[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
POWERING DEMAND:
NUCLEAR SOLUTIONS FOR AI INFRASTRUCTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 12, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-594PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chairman
RANDY WEBER, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
JIM BAIRD, Indiana Member
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JAY OBERNOLTE, California HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
MAX MILLER, Ohio MAXWELL FROST, Florida
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia GABE AMO, Rhode Island
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM, Virginia
VINCE FONG, California LUZ RIVAS, California
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
KEITH SELF, Texas LAURA GILLEN, New York
PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina GEORGE WHITESIDES, California,
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina Vice-Ranking Member
JEFF HURD, Colorado LAURA FRIEDMAN, California
MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, Florida APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
MIKE KENNEDY, Utah JOSH RILEY, New York
NICK BEGICH, Alaska BILL FOSTER, Illinois
VACANT
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. RANDY WEBER, Texas, Chairman
JIM BAIRD, Indiana DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina,
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee Ranking Member
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina LAURA FRIEDMAN, California
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina JOSH RILEY, New York
JEFF HURD, Colorado VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
NICK BEGICH, Alaska
C O N T E N T S
June 12, 2025
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Deborah Ross, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 17
Written Statement............................................ 17
Witnesses:
Mr. Pat Schweiger, Chief Technology Officer, Oklo
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 21
Ms. Kathleen L. Barron, Executive Vice President and Chief
Strategy and Growth Officer, Constellation Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 29
Dr. Jeremy Renshaw, Executive Director AI & Quantum, Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Discussion....................................................... 45
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Pat Schweiger, Chief Technology Officer, Oklo................ 70
Ms. Kathleen L. Barron, Executive Vice President and Chief
Strategy and Growth Officer, Constellation Energy.............. 74
Dr. Jeremy Renshaw, Executive Director AI & Quantum, Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI)................................ 76
POWERING DEMAND:
NUCLEAR SOLUTIONS
FOR AI INFRASTRUCTURE
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. The Committee will come to order; the
Subcommittee on Energy is convening.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled, ``Powering Demand:
Nuclear Solutions for AI (Artificial Intelligence)
Infrastructure.'' I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
So listen, good morning everybody. We're glad you all are
here. That includes the audience, by the way. Welcome to the
hearing titled, ``Powering Demand: Nuclear Solutions for AI
Infrastructure.''
Folks, with artificial intelligence's rapidly growing
demand on our power grid, this hearing is going to examine the
U.S. energy landscape and our capacity to meet that need. In
light of recent announcements around the country, we are going
to focus on nuclear energy's role as a baseload power source.
We will also review the Department of Energy (DOE's) research,
development and demonstration programs supporting the next
generation of nuclear reactors. Much like the 1940s--most of
y'all weren't here then and, just for the record, neither was
I--much like the 1940s, America stood at the dawn of the atomic
era, we now stand on the threshold of a new age, driven by
artificial intelligence.
With promises of increased efficiency and productivity, AI
has the potential to revolutionize every single aspect of our
economy and our way of life. Unsurprisingly, this potential has
spurred a major influx of private capital aiming to turn these
very promises into our reality.
Additionally, this technology is poised to dramatically
transform our electric grid and our energy sector due to the
construction of those very same AI data centers. According to a
recent report from a leading consulting company, data centers--
do you all say data or data?
Data. There is one vote for data right there in the back.
All right.
According to one consulting company, data centers are
projected to consume 5.2 percent of U.S. electricity this year,
with that share expected to increase to 11.7 percent by the
year 2030. Their energy use would rise from 25 gigawatts to 80
gigawatts. Let's put that in perspective: 1 gigawatt of energy
equates to roughly 294 utility-scale wind turbines, 1.8 million
solar panels, 103 offshore wind turbines, or 1 large light
water nuclear reactor, which is why we're here. I see your
excitement down there.
Due to these immense energy demands, major technology
companies and hyperscalers who traditionally sit on the energy
sidelines are now climbing into the driver's seat to secure
their long-term power supply. Nuclear has emerged as the ideal
energy source, given its clean baseload power and unmatched
reliability. Nuclear's capacity factor of 92.5 percent--let
that sink in--is the highest of any, any energy source. This
level of reliability is essential for data centers, which can
afford no more than 5.25 minutes of downtime annually. No more
than 5.25 minutes downtime annually.
As a result, tech companies are making substantial
investments and forging strategic power purchase agreements
with nuclear designers. For instance, Amazon has invested over
$300 million in X-energy. Google has signed a 500 megawatt
power purchase agreement with Kairos Power, and Switch secured
up to 12 gigawatts from Oklo Energy, another witness here
today, to partner with Microsoft to recommission a nuclear
reactor at the Three Mile Island site.
In addition to investments and partnerships, tech firms are
also redesigning interconnection agreements. Traditionally,
data centers relied on the front-of-the-meter interconnection
agreements, in which a utility generates, transmits, and then
distributes energy to the end user. Now tech companies are
pursuing behind-the-meter-agreements where energy assets
directly power the data center. This approach reduces
transmission costs, streamlines the approval process, and
provides for greater operational control to the end user.
Last year Talen Energy sold Amazon a data center and agreed
to a behind-the-meter power agreement, supplying up to 480
megawatts from its Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant. Although
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) blocked this
specific agreement, I believe back-of-the-meter interconnection
agreements will be commonplace when we're constructing new
nuclear power plants.
As the nuclear and tech sectors deepen their collaboration,
the Department of Energy, DOE, Office of Nuclear Energy plays a
crucial role in AI's future success. The office manages the
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) which helps
commercialize new nuclear technologies, including X-energy's
XE-100 reactor. Just recently Dow and X-energy submitted their
construction permit application for a proposed project in
Seadrift, Texas, which is right south of our district--my
district.
DOE also manages the Nuclear Fuel Security Program and the
Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Program, both created under
the Energy Act of 2020. These initiatives are critical to
deploying next-generation reactors that rely on high-assay,
low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, fuel. DOE recently announced it
will provide help to X-energy, Kairos Power, Radiant
Industries, Westinghouse, and TerraPower.
In tandem, the Trump Administration has accelerated the
deployment of AI through recent executive orders (EOs). In
April DOE issued a request for information, RFI, soliciting
feedback on whether industry would be interested in using
Federal land at DOE sites to host AI data centers. Given the
strong support for DOE and its nuclear security missions, these
sites are perfect, perfect for hosting data centers powered by
nuclear reactors. From the atomic bomb to artificial
intelligence, DOE's labs have consistently stood at the
precipice of technological advancement. They continue to meet
generational challenges and drive innovations that strengthen
America as we enter this new area.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:]
Good morning. Welcome to today's Energy Subcommittee
hearing titled, ``Powering Demand: Nuclear Solutions for AI
Infrastructure.'' With artificial intelligence's rapidly
growing demand on our power grid, this hearing will examine the
U.S. energy landscape and its capacity to meet that need. In
light of recent announcements around the country, we will focus
on nuclear energy's role as a baseload power source. We will
also review the Department of Energy's research, development,
and demonstration programs supporting the next generation of
nuclear reactors.
Much like the 1940s, when America stood at the dawn of the
atomic era, we now stand on the threshold of a new age driven
by artificial intelligence. With promises of increased
efficiency and productivity, AI has the potential to
revolutionize every aspect of our economy and way of life.
Unsurprisingly, this potential has spurred a major influx of
private capital aiming to turn these promises into reality.
Additionally, this technology is poised to dramatically
transform our electric grid and energy sector due to the
construction of new AI data centers. According to a recent
report from a leading consulting company, data centers are
projected to consume 5.2% of U.S. electricity this year, with
that share expected to increase to 11.7% by 2030. Their energy
use would rise from 25 GW to 80 GW. To put that in perspective,
1 GW of energy equates to roughly 294 utility-scale wind
turbines, 1.8 million solar panels, 103 offshore wind turbines,
or one large light-water nuclear reactor.
Due to these immense energy demands, major technology
companies and hyperscalers, who traditionally sat on the energy
sidelines, are now climbing into the driver's seat to secure
their long-term power supply. Nuclear has emerged as the ideal
energy source given its clean baseload power and unmatched
reliability. Nuclear's capacity factor of 92.5% is the highest
of any energy source. That level of reliability is essential
for data centers, which can afford no more than 5.25 minutes of
downtime annually.
As a result, tech companies are making substantial
investments and forging strategic power purchase agreements
with nuclear designers. For instance, Amazon invested over $300
million in X-Energy, Google signed a 500 MW power purchase
agreement with Kairos Power, and Switch secured up to 12 GW
from Oklo, which is one of our witnesses here today. This led
Constellation Energy, another witness here today, to partner
with Microsoft to recommission a nuclear reactor at Three Mile
Island.
In addition to investments and partnerships, tech firms are
also redesigning interconnection agreements. Traditionally,
data centers relied on front-of-the-meter interconnection
agreements, in which a utility generates, transmits, and
distributes energy to the end user. Now, tech companies are
pursuing behind-the-meter agreements, where energy assets
directly power the data center. This approach reduces
transmission costs, streamlines the approval processes, and
provides greater operational control to the end user.
Last year, Talen Energy sold Amazon a data center and
agreed to a behind-the-meter power agreement supplying up to
480 MW from its Susquehanna nuclear power plant. Although FERC
blocked this specific agreement, I believe back-of-the-meter
interconnection agreements will be commonplace when
constructing new nuclear power plants.
As the nuclear and tech sectors deepen their collaboration,
the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy plays
a crucial role in AI's future success. The office manages the
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, which helps
commercialize new nuclear technologies, including X-Energy's
Xe-100 reactor. Just recently, Dow and X-Energy submitted their
construction permit application for a proposed project in Sea
Drift, Texas, right next to my district.
DOE also manages the Nuclear Fuel Security Program and the
Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Program, both created under
the Energy Act of 2020. These initiatives are critical to
deploying next-generation reactors that rely on high-assay low-
enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel. DOE recently announced it will
provide HALEU to X-Energy, Kairos Power, Radiant Industries,
Westinghouse, and TerraPower. In tandem, the Trump
Administration has accelerated the deployment of AI through
recent executive orders.
In April, DOE issued a Request for Information (RFI)
soliciting feedback on whether industry would be interested in
using federal land at DOE sites to host AI data centers. Given
the strong support for DOE and its nuclear security missions,
these sites are perfect for hosting data centers powered by
nuclear reactors.
From the atomic bomb to artificial intelligence, DOE's labs
have consistently stood at the precipice of technological
advancement. They continue to meet generational challenges and
drive innovations that strengthen America as we enter this new
era.
I look forward to our discussion here today and yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Weber. I look forward to our discussion today, and
I'm going to yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady to
my right, the Ranking Member.
Ms. Ross. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Weber, for
convening this hearing today to discuss the potential for
nuclear energy solutions to power our Nation's growing
artificial intelligence infrastructure.
I also want to thank our distinguished witnesses for being
here to share your testimony and insights on this topic.
We've heard repeatedly from a wide range of sources about
how the advancement of AI could fuel economic growth,
geopolitical advantages, and the acceleration of science and
technology. I'm proud to represent North Carolina's 2d
District, where AI is driving a rapidly growing job market,
education and workforce development, and research and
innovation that could play a significant role in ensuring our
Nation's competitive edge.
Just over a month ago an organization in the Research
Triangle Park added a cutting-edge AI tool for clinical trial
optimization, leading to fewer required patients per trial,
requiring--reducing timelines and costs, and ultimately
increasing success rates. However, these advancements depend on
our ability to power them, and that's why we're here today.
A recent assessment from SemiAnalysis found that the energy
needed to meet this infrastructure demand is projected to
require 80 gigawatts of additional energy by 2030. This need is
not foreign to me. Data center construction rose 15 times in
North Carolina last year. AI data centers are particularly
unique in their energy requirements, with some calling for 24/7
supply and massive--at a massive scale, and that scale is only
projected to grow as hyperscalers invest billions of dollars
toward these centers.
