperately needs. Kairos Power is grateful and appreciates the support of the Department of Energy's Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. To date, Kairos Power has received $125 million from DOE under our novel milestone-based technology investment agreement. Modeled after the incredibly successful Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program from NASA, this agreement ties our federal funding to clearly defined, objectively verifiable milestones. This means that Kairos Power is only paid when we deliver results that matter. Use of this contract structure allows Kairos Power to remain agile while ensuring accountability and efficiency for DOE as it administers the strategic investment of taxpayer dollars. I would make the case that DOE's strategic investment in Kairos Power has provided the most value per taxpayer dollar to advanced nuclear power in the U.S. based on the tangible progress we have made across technical, regulatory, construction, and commercial fronts over the past five years. If I have the opportunity to deliver one message today, it is to urge this committee to enable and encourage the expanded use of milestone-based strategic investments by DOE to support Kairos Power and others in the industry to meet the vital call to action that this moment demands. The message from Washington is unambiguous. Nuclear energy is needed now. Soaring electricity demand, surging data center needs, and heightened concerns over cost, reliability, and energy independence create extraordinary opportunities. The executive orders and the continued bipartisan support from this committee represent critical federal commitments that will shape America's energy future for decades to come. Kairos Power is proud to be building that future today with you. I want to thank the committee for holding this hearing and for your continued commitment to enabling the expansion of American nuclear energy. I look forward to your questions and to working together on this mission.

Thank you very much. That concludes our opening statements. We'll now turn to five-minute rounds of questions. So I'll go first, followed by Ranking Member Heinrich. Then we'll alternate between Republicans and Democrats in order of seniority subject to the early bird rule. Mr. Garrish, I'd like to start with you, if that's all right. Now President Trump's executive orders called for advanced reactor deployments and set forth these aggressive timelines we've had some discussion of those today already, including this July 4th target date, drawing by our 250th birthday as a country, to achieve criticality in at least three test reactors under DOE authorization. I'm encouraged that the Department of Energy's making full use of its existing authorities. And as I understand it, several companies are making progress under the DOE reactor and fuel line pilot programs. So a couple of questions on this note. First, can you provide kind of an update on progress on the progress of these pilot programs and whether, to what extent, you remain on track to achieve that July 4th milestone? And second, how is the department coordinating with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure that there is a transition pathway toward expedited commercial licensing?

Generally speaking, let me first say that the for four of the reactors we do have our preliminary safety analysis completed. And we are proceeding now to the authorization stage where we will actually determine that they are safe to begin the process and actually turn on the reactors. And that is that is proceeding now. So I'm hopeful that that we should be able to be successful on meeting the July 4th deadline. There could be some issues that come up on a couple of the reactors. We have questions on fuel fabrication and we're working our way through those. And it's a matter of just ordinary manufacturing issues. There is nothing extraordinary about the problems. It's just we are problem solvers and we're trying to get through the issues to make this work. In terms of advanced reactors just in general, the one thing that has happened is the Congress has appropriated substantial funds for the advanced reactor demonstration program. And that is proceeding well. And we have gone through some of the first tranches of funding for both TerraPower and for X-energy. The thing that is very rewarding, I think, is to see TerraPower getting its its construction license to be able to proceed in a very short period of time, 18 months. So we're making progress. You ask also about our relationship with the NRC. We are operating on our separate paths. We have our own system and they have their own system. However, what they are doing is joining us in the process as observers. And when a company expects to go commercial, they will have conversations with them as to the licensing process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This, there's been a lot of question about the cooperativity and whether or not we are separate enough. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a memorandum of guidance which I brought today and be happy to offer for the record, but it really lays out the the very different methodologies and how the two work together. In other words, one of the things that the NRC will do is they will be observers in our process. What I have urged our people and we're doing at the lab, and that is when the NRC has additional information that they think that is useful, I am urging us to provide that information to the to them in the process. So this has been a fairly successful program back and forth between the two agencies. There are approximately 12 people from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that have been assigned now in detail to us as to work under our program.

Thank you. I appreciate that and we'll receive that and without objection that'll be admitted into the record. Dr. Wagner, can you elaborate a little bit on the recommendations that have been made in this area and in on your on why the current authorization framework falls short and why you believe Congress needs to clarify and expand the Department of Energy's authority in this area?

Yes, I'd like to. So first of all, I'd like to be clear on something. The intent here of what I'm suggesting the Congress consider is not to circumvent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or to undermine its commercial licensing role in any way. The NRC remains the right body for commercial reactor licensing and nothing we are proposing changes that. So I want to be real clear on that. What we are asking is for some clarity around what we consider a statutory gap, particularly in Section 202 related to the definition and the carve-out of demonstration nuclear reactors. The details are in my written testimony because that language can be interpreted in different ways. It is being interpreted in different ways such that it could be interpreted that even private company reactors on a national laboratory would fall under NRC because it could be interpreted that any reactor is really being developed and demonstrated ultimately for commercial purposes and that's what we do. So clarifying that. Separately, we are seeking the committee to consider expanding that to be clear that if DOE is demonstrating a reactor for their mission space and something unique related to that, like a first of kind, for example, demonstrating the pairing of a small nuclear reactor with a data center and demonstrating how to manage those loads, that that could be also considered under DOE authorization. There's also some ambiguity related to the Department of Defense authorities and applications that we'd ask the committee to take a look at. And so I understand there's a lot of details here that matter, but that's my short answer on that.

Turns out there are some details involved in nuclear energy and in the law related to it. Ranking Member Heinrich.

Thanks, Chairman. I want to start with you, Dr. Laufer. I want to ask you to sort of go a little deeper into the milestone-based cost approach that you outlined in terms of contracting and talk about how that helps you manage financial risk in these public-private partnerships and what value it might bring to other developers as well.

