Latest news with #ADVANCEAct
Business Wire
17-07-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Oklo Advances Licensing with Completion of NRC Readiness Assessment
SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oklo Inc. (NYSE: OKLO), an advanced nuclear technology company, has announced the successful completion of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) pre-application readiness assessment for Phase 1 of the combined license application (COLA) for Oklo's first commercial Aurora powerhouse at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The NRC's observations affirmed Oklo's readiness to move forward, with no significant gaps identified that would hinder acceptance of the application. Observations were also provided that will help Oklo finalize the application to support an efficient and effective review process. 'We view this assessment as a productive engagement tool that moves our licensing and permitting work forward,' said Jacob DeWitte, Co-Founder and CEO of Oklo. 'Our team has worked closely with the NRC to build a clear, efficient licensing pathway, and this is a good signal that we are on track.' Oklo has proactively engaged with the NRC since 2016 and has completed a broad range of pre-application activities, including securing an approved Quality Assurance Program Description and advancing critical licensing elements such as safety analysis, component classification, and operational protocols. The completion of this assessment reflects both Oklo's innovative approach to licensing and the NRC's broader commitment—reinforced by the ADVANCE Act and recent Executive Orders—to modernize regulatory processes and enable the timely deployment of advanced nuclear technologies. Notably, the NRC's move to support standardized environmental review templates for reactor and site characteristics marks a meaningful step toward repeatable, accelerated licensing for advanced reactors. Oklo plans to submit the first phase of the Aurora-INL COLA this year. Oklo's licensing strategy supports the efficient and repeatable deployment of its Aurora powerhouses, enabling future follow-on applications to serve its growing pipeline of commercial and Federal customers. About Oklo Inc.: Oklo Inc. is developing fast fission power plants to deliver clean, reliable, and affordable energy at scale; establishing a domestic supply chain for critical radioisotopes; and advancing nuclear fuel recycling to convert nuclear waste into clean energy. Oklo was the first to receive a site use permit from the U.S. Department of Energy for a commercial advanced fission plant, was awarded fuel from Idaho National Laboratory, and submitted the first custom combined license application for an advanced reactor to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Oklo is also developing advanced fuel recycling technologies in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy and National Laboratories. Forward-Looking Statements This press release includes statements that express Oklo's opinions, expectations, objectives, beliefs, plans, intentions, strategies, assumptions, forecasts or projections regarding future events or future results and therefore are, or may be deemed to be, 'forward-looking statements.' The words 'anticipate,' 'believe,' 'continue,' 'could,' 'estimate,' 'expect,' 'intends,' 'may,' 'might,' 'plan,' 'possible,' 'potential,' 'predict,' 'project,' 'should,' 'would' or, in each case, their negative or other variations or comparable terminology, and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. These forward-looking statements include all matters that are not historical facts. They appear in a number of places throughout this press release and include statements regarding our intentions, beliefs or current expectations concerning, among other things, the benefits of the DOE's Voucher Program, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, prospects, growth, strategies and the markets in which Oklo operates. Such forward-looking statements are based on information available as of the date of this press release, and current expectations, forecasts and assumptions, and involve a number of judgments, risks and uncertainties. As a result of a number of known and unknown risks and uncertainties, the actual results or performance of Oklo may be materially different from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. The following important risk factors could affect Oklo's future results and cause those results or other outcomes to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements: risks related to the deployment of Oklo's powerhouses; the risk that Oklo is pursuing an emerging market, with no commercial project operating, regulatory uncertainties; the potential need for financing to construct plants, market, financial, political and legal conditions; the effects of competition; the risk that the DOE's Voucher Program fails to produce the expected benefits; changes in applicable laws or regulations; and the outcome of any government and regulatory proceedings and investigations and inquiries. The foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive. You should carefully consider the foregoing factors and the other risks and uncertainties of the other documents filed by Oklo from time to time with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release and in any document incorporated by reference are based on current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential effects on Oklo. There can be no assurance that future developments affecting Oklo will be those that Oklo has anticipated. Oklo undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required under applicable securities laws.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Executive Orders Ignite U.S. Nuclear Push