Much like the promise of AI, these data center investments
can accelerate our economy and provide workforce benefits for
years to come, but not without a cost. There are many impacts
to consider in trying to meet this energy demand.
First, the environmental cost of rapid data center
expansion are--that's far from negligible. We've been hearing
about this in the western part of North Carolina. A report from
DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory released last year
said that the total greenhouse gas emissions for U.S. data
centers in 2023 was estimated to be 61 billion kilograms of
CO2 equivalent. As a former clean energy lawyer, I
know firsthand that meeting this energy demand while working to
build a sustainable future for North Carolina and the Nation is
not an easy task. We must intentionally build a more reliable
and sustainable energy supply, and we should be using any
environmentally benign resources, including nuclear, available
to do so at the lowest cost possible for the American people.
We must also consider using existing under-utilized sources
of power, and must be intentional with our siting for data
centers required for this type of development. Siting data
centers near existing power generation, including in areas
where manufacturing has moved away, should remain top of mind.
And this has happened in North Carolina.
Now, while not directly connected to a specific data center
by a dedicated power line, the Yadkin River Hydroelectric
Project in western North Carolina plays a role in the overall
power grid that served the data center that is in this Hickory
corridor all around that part of North Carolina. This area has
seen a significant investment in data centers, and the region's
hydroelectric power generation contributes to the overall
energy supply. We can and should use renewable and existing
energy sources to help power our data centers across the United
States.
That also brings another point up: the cost passed down to
the American people of constructing new energy sources, the
ratepayers. They should not be first in line to absorb high
risk and financially burdened with typical--with the typical
rates associated with deploying a first-of-kind energy source.
Today we're here to discuss nuclear power, an energy source
with immense promise, but with a very high risk of cost and
schedule overruns thus far. So we must keep top of mind who
will absorb this risk. I don't have to look far to see the
negative impacts that the risk being absorbed by the ratepayers
can--where it can arise. The abandoned VC Summer project in
South Carolina experienced years of delays and cost overruns,
eventually resulting in $9 billion of sunk costs. Now, we know
some other people are looking at taking that over, but that
does not get rid of what the ratepayers had to absorb. I'm glad
I'm seeing some nodding heads over there.
To this day, $5.7 billion is still being paid for by
customers who do not reap the benefits of a successful nuclear
project. This contrasts sharply with the very positive
experience in Georgia with their Vogtle project, which was
enabled by strategic support from DOE's Loan Program Office, or
LPO. This is exhibit A for the reason we absolutely must
maintain expanded resources and capabilities to provide to the
LPO through the Inflation Reduction Act, and those are at risk
right now.
Nuclear projects are inherently challenging, but I believe
we can learn from past mistakes and proceed responsibly
considering the use of brownfields, Federal land, strategic
capital, and, above all, the protection of the ratepayers while
building a more reliable and sustainable energy supply. We have
an opportunity to build long-lasting infrastructure that
unlocks a more reliable and sustainable future, which I intend
to continue working toward with the Chairman. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today on how nuclear energy can help
us get there, in tandem with a far broader portfolio of clean
energy resources that should also be considered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ross follows:]
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Weber, for convening
this hearing today to discuss the potential for nuclear energy
solutions to power our nation's growing artificial intelligence
infrastructure. I also want to thank our distinguished
witnesses for being here to share your testimony and insights
on this topic.
We have heard repeatedly from a wide range of sources about
how the advancement of AI could fuel economic growth,
geopolitical advantages, and the acceleration of science and
technology. I am proud to represent North Carolina's 2nd
District, where AI is driving a rapidly growing job market,
education and workforce development, and research and
innovation that could play asignificant role in ensuring our
nation's competitive edge.
Just over a month ago, an organization in Research Triangle
Park added a cutting-edge AI tool for clinical trial
optimization, leading to fewer required patients per trial,
reduced timelines and costs, and ultimately increased success
rates. However, these advancements depend on our ability to
power them.
A recent assessment from SemiAnalysis found that the energy
needed to meet this infrastructure demand is projected to
require 80 gigawatts of additional energy by 2030. This need is
not foreign to me: data center construction rose 15x in North
Carolina last year. AI data centers are particularly unique in
their energy requirements, with some calling for 24/7 supply at
massive scale--and that scale is only projected to grow as
hyperscalers invest billions of dollars towards these centers.
Much like the promise of AI, these data center investments
can accelerate our economy and provide workforce benefits for
years to come--but not without a cost. There are many impacts
to consider in trying to meet this energy demand.
First, the environmental costs of rapid data center
expansion are far from negligible. In a report from DOE's
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory released last year, the
total greenhouse gas emissions for U.S. data centers in 2023
was estimated to be 61 billion kilograms of CO2
equivalent.
As a former clean energy lawyer, I know firsthand that
meeting this energy demand while working to build a sustainable
future for North Carolina, and the nation, is not an easy task.
We must intentionally build a more reliable and sustainable
energy supply, and we should be using any environmentally
benign resources available to do so at the lowest cost possible
for the American people. We must also consider using existing,
underutilized sources of power and must be intentional with our
siting for the data centers required for this type of
development.
Siting data centers near existing power generation-
including in areas where manufacturing has moved away--should
remain top of mind. While not directly connected to a specific
data center by a dedicated power line, the Yadkin River
Hydroelectric Project in western North Carolina plays a role in
the overall power grid that served the data center corridor
around Hickory.
This area has seen significant investment in data centers,
and the region's hydroelectric power generation contributes to
the overall energy supply. We can and should use renewable and
existing energy sources to help power our data centers across
the United States.
That brings us to another point we must keep top of mind
today: the cost passed on to the American people--the
ratepayers--who should not be the first in line in absorbing
the high risk and financial burden typically associated with
deploying a first of a kind energy source. Today we are here to
discuss nuclear power--an energy source with immense promise to
be sure, but with a very high risk of cost and schedule
overruns thus far.
So, we must keep top of mind: who will absorb that risk?
I don't have to look far to see the negative impacts of
that risk being absorbed by taxpayers. The abandoned VC Summer
project in South Carolina experienced years of delays and cost
overrun, eventually resulting in $9 billion of sunk cost. To
this day, $5.7 billion is still being paid for by customers who
do not reap the benefits of a successful nuclear project. This
contrasts with Georgia's Vogtle project, which was enabled by
strategic support from DOE's Loan Programs Office, or LPO.
This is Exhibit A for the reason we absolutely must
maintain the expanded resources and capabilities provided to
LPO through the Inflation Reduction Act. Nuclear projects are
inherently challenging, but I believe we can learn from our
mistakes and proceed responsibly--considering the use of
brownfields, federal land and strategic capital, and above all
the protection of taxpayers while building a more reliable and
sustainable energy supply.
We have an opportunity to build long-lasting infrastructure
that unlocks a more reliable and sustainable future, which I
intend to continue working towards.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how
nuclear energy can help us get there, in tandem with the far
broader portfolio of clean energy resources that should also be
considered.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Ranking Member Ross. I now
recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Chairman Babin.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses today for being here.
I want to thank our Energy Subcommittee Chairman, my good
friend, Mr. Weber, for holding this timely hearing on powering
data centers with advanced nuclear technologies.
Artificial intelligence is advancing at a breakneck pace.
Every day we see brand new, groundbreaking developments and
headlines that highlight AI's expanding role in our economy,
our national security, and even our daily lives. Fortunately,
the United States currently leads the world in the AI race, but
that lead is not guaranteed. Both friends and foes are moving
swiftly to close this gap.
At the core of AI innovation are data centers, the engines
that drive this technological revolution. These facilities
require enormous and uninterrupted power. And when it comes to
reliability, only one option consistently meets those high
standards, and that is nuclear.
Industry standards for top tier data centers, especially
those supporting AI workloads, require what's known as the
``five-9s'' uptime, or 99.999 percent operational reliability.
This means that over the course of a year the data center is
expected to be operational 99.999 percent of the time. That
equates to just 5.2 minutes of allowable downtime per year. Few
energy sources can meet that bar. In fact, nuclear power, with
its 92.5 percent capacity factor, stands alone in its ability
to provide the clean, constant baseload power that these
systems demand. Plus, nuclear can provide much more energy per
square foot than its competing energy sources, allowing nuclear
to be sited nearer to its customers and be less impactful on
overall land usage.
As this Administration has stated, nuclear energy will play
a central role in our energy future. Thanks to executive orders
from President Trump and recent actions from the Department of
Energy, we are beginning to cut through the red tape that has
long stalled nuclear progress, moving quickly but safely to
scale nuclear power nationwide. To get to this point, the
Federal Government has spent over a decade significantly
investing in advanced nuclear through DOE's Office of Nuclear
Energy. These early stage investments were essential to getting
first-of-a-kind technologies off of the ground.
However, in today's budget-constrained environment, that
support must be seen as a launch pad, not a permanent lifeline.
It's time for the private sector to stand up--I should say step
up. Fortunately, the market is ready. The nuclear renaissance
we anticipated in the early 2000s is now within reach. As the
demand for power increases, new nuclear companies have a
critical partner in large technology firms that are willing to
invest in and help deploy the fleet of nuclear reactors that
has long been promised. However, these tech companies are not
only willing to pay a premium to bring these new, first-of-a-
kind power sources online, but they have also shown an appetite
for current technology.
Earlier this year Microsoft and Constellation Energy, one
of our witnesses today, announced plans to reactivate the Crane
Clean Energy Center, and formerly Three Mile Island, marking a
historic moment. Additionally, just last week Meta and
Constellation announced a 20-year agreement to keep the plant
operational. This isn't just good energy policy. It's good
economic policy, creating well-paying jobs and generating
millions in tax revenue that would otherwise be lost.
This momentum is spreading across the country, including my
home State of Texas. Lawmakers are advancing pro-nuclear
policies. Universities are also seeing the benefits of
partnering with advanced nuclear. Texas A&M, through its Rellis
Campus, announced the creation of the Energy Proving Ground
Project. This project will involve Texas A&M assisting four
chosen SMR (small modular reactor) companies with permitting,
and providing a location to demonstrate their reactors.
Now is the time for the nuclear industry to take its next
step toward unlocking its full potential. The conditions are
ripe for a resounding success. We're very fortunate to have a
very strong panel of witnesses with us today who bring deep
expertise from across the advanced nuclear energy and
artificial intelligence sectors.
I want to thank each of you for being here today, and I'm
looking very much forward to hearing your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]
I want to thank our Energy Subcommittee Chairman and my
good friend, Mr. Weber, for holding this timely hearing on
powering data centers with advanced nuclear technologies.
Artificial intelligence is advancing at a breakneck pace.
Every day, we see new groundbreaking developments and headlines
that highlight AI's expanding role in our economy, national
security, and daily lives.
Fortunately, the United States currently leads the world in
the AI race--but that lead is not guaranteed. Both friends and
foes are moving swiftly to close the gap.
At the core of AI innovation are data centers--the engines
that drive this technological revolution.
These facilities require enormous and uninterrupted power.
And when it comes to reliability, only one option consistently
meets those high standards: nuclear.
Industry standards for top-tier data centers, especially
those supporting AI workloads, require what's known as ``five-
9s'' uptime or 99.999 percent operational reliability. This
means that over the course of a year, the data center is
expected to be operational 99.999 percent of the time. That
equates to just 5.25 minutes of allowable downtime per year.
Few energy sources can meet that bar. In fact, nuclear power,
with its 92.5 percent capacity factor, stands alone in its
ability to provide the clean, constant baseload power these
systems demand. Plus, nuclear can provide much more energy per
square foot than its competing energy sources, allowing nuclear
to be sited nearer to customers and be less impactful on
overall land use.
As this Administration has stated, nuclear energy will play
a central role in our energy future.