Thank you, Senator. So the contract that Kairos has with DOE as part of our ARDP award is milestone-based and it's a fixed support milestone. So there are a series of about 30 milestones in our contract. They have fixed payments. Kairos has to demonstrate that we've achieved those milestones and then it's actually a very straightforward process of submitting the invoice through the field office at INL for processing payment. So from my perspective, it is a structure modeled off of the NASA COTS program that is very efficient, low overhead from the DOE perspective. It provides a lot of accountability. Those milestones are significant. So things like the submission of an application to the NRC. We've tried to remove subjectivity there. When we install a test vessel for our test units, those are major milestones that are easy to verify. So there's not a lot of subjectivity there. What the milestones do is they provide flexibility in how they're achieved. So for example, we have several fuel milestones. To bring a reactor critical, we have to deliver fuel to the site and there are fuel along the way in terms of production. That's unquestionable in terms of the importance. The contract and the milestones are non-specific on how we reach that. And for Kairos, we do a lot of in-house manufacturing, so we were not sure at the start of the program whether we were going to be manufacturing fuel or procuring it. The milestones are agnostic to that. So it provides flexibility. And in this case, we identified an opportunity after we were selected for the award to partner with Los Alamos National Laboratory to produce the fuel for Hermes. If we had to program that upfront in the award in a conventional contract, we wouldn't have had the flexibility. We've had to pull money from other partners, other facilities to do that. So it gives us a lot of flexibility, which is very valuable and it removes a lot of the overhead burden from conventional contracts.

It's also resulted in just a much faster development cycle, correct?

Yes, well it works with our cycle and allows us to be agile and change plans. And particularly with the national laboratories, that agility's been valuable. So with Oak Ridge, we've been able in the last year rapidly expand our activities on the civil construction and manufacturing side taking advantage of new progress in that area. Those were not even known possibilities a few years ago and so being able to have that flexibility and actually because Kairos controls where we spend the money to achieve the milestones, it allows us the flexibility to make sure that we're using our investment efficiently to achieve those milestones.

Let me pivot to HALEU. How critical is the timely development of reliable domestic HALEU supply for not just Kairos but for the entire broader advanced reactor sector?

So the development of the supply chain for the high-assay LEU is imperative for us and for others. Though I would start from the position that the investments from the commercial industry need to be driven by a viable future fleet of reactors. That order book needs to be the driver for all of that commercial investment. So we're working hard to develop that demand signal and then the support that DOE has provided for initial demonstration programs. So we have completed our contract with DOE for HALEU for the Hermes reactor. But for us actually, our general strategy is to defer as long as possible to allow time for the enrichers to develop that infrastructure. But that clock is ticking and there is urgency for others especially in terms of that need. But for us in general, having that partnership with DOE for the early demonstration projects is critical and we're proud to have reached agreement with DOE on that front.

Mr. Garrish, last year's appropriation bill provided $3.1 billion to support the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. Obviously that's meant to catalyze private sector investment in deploying next generation nuclear technologies. What's the department's strategy to disperse this funding effectively?

As you know Senator, thank you for the question. That there was a short deadline for indicating back to the Congress as to what our plans were. We have internally gone through and determined what an appropriate allocation of that was and that the amount that we have determined that was available out of that 3.1 was $2.83 billion. And the reason for the difference was that some of that money was previously obligated and we are working that through. We have provided to the appropriators our suggested allocations the way we would make that money available. We have gone back to OMB and provided that back to OMB for their review also and they are in the process of allowing us to make those allocations known and they will in their allocation process provide that money in some timely fashion we believe over the next several months.

Senator Cortez Masto.

Thank you. Assistant Secretary Garrish, as you know Section 3 of the executive order calling for reinvigorating the nuclear industrial base required DOE to coordinate on a recommended national policy to support the management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. Can you please provide details on what recommendations were submitted to the White House regarding the management of spent fuel?

The report that went, we did make those reports to the White House and in essence it reflects the nuclear life cycle innovation campuses. In other words, we have gone out to the public and to governors and to states and asked them their interest in being one of these campuses. And that was a very lengthy request for information and in that we asked them to commit to a number of items and one of them would be the management of the disposition of spent fuel. And the idea in those campuses was we wanted to get the value out of the spent fuel and therefore they would use a recycling process and have a resale of the material so the spent fuel stream would be greatly reduced from having to bury the spent fuel the way it was anticipated with Yucca Mountain.

Were the campuses the only recommendation that came out of that report to the White House or were there other recommendations?

The industrialization and the recycling aspect was the manner in which that was the answer that was made to the White House.

Okay. And then with respect to the campuses, how is the department informing or excuse me, how are these campuses informing the department's next steps or is it too soon to tell?

Well, we asked a number of questions to the states and the governors. They were to respond by April 1st. We anticipate using some criteria to move forward and determine which ones are viable. And then based on that we would probably go into some form of MOU with the states as a first step moving towards state legislation and federal legislation to actually make this a stable long-term program.

Thank you. And is it still the administration's posture in opposition to Yucca Mountain? That is still firmly the position of this administration and no funding requested for Yucca Mountain?

The president's position has not changed.

Thank you. Dr. Wagner, I noticed in your statement you talked about the need to update the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. What did you mean by that?

Thank you for the question first of all. So as Assistant Secretary Garrish noted, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was initially enacted in 1982. A lot has changed including this concept of nuclear life cycle innovation campuses. And so you know I would say I won't speak for the Department of Energy, but they relooked at the entire strategy for the back end. This is reflected in the nuclear life cycle innovation campuses and that is not consistent with the way the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was structured. In one other key aspect to that is the way the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is structured, there really is no policy incentive for recycling, for example. And so that all needs to be looked at carefully. I would hope that the request for information responses from this activity the department is doing would be useful information to inform how exactly the Nuclear Waste Policy Act should be modified. But I feel strongly modifications are required. I think it's going to we need to move quickly, but we also need to be thoughtful in how this would be changed.