Last Friday, the President signed four separate executive orders designed to accelerate nuclear energy development in the US. The first order directs the Department of Defense to deploy new reactor technologies at military installations. The second order, directed specifically at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, mandated much tighter deadlines for new reactor approvals, demanded a review of current radiological exposure risks, and called for further agency staffing cuts. The third order directs the Department of Energy to test and approve no fewer than three new reactor designs by July 4, 2026. But the fourth of these EOs, where the real money is, 1) it called for the direct federal funding for uranium fuels (particularly HALEU), , 2) begin construction on at least ten new gigawatt scale reactors by the end of the decade, 3) and the development of reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel waste. In this context, the President garnered headlines when he called for an expansion of our existing nuclear power generation fleet to 400 gigawatts, roughly four times its present size, further stating 'We're not going to have cost overruns.' What's interesting to us is that virtually all of these initiatives were contained in the Biden administration's ADVANCE Act, signed in July of last year. This bipartisan bill contained many of the same elements as the President's recent EOs: regulatory acceleration of new reactor designs, a focus on microreactors, approval of two new reactor designs for military installations, encouraging the use of brownfield (i.e. coal) sites for new nuclear deployment, and the allocation of federal funds for actual uranium purchases related to HALEU and TRISO fuels—the former preferred by SMRs and the latter used in molten salt and HTGRs. The ADVANCE Act was an acknowledgement that our existing regulatory process has given short shrift to advanced reactor designs using different coolants and fuels and a new, emerging industry—one with considerable political clout—was demanding faster regulatory approvals. However, the only glaring difference between Trump's recent EO's and Biden's ADVANCE Act is that the recent EOs urged further big cuts in regulatory personnel, while demanding they do more on expedited timelines, while Biden's bill called for staffing increases to address new issues. So to us, an honest headline for this should read, 'Trump wholeheartedly embraces Biden's nuclear policy with a few personnel tweaks.'In signing these EOs, Trump was accompanied by the CEOs from Constellation Energy and Oklo Power. Constellation is one of the biggest nuclear power owner/operators in the US, while Oklo is developing a small, 75 mw liquid metal cooled breeder reactor. Stock prices of SMR developers like NuScale, Oklo, and others rallied sharply. In the past five days, shares of NuScale have gained about 55% while Oklo's shareholders were rewarded with 52% gains. The point here is that the administration is clearly indicating continued support for this industry and the equity markets responded. As to the magnitude of the response, we have no views. But despite all the SMR hoopla, there is only one gigawatt reactor design presently approved for the US, already built, and ready to go—the Westinghouse AP 1000 recently built by Southern Company, aka Plant Vogtle Units 3&4. However, as our readers know, Westinghouse is a subsidiary of a Canadian conglomerate. So it's a bit awkward. We conclude with two thoughts. First, the President, by picking a fight with his Canadian trading partner, may hinder his ability to rapidly accomplish a nuclear renaissance. And second, nuclear energy is evolving as a global industry and tariff uncertainty is also problematic. By Leonard Hyman and William Tilles for More Top Reads From this article on
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's executive orders could endanger America's nuclear renaissance
On May 23, President Trump signed four executive orders designed to dramatically expand and accelerate U.S. development and construction of nuclear power plants, with emphasis on advanced reactors. The stated rationale for the administration's action is a combination of a domestic energy emergency and a desire to win the geopolitical competition against China and Russia. However, if implemented as written, these orders could undermine the very objective they intend to promote. The new orders assert that the failure of the U.S. to develop the nuclear energy sector in recent decades is primarily attributable to a myopic and misguided approach to nuclear regulation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under the Atomic Energy Act, the commission licenses the design, construction and operation of domestic nuclear and radiological facilities, including commercial nuclear power plants. The orders lay out a series of radical steps to scale back, reorient and even bypass the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by having the Departments of Energy or Defense license non-commercial reactors to be built on their federal sites. In total, they aim to achieve rapid development of new nuclear designs and expedited construction of advanced nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also ordered to effect a 'wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance' within nine months. The desire to revamp the U.S. nuclear industrial base, encourage and support new nuclear power plant construction, and