Thanks to executive orders from President Trump and recent
actions from the Department of Energy (DOE), we are beginning
to cut through the red tape that has long stalled nuclear
progress--moving quickly, but safely to scale nuclear power
nationwide.
To get to this point, the federal government has spent over
a decade significantly investing in advanced nuclear through
the DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy. These early-stage
investments were essential to getting first-of-a-kind
technologies off the ground. However, in today's budget-
constrained environment, that support must be seen as a
launchpad--not a permanent lifeline. It's time for the private
sector to step up.
Fortunately, the market is ready. The nuclear renaissance
we anticipated in the early 2000s is now within reach. As the
demand for power increases, new nuclear companies have a
critical partner in large technology firms that are willing to
invest in and help deploy the fleet of nuclear reactors that
has long been promised.
However, these tech companies are not only willing to pay a
premium to bring these new, first-of-a-kind power sources
online, but they have also shown an appetite for current
technology.
Earlier this year, Microsoft and Constellation Energy--one
of our witnesses today--announced plans to reactivate the Crane
Clean Energy Center, marking a historic moment. Additionally,
just last week, Meta and Constellation announced a 20-year
agreement to keep the plant operational.
This isn't just good energy policy--it's good economic
policy, creating well-paying jobs and generating millions in
tax revenue that would otherwise be lost.
This momentum is spreading. Across the country--including
my home state of Texas--lawmakers are advancing pro-nuclear
policies. Universities are also seeing the benefits of
partnering with advanced nuclear. Texas A&M, through its RELLIS
campus, announced the creation of ``The Energy Proving Ground''
project. This project will involve Texas A&M assisting four
chosen SMR companies with permitting and providing a location
to demonstrate their reactors.
Now is the time for the nuclear industry to take its next
step toward unlocking its full potential. The conditions are
ripe for resounding success.
We are fortunate to have a strong panel of witnesses with
us today who bring deep expertise from across the advanced
nuclear energy and artificial intelligence sectors.
I want to thank each of you for joining us today, and I
look forward to your testimony. With that, I yield back.
Chairman Babin. With that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Chairman Babin. I now recognize
the Ranking Member of the Full Committee for a statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Chairman Weber and Ranking
Member Ross, for holding this hearing today, and I want to
thank the witnesses for being here and for your expertise.
We have a real challenge ahead of us. We've seen incredible
strides in the capabilities of artificial intelligence over the
last few years and its application to research, industry,
agriculture, and other sectors of our economy. However, we also
know that training and running AI models can consume enormous
amounts of energy. And while certainly not the only solution,
advanced nuclear technologies are quite promising in their
potential to meet these expected needs.
And over the past decade in particular, this Committee has
developed and enacted bipartisan, comprehensive legislation to
explore in advance of this research--resource. In fact, the
last bill we had before this Committee on next-gen nuclear was
adopted unanimously, and this is another reason why I am so
disappointed with the Administration's budget proposal for
2026.
The budget also states that it--and this is a quote--
``unleashes America's energy dominance through funding for
nuclear energy.'' But it would cut support for DOE's Office of
Nuclear Energy by 21 percent, and slash funding for the
flagship Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program by 51 percent.
The budget also states that it is ``prioritizing fusion
research,'' but it proposes to cut fusion research by 6
percent. Now, this may be old fashioned, but I think words
actually should mean something, especially when they come from
the U.S. Government, and these words do not reflect the actual
proposal.
Now, some may note that the budget request does include
support for loan guarantees for nuclear technologies, and
that's all well and good until you look at the rescission
reconciliation bill that the Republicans in the House passed,
which, of course, the President endorsed. If enacted, that bill
would eliminate more than four times as much support for DOE's
loan guarantee program as this budget proposal would provide.
It would cut tax incentives that industries told us are
critical, in tandem with a robust Federal loan program, to
enabling the widespread deployment of new nuclear power plants.
So I look forward to discussing these stark contradictions
and other challenges to our clean energy future with this
really excellent panel of witnesses. And with that I want to
thank you all for being here. And so we can get directly to
your testimony, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Weber and Ranking
Member Ross, for holding this hearing today. And thank you to
the witnesses for being here this morning.
We have a real challenge ahead of us. We have seen
incredible strides in the capabilities of artificial
intelligence over the last few years and its applications to
research, industry, agriculture, and various other sectors of
our economy.
However, we also know that training and running AI models
can consume enormous amounts of energy. While certainly not the
only solution, advanced nuclear technologies are quite
promising in their potential to meet these expected needs. And
over the past decade in particular, this Committee has
developed and enacted bipartisan, comprehensive legislation to
explore and advance this resource.
This is another reason why I am frankly so disappointed
with the Administration's budget proposal for 2026. While the
budget plainly states that it ``unleashes America's energy
dominance through funding for nuclear energy,'' it would cut
support for DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy by 21%, and slash
funding for its flagship Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program
by 51%.
The budget also states that it is ``prioritizing fusion
research'' while proposing to cut fusion research by 6%. Call
me old fashioned, but I think words actually need to mean
something, especially when they come from the U.S. government,
and these words are sadly hollow.
Now some may note that the budget request does include
support for loan guarantees for nuclear technologies, and
that's all well and good until you look at the House-passed
Republican reconciliation bill, which of course the President
endorsed. If enacted, that bill would eliminate more than 4
times as much support for DOE's loan guarantee program as this
budget proposal would provide. And it would gut tax incentives
that industry has informed us are absolutely critical, in
tandem with a robust federal loan program, to enabling the
widespread deployment of new nuclear power plants.
So, I look forward to discussing these stark contradictions
and other challenges to our clean energy future with this
excellent panel of witnesses. With that, I thank you all again
for being here, and yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Weber. The Ranking Member of the Full Committee
yields back. I now recognize Deborah Ross to the right of me.
Ms. Ross. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent (UC) that Mr. Beyer from Virginia be permitted to
attend this hearing and after all Committee Members have had
their opportunity to ask questions of the witness.
Chairman Weber. Without objection.
I do want to remind something I left out earlier. Members
are reminded that this Committee's practice is to submit
letters and other items for the record to the Committee before
seeking unanimous consent to insert such items into the hearing
record. This allows the Committee to ensure that such items
meet the rules of decorum, and verify their length and
provenance that they do not contain sensitive, proprietary, or
controlled information. The Chair reserves the right to object
to any UC request to insert items in the record that are not
provided in advance.
So let me introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness today is Mr. Pat Schweiger, the Chief
Technology Officer (CTO) of Oklo.
Our next witness, Ms. Kathleen Barron--am I saying that,
Ms. Kathleen?
Ms. Barron. Barron.
Chairman Weber. I can do this. Barron, OK, Executive Vice
President and Chief Strategy and Growth Officer at
Constellation Energy.
Our final is Dr. Jeremy Renshaw--thank you for the easy
name to say--Executive Director of AI and Quantum at EPRI.
I now recognize Mr. Schweiger for 5 minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. PAT SCHWEIGER,
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, OKLO
Mr. Schweiger. Good morning, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member
Ross, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify and for holding this important hearing.
My name is Pat Schweiger, and I am the CTO at Oklo, an advanced
nuclear technology and fuel recycling company. Prior to Oklo I
worked 21 years at the Fast Flux Test Facility, an
internationally recognized premier sodium fast reactor where we
tested advanced fuels and materials for fusion and fission. We
set performance records that no other nation has been able to
achieve, even to this day.
Oklo is developing fast fission power plants known as
Aurora powerhouses to provide clean, reliable, and affordable
energy at scale. Oklo is at the forefront of transforming the
technological basis and business model associated with nuclear
power in America. In our build, own, and operate business model
we plan to sell power in the form of electricity and heat
directly to customers, where we believe we can allow for fast
track customer adoption. Most importantly, we are
commercializing fast reactor technology pioneered by the U.S.
Department of Energy over 50 years ago, and have a site use
permit from DOE for our commercial reactor at Idaho National
Laboratory (INL).
AI has triggered a Sputnik moment, accelerating the demand
for dependable domestic power. According to Goldman Sachs, AI
data centers will have a significant contribution to power
demand growth, driving a 160 percent increase in power demand
through 2030. Our partnership with Equinix was the first
commercial advanced nuclear energy deal in the data center
industry that included an investment from a data center company
to a nuclear company.
Energy is the foundation upon which America's AI future
depends. Oklo represents a new approach to leveraging the
benefits of mature nuclear power generation to meet the growing
energy demands associated with emerging AI applications. The
market has rewarded this approach with a pipeline of over 14
gigawatts of commitments from prospective customers, and most
recently through a 12 gigawatt master power agreement with AI
and data center provider, Switch, which Randy mentioned, one of
the largest corporate clean power agreements in history.
Oklo's powerhouse builds on America's investment in
cutting-edge nuclear technology in the first atomic age. Right
now there are no fast reactors operating in the U.S., but Oklo
will change that, leveraging a legacy that blossomed with
research and test reactors such as the Fast Flux Test Facility
and Experimental Breeder Reactor 2, which was a fast reactor
that ran at INL for 30 years and a capacity of 20 megawatts of
electric power.
Oklo's reactors are based on this proven liquid metal
cooled sodium fast reactor technology. The reactor is self-
stabilizing, self-controlling, and cooled by natural forces.
This means the plant is walk-away safe, and can be sited in
closer proximity to populated areas, crucial locations for data
centers, and other AI infrastructure, as Ms. Ross noted, as
well.
Additionally, fast reactors can derive energy from spent
nuclear fuel. Thanks to U.S. innovation, spent nuclear fuel can
be recycled, and is being done at our national labs today.
Idaho National Lab is producing spent fuel from EBR-II into
HALEU, and Argonne National Lab is advancing the technology
further with support through ARPA-E. Fast reactors are ready to
be commercialized and poised to meet this moment for AI.
To meet the needs of this critical moment in our country, I
want to offer the Committee a few policy changes to accelerate
advanced nuclear deployment.
No. 1, unlock an abundance of nuclear fuel. Congress should
continue to push DOE to accelerate its support of the domestic
fuel supply chain and HALEU production, and to think creatively
about new ways to enhance the domestic fuel supply, including
the accelerated processing of DOE spent fuel into HALEU.
No. 2, continue investment in next-generation research.
U.S. Government research is driving American nuclear
innovation. Research programs in the fuel cycle, commercial
fuel recycling, and next-generation core technologies are
necessary to compete globally.
And then, finally, No. 3: modernize regulations around
technologies with decades of proven safety. Congress should
rethink how we regulate inherently safe, proven nuclear
technologies, from advanced reactors to commercial fuel
recycling to waste management, so that American nuclear plants
can serve energy needs for AI civilian, DOE, and military
installations. It's inevitable that advanced nuclear reactors
will be part of the energy solution to ensure U.S. leadership
in AI. Our groundbreaking approach is redefining nuclear
energy, making it safer, faster to deploy, and more cost
effective than ever before.
Oklo is ready to work with the Committee and Members of the
House to ensure the success of both the nuclear and AI
industries. I look forward to today's discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schweiger follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Schweiger. You have a very
interesting quote, which I love, when you say AI has triggered
a Sputnik moment. Is that a--I don't mean to put you on the
spot, but is that original with you?
Mr. Schweiger. Well, not to me personally, but original to
who wrote--help me write this.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Weber. Well, that's is a very, very good point.
Ms. Barron, I am going to yield 5 minutes to you. Thank
you.
TESTIMONY OF MS. KATHLEEN L. BARRON,
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF STRATEGY
AND GROWTH OFFICER, CONSTELLATION ENERGY
Ms. Barron. Good morning, Full Committee Chairman Babin,
Ranking Member Lofgren, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Ross,
and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you to discuss the role of nuclear energy in
powering America's artificial intelligence infrastructure.