Do you think there's modifications that are available now because of emerging technology or new technology that have available to us?

There are advancements in recycling technology, but a lot has changed as well in the sense of now we are talking, you know for the last several decades we've been flat in nuclear energy essentially. Now we are talking about tripling nuclear power by 2050. So we also have a very different future in front of us that also was not I'd say foreseen back in that time period.

And then finally is there to the two of you, is there do you see a distinction in how you're going to manage the waste from these advanced reactors versus the traditional technology for waste? And again to me they're two different issues. I understand with the advanced technology or advanced reactors it produces a different waste stream considerations than the old technology. But I'm curious how you I do think and many of my colleagues are concerned we still have a waste issue in both of them. How do we manage that? Either one of you and maybe Assistant Secretary if you want to start.

Each of those waste each of those technologies is different and the handling of TRISO fuel for instance must be done differently than traditional spent fuel. And we are in the process of analyzing how that is to be done, but each of those end products do have value and we're attempting to make sure that we get the value from the products.

Yeah and I know my time is up. I can't stress this enough. This to me is the issue we deal with first. How we address the waste so we don't end up where we are today with an old policy from the 80s and we're still addressing the waste in this country. This is a priority for us to move forward with nuclear technology and I'm hopeful that there is a priority to address the waste stream on both technologies and give those answers to us here in Congress so we have a future for this country.

We understand and we will necessarily have to come back to the Congress for legislation to do the modifications on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act consistent with the states that we deal with and how they would like to proceed.

Thank you. I know my time is up. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Hyde-Smith, you're up next.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly want to thank the members here for being here, that you're coming to help us out here with the witnesses. The Trump administration has made it abundantly clear that the nuclear power should be highly considered source of baseload power, and Mississippi, the state I represent, is home to Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, the largest single-unit reactor in the entire country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently undertaken the process to renew an existing early site permit at Grand Gulf, which could make Grand Gulf an ideal location for a future advanced reactor. I continue to hear concerns about cost overrun risk being a factor outside the project's control, and these issues range from nuclear regulatory changes to workforce to supply chain constraints to many things. In the decades since the United States became a leader in commercial nuclear energy, we have seen a reduction in nuclear manufacturing capabilities and secure nuclear supply chains. To the panel, what are all your thoughts on how we can work to reshore the nuclear supply chain in a way that would decrease the cost overruns and construction disruptions issues that might deter utilities and developers from building new reactors in the United States?

The overrun question is one of the issues that's one of the stumbling blocks going forward that we need to deal with. One of the issues that I think that we have to do is we have to incentivize on-budget, on-time activities from the industry that's building these reactors. Currently, there is very little incentive to reduce costs, and we have other programs at the department, and let me give you an example where we've had very costly overruns in terms of how much it costs to rehab a particular area. And the one that comes to mind is Rocky Flats in Colorado. Rocky Flats in Colorado, we were able to reduce the ultimate cost of that activity through incentivizing the contractors to make the necessary, to take the necessary actions to be on-time and on-budget. What we've got to do is do the same, I believe, with nuclear new build. It takes a while for the costs to be able to, so we can have enough production that we can reduce costs in manufacturing, for instance. But I believe that we need to have a program that will incentivize keeping this on-budget, not providing additional methodology for overruns. And we are working diligently right now with the industry to see what methods can be undertaken. There are pieces of legislation that are out now currently before the Congress on the question on overruns. And I understand one of the ways to deal with it is spend more money. I'm not necessarily convinced that we need to do that. I think what we need to do is provide the incentives to make this operation, make the incentives for staying on-budget, not providing additional methodology for overruns.

Thank you for that answer. Dr. Wagner.

I would just add to that that any first-of-a-kind technology is more expensive than the third, the fifth, the seventh, you know, to the so-called nth-of-a-kind costs that you run the curve down for any energy technology and pretty much any technology period. And as you rightly framed in the question, we have atrophied in our supply chain and our ability to build these things and our workforce, just about every aspect that we need, particularly for building large nuclear reactors. We saw that play out in the Vogtle experience where the cost escalated from an initial estimate around $14 billion to over $30 billion. Each utility and each utility board doesn't want to have that situation play out in their system. And so we do have to find mechanisms like Assistant Secretary Garrish talked about in terms of how do we do it on-budget. But we also know that when you're doing first-of-a-kind, you run into first-of-a-kind issues that you didn't anticipate and therefore you may have cost overruns. So I'm not an expert in how to address that aspect, but I do know from talking to utility leaders and private company leaders that utility boards, public utility commissions would like some assurance to the extent possible that the ratepayers don't end up with a significant extra cost related to the first-of-a-kind build. And we can't get to nth-of-a-kind cost measures until we do the first one. And so that's the situation that we've found ourselves in for quite a while.

We don't know what we don't know. Thank you so much, sir.

So if I may just briefly add, it's a, this is the fundamental issue for new deployment. And I would say that the path forward needs to have a bridge to that commercial viability that understands the risk of first-of-a-kind deployments. And I would say through DOE's investments has accountability for understanding where things may be going in the wrong direction and being able to make, have multiple options, multiple pathways and make decisions because we need to have multiple strategies in place, but not everyone is going to ultimately be successful. And so being able to execute those first projects well and then translate that execution into predictable and repeatable costs for future projects, that's the key. But reducing the capital investment for the early projects is fundamental there and then being able to fully leverage DOE strategic investments but provide that accountability and really only the projects that have that viability, that commercial viability to get to that public, sorry, the private financing vehicle, that's where we need to get to because we need to kind of build that bridge across that divide. So that's a key point there.

Thank you, and I know I'm out of time. I have a second question that I'll submit. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith. Senator Gallego.