streamline Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing is welcome. However, it is neither new nor specific to the Trump administration. Under the ADVANCE Act passed by Congress in 2024, the commission had already begun to adapt its licensing processes for new reactor designs and recruit staff to do this work. Three flawed premises guide the new executive orders. First, they see the future of nuclear energy as fundamentally similar to that of other energy sources — whereby innovation in design and fast deployment are seen as inherent net positives, and bugs, if any, can be fixed later. The orders downplay or ignore the special magnitude of nuclear risks, the series of traumatic accidents suffered by leading nuclear power nations and the unique environmental and multi-generational footprint of nuclear waste and spent fuel. Second, nuclear regulation is mostly viewed as unduly burdensome, expensive, time-consuming and an outright drag on efficiency. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is explicitly blamed for 'throttling nuclear power development' in the U.S. In this regard, the orders fail to recognize a central purpose of regulation: to build and maintain trust in nuclear energy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not presented the key obstacle to nuclear development in the U.S. And it is the key instrument to earn and keep trust in nuclear energy both nationally and internationally. Third, the executive orders grossly exaggerate the delays to new deployment legitimately attributable to excessive nuclear regulation. They underestimate the addition of time to market due to limitations on workforce availability, supply chain, financing, specialty fuels and community buy-in. What Americans need is confidence that any nuclear power plant built and operated in the U.S. is safe, secure and ultimately beneficial to American and host community prosperity. However, the net result of these executive orders, coupled with the additional impact of other administration actions to reform governmental regulatory processes to align with White House policies, is to risk public trust in nuclear energy. Downscaling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's staff, curtailing its political independence, compromising its technical integrity, scaling back its community engagement role or avoiding the commission outright introduces more uncertainty than inspires confidence in a nuclear renaissance. It would shatter the commission's credibility, nationwide and worldwide, to lower the risk standards it has been credibly using for years to minimize adverse radiation effects from nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the orders are bound to expedite the brain drain from the agency, whose credibility, speed and efficiency are all dependent on a quality workforce that firmly believes in its mission and inspires all others with its professionalism. They will reduce confidence in further extending the lives of aging nuclear power plants —many of which have been operating for 60 years or more — or in restarting mothballed plants. And they could unnecessarily increase public wariness that new nuclear designs will not be subjected to a rigorous and transparent review before their performance can be fully demonstrated and tested. The public reactions to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima underscore how critical trust is to sustaining public support for nuclear power. Here, the global setback to the credibility of the Federal Aviation Agency as a U.S. aerospace licensing authority is a poignant reminder, when it emerged after deadly crashes of Boeing's 737 Max, that the agency had delegated some of its licensing process to the company. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's credibility as a professional, independent regulator is also a major selling point for U.S. nuclear vendors seeking to win overseas contracts. At a time when the U.S. nuclear industry is trying to achieve economies of scale to bolster its competitiveness against Russian and Chinese firms (who can offer better financing and other perks), the commission's reputation as the gold standard in nuclear regulation is one of the few comparative American advantages. Yes, Nuclear Regulatory Commission operations should be more efficient. The effort to make them so is already well underway and could be further encouraged. But now — just as nuclear power nears a new dawn — is the worst possible time to damage the commission's capacity to credibly assess and faithfully, independently and publicly report its evaluations and licensing considerations and decisions. Toby Dalton is a senior fellow and co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Ariel (Eli) Levite is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
28-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump's executive orders could endanger America's nuclear renaissance