Constellation is the largest owner and operator of
commercial nuclear plants in the United States. We operate 21
reactors in Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania, and
we have an ownership interest in four additional reactors in
New Jersey and Texas. But we also have a diverse portfolio of
power generation resources. All in, we make 32 gigawatts of
electricity, which is equivalent to powering 16 million homes
and businesses. I'd like to make three points from my testimony
today.
First, there should be no debate. America must win the race
for AI supremacy. And to do that we need to assure timely power
supply for AI infrastructure like data centers, while at the
same time securing reliable, affordable, and clean power for
all customers.
Second, the Nation's existing nuclear power fleet can help
meet the near-term need for power by extending the operating
life of existing reactors, by increasing the output of the
existing fleet of plants, and by, as has been mentioned,
restarting previously closed reactors that are capable of
resuming operation.
And third, advanced reactors can add enormous quantities of
reliable, affordable, and clean energy to the grid in the
longer term. The most logical place, in our view, to think
about siting new nuclear plants is at sites that are already
hosting nuclear reactors, and that's because these sites have
already been proven to meet environmental and safety-related
regulatory requirements, and have critical existing cooling
water, rail, and electric infrastructure to host these new
reactors.
You know, and the biggest thing is really these incredible
communities that host the existing fleet, which is comprised of
hundreds of workers and their families, are supportive of this
opportunity to add new nuclear. And they also have land
available where we could host sites like data centers that can
collocate and minimize the need for additional electrical
infrastructure and transmission.
As has been mentioned by the Full Committee chair,
Constellation has been working to enable data center
development in the places where we operate. Last September we
announced that we will restart unit one, which is the undamaged
reactor at Three Mile Island. It was one of our best performing
reactors when it closed prematurely before the end of its
licensed life in 2019 due to economic factors partly caused by
poor policy choices. But it will resume operation as the Crane
Clean Energy Center as part of a 20-year power purchase
agreement with Microsoft. When that plant is returned to
service, it will provide 835 megawatts of power to the PJM grid
for use at Microsoft facilities across the PJM region.
And then earlier this month, we announced another 20-year
power purchase agreement with Meta, this time for the output of
1,100 megawatts at our Clinton Clean Energy Center in central
Illinois, to support Meta's facilities in the Midwest region
beginning in 2027. This agreement will allow us to relicense
the Clinton station for another 20 years, and allow it to
operate until at least 2047. And it also calls for us to uprate
the plant, or increase its output by an additional 30 megawatts
of power. It also allows us to evaluate strategies to extend
the plant's existing early site permit at the NRC (Nuclear
Regulatory Commission), or perhaps to seek a new construction
permit from the NRC to pursue development of an advanced
reactor at that site.
These agreements ensure that the Crane and Clinton
facilities will remain on the grid for at least two decades to
support economic growth and to power America's artificial
intelligence infrastructure. But to ensure all of the reactors
stay online and expand to meet this increased demand,
supportive policies are critical.
President Trump's recent executive orders direct that the
Department of Energy shall prioritize work with the nuclear
energy industry to facilitate 5 gigawatts of power uprates to
existing nuclear reactors, and have 10 new large reactors with
complete designs under construction by 2030. These are
appropriately ambitious goals. But in order to achieve them we
recommend first that Congress continue the Section 45U
production tax credit for existing nuclear plants, as well as
the Section 45 and 48 technology neutral tax credits for
nuclear generation, which is consistent with comments from the
Administration and the recently passed House reconciliation
measure.
Second, Congress should retain funding for the Department
of Energy's Loan Program's Office for Nuclear Investment.
Third, Congress should continue to support Department of
Energy programs within the Office of Nuclear Energy to support
research, development, and demonstration activities related to
advanced nuclear power, including the Advanced Reactor
Demonstration Project.
And finally, Federal agencies like the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission should remove barriers that prevent data
centers from accessing and using available sources of energy.
FERC has been debating for over a year the rules for data
centers to collocate with power plants. As the President has
recognized, collocation is--which is when the data center is
sited right at or near the power plant, as Ranking Member Ross
mentioned--enables development on a quick basis. And that's
because it minimizes the need for new transmission lines to
deliver power over long distances, which also lowers costs for
both the data centers and all customers.
Data center projects should be permitted to access the grid
using the configuration that makes the most for that facility
and in that location, and should not be slowed down by a lack
of clear Federal rules.
So thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barron follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, ma'am.
Dr. Renshaw, you've got a hard act to follow. You're
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JEREMY RENSHAW,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AI & QUANTUM,
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE (EPRI)
Dr. Renshaw. Thank you. Chairmen Weber, Babin, and
Ranking----
[Audio malfunction.]
Chairman Weber. Dr. Renshaw, I'm sorry. Turn your mike on.
Dr. Renshaw. I'm sorry. Would you like me to start over?
Chairman Weber. In a word? Heck, no.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Renshaw. All right. EPRI has worked with AI for
decades, observing rapid growth in computational needs
accelerated by recent breakthroughs in generative AI. Advances
in GPUs (graphics processing units) have improved compute
efficiency, but these gains have been outpaced by the
increasing size of AI models. AI is redefining how knowledge is
created.
The Industrial Revolution used machines to turn raw
materials into goods more efficiently, and now the AI
revolution is using data to turn--to accelerate productivity
and discovery across all industries. Thus, AI and energy
industries have become intertwined, with more energy needed to
support AI, and AI enabling more efficient and productive
energy systems. Therefore, EPRI launched the Open Power AI
Consortium to build a collaborative ecosystem between the
energy and technology industries to maximize benefits to
stakeholders and the public.
With over 100 organizations engaged, the consortium will
focus on building more efficient and performant AI models to
achieve better results with less compute and energy needs. For
example, accelerating interconnection queues which have led to
bottlenecks in connecting new generation, transmission, and
distribution infrastructure to the grid.
Predicting the future energy needs of AI is challenging.
Recent work by EPRI and others points to significant growth and
uncertainty in the future power consumption of data centers
from AI, which are influenced by model size, volume of training
data, inference loads, adding reasoning capabilities, hardware
efficiency, and more. Moreover, future innovations could alter
the trajectory of energy needs including novel chip designs,
advanced computing and model architectures, emerging compute
modalities such as quantum computing, and software
optimization.
AI is delivering value globally, driving growth in data
center utilization and energy use. AI-specific data centers
consume up to five times more energy than traditional data
centers. The International Energy Agency predicts that global
data center energy use in 2030 will double to 945 terawatt
hours, more than Japan's total electricity use today. AI data
centers may have highly variable loads with spikes in energy
demand, compared to traditional flat loads from data centers.
This variability presents a challenge and an opportunity for
the grid. While data centers represent substantial new loads,
they also offer opportunities such as workload flexibility and
utilizing backup generators as a dispatchable grid resource.
EPRI launched the DC Flex Initiative to explore how data
centers can provide these grid services supporting utilities,
operators, and consumers alike. Some perceive data centers as
growing unsustainably and straining the grid. The Open Power AI
Consortium and DC Flex Initiative can change that perspective
and utilize data centers to accelerate productivity, knowledge
generation, and innovation across all sectors while growing
responsibly. Advanced forms of energy generation may support
data center energy needs.
Advanced nuclear is one of several options for powering the
next generation of AI infrastructure. Having worked in the
nuclear industry for over 15 years, I will discuss the benefits
and limitations of nuclear to support growing energy demands.
No energy source is perfect, and all have benefits and
limitations, and a robust energy mix combines multiple sources
to improve overall system performance, reliability, and reduced
risk.
Nuclear plants provide safe, reliable, and carbon-free
baseload power. Nuclear power has a track record of being one
of the safest forms of energy generation over the last several
decades. Advanced nuclear reactors offer additional capability
for flexible operation, improved safety, efficiency, and a
range of fuel sources, including spent fuel, supporting high-
intensity variable loads like AI data centers, and reducing
waste. However, fuel and irradiated materials must still be
managed. As with any technology, first-of-a-kind
implementations include risks such as delays and cost overruns.
Other clean, reliable generation sources can augment overall
energy system performance.
In conclusion, AI is transforming our society and its
energy demands are growing rapidly. Improvements in chip
efficiencies reduce energy use while larger models and
increased utilization increase energy use. AI is accelerating
productivity and knowledge generation across all industries
today, and is poised to continue. Meeting data center energy
needs is a growing challenge, with many solutions being
evaluated. While energy intensive, data centers can also be a
part of the solution via flexible operation and grid
integration.
While there is no perfect energy source, advanced nuclear
is among the options that offer safe, reliable, flexible, and
clean power to meet future needs. Nuclear technologies can play
an important role to support the growing needs of AI and the
benefits it can provide to society.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Renshaw follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I thank the witnesses for their testimony.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schweiger, unlike regulatory bodies such as the NRC,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy is an
industry-facing institution advancing the commercialization of
new technologies. I think we'd all agree with that.
Through DOE's programs, Oklo has secured EBR-II fuel, and
selected Idaho National Laboratory for its Aurora reactor. So,
in your opinion, how important is DOE to Oklo's success and its
ability to provide those 12 gigawatts of power to hyperscalers
like Switch?
Mr. Schweiger. Thank you for the question and also for your
work on the advanced program. We appreciate that, the industry.
I would say I worked with the DOE about 45 years off and
on, and the Fast Flux Test Facility was in that DOE program.
EBR-II and the recycled fuel that we're going to receive, I
think, is essential. When my associates in the industry say,
well, what's Oklo going to do for fuel, I go, well, it's
handled. And I think it--I don't know this for darn sure, but
I'm pretty sure it's the only SMR that's got a fuel supply
ready and available--or, you know, in the process of being made
available through DOE.
So that program gets us to where we want to be faster, and
that's crucial right now.
Chairman Weber. Especially in the development of AI.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may
complain that the President's Fiscal Year 2026 budget, as well
as DOE's reorganization, will hurt companies like Oklo. Can you
describe your interactions with the Trump Administration and
any of their actions that slowed the development of Aurora?
Mr. Schweiger. Mm-hmm. So as CTO, I'm not as tightly
coupled with the business side, as you can imagine. But the
Oklo business plan is less reliant on the Federal Government.
So what Oklo is trying to do is fund, go build power plants,
and then sell that power. And we're well on track for that with
private funding.
So Oklo uniquely is not going to be much affected by the
government policies like with the Federal loan program. So
that's what I can comment to. I don't know the inner workings
of the rest of it.
Chairman Weber. OK, very few of us do. I thank you for
that.
Ms. Barron, I'm going to come to you. Over the last decade,
non-regulated utilities have been at the forefront of
displaying next-generation nuclear reactors. Southern Company
completed the construction, as we all know, of two AP1000s at
Vogtle, and the TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority, recently
announced that it submitted a construction permit for GE
Vernova's BWRX-300 at its Clinch River site.
Can you explain for our benefit why merchant markets are
lagging in deploying next-generation nuclear reactors, compared
to these non-regulated entities? What's inhibiting, for
example, your company from constructing a new reactor?
I will yield the time to you.
Ms. Barron. Thank you for the question, Chairman.
So as you pointed out, the--operates where--the markets
where Constellation operates are competitive markets. That
means that, moment to moment, a system operator chooses which
asset to run based on cost. And if you get picked because
you're competitive, you run. And if you aren't, you don't. And
customers, you know, get the benefit of that. Over the years
customers have seen much lower costs in the competitive markets
because of that dynamic. There is no guaranteed rate recovery
for anyone that operates in a competitive market.
So you contrast that to the monopoly markets, where
regulators will make a decision to invest in a technology. And
in a guarantee rate recovery, that is the explanation for why
you had seen Vogtle move forward in Georgia and in VC Summers's
case in South Carolina.
I think what's changed is that there are now corporates
that are looking to help fund investment in new technology. We
have supportive Federal policy that is helping many reactor
developers, including Oklo, come to the market. And we have an
interest across the financial sector, the OEMs (original
equipment manufacturers), and then ultimately the operators to
work together to try to figure out how to bring these projects
to bear.