Thank you, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. As many know, nuclear energy is important to me. Its potential for clean, reliable energy is tremendous. Being from Arizona, we're very proud of Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant, and it was one of the largest producers for 30 years. And Arizona state was selected by DOE last year as a research partner for the MARVEL program. Don't need to, you guys know what that is, we'll skip to that one to make sure I get to my questions. Recently, I was proud to introduce a bill called the ARC Act with Senator Risch to accelerate investment and completion of new commercial nuclear reactors by minimizing cost overrun risk. We just had this conversation. And look forward to working on more bipartisan nuclear efforts that move technology forward without undermining community input and safety. My first question is for Mr. Garrish. I appreciate your openness to creative solutions for the safe and fast deployment of nuclear energy. And during your confirmation process, I especially appreciate our conversation in my office around SMRs, which gave, which have great potential to meet rising energy demands in places like, especially like Arizona. Now I've heard from communities that don't want to wait and are looking for creative solutions like partnering with military bases on advanced nuclear projects. The executive order on nuclear for national security includes a similar mandate to deploy a nuclear reactor on domestic military installation by 2028. And I share that desire also to move quickly and improve military readiness through nuclear energy, but I have some questions around the implementation of this executive order. Given that the Department of the Army is working with the DOE to replicate your authorization process, how are you supporting the identification of reactor deployment sites? And what outreach or consultation is being done with surrounding communities that may be interested or may not be interested?

Well, the Department of the Army has the JANUS program that you're familiar with, which is really their entire program to basically establish nuclear as a source of electricity for military bases. We are cooperating with them and right now in the case of one of the micros, they are working with us so that we can authorize it and potentially they would authorize it follow-up following our initial activity. We generally provide and through Dr. Wagner's people at the laboratory, our folks and the laboratory people provide most of the expertise that's needed for the Army to do the actual authorization. So I anticipate that this program will grow as they indicate their needs for additional activity around the...

Is 2028 a realistic goal at this point?

I'm not, well, I think it's...

And that's not a judgment call, but just out of curiosity.

I think they have, we're going to be able to take one of the reactors in the pilot program that's going to be available for their use immediately. So this is going to move fairly quickly. We have to get, it's not just going critical, we have to actually do, we have to produce power too. So we've got to go to the next step, but they're basically ready to go fairly soon.

Okay, it's good to hear. My next question is for Dr. Laufer. Your company, Kairos Power, has led the industry in deploying advanced nuclear technology, and rapidly deploying advanced nuclear is exactly what the ARC Act really aims to do to be helpful in that regard. How would the ARC Act help foster innovation in the nuclear space and improve DOE as an industry partner? And how else can Congress work with industry to get new technologies out the door fast?

So Senator, thank you for the question and for your support and work on the ARC Act. My perspective is that the lifecycle from demonstration to deployment is the key area where federal investment provides the biggest opportunity. I do think that there are, we have to look at the full spectrum of incentives and programs and make sure that they all work together in a consistent way. I think that the ARC Act addresses issues for that early fleet deployment, and that allows us to develop confidence kind with our order book, with our commercial activities. I would say that those policies have to be complementary with the demonstration phase. And so for us, the ARC Act is addressing issues that are a little bit further down the road. We're focused right now on the execution with cost certainty for the demonstrations. But I think that building that bridge with consistent policies for companies at each step in that process is crucial and providing that predictability for the commercial fleet deployment and building that order book is key. So thank you for the support and work on the issue.

Well, thank you. And you know, there is a real bipartisan want, which I think has been missing for quite a while. It was here before me, I mean, just to be clear, but now I think there's a lot of, there's more critical mass of support for nuclear energy, both SMRs, traditional, and anything else that comes down the line. I think this is a perfect opportunity to really move on the legislative side, on the executive side, and try to put as much nuclear power we can on the grid and look forward to working more on this in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member.

Thank you. Senator Barrasso.

Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding the important meeting. Thanks to my colleague for the comments that he's just made on this same topic. So my first question is to Secretary Garrish. Thanks, thank you for all the work that you're doing. You know, I believe nuclear energy is essential to our energy security as a nation. We need it now more than ever. The rise in energy demand that we're facing in the United States is daunting. Much of the demand comes from feeding the race of new technologies like artificial intelligence, advanced computing. The race for AI fundamentally is a race for energy. I think that whoever secures affordable, reliable electric power is going to have a big head start and an advantage in the race for AI. Nuclear energy has to play a key role. So I'm proud of the progress that we've made so far with this next breakthrough for the technology. And that's why two years ago we put forth legislation that I championed, the Nuclear Fuel Security Act. It became law and it's helping secure our future fuel production. The Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program is also key to supporting this next generation of nuclear technology. Just this month, the NRC approved the first construction permit ever for a commercial non-light water power reactor. That's now held by TerraPower. And I'm proud this first-of-the-kind technology by this program has found a home in Kemmerer, Wyoming. TerraPower's Natrium reactor would be the first ever commercial scale next generation nuclear power plant built in this country. The reactor is critical to the development of nuclear power in America and I believe in the future Wyoming projects like this are going to provide reliable and affordable base load power for Americans. So just to ask you, Mr. Secretary, your thoughts on how important is the Wyoming project and what does it mean for the future construction of advanced reactors?

Well Senator, the TerraPower program is really the leading edge, I think, of of what can happen with advanced reactors. So we are very pleased that they got their construction license. They are moving forward in a very expeditious pace and I think we're going to learn a lot from the process. But the contribution that they have made to advanced reactors is really very significant and and I'm looking forward to its significant success.