On May 23, President Trump signed four executive orders designed to dramatically expand and accelerate U.S. development and construction of nuclear power plants, with emphasis on advanced reactors. The stated rationale for the administration's action is a combination of a domestic energy emergency and a desire to win the geopolitical competition against China and Russia. However, if implemented as written, these orders could undermine the very objective they intend to promote. The new orders assert that the failure of the U.S. to develop the nuclear energy sector in recent decades is primarily attributable to a myopic and misguided approach to nuclear regulation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under the Atomic Energy Act, the commission licenses the design, construction and operation of domestic nuclear and radiological facilities, including commercial nuclear power plants. The orders lay out a series of radical steps to scale back, reorient and even bypass the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by having the Departments of Energy or Defense license non-commercial reactors to be built on their federal sites. In total, they aim to achieve rapid development of new nuclear designs and expedited construction of advanced nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also ordered to effect a 'wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance' within nine months. The desire to revamp the U.S. nuclear industrial base, encourage and support new nuclear power plant construction, and streamline Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing is welcome. However, it is neither new nor specific to the Trump administration. Under the ADVANCE Act passed by Congress in 2024, the commission had already begun to adapt its licensing processes for new reactor designs and recruit staff to do this work. Three flawed premises guide the new executive orders. First, they see the future of nuclear energy as fundamentally similar to that of other energy sources — whereby innovation in design and fast deployment are seen as inherent net positives, and bugs, if any, can be fixed later. The orders downplay or ignore the special magnitude of nuclear risks, the series of traumatic accidents suffered by leading nuclear power nations and the unique environmental and multi-generational footprint of nuclear waste and spent fuel. Second, nuclear regulation is mostly viewed as unduly burdensome, expensive, time-consuming and an outright drag on efficiency. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is explicitly blamed for 'throttling nuclear power development' in the U.S. In this regard, the orders fail to recognize a central purpose of regulation: to build and maintain trust in nuclear energy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not presented the key obstacle to nuclear development in the U.S. And it is the key instrument to earn and keep trust in nuclear energy both nationally and internationally. Third, the executive orders grossly exaggerate the delays to new deployment legitimately attributable to excessive nuclear regulation. They underestimate the addition of time to market due to limitations on workforce availability, supply chain, financing, specialty fuels and community buy-in. What Americans need is confidence that any nuclear power plant built and operated in the U.S. is safe, secure and ultimately beneficial to American and host community prosperity. However, the net result of these executive orders, coupled with the additional impact of other administration actions to reform governmental regulatory processes to align with White House policies, is to risk public trust in nuclear energy. Downscaling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's staff, curtailing its political independence, compromising its technical integrity, scaling back its community engagement role or avoiding the commission outright introduces more uncertainty than inspires confidence in a nuclear renaissance. It would shatter the commission's credibility, nationwide and worldwide, to lower the risk standards it has been credibly using for years to minimize adverse radiation effects from nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the orders are bound to expedite the brain drain from the agency, whose credibility, speed and efficiency are all dependent on a quality workforce that firmly believes in its mission and inspires all others with its professionalism. They will reduce confidence in further extending the lives of aging nuclear power plants —many of which have been operating for 60 years or more — or in restarting mothballed plants. And they could unnecessarily increase public wariness that new nuclear designs will not be subjected to a rigorous and transparent review before their performance can be fully demonstrated and tested. The public reactions to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima underscore how critical trust is to sustaining public support for nuclear power. Here, the global setback to the credibility of the Federal Aviation Agency as a U.S. aerospace licensing authority is a poignant reminder, when it emerged after deadly crashes of Boeing's 737 Max, that the agency had delegated some of its licensing process to the company. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's credibility as a professional, independent regulator is also a major selling point for U.S. nuclear vendors seeking to win overseas contracts. At a time when the U.S. nuclear industry is trying to achieve economies of scale to bolster its competitiveness against Russian and Chinese firms (who can offer better financing and other perks), the commission's reputation as the gold standard in nuclear regulation is one of the few comparative American advantages. Yes, Nuclear Regulatory Commission operations should be more efficient. The effort to make them so is already well underway and could be further encouraged. But now — just as nuclear power nears a new dawn — is the worst possible time to damage the commission's capacity to credibly assess and faithfully, independently and publicly report its evaluations and licensing considerations and decisions. Toby Dalton is a senior fellow and co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Ariel (Eli) Levite is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Will Trump's Regulatory Reforms Do Enough To Unleash Nuclear Energy?