So I wouldn't look to the past as an indicator of the
future. I think you'll see some of these developments in
competitive markets, as well.
Chairman Weber. I wish I could train my wife not to look to
my past as something about the future.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Weber. But I want to come back to you. How many
customers of y'all's would you say that that affects when
you're trying to make sure the prices are the best? How many
customers do you all serve?
Ms. Barron. So we make enough--we're a wholesale producer
of electricity, so we make enough electricity to put out into
the grid to serve 16 million homes and businesses. On our
competitive--the competitive side of our business, where we
sell electricity in places, where that's permitted, i.e. the
non-monopoly markets, we serve about three-quarters of the
Fortune 100. So we have both large commercial industrial
customers and then residential customers that we rely on. And
we have to compete to serve those customers by providing the
best price and the best product.
Chairman Weber. Right. And the reason I ask that is for the
benefit of everybody watching, you all are trying to do the
best thing for the most people. We appreciate that.
I'm going to jump now to this question. With technology
companies and hyperscalers taking an active role in procuring
power for AI--you all have got to be watching that--do you
believe that this paradigm shift will empower companies like--
my writing--they wrote this ``like yours,'' but in Texas we say
like y'all's, OK? Like y'all's. Do you believe that that will
affect y'all's ability to build a new reactor into the market?
Ms. Barron. You know, I think, from our perspective, we
think you should do the cheapest thing first. And the cheapest
thing is to ensure that the existing fleet remains in
operation.
You know, unlike other sources of technology, nuclear needs
to be licensed by the Federal regulator, which does a great
job. And there's a finite licensed life to the existing
reactors. So investing in the plants, asking for a second
license extension, allowing the plants to run another 20 years,
these plants can run well past mid-century into the 2070s.
Second, we can uprate them or do modifications at the site
to create more output from the same physical plant, and those
are investments that we have underway. And all-in across just
our fleet, if we were to do all the remaining uprates available
we could make another 1,000 megawatts, so equivalent to a whole
new reactor.
Chairman Weber. Well, thank you. I've well over-stated my
time, so I appreciate your diligence. And I'm now going to
yield at least 5 minutes to the Ranking Member.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Chairman Weber. I'm going to take a
little bit at the end, but not to quiz our witnesses.
Thank you all for your very insightful and comprehensive
testimony.
Ms. Barron, I'm going to go--talk a little bit about the
monopoly markets, because North Carolina is a monopoly market.
And while meeting the significant energy demands of AI
infrastructure, we also worry about our ratepayers in the
monopoly market. And as we discussed, in South Carolina the
ratepayers really were on the hook.
In North Carolina there's a debate within our legislature
about whether to allow construction work in progress, which we
don't allow for nuclear. And so I worry that ratepayers can end
up with higher energy prices like what happened in South
Carolina when the project is failed or there are long delays.
And I support the need for more nuclear, but in that
monopoly market it becomes difficult with the ratepayers. It
also becomes difficult when the data centers want to have their
own sources of energy because the monopoly market doesn't
really like that very much. And I had that experience even on a
military installation when I was in--when I was practicing law
and trying to help get solar panels at Fort Bragg, of all
things.
So can you describe how utilities can protect ratepayers
from these unnecessary costs while also advancing other
projects like nuclear?
Ms. Barron. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. Mike on.
Ms. Ross. Mike on.
Ms. Barron. Thank you for the question. And as I mentioned,
we do operate in competitive markets. So I'm a little bit
outside of my lane.
But I do think it's fair to acknowledge that all first-of-
a-kind technologies have challenges with remaining on time and
on budget, and we've seen that on the East Coast with a number
of programs supporting offshore wind up and down the Mid-
Atlantic and into the northeast, where, you know, unexpected
cost increases have led to having--States having to renegotiate
contracts, and the challenge that you identified being front
and center, because these programs are funded by customers.
That being said, these are long-lived assets. I mean, these
stations, according to the NRC, can run for 80 years, maybe
longer, but they do take a long time to build. And during that
period of construction--I agree it is a challenge to how you
can you can manage those costs and make sure that the risk is
shared and is not exclusively borne by customers. In our case,
in a competitive market, we would look to a customer to help
support the project during development, and ultimately
guarantee the offtake so that we can share that risk and not
create the situation that you mentioned that you're facing in
North Carolina.
Ms. Ross. Thank you. My next question is--sorry, my next--
thank you, Mr. Chairman--my next question is for Dr. Renshaw.
At the end of your testimony you talked about an energy
mix, and how we can maybe use more intermittent resources in
conjunction with baseload power, and actually even sell energy
back to the grid, be--have this dispatchable resource that may
be backup, and helping other consumers of energy. Are there any
examples going on right now in the country where you can tell
us this--this really works, it's a great model?
Dr. Renshaw. Yes. So first, if you'll indulge me for a
second, we can also cover where it doesn't work. And we've seen
this in the past when Russia invaded Ukraine, gas prices went
through the roof, and many European utilities were in a very
difficult situation, losing millions to hundreds of millions of
dollars per day based on the increase in gas prices because
they were overly reliant on one source. That's why a mix of
energy sources is important that are clean, safe, affordable,
and environmentally responsible.
One thing that is exciting is EPRI just announced this
morning, as part of the DC Flex Initiative, three test sites
that we will be starting from locations around the world to
evaluate data center flexibility in terms of using those data
centers, backup generators potentially powered by clean fuels,
to operate flexibly and provide power back to the grid in a way
that we can either shift the time or location of workloads or
use those backup generators.
Ms. Ross. So having this backup as dispatchable and also
being able to do load shifting could be a really good model?
Great.
I'm going to use my remaining 15 seconds to thank Joseph,
right here, for his amazing service to the SST Committee. He is
going back to North Carolina to--to work in the area of--area
of nuclear because, it's really so important in North Carolina.
And so I'd like the Committee to give him a round of applause.
[Applause.]
Ms. Ross. And I yield back.
Chairman Weber. OK. The chair now recognizes the Full
Committee, Dr. Babin, for 5 minutes.
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schweiger and Ms. Barron, several States, including my
home State of Texas, have passed legislation to help attract or
develop the nuclear industry there. Texas House Bill number 14,
the Texas Advanced Nuclear Deployment Act, has been sent to the
Governor's desk to be signed into law. This bill creates a
State office, the Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, to
identify regulatory and financial barriers, promote public
education, and support the growth of a nuclear energy supply
chain. It also establishes the largest state-level grant
program in the Nation to develop nuclear projects.
How do actions like this support Federal investments that
allow this sector to advance from DOE projects to actual
electrons on the grid?
Ms. Barron.
Ms. Barron. Thank you for the question. And, I mean, I
think the answer is leadership matters. I think the State of
Texas has spent a lot of time focusing on this, starting at the
commission and the task force that was formed, Commissioner
Glotfelty's report. And then, obviously, the work the
legislature did to enact the bill that you referenced. It makes
a big difference, and it sends a signal that this is important,
and that the State supports it.
And we are seeing that leadership across a number of our
States. The Governor of New York has done the same thing,
launched a process to figure out how the State can encourage
new reactors in the State. Maryland passed a bill that supports
the addition of new reactors, as well. So I think those are all
tremendous signs.
Chairman Babin. OK.
Ms. Barron. To get to the nub of your question, though, you
know, to get these reactors actually onto the grid is a
challenge. The industry is going to need to meet this moment.
And we have a lot of leadership here at the table to--to talk
about that further. But I agree with the premise of your
question that these actions at the State level make--make a
very big difference to the industry.
Chairman Babin. OK. And then I'm going to ask Mr.
Schweiger.
I'm going to ask you a little bit different. Oklo has
championed the use of milestone-based contracts to support the
liftoff of advanced reactors similar to NASA (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's) Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services, or COTS, C-O-T-S, which led developed
commercial cargo delivery capabilities to the International
Space Station. In that instance NASA required skin in the game
from the contractors equal to 50 percent of the development
costs, and spread the development risk across multiple
contractors.
What are the benefits of a milestone approach, and should
DOE continue to use this form of contracting in the future, as
they did recently in their request for proposals for the Gen
III+ demonstration project?
And what conditions should be included in milestone-based
contracts to ensure scheduled discipline?
Mr. Schweiger. OK, thank you----
Chairman Babin. That's a two-part question.
Mr. Schweiger. Yes, thank you for the question.
I'd like to add to your first question that education is so
crucial. If you think back to post-Fukushima, people's desire
to use nuclear was pretty low, and they just didn't understand.
Chairman Babin. Right.
Mr. Schweiger. OK. Then, for the milestone-based program, I
think there's inherently value in it. The Oklo approach is
going to be less tuned to that because of our business model,
which is to build the plants and then sell the electricity.
When you look across the nuclear--all the--the Gen IV
plants that are trying to build new reactors and all those
initiatives, milestone-based--what I like about it is you have
to perform to get funding, instead of just getting a tranche of
money that may or may not produce something. So the milestone,
presumably, would have performance milestones in there. And
then, when achieved, then more money can be released.
Chairman Babin. Right.
Mr. Schweiger. So, yes. So as far as what should be in the
milestones, I'm not----
Chairman Babin. Yes, what conditions.
Mr. Schweiger. Yes, conditions. That's going to take a
little bit of thought, but----
Chairman Babin. Well, I don't have but 37 seconds left.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schweiger. I know. There we have a problem.
I think conditions for milestone-based would be do you have
a technology that's viable? You know, the person seeking
milestone support, is their technology actually viable? So, you
know, some sort of evidence. Are you at a technology readiness
level of four, five, six, somewhere in there?
And then, when you've established credible technology, then
marking the progress of that. And I'm--I'm partial to that
technology readiness assessment process that NASA pioneered and
DOD has been using--and DOE.
Chairman Babin. Yes. OK, thank you.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I have another question,
but we'll have to submit that for the record.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir. The Chairman recognizes the
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Zoe Lofgren of
California.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr.----
Chairman Weber. For as much time as she may consume.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, when we look at the international landscape, and
particularly at China, there's--we're seeing massive levels of
investment toward AI infrastructure, as well as nuclear energy.
And I think they're building more nuclear than anyone else in
the world. Meanwhile, we're debating here whether to limit
programs that provided research and loans and the like.
How would each of you rate our ability to compete with
China's massive nuclear expansion, particularly in developing
next-generation reactor technologies?
And specifically, do any of you think it's a good idea to
cut support for the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program by
more than half, as the Administration has proposed in its
budget resolution?
Whoever wants to go first.
Ms. Barron. I can just make a few comments. I have some
understanding of how the development is--is occurring in China.
And, you know, I think when you have a centralized authority
that is in charge, and you have construction crew A, B, C, D,
E, and you can sort of dispatch them around the country, you
can move faster. We have a different model here.
We have bifurcated authority between the Federal Government
and the States over energy policy, and that, you know, keeps
those of us up here in a job for a long period of time. But it
does mean that it's a bit more--more complicated. So--but it
allows, you know, involvement and--and appropriate input across
different levels of government. And that's important.
So I think our challenge, as I mentioned a moment ago, is--
is to sort of meet this moment now, and put all of our effort
into trying to move forward as fast as we possibly can, and we
have seen a lot of support for that of late, which I think is
important.
Dr. Renshaw. If I can add to that, I would say China is
definitely moving fast. They have the infrastructure in place,
manufacturing capabilities that have accelerated their ability
to perform. Currently they are on pace to build reactors in
about 52 months, so just over 4 years, and they're doing that
on time and on budget, meaning that they are growing in
credibility and trust with the people who are ordering those
plants. So that's a credibility and trust that would be
important to have in other regions of the world, to be able to
say this is how much a reactor will cost to build, and this is
how long it will take.
Ms. Lofgren. You know, it just seems to me--I--the Chairman
mentioned Fukushima, which made people around the world
nervous. And the legacy systems are different than the next-
generation system, which has broad support. And I'm thinking
about my own State. Near Morro Bay there's a legacy nuclear
plant that was going to be decommissioned because, you know,
building a dam or a nuclear plant is a way to find an
earthquake fault, and they found new earthquake faults near the
facility. We're keeping it open because of the energy needs,
but people are uneasy about it because it's a legacy system,
and we don't have that unease about the next generation.
So what about the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program
and the reduction that's being proposed? Does that make a
difference for our future?
Dr. Renshaw, do you have an opinion?
Dr. Renshaw. Well, EPRI doesn't comment on government
policy.
Certainly, investments in research and development can help
to accelerate the processes that we have, as well as the
technologies. So I would say that is--if we are investing
correctly, then it helps to accelerate all forms of research
and development, whether it's nuclear or otherwise.
Ms. Lofgren. One of the things--and I'm glad that our
colleague, Mr. Beyer, is here, he's the co-chair of the Fusion
Caucus--but, you know, we're skating toward where the puck is
going to be here. And both in terms of new energy sources, but
also the energy use, there is some in the AI space who believe
that the power consumption is actually going to go down as
quantum comes into play and, using different algorithms, that
the energy issue is going to be different than it is today. Do
you have a view on that, Dr. Renshaw?
Dr. Renshaw. Yes, I would say--I would refer back to my
testimony that the future energy needs are very uncertain.
Certainly, quantum computing is a technology that holds
significant promise in terms of accelerating certain types of
computing problems. AI may be one of those problems, as well as
optimization, search materials development, and so forth. So
there is the potential that future quantum computing modalities
would help to significantly reduce the--the amount of energy
that's required to train and test models.
But I would also point out Jevons Paradox, which
interestingly came out of the coal industry, where the
increases in efficiency of using a technology often results in
the expansion of usage of that technology. So if we can make
the use of quantum computing help AI training and inference,
then there's the potential for massively increased usage of AI
and other technologies.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My time has expired, so
I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, ma'am. The Chair now recognizes
Lieutenant Colonel Biggs from South Carolina for at least 5
minutes.
Mrs. Biggs. Thank you, Chairman Weber, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today.
The growing energy demand of AI infrastructure requires 24/
7, 365-day baseload power generation that never goes dark. So
do our American businesses and consumers. Nuclear energy is the
solution. It provides clean, efficient, and resilient power
that keeps the lights on and the rates low.
South Carolina is already a leader in nuclear. Over 50
percent of power generated in South Carolina comes from a
nuclear plant. I'm blessed to live just a few miles from one of
the largest nuclear power stations in the United States. The
Oconee Nuclear Station has provided reliable power to the 3d
District for over 50 years, and it was recently renewed for
another 20 years.
South Carolina is an exciting place to be. We have a record
economic and population growth. However, we are also reaching a
point of energy criticality. South Carolina needs the kind of
reliable and resilient energy production that nuclear does
provide. The newly formed Palmetto Nuclear Coalition was
launched with the goal of bringing the nuclear renaissance to
South Carolina, whether that is in the form of traditional
reactors or small modular reactors. So my question is to Mr.
Schweiger.
The energy demand from data centers and manufacturing is
only increasing, while American baseload has stagnated over the
last 20 years. What Federal policies could help scale nuclear
capacity fast enough to meet and exceed the growing energy
demand?
Mr. Schweiger. OK, thank you for the question. That's a bit
of a toughie.
I think that--so I grew up in Washington State. There were
five nuclear plants that were under construction. Only two--
actually, one--got built. Four were canceled. And so, when you
look at what happened, it was--at the State level they didn't
have the funding duration to support all five reactors.
So I think what's crucial is that the U.S. industry moves
at pace. We've heard other panel members here talk about--or
witnesses here talk about how quickly we can get a plant built.
So the industry has to move faster in America. And then there
has to be the money to back the initiatives.
Mrs. Biggs. Thank you.
For Ms. Barron, how could the licensing process be
simplified to allow for quicker project initiation to power
generation?
Ms. Barron. Thank you, Representative Biggs, for that
question. And, thankfully, that has been a subject of much
attention of late, with the President's executive orders
focusing on streamlining the relicensing and licensing
timeline.
There is no question that we need a very competent and very
responsible Federal regulator to be overseeing the industry,
but we also need to move as quick as we possibly can, making
sure that we meet all, you know, regulatory and safety
requirements and we reduce unnecessary regulation.
Like, for example, for us to get an early site permit
renewed at our Clinton site costs about $35 million, take a
couple of years to evaluate whether that site is suitable for
nuclear power when it already has a reactor on the site. Like,
these are the kinds of things we're trying to point out that we
could reduce the unnecessary work, focus on the necessary work,
and do our work as quickly as possible. We can achieve the goal
of getting the reactors online faster.
Mrs. Biggs. Great. So we're on a roll. I'm just going to
continue with you. What is the most effective role for the
Federal Government to aid in the production and scaling of
small modular reactors?
And how might they be useful for building out AI
infrastructure and keeping our rates low?
Ms. Barron. Well, in my testimony I mentioned some critical
policies including 45Y and 48E tax credits to support
investment in--in new--new reactors. I mentioned the Loan
Programs Office, which is another very important tool. And then
there are some grant programs that are underway, both for SMRs
and, ideally, for other large-scale, new reactors, as well.
Depending on the use case you might prefer to have a larger
reactor, as opposed to a smaller reactor. And of course, the
larger reactor, the AP1000, has already been successfully
deployed in Georgia, and so it doesn't have to go through that
same sort of licensing as--as the newer reactor designs.
But all of these programs obviously have to work together.
Mrs. Biggs. Thank you so much for your insight.
And with that I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair
recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon for at least 5 minutes.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
Ranking Member and our witnesses for being here today.
Whether we're using nuclear on different power sources, I
think we need to make sure that we also maintain focus on
efficiency, and this kind of goes to the question that our
Ranking Member of the Full Committee was having.
If we can limit data center power needs in the first place,
that will make it easier to lead the world in AI while keeping
costs under control for our electric grid. For example, in
Oregon, the Corvallis Microfluidics Tech Hub is a consortium
tackling R&D to make chips more efficient and easier to cool.
Dr. Renshaw--and again, you had a little bit of this
conversation--you alluded to this in your testimony. Can you
elaborate on the R&D being done in this space, and how energy
demand projections change depending on what we are able to
accomplish in that efficiency space?
Dr. Renshaw. Yes, so great question. I would say there are
many opportunities in this space.
So you had mentioned advances in chip designs, which we've
seen significant improvements in efficiency, thousands of times
of improvements of the number of tokens or word portions that
we can generate per unit of energy. Additionally, what we've
seen is that as new models, new model architectures for AI are
developed, they're often more efficient and more performant.
One of the things that we're doing at EPRI right now is
partnering with others in industry to look at how can we use
domain-specific models, so models that are customized for a
particular task to be able to not only get better performance,
but use less energy in combination.
So we think that all of these together will help to at
least blunt the growth of artificial intelligence energy needs.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
Ms. Barron--and again, teeing off of the conversation with
Ms. Biggs--while meeting the significant energy demands of AI
infrastructure is important, I too worry that ratepayers could
end up with higher energy prices along the way. Past examples
of nuclear energy construction projects have either failed or
were completely after long--completed after long delays and
cost overruns. And while I support the need for clean energy to
be added to the grid, I want to make sure that ratepayers are
not flipping the bill and subsidizing the costs as risks of
powering these data centers continue.
Can you describe how Constellation is protecting ratepayers
from unnecessary costs?
Ms. Barron. Thank you for the question. And, you know, I--
as we talked about earlier in response to Ranking Member Ross,
there's no question when you're deploying a first-of-a-kind
technology that there are going to be challenges. And we've
seen that with, for example, the offshore wind development over
here on the East Coast. But--but once the resources reach nth-
of-a-kind, and you can get some more predictability, then it's
easier to manage the cost, of course.
I mean, I think it's true that, if you look at the Georgia
example, Vogtle Unit 4 was 30 percent cheaper than Vogtle Unit
3. And so when you can get an order book in place and you can
get to that nth-of-a-kind spot, obviously this is all easier.
But in the short term it is challenging.
In our case, given that we don't have captive ratepayers
and we're in competitive markets, what will likely happen is
that we will have some corporate off-taker, likely some type of
data economy customer, who will say I want to work with you to
develop that resource, and I will take the power when it's
done. And so there will be no ratepayer impact of that
technology investment if it happens. But there still is a lot
of work to get to that point. And that's what we're working
hard to do.
Ms. Salinas. All right. And just as a follow up, are you
worried that a reduction in LPO's ability to provide loan
guarantees for large energy infrastructure projects, whether as
a result of staff reductions or funding recisions, will
inadvertently lead to an increase in ratepayer costs?
Ms. Barron. I mean, there's no question that the LPO, when
it provides loans, can help bring down the costs of these new
technologies, and that has benefits across the country for all
ratepayers when you have a technology that can get
commercialized at a lower cost. So we have been pleased to see
the focus on continuing the investment through the LPO, both in
small modular reactors and larger reactors through that
program.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and
thank the witnesses for being here today.
Ms. Barron, I'm going to start with you. And Constellation
was among the first major utilities to invest in grid scale
small reactor technology. And with this backing from Rolls
Royce, the SMR in 2020, this endorsement from a credible
nuclear utility served to inspire investment in the space,
unlocking capital flow into several other SMR designs.
And with the President last month setting a goal of
expanding America's nuclear capacity and capability from 100
gigawatts to 400 gigawatts by 2050, the moment again calls for
major credible first movers to help America win the race and
drive deployment commitments from small modular reactors.
So my question really comes--since we're in this race, what
policy hurdles or other impediments that inhibit or prevent
major nuclear operators such as yourself from transitioning
investment in SMR designs to the actual deployment of these
SMRs?
Ms. Barron. Thank you for the question, Representative. And
you're right. We did make an early equity investment in the
Rolls Royce SMR, and that might be confusing to some because,
of course, we're here in the United States. And why did we do
that? But we did that because the UK government made an
investment in that technology and launched a process to seek
input and bids to award contracts to a large number of SMRs for
use by the UK citizens. And we saw that as a signal that the
government was supporting that technology, and that there was a
future for Rolls Royce and potentially other SMR developers in
the UK. And we're pleased to see that that has borne out the
case, that the UK has selected Rolls Royce to move forward.
So, you know, what's happened in the intervening years
since we made that investment is that we've had tremendous
support here in the U.S., and we have a lot of very promising
designs that are underway. And so we're--we're hopeful that the
U.S. will--will see that same level of investment both in the
work that Oklo is doing with the military and with commercial
customers across--across the country.
Mr. Baird. So I'm going to continue on somewhat in that
vein. In April, Representative Harrigan, Tenney, and I
introduced the Small Modular Reactor Commercialization Act, and
that was aimed at securing United States' preeminent position
to industrialize grid scale small modular reactor technology.
The bill amends the outdated, arbitrary 300 megawatt threshold
for SMRs, which has really disadvantaged the U.S., and
established a working group to continuously recommend policy
that protects American status as the most competitive Nation
for reactor companies to base manufacturing beyond first-of-a-
kind demonstrator volumes.
So from your perspective, would you elaborate on what it
takes and on this bill in order to move and have the workforce
that we need to commercialize these SMRs?
Ms. Barron. Did you want to cover that?
Mr. Schweiger. Who are you directing the question to?
Ms. Barron. I'm happy to answer, but----
Mr. Baird. Now that we've taken this time, all three of
you. But I'm going to start with Ms. Barron.
Ms. Barron. I'm not--I'm not familiar with every provision
of the bill, but I understand that it's designed to help the
SMR industry. So I, you know--and sort of modernize the code in
order to--to ensure that it can be commercialized. So that's an
important step.
I think there's also steps that the industry needs to take
on the workforce question to make sure that we're helping
support certification programs, bringing students into--from
high school, through the trades, through the 4-year schools,
into industry to--to power it moving forward. And we are doing
that at Constellation.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Schweiger?
Mr. Schweiger. So when I was young, which was a few years
ago, at the plant I worked at what became crucial is that the
plant design was basic enough where you didn't have to have a
Ph.D. to run it. So I think one of the keys in getting these
SMRs to market beyond first-of-a-kind is to make sure the
designs are as simple as possible so they're cost effective,
easier to build, easier to run.
Mr. Baird. Dr. Renshaw.
Dr. Renshaw. Yes, I would agree with what has been said so
far.
If I can add one piece of additional knowledge, I would say
that training is an important area, and the workforce that we
would need in the future for supporting nuclear is
significantly larger than what it is today. This might be an
opportunity to utilize AI to accelerate training proficiency,
to be able to help this--the new generation to understand the
technologies in these areas faster, to be able to get up to
speed, to be able to replace the current workforce--or not
replace, but augment the current workforce.
Mr. Baird. I thank all of you and I yield back. My time is
up.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes the gentlelady from California for at least 5
minutes.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you very much, Chair Weber and Ranking
Member Ross, and for the witnesses coming here today.
My constituents in California are really struggling with
surging electrical rates: 1 in 5 ratepayers are behind on their
power bills as of last year, and rates are more than 80 percent
higher than the national average. Our State is home to more
than 270 data centers, with 70 in Los Angeles alone and two in
downtown--and in downtown Los Angeles, real estate developers
are racing to build even more data centers to keep up with
demand.
As AI-driven data centers and that demand surges, it's
really important that we make sure that our ratepayers can also
pay for the cost of electricity. Given how data intensive or
how energy intensive these AI centers are, and given that
California is one of the homes of a lot of this technology, how
do we make sure, No. 1--well, my question is, are we building
new power capacity, really, to satisfy the demands of data
centers more than of ordinary citizens and their homes and
their businesses?
And how do we ensure that none of those costs are being
passed along to ratepayers?
[Pause.]
Ms. Friedman. And I don't know if you can speak to that,
because I think maybe you're more on the technical side, but
yes, go ahead.
Ms. Barron. I'm happy to try. I'm not an expert on
California, per se, but I do think--and there was a prior
question about, you know, are we going to see this sustained
level of--of demand growth as the AI industry evolves, and I
think that is--that is a good question.
But I also think, if we are going to continue to electrify
our economy, if we're going to continue to try to onshore more
manufacturing, and if we are going to continue to lose coal
plants that go off the system, we are going to need to find new
technologies to bring onto the grid. And--and all of that is
going to benefit California and the country if we can do that
successfully.
But we should be choosing the lowest-cost solutions. We
should not be choosing things that we prefer because we like
those technologies. We should be choosing the things that can
achieve the goal of clean and reliable electricity at the
lowest cost. And, you know, I think that's what we're all up
here trying to do, and so that's what I would say to that
question.
Ms. Friedman. Right now we--you know, in California I don't
think that new nuclear is even allowed by law at this point.
Ms. Barron. That's right.
Ms. Friedman. We have Diablo Canyon, which is an older
plant, which is--whose life has been extended recently through
legislation which is actually tremendously costly to continue
to operate.
But in terms of other parts of the country where new
nuclear is allowed, you know, we hear a lot about permitting
and how difficult permitting it is. And I can only imagine for
a nuclear plant how many layers of safety review you have to
do, and different levels of permitting. I'm curious as to
whether anyone has ever done an analysis as to how much of that
permitting may be repetitive, if there is permitting
requirements that are--that could be streamlined, that are more
low-hanging fruit to get things moved along more quickly and in
a more cost effective way without sacrificing safety, community
input, siting issues, that kind of thing.
Are there--if we're interested in making the permitting a
little bit--have more sense to it and be easier for those
communities who want to add new advanced energy and nuclear,
where would we look at that?
And have you seen these kinds of--I mean, are--when you're
doing the permitting, are you pulling your hair out saying I've
already done this analysis, why do I have to do it again?
Ms. Barron. Well, I mean, I gave the example of the early
site permit that we have, where we have to evaluate the
environmental and other seismic issues associated with the new
reactor, even though we're looking at the exact same site where
we have existing reactors. So those kinds of things clearly are
in focus to make sure that those are not things that we're
wasting time on when we should be spending time on--on trying
to get these newer designs certificated.
But I also think it's one of the reasons why using an
existing site makes some more sense. You already have a cooling
lake there, you don't need to build a new one. You have rail,
you have electrical infrastructure, and those can bring down
the cost and shorten the time of bringing on new reactors.
Ms. Friedman. Does anyone else have any thoughts as to what
you would look at for anyone here who's looking at any kind of
permitting, streamlining or reform?
And it's OK if you don't know.
Mr. Schweiger. Well, I think--so I've worked in fusion and
fission, and the U.S. has policies in place that are making
fusion permitting go faster. And so, you know, the fresh look
at how to go get a nuclear-related technology to market, you
know, to power the grid, there's already an example where the
U.S. is--is moving faster with permitting.
So--and in fission there is some momentum gaining here, but
I think it's important to support that and give it impetus.
Dr. Renshaw. And if I could add just two thoughts on this,
as well--I know we're close on time--the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has already performed internal reviews on how they
can streamline their own processes and procedures. That's been
ongoing for several years now.
One thing that we could also utilize--not to beat a dead
horse--but AI. AI is very good at streamlining and distilling
large volumes of information. You may have hundreds of pages in
a report. The person who's reviewing that report may only need
certain key pieces of information. So instead of reading the
entire report, could you utilize AI to accelerate the reviews
of--of the permitting processes and so forth to be able to
streamline on both sides of the review and preparation?
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hurd, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for convening
this meeting on a very important topic.
The Trump Administration has signaled that nuclear energy
is a key part of achieving energy dominance. The President's
executive orders on nuclear energy, I think, send a strong
message that America must lead the world in nuclear energy. And
his executive orders focus on the nuclear supply chain,
existing reactors, new reactors, and much more. However, what
will matter is how they are implemented. We have to make sure
that they're implemented in a way that creates predictability
for companies so that they can raise private capital, but also
allows projects to be built faster.
Mr. Schweiger, Oklo's CEO (Chief Executive Officer) was at
the executive order signing ceremony, if I'm correct. How do
these EOs impact Oklo's plans to build your reactors?
Mr. Schweiger. Well, they'll certainly help. Again, going
back to the business model where Oklo is--is raising their own
capital, building their own plants, and then selling that
power, the EOs don't have a direct impact on Oklo as a company.
I think there are--to the nuclear industry in general, it's
great to have some tailwinds moving it along.
Mr. Hurd. Good. I'm happy to hear that.
Ms. Barron, I think Constellation's CEO was also at that
executive order signing ceremony. Similar question: how do
these executive orders impact Constellation's plans related to
maintaining your current nuclear fleet and also for building
new reactors?
Ms. Barron. Thank you for the question. That is true, my
boss was there.
And I think the--the focus on the timelines, both for
license extensions, which we talked about, how important they
are to allow the existing fleet to continue operating for 20
years, streamlining that process, and looking at the reactor
oversight process and the reactor security rules which haven't
been updated in a long period of time, those are some important
pieces of this executive order, although there are many that
relate to workforce and other things, as you mentioned.
We are not currently developing a new reactor at this
point, but we're looking at what that would take. And so having
this streamlining in the EOs is going to make a--is going to be
a big help.
Mr. Hurd. What do you think is the most challenging part of
the EO to implement? Does anything come top of mind, Ms. Barron
or Mr. Schweiger or Mr. Renshaw?
Ms. Barron. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony, there are
some ambitious goals. I mean, 10 new large reactors under
construction by 2030. It's ambitious, it's appropriately
ambitious, but we have a lot of work to do to make that happen.
Mr. Hurd. Mr. Schweiger, the most challenging part of these
EOs to implement, any thoughts?
Mr. Schweiger. None at the moment.
Mr. Hurd. OK, Mr. Renshaw, how about you? Anything to
contribute here with respect to the President's executive
orders?
Or maybe what role should Congress play in making these
executive orders successful and impactful?
Dr. Renshaw. I'll go back to EPRI generally doesn't comment
on policy or directions that Congress should take, so I will
refrain from answering.
Mr. Hurd. OK, fair enough.
I want to ask--this is a question for all of you, so let's
see who wants to answer. Given the bipartisan support for
expanding our nuclear energy generation fleet and the taxpayer
money that's gone into developing and fostering this industry,
what barriers is the industry facing, and how can Congress help
remove them so we can start building more reactors and putting
electrons on the grid?
Mr. Schweiger. Thank you for the question.
I think the one barrier I see right now is just fuel
supply, you know, having enough fuel. There's a lot of plants
that need HALEU that are in the works. And so whatever can be
done to get that fuel released for use, and then funding the
research to be able to undergird what these--the new generation
plants are trying to bring to market.
Mr. Hurd. Can I ask--do you see a future--do any of you see
a future where spent fuel could be reused or reprocessed
economically and securely in the United States, or is that not
something that you see on the horizon?
Mr. Schweiger. So Oklo is doing that. We're working with
Idaho National Lab right now to recycle the EBR-II fuel. And
then one of the next objectives at Oklo is to go to the
commercial spent fuel and recycle that. So it's very much in
our program. We're seeing support from Congress, the U.S.
Government, and we think it's a wonderful thing because there's
a lot of spent fuel that could be used before it's buried.
Mr. Hurd. Ms. Barron, do you see any--with advanced
reactors coming online, do you see any role that spent fuel
inventories might play in fueling those systems?
Ms. Barron. I'm learning along with you about the Oklo
design and the promise of that potential. I know that that is
occurring overseas, like, for example, in France, but we
haven't done that here in the U.S. And it would be a great
development if that could be a source of power for a new
reactor design, yes.
Mr. Hurd. Something to consider, indeed.
Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back. The Chairman
recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina for at least 5
minutes.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you to our witnesses for being here
today and for--to our Chair and Ranking Member for holding this
hearing.
Dr. Renshaw, recent research published by Caltech and UC
(University of California) Riverside looks at the fact that
AI's environmental footprint can be disproportionately higher
in certain regions, and raises questions about how we should
fairly balance AI's rapid expansion with its regional
environmental impact. Can you discuss how AI's environmental
impacts can vary by region, and how--and should Congress
consider addressing potential environmental inequities posed by
AI's infrastructure?
Dr. Renshaw. So that is a very deep question, so we'll only
scratch the surface on that today. But certainly there are
disproportionate impacts, especially on under-privileged
communities, because they're often sited in less desirable
areas that may be close to power generation, facilities that
may be more higher polluting or otherwise. And so we often look
at the benefits of AI, but this is looking at kind of what is
the flip side. So looking at the water use, the energy use are
all things that we need to take into account.
I would say, on the positive side, as we continue forward
on the path of research and development of these technologies
to utilize advanced chips, more performant model architectures,
domain-specific models, and advanced computing modalities such
as neuromorphic and quantum computing, I think we can blunt
some of that energy demand from data centers.
And we also have to remember on the environmental side that
while the largest impacts are in the immediate area, certainly
pollution can expand to greater regional areas, and pollution
can, of course, cross cities and State lines. So we have to be
cognizant that it affects all of us.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for sharing that insight.
Ms. Barron, I'm proud that our AI task force report from
last Congress dedicates an entire chapter to discussing AI's
energy and environmental impacts. As I've mentioned before, I'm
concerned about how the environmental demands like water and
local land resources needed to support AI's rapid arrival are
affecting prior and recent commitments of our Nation's leading
technology firms to become net zero emissions by the year 2030.
As we move into the second half of this decade and approach
2030, how do you assess the current capabilities of our
Nation's clean energy infrastructure to support AI's continuing
expansion today?
And what should technology firms and Congress be doing now
to ensure that AI technology development into the future is
sustainable? I think you touched on a bit of that earlier.
Ms. Barron. I did, but I appreciate that question. And in
response as well to your last question, I guess I would I would
say two things.
One is, you know, we've talked about this notion of
collocation. You know, our plants tend to be very remote from
population centers, and they have enormous land buffers. In
most cases we have thousands of acres of land around the plant,
and people don't even know that the plants are there. But that
does make it an ideal location for locating a data center,
which likely, you know, may cause some of the same concerns in
that people don't usually want to look at that all day long, or
hear it in some cases.
But to your exact question, addressing that land use issue
by collocating with an existing plant and addressing the water
issue, as well--as you may know, we have to create cooling
lakes or cooling ponds to--to have water to cool our reactor.
And in some cases it may be the case that the data center can
use some of the water that we have already created for use by
the plant. Sort of discharge water that we use for cooling they
can also use for cooling. So there will be no impact on the
local community for the water side, as well.
And then just to the last question on the potential for
using AI to help with clean energy infrastructure development,
one example I can give you is in addition to our nuclear
reactors we own the largest hydro dam east of the Mississippi
at the Conowingo up on the Susquehanna. And we also own a
pumped storage facility that's right nearby. And these two
facilities both use the water from the river to create
electricity. But using AI, we've been able to optimize the use
of the water in a way that we haven't been before that allows
us to make 250,000 megawatt hours from that plant, which is
enough to power 25,000 homes. That's more renewable energy we
didn't have before we used this technology.
So a small example, but we're hoping those kinds of
things--we can come back to you with--with--with even more
impactful examples in the future.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, and my final question to Dr.
Renshaw.
As a fellow North Carolinian, you know my district is a
leader in researching and developing emerging technologies like
quantum and AI. What opportunities are there in the upcoming
reauthorization of both the National Quantum Initiative Act and
the National AI Act of 2020 to advance U.S. leadership at the
intersection of technologies like quantum and AI?
Dr. Renshaw. Yes. So I would say that AI and quantum are
two of the most exciting technologies today. They are both
exponentially growing technologies. AI is one that everyone in
this room and pretty much around the world is aware of. Quantum
is still a little bit under the radar, but it is growing very
rapidly and very quickly. Certainly in the Research Triangle
area of North Carolina, here in the D.C. area there are top
notch universities, as well, as well as many other areas around
the country and around the world.
So I would expect that as we continue to advance research
and development in the areas and then move to practical
applications, we will start to see not only the benefits of AI
and the benefits of quantum, but the benefits of merging these
two technologies together for both more performant systems,
tools, and models, as well as more energy efficient systems,
tools, and models.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you.
That's my time. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Weber. You bet. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from Maryland for at least 5 minutes.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. Thank you to the Chair and the
Ranking Member, and thanks to our witnesses. And I know it's
been a--already a very weighty morning, but incredible
testimony so far.
So many of you highlighted earlier in your testimony and
your answers about how the U.S. is obviously barreling toward
this energy--I hate to use the word ``crisis,'' but it's really
something that we've got to address--and that our consumption
is increasing, driven by AI and our data center expansion. And
without additional power generation from a variety of sources,
including nuclear, many of us really are concerned about how
costs will increase substantially for consumers and companies.
As we look to the 2030s, one way to drive down costs and
increase nuclear power generation is the next generation of
nuclear reactors deployed at scale. And as was noted by our
Chair, one of the companies highlighted in the preparatory
materials is my own 6th District's X-energy headquarters. And
with the Department of Energy's Advanced Reactor Demonstrations
Project and program, X-energy has partnered with Dow Chemical
to provide a first-of-its-kind deployment of an advanced
reactor that will generate both electricity and steam for Dow's
chemical production behind the meter.
This initial demonstration was deemed critical to attract
the next customers, and it's an approach that is working as
Amazon has stepped up to partner with X-energy based on the
ARDP to invest another $334 million in a second plant and
target 5 gigawatts of new power. So a couple of things.
Dr. Renshaw, it appears that the new business models that
are helping to deploy these small modular reactors at a rate
that will bring down the initial capital investment needed for
new generation of energy. How does the collaboration between
high-need energy consumers and nuclear energy producers like X-
energy's partnerships with Amazon and Dow Chemical meet the
needs of AI companies while keeping energy prices down for U.S.
consumers?
And we talked about that a little bit earlier, but kind of
delving a little bit into it because I was very impressed with
X-energy.
Dr. Renshaw. Yes, if we can maybe peel the onion back one
more layer to get a little bit deeper, I would say one of the
key things that's holding us back today is really the financing
aspect. The cost of financing for all of----
Mrs. McClain Delaney. I completely agree with that.
Dr. Renshaw [continuing]. These projects is really the
largest driver.
So as we can move from pilot phases to demonstration and
then production--I heard nth-of-a-kind earlier--we can reduce
the cost, build that trust and credibility as we take the
fundamental R&D to applied R&D into production, and that will
help everyone--not only X-energy, but other reactor vendors--to
be able to build advanced nuclear, as well as other
technologies that are clean, safe, affordable, and reliable,
and put those on the grid for the benefit of all.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. So building on that, would you say
that would be something that would be through a public-private
partnership? Do you see it in terms of private equity markets
getting into it? Or do you think it's something that we really
need to step up, as--you know, Congress, and looking at funding
it, you know, more from a government level as we look at it
ahead? Because I think that's incredibly important.
Dr. Renshaw. Yes. In this case I would say all of the above
are important and helpful. I would say the people who are
building these systems, they--they would need support and
collaboration partnerships to be able to make them happen. I
think my--my co-witnesses can testify to that. And in fact, I
might defer to them if you want more details on what would be
important----
Mrs. McClain Delaney. No, I would love to hear from them
and--briefly. Then I want to get on to research for a second,
as well.
Ms. Barron. Yes, I think that's exactly right. I mean, I
think the stability of the government policy is important, and
knowing what tools are available is sort of what everyone is
looking at at this moment in time.
But--but once you have that certainty, then you are going
to need to go to capital markets, you're going to have to bring
other investors along, you're going to have to understand what
their cost of capital is and how you're going to share the
risk. And then you put it together and then you go. I mean,
that is--that is there's a lot of folks working on how to make
that happen right now.
But, you know, the offtaker matters, the government--the
government policy matters. But we are going to need to look to
third party capital, as well.
Mr. Schweiger. OK. Finally, Oklo's perspective, the Loan
Programs Office, this is an important financial tool for Oklo,
we want to see it presented. Secretary Wright supports this
program, as well.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. So thank you all. I'm just going to
submit for the record a question that, you know, the budget
request cut DOE--the President's budget cut DOE's ARDP program
by 51 percent, totaling $161 million. And I'm really concerned
about the implications of reduced research funding and nuclear
power generation, that fundamental research. So I'll submit for
the record.
But thank you all, and very informative.
I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Illinois for at least 5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. At least? I'd like to understand the legal
reading of that, and what--the penalties involved for--anyway,
one of----
Chairman Weber. Ms. Barron is an attorney, if you're
interested.
Mr. Foster. OK. Well, since I haven't yet been assigned a
Subcommittee here, I think you have considerable leverage in
that negotiation over me.
One of the areas where AI is going to have a real impact, I
hope, is on the compliance and engineering costs for--for
nuclear that--you know, I was talking to a guy who actually
runs a company that builds a lot of these data centers. And
when you deliver the civil construction for a data center, it's
accompanied by just a telephone book full of documentation on
how your, you know, tornado resilience is, and you name it.
And so--and he's in the process of replacing a very large
group of engineers and--and so on that produces that phone book
with AI, because once you've done that for one data center,
trained it on things, you can very rapidly make the minor
modifications in this.
And so in the case of, you know, nuclear, if you--if you
train your AI on every site evacuation plan that's ever been
written, and say I need a site evacuation plan for one more
place, you can imagine that that's an instance where the
engineering costs associated with a new nuclear emplacement may
go down.
Also, the regulatory delays if that same level of AI is
used by the government to evaluate this telephone book that
you've just submitted to them, then you could imagine a very
rapid turnaround in that. I was wondering. Are you starting to
use, you know, AI to generate any of the paperwork or--the
electronic paperwork so far for your regulatory things?
Mr. Schweiger. So we have an AI protocol that's in writing
for Oklo, and we're starting to use AI in expanding capacity.
When you start looking at design of a first-of-a-kind plant, I
think you can use AI to a limited capacity. But there is a lot
of details that go into how, for example, a heat exchanger is
designed.
Mr. Foster. OK, but I was referring to the site-specific
details.
Mr. Schweiger. OK.
Mr. Foster. That when you have--OK, I have one of these----
Mr. Schweiger. Oh, yes.
Mr. Foster. You know, because one of the messes that you
have in, like, all the Constellation plants is that they're all
somewhat different and, you know, the cooling scenario is
different and the ponds are different. But that is something
where, once you had the fundamental engineering understood by
the AI, you could rapidly make a new site-specific plan. And it
would, I think, change a lot of the economics. And if the
government would go--move along with you, you know, the
approval of that could be a lot faster.
And so anyway, I just urge you to keep your eye on that,
because I think that--you know, the--it also means that the
workforce planning will be a lot--you know, the--the group that
is anticipated by this guy that makes the AI data centers was
about 5 percent of this current group size--could produce all
of that paperwork using AI trained on--on projects that have
already been completed.
Let's see, one--all right. Another thing, you know, I
worked at Fermilab for many years. We're a very good customer.
And one of the deals that we had was that we would get a call
from the, you know, control room, and said, hey, it's--you
know, it's a hot afternoon. We're getting in kind of trouble on
our capacity. Can you guys, like, do some preventative
maintenance instead of drawing power? And that got us a much
better rate, power rate. Are you seeing that same sort of thing
out of the data centers?
Because the data centers, in principle, you know, they're
doing a mixture of 2 week-long projects to do--to train models,
and then rapid response to people that type in queries. The--
the queries could be routed to any data center, you know, in
the continental United States so that that load can be moved
around. And you can certainly just say, OK, it's going to take
2 weeks and 2 days because we had an ice storm in Texas. And is
that sort of--are you getting that sort of negotiation out of
the data centers at this point?
Yes.
Dr. Renshaw. Yes, so I'll take maybe the first part and
then defer to Ms. Barron for the second part.
So we are looking, through our DC Flex Initiative, of data
center flexibility, how we could do exactly what you're talking
about, utilizing the ability to delay AI training or move it to
different sources or different locations. In some cases you're
able to do that. In other cases you're not. So we want to be
realistic about what can and can't be done.
On the flip side, there's also the opportunity, as
discussed earlier, to be able to use backup generation sources.
Now, currently many of those are diesel and can only be
operated so many hours per year, which could still be a good
resource, even for the top 40 highest peak load hours during
the year. If cleaner energy sources were used such as hydro-
treated vegetable oil, hydrogen sources, or other, then you
could potentially use that backup generator as a grid resource
more frequently.
So maybe I'll defer to Ms. Barron to talk more about that.
Ms. Barron. Well, I don't have anything to add. I think
EPRI has shown tremendous leadership in helping the industry
get to exactly your question, where is the untapped flexibility
that we can use so that we can understand what they can do, and
then we can design market rules that will provide the right
incentives so that they do dial back at times when the system
needs the power.
Mr. Foster. Yes. Well, the other thing I worry about is if
you just look at it from a CapEx point of view of the data
center operators, you know, you're asking them--they've put all
this money into their GPUs, and you're asking them to let that
CapEx sit idle for some period of time. And so there's a
calculation that, in principle, you could do right now is--you
know, at what point they say I don't care, you know, I don't
care if I get a lower rate. It's--electricity isn't that big a
deal for me. And that--so that part of the calculation I think
we can understand now as to whether this is going to be a
winning game for leveling the load on this.
Anyway, this is--I'm glad to see you're thinking about it,
because this is, you know, sort of the first--the challenge
that nuclear has