Terrific. You know, in May of last year, President Trump announced an executive order on nuclear energy and national security and it focuses on the federal government accelerating the development and export of U.S. designed advanced nuclear technologies. The goal to ensure the effectiveness of our military, enhance the export of American nuclear technologies around the world because currently Russia and China are rapidly deploying these technologies internationally. We partially addressed this in the 2024 bill with my bill that was Prohibiting Russian Uranium Import Act. It was signed into law, it banned imports of Russian uranium and was essential in providing the market certainty needed to expand American uranium production. Right now Russia and China still account for about 95 percent of nuclear reactors currently under construction. The Energy Dominance Financing Program is tasked with helping Americans dominate this space through loan financing of projects. What milestones do you plan to achieve this year in these financing projects and what types of nuclear-related projects are you considering?

Two that I would like to like to bring to your attention. One is the basically the domestic enrichment work that we have done here in the United States. Thanks to the the appropriations from the Congress, we have now are in the process of finalizing domestic enrichment to the the amount of $2.7 billion. And that is going to make make U.S. enrichment available to the U.S. without needing to have the Russians, which are banned starting in in January of 28. The second point is on overseas sales of of our products. When when we get the products licensed in the United States, there is no limit really in my judgment to what we can do overseas. And one of the things that we are doing is putting in a program where we not only sell the product, but we sell the licensing at the same time. In other words, I would like to get foreign the the people in in the countries of that are going to receive these reactors, their regulators, we would like to have them understand what we do in the United States and the gold standard that we bring to regulation and to transfer that over to the countries the receiving the reactor. We think that will expedite the possibility of getting these reactors sold around the world.

Great. My final question then, Mr. Chairman, is to Dr. Wagner. You know, once mined, uranium required to fuel nuclear reactors must still be converted into a gaseous form capable of being enriched. The conversion of uranium is complex, it requires extensive infrastructure and expertise. We have heard repeatedly that the United States doesn't have domestic capacity to convert uranium. This is a fundamental block bottleneck, I believe, to achieving dominance in nuclear energy. How can the federal government partner better with private industry to accelerate the domestic conversion capacity and what's the what's your biggest need in private industry?

Yes, so I know we're short on time, but I want to thank you for the Nuclear Fuel Security Act and the and the work that you've done in this space. The fuel cycle is still our most critical near-term vulnerability in in my opinion. Assistant Secretary Garrish talked about the $2.7 billion and related to enrichment, so that's super important. One of the aspects that is not as well has not gotten as much attention is the other parts of the front end of the fuel cycle. I think you were alluding to the fact that, you know, first you mine uranium, then you mill uranium. The only operating uranium mill that we have in this country is in Utah and its capacity is is is far less than what we would need. Then you you after you mill, you convert it into a form that you can enrich. There's a lot of focus on enrichment, of course, and then you deconvert it into a form that you actually make the fuel out of for a reactor. Those other parts besides enrichment need more attention as well. And as an example, we have one conversion facility operating in this country and it has capacity up to about a third of what we actually need. And it's a rather old facility as well. So so conversion, deconversion, and milling as well as mining all all need attention.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Murkowski.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the committee, gentlemen. Assistant Secretary Garrish, always good to see you. You have familiarity with some of the some of the important legislation that has preceded today's hearing where we have been able to successfully do some things when it comes to advancing our nuclear opportunities. I led the Energy Act of 2020 and NEILA, the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, to establish the HALEU availability program, lay the groundwork for the advanced reactor deployment. DOE has now made initial HALEU production awards. This is an important step. So from your perspective, what practical steps does the Department of Energy working with Congress need to take to build on that and to ensure that fuel supply does not does not become this pacing challenge for deployments? You know I'm very interested in and our opportunity to see a microreactor pilot there at Eielson Air Force Base. So what do we need to do to ensure that fuel supply is not going to be our challenge here?

Well, I believe that that the question of of enrichment is one of the most important ones that we have to face. And we've been able because of the congressional action and your appropriations to begin that process. We are right now in the process of doing the milestones for enrichment and I think when when that gets done, which will be in the over the next several months, we will begin the process to build domestic enrichment facilities here. And that will lead us to not having to worry about the Russian imports at all. If in fact that that is a long-term problem, we do have some banks of of materials that are available that could be allocated. And then on top of that, we have the Defense Production Act, which could help assure that that there's no no companies that would be without the the uranium that they need. I did want to say just one thing about the microreactors. The the work that's being done in Idaho by John Wagner's people in terms of authorizing these microreactors, these are perfect products for Alaska. And the thing that that we really need to do is is look for opportunities in Alaska to demonstrate them because I think that that in these remote areas, this is really the answer that a lot of the communities are looking for. They don't have to transport the diesel in, they've got long-term reliable inexpensive power and I think that that's really what we need to work towards together.

And I appreciate you just volunteering that because this is something that we're looking at very cleanly clearly, not only from the purposes of how it can provide for national security needs with regards to our military installations, but to your to your point, to some of our very remote communities that are diesel-based right now. They're looking at the price of diesel and they're just it it's it's not good here. And quite honestly, we shouldn't be powering our communities on diesel power generation in the year 2026 anyway. So we are we're quite anxious for this. And so Dr. Wagner, let me ask you about that, just kind of following on Assistant Secretary Garrish's observation here and specifically to Alaska. What what does INL need now in terms of of capabilities for the testing, for the fuel qualification, for the systems validation? It sounds like they're hurrying things up on the within the within the department here as we address the fuel side of things. What do you need on the on the testing and proving outside?

So first, thanks for that question and also for the partnership that we've had with a variety of representatives including yourself in Alaska related to the Alaskan needs. I think it's been a a very positive relationship in the sense that it's helped us understand what are the power needs of these remote communities, what are the power needs at Eielson Air Force Base, etc. So as we're developing these technologies, we have that knowledge in mind. We're not so we're not, you know, a hammer looking for a nail so to speak, we're actually well informed and it's because of those engagements. In terms of what we need, we have and I and I put in my written testimony, we have a whole lot of capabilities that exist at the laboratory and that are being developed, particularly like our test beds. But these infrastructure is aging and it's at capacity. In fact, we are really stressing the capacity of of what we're able to do at this moment when there is so much interest in all this different testing, be it fuel testing, fuel testing under various conditions, reactor testing and so forth, recycling, demonstrating those capabilities. So there is a number of infrastructure challenges that we face every day. We would welcome help with resources to support that. Our most recent challenge has been fuel fabrication capability for the initial reactors. You may know that, you know, initially if you're going to demonstrate a reactor, there may not be a commercial capability, in fact, oftentimes there's not a commercial capability to fabricate that fuel. And once you've been able to demonstrate that and go commercial, then you can go to commercial fabrication. So we're seeking to develop something called the Advanced Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Laboratory. That's number one on my list.

Great, I appreciate that because we're looking at at appropriations now and how we make sure that all this knits from the agency to what we're doing within our national labs to help facilitate that on the ground whether in Alaska or around the country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Murkowski. You will be happy to hear that there are some changes coming on this planet that I think are going to be incredibly significant. And Dr. Wagner, others may want to talk about this a bit, but we we're going to turn the switch on the SMR very soon, the small modular reactor, which is really the a milestone and a change in the way that energy is going to be delivered on this planet. But not long behind that is going to be a microreactor. Now that may be of interest to some of your outback places and we don't have an exact date do we yet, Dr. Wagner, on that? Would you care to make a prediction on when we turn the switch on the first micro?

So we do anticipate achieving three criticalities in systems that would be characterized as microreactors by July 4th.

There you go.

Of this year. I would like to clarify that those won't be power reactors that could immediately be deployed in Alaska, but going critical is the first step in that pathway.

But it doesn't take an imagination to realize what that's going to do to the delivery of power, not just in the United States, but on the entire planet. And again, the SMR is a huge step, but the micro's going to be even larger than that. Incredibly important hearing that we're having here today. Because there aren't that many people here, don't take that to mean there isn't interest. We've got lots of stuff going on this morning. It's getting towards the end of the week, so there is a lot of interest in this. I think most Americans aren't fully dialed in with the fact of the renaissance that nuclear is having in the United States and, for that matter, even more so, I think, on the planet. The, you know, we had the unfortunate incident in Three Mile Island, which set us a generation back because people were afraid of it, even though no one got injured or killed. It scared people, and the result of that was we really lost a generation. That's getting behind us very quickly right now for a number of different reasons. Number one, I think the industry has had such a safe history since then that people realize that they overreacted to the Three Mile Island. But then secondly, we've got a demand on this planet that is staggering, really. First of all, you have a war that started on a continent that really changed the way that the European continent is gathering energy. And it isn't going to be from Russia now. It's not going to be from Russia tomorrow. And it's going to be a long time before anybody looks back to Russia. Indeed, by the time they look back there, the type of energy that they want to sell is probably going to be not that much used anymore. Then the next thing is we're getting these huge estimates as to the kind of energy we're going to need because of AI. Now, I don't understand that. I know probably you guys do, but I don't understand how AI consumes that kind of electricity, but it is staggering what it is going to do to the demand for electricity here in the United States and, for that matter, around the world. So with that, we're proud in Idaho to host the INL. Dr. Wagner does a great job there. Has a, we have a long, proud history. I brag all the time that 1951 we generated the first electricity by nuclear power there. We still have the first three light bulbs, I think, that are in the museum there that we lit in December of 1951. And we've built 52 reactors since then. And Idaho is proud to host the flagship lab in the world, really, on nuclear energy. And as we go forward, there's all the different aspects of this that are going to need attention, and they are going to start at the INL. Fuel certainly is, as Dr. Wagner, something that you pointed to. Again, the war has changed dramatically where we are that whole industry had shifted to Russia. We're bringing it back. And Senator Barrasso was certainly a leader on this with others of us who understood that we have got to be able to produce our own fuel and distribute it. So with that, I do want to talk about the most recent thing that I and others have done with your help, and that is on the financial risks that are involved when you have new technology coming down the pike. We all know that with nuclear power, there are risks that are different and essentially higher than in other industries. And as we all know in a free market system like we have in America, that the investors are risk-averse. So they want the least risk possible. Now, we, the United States government, way back when, waded into that when we talked about guaranteed loans and that sort of thing. And it was really the only thing that could move us forward because of the investors were reluctant. But now with the new technology, we have another risk, and that is cost overruns because you're dealing with something you haven't tried before. And when you try it and it doesn't work, it's very, very expensive. So we've developed the ARC Act. And I think all three of you are probably familiar with the ARC Act. And since you're from Idaho, I'm going to start with you, Mr. Wagner, and tell me your thoughts on the ARC Act and what benefit you think it'll have for the industry.

Well, thank you for that, and thank you for the kind words and the strong support that we've received from you, Senator. It's wonderful, so appreciate that very much. As you've put your finger on, cost overrun risk is really the most significant barrier to a utility investment in a first-of-a-kind technology period, but in particular a commercial nuclear reactor. The tale of Vogtle, which I now think is a major success in terms of demonstrating that system and that we were able to build it, but going from an estimated $14 billion to over $30 billion is not anything any utility executive wants to experience, I'm sure, or their board that they work for, or their public utility commission. Or their customer. Exactly. And so that's, in my opinion, the most significant thing that holds back utilities and others from building new large nuclear power plants. And of course, we're not going to drive down the cost curve, which we think we absolutely can do and we have confidence in that, until somebody does the first one and the second one and the third one. And so while I'm not a financial expert in terms of the right mechanisms, it is that cost overrun risk that we routinely hear as the most significant impediment, and that's of course what your ARC Act addresses. So appreciate your leadership on that.

Mr. Secretary.

Well, overruns are the one issue that we need to really resolve, and we appreciate your efforts to look at legislative fixes to that. And so thank you for doing that. The utilities are all reluctant to be the first ones to actually order a reactor because they know with the potential for overruns, a negative reaction on the funding could result in a stock price problem for them. And so what we've got to do is figure out a way to incentivize the utilities and the manufacturers and the constructors, incentivize on-budget and low-cost arrangements. Right now, there is little incentive for them necessarily to do this. And the problem is repeatability. We will get there. The question is, how do we do that in a fashion that doesn't take so long that so many different units have to be produced before we are at that point? So your efforts and the efforts by the Congress, I think, are very important here. And we will look for ways to do that in the department and look forward to working with you on that.

Appreciate that. The other thing that's just struck me in recent years, and I've been here doing this a while, is the new actors that are entering the industry because of the advances we've made, the SMR that obviously and the micro that are coming down the pike. There's a lot of people want a piece of that. And there are risk-takers who are entering, and there's a constant stream of them into my office. And we've never had that over the years I've been doing this. So yeah, I'm going there next. Doctor, you're up. Thank you.

Senator, thank you for the question and for your work on the ARC Act. I think that the ARC Act addresses a really key gap which private investment has struggles with, particularly for early fleet deployment. I would say one thing which I think is important, when I look at the structure of different federal investments and programs, I think that the incentives are really important to make sure that they're fully aligned with the commercial goals of where we need to take for industry. And particularly not just delivering the projects with costs or into being able to have the right incentive to drive down cost. And so particularly when we look at the cost risks for early deployments for the fleet, making sure that there's flexibility to allow the time to take to find those opportunities is very important. So I think that's a point here and making sure that those risks are protected against, but also making sure that they're aligned so that the inherent risk in early projects doesn't end up, you don't end up with too much contingency. Because if you have a lot of contingency on the cost, you may hit your cost targets, but your cost targets may be still too high. And so making sure that all of the programs work together to allow demonstration to be done with focused and excellent execution is really key. And just making sure that those policy are self-consistent. I think that's completely possible and the ARC Act can play a very important role in that process.

Thank you. I think that's an important observation. I'm going to close here, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention in the other hat I wear as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have a constant parade of people from other countries who are excited about nuclear. And they're out shopping. We do the best to be a salesman for U.S. technology. We compete with the Russians, the Chinese, and the French, as everybody knows. And we, the Russians and the Chinese are voracious competitors because they don't have a capitalist system like we do. All of the capital in the country is controlled by the government, and they don't have the same risk aversion that private sector does. So it's a heavy lift, but they, I can tell you this, the reputation of the U.S. nuclear industry is not lost on the world. They want to do business with us first. But on the other hand, the siren of a cheaper product often drives them away. With that, Senator Daines.

Chairman Risch, thank you. And with your Foreign Relations hat on here and your nuclear hat for a moment, just to pile on that earlier conversation on microreactors or where this might all head. And as we think about a more distributed model instead of command and control utility model, a distributed model of course overcomes some of the transmission issues that we face, which is one of the big barriers towards delivering energy. But I was in Nigeria after the Munich Security Conference. I did a swing through sub-Sahara here a few weeks ago. Nigeria has 87 million people without electricity. It's the most underserved, the most people in the world of any country with no electricity. And by the way, Nigeria will be the third largest country in the world by population in 2050 behind India, China, it'll be Nigeria. So if you combine microreactors perhaps with Starlink Mini, which I've got one of those in my pickup in Montana because when you travel around the state I can get out in the middle of nowhere and I know Senator Heinrich and I enjoy the great outdoors, but sometimes it's nice to stay connected when needed. But you take the ability to put Starlink Mini and microreactors, suddenly you've solved a network problem and an energy problem. And by the way, ISIS command and control is up in Nigeria now. So you think about what we can do here to improve taking people out of poverty, reducing the risk of radicalization with some of these groups. Anyway, it solves a lot of problems.

But don't tell my staff about Starlink Mini.

Okay. I will not tell your staff about, we strike that from the record, Mr. Chairman. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. For more than four decades, Montana has had restrictions that prohibited nuclear energy development in the state, limiting our ability to maximize our energy potential. However, in 2021, Montana took an important step forward by passing House Bill 273, repealing outdated restrictions and transferring nuclear project approval to the state legislature. Montana opened the door for the deployment of nuclear energy. Expanding nuclear capacity both in Montana and across our great nation is critical to maintaining a resilient electric grid for the distribution of firm dispatchable electricity. We need more base load power. But today, Montana still does not have any nuclear generation sites. The Trump administration is working to aggressively reinvigorate the nuclear energy industry and quadruple our energy nuclear energy specific capacity by 2050. Secretary Garrish, as we work to restore American energy dominance, what role can advanced nuclear like smaller modular reactors, we talked about the SMRs, microreactors, fuel recycling play in Montana and what needs to happen to accelerate that deployment?

You know, smaller reactors have the ability to be adaptable to a little not as dense population centers, so they could be very, very helpful in places like Montana. I wanted to go back to one comment that you made about international and because it was very important. We had an energy minister come into the department from overseas, I won't mention the country, and he was very interested in micros because he wanted to move them out potentially to his country and see how this would work. He had his country divided into seven areas and a military base in each one, and he wanted a micro in each location. And I thought, this is really the start of a complete change in how we think about electricity, more distributed and in places like Montana, this could be particularly useful.

Yeah, and by the way, I mean, I know we do live in the middle of nowhere and we love that, by the way. So, but where we have Colstrip right now, which someday we could have nuclear complementary kind of power there, while we're the middle of nowhere, that power plant serves a large capacity of populations throughout the Northwest. We have the problem sometimes getting out on the West Coast because they don't like coal-generated electrons. I always found electrons to be nice whether they're no matter where they come from, but that's a different discussion we have in Washington. But it can serve both the issue with the rural, but it also we're talking about a massive power generation center there in eastern Montana. I want to switch gears and talk about Colstrip, speaking of Colstrip. Between 2015 and 2020, the United States retired an average of 11 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity each year. This past weekend I was over in the Netherlands visiting ASML, looking at what's going on there, certainly a massive part of the silicon chip supply chain. But you talk to the folks in the Netherlands, they made poor energy choices back in 2006. Germany did the same thing, decommissioning nuclear plants, decommissioning coal-fire plants, not having baseload capacity. It is absolutely one of their key constraints now to their economic growth. Netherlands are sitting they're struggling about one percent, Germany they're about flat. Had they made better energy strategic choices 20 years ago, they'd be in a very different position than they are today and we can't let that happen to the United States. We saw the retirement of this baseload power, it eroded reliable baseload power at a time when demand has continued to grow. Most estimates say we're going to need 50 to 80 percent more energy in the next 25 years than we consume today. In Montana, the Colstrip power plant, one of the largest coal-fired facilities in the West, has been critical for affordable, resilient energy and a key economic driver for the region. And let me be clear, I'm not opposed to intermittent sources of energy, but I'll tell you something, when high-pressure systems move into Montana, the temperatures plummet by definition of a high-pressure system. What happens when high-pressure systems move in? The wind stops blowing. So at a time when you have maximum load on the system, you've got minimal intermittent energy supply and if it weren't for Colstrip, baseload power and God bless coal, we would have literally had life and death situations in Montana. They bailed out, frankly, the grid at that moment for what it's worth. At its peak, Colstrip can generate 2,000 megawatts of electricity across all four units, supporting high-paying jobs, local businesses. The shutdowns of units one and two in 2020 marked a significant loss of capacity and economic activity. Units three and four continue to operate today with a combined capacity of 1,480 megawatts of dependable, reliable, God bless baseload power. Together with the associated mine, Colstrip supports 2,000 jobs, not to mention the tax base it provides for our state as it relates to funding education across Montana. A recent study conducted in 2025, June, by Idaho National Lab, God bless Idaho, Chairman Risch, found that advanced nuclear technologies could be deployed at the Colstrip site by leveraging existing infrastructure, a skilled workforce, and significant transmission capacity, including the planned North Plains Connector. Adding nuclear capacity to Colstrip could support an additional 680 jobs according to the study. Dr. Wagner, given these factors, can you speak to the feasibility for advanced nuclear at or around Colstrip and how projects like this could help United States compete globally and support our long-term 2050 goals?

So first of all, thank you, thank you for the question and and actually you're actually quite informed of the program study on Colstrip relative to viability of nuclear there. And from that study that you referred to, it looks like an excellent choice to add to the capability to the generation there at Colstrip and possibly long-term maybe it replaces coal, maybe it doesn't. We're seeing this across the country. Colstrip is a great example of where you've already got you already have a facility there, you already have a site, you already have particularly transmission infrastructure that connects that site in an energy-intelligent workers already there as well. That study also estimated that some 60 to 75 percent of the of the current workers there would be directly applicable to working if a nuclear power plant was was constructed there. And so it's another example, it's not in your state, but is in Kemmerer, Wyoming, where you've got a similar situation with existing transmission, existing infrastructure transitioning to nuclear. So whether it adds to the coal site or it ultimately replaces coal, either way, it's more power, more baseload power as you mentioned. And so I think it's an outstanding candidate.

Thank you, Dr. Wagner. Right now, my last question is as we are in this race with China and with Russia, not just to deploy advanced nuclear, but to secure full fuel supply chains that make it even possible. The Department of Energy's $2.7 billion investment in domestic enrichment is an important step towards rebuilding capacity right here at home. Secretary Garrish, how can we expand relationships with partner countries like Kazakhstan, the largest supplier of uranium in the world, and American enrichment capabilities in a way that reinforces our national security while still leveraging trusted allies like Kazakhstan and avoiding new supply chain risks?

Well, enrichment has to be from friendly countries that we can trust. And I think as as we do that, the first thing we have to do is assure that we can do it ourselves as a number one priority. And I think the 2.7 billion that Congress appropriated into that in for domestic enrichment was really the first step. Now, beyond that, we do need other countries. We are for enrichment, we still will import. And we will also need uranium. So there are there's going to be needs of that, but we need to make sure that these are reliable countries and that we have sufficient supply here in the United States to make sure that our industry is is adequately supplied. So I support what you're suggesting on that front and look forward to working with the Congress to make sure that we can have an adequate supply of the fuel that we need.

Thank you. Just conclude with a comment, Mr. Chairman, and then I'll be done. And we'll put on our foreign relation hats here for a moment. The work the Trump administration has done in opening up the TRIP, the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, that corridor between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as we look at what can eventually whether it's through Turkey or eventually through Georgia getting to the Black Sea. As Brzezinski once said, Central Asia is the wine bottle, the Caucasus are the cork. This administration has removed the cork. That flow of natural resources, oil, gas, critical minerals, and talk about uranium now, moving westward instead of prior to the north to the Russians or the east to the Chinese. This is probably one of the more untold stories that's going on right now geopolitically in Washington and it's a credit to this administration for seeing the vision and the importance, especially as we think about the nuclear supply chain in Kazakhstan. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Daines. Well said. To those of you who've participated today, thank you so much. It's an exciting time for you, I know, to be in your industry with things moving the way they are and it's a critical time really for nuclear industry the nuclear industry because what we do right now is going to set the stage for decades ahead. So we really appreciate your participation and your work in that. So that concludes today's hearing and any senator who wishes to submit additional questions for the record may do so. Deadline for submitting is 6:00 Thursday, March 26. Senators also have until 6:00 next Thursday to add statements for the record for today's hearing. Again, thank you for our to the witnesses who testified here this morning and all those who participated. I think this is we've done a good job here of underscoring how important the work is in the nuclear industry as we move forward. With that, committee's adjourned.