On Friday, President Donald Trump issued four executive orders aimed at bolstering nuclear power production by addressing supply chain constraints, reforming advanced reactor testing at federal research facilities, and increasing nuclear reactor use on military bases. One of the most substantive orders calls for a "wholesale revision" of regulations governing nuclear power. Specifically, it directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to establish guidelines that would issue final decisions on all new construction and operation applications within 18 months—a process that currently takes years. Under the order, the NRC will work with the Department of Government Efficiency and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to draft these rules, which are due next year. Under an executive order issued in February, executive and independent agencies are required to submit draft and final rules to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (an office within the OMB) for review and approval. This added layer of federal scrutiny could end up slowing down reactor approvals and make the NRC less efficient. It could also run contrary to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which established the NRC and its guidelines. "The NRC is designed to be an independent agency," Adam Stein, director of the Nuclear Energy Innovation Program at the Breakthrough Institute, tells Reason. "The President has control by appointing Commissioners and has the authority to remove Commissioners for cause." However, the Atomic Energy Act says that the commission shall execute the provisions of the law, "not the Commissioners in conjunction with other parts of the Executive branch," he says. Congress has also begun to address permitting delays at the NRC. In 2024, federal lawmakers passed the ADVANCE Act which, among other things, directs the NRC to establish a quicker permitting process for already-approved technologies (18 months to finish safety evaluations and environmental reviews and 25 months to issue a final decision). The agency is expected to issue these guidelines by September, according to the NRC website. However, the legislation stipulates that these guidelines be enforced to "the maximum extent possible." Jack Spencer, a senior energy researcher at The Heritage Foundation, thinks Trump's order could "bring additional accountability to the process." "Any big bureaucracy is going to be resistant to change," he says. "Legislation that basically puts it in their hands to achieve that reform, I think, will often fall short of the sorts of reform that are possible." Spencer thinks that subjecting the proposed reforms to another set of eyes "that will ask hard questions will be helpful in ensuring that real reform ultimately takes hold." This executive order also directs the NRC to reconsider its radiation standards for nuclear power plants and "adopt science-based radiation limits." Federal radiation regulations mandate nuclear power plants to emit levels of radiation that are "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) and are based on the linear no-threshold model, which assumes that no level of radiation risk is safe to the public. This framework is not scientific (humans are exposed to natural levels of radiation that are higher than those that nuclear power plants emit) and has pushed up costs for power plant operators for no public safety benefit. Spencer argues that fixing this rule is critical for reducing the nuclear industry's regulatory burden. "You can make the NRC the most efficient regulatory agency that has ever existed. And if the basis of its regulatory actions is not grounded in science, then who cares?" "That doesn't mean that you're reducing safety standards. It means that you're making safety standards in line with actual risks," he adds. This directive could face legal scrutiny. Stein, who has been critical of these standards, says "safety standards are almost never implemented through executive order. They usually require the agency to review and 'reconsider' if the standards are appropriate." With the NRC recently reaffirming its model for radiation standards in 2021, there "would need to be new scientific evidence to justify a change now that wouldn't be viewed as arbitrary by a court." Instead of rewriting ALARA standards, Stein suggests that the NRC could adopt radiation thresholds at nuclear power facilities that are defined in the Clean Air Act. Spencer recognizes these standards can't be changed through an executive order. "But it gets the conversation going. And it makes it more OK to talk about it, and it subjects the whole issue to daylight and makes people address it." Trump's order also sets a goal to effectively quadruple America's nuclear energy capacity and build 400 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050. Stein says this goal "can be a helpful signal to the market," but stating a goal does not "will it into existence." Juliann Edwards, chief development officer at The Nuclear Company, a startup aiming to streamline the deployment of nuclear power plants, agrees. "It's obtainable if you have the right leadership and you have the right behaviors and you're removing a lot of bureaucratic, unnecessary red tape, whether that be the federal level or the state level or through some regulatory regime." America's fleet of commercial nuclear power plants, while still safe and effective, is aging. Most of the reactors were built between 1967 and 1990—although two came online in 2023 and 2024, seven years delayed and $16 billion over budget. As the U.S. halted its construction, China's has accelerated. From 2014 to April 2024, the nation has added over 34 GW of nuclear capacity to its grid. "Nearly every Chinese nuclear project that has entered service since 2010 has achieved construction in 7 years or less," notes the Breakthrough Institute. China currently has 30 nuclear reactors under construction and is exporting its nuclear energy technology to developing nations. Nearly half of the world's nuclear power plant constructions are happening in China. While several factors have played into America's pivot away from nuclear power, including market structures, state bans on the energy source, and the introduction of cheap natural gas, the impact of federal regulations cannot be overstated. "Without doing a refresh and making sure [that] regulations are still applicable, you can get into a point, which we're seeing now, where it's extremely difficult to even cite and permit a piece of land," says Edwards. In the past 20 years, regulations have become so onerous that it takes five to seven years and close to $1 billion just to permit and cite a plot of land for nuclear energy development, according to Edwards. Streamlining the licensing process isn't a safety hazard but rather "a natural iteration that should be a part of our standard process with regulations." Regulations have long inhibited American nuclear energy. While Trump's order is well-intentioned to fix this issue, it is sure to face legal challenges—as many of the president's orders have. Still, the orders may be enough to get a more substantial conversation going. "I think anything that creates pressure toward reform is good," says Spencer. The post Will Trump's Regulatory Reforms Do Enough To Unleash Nuclear Energy? appeared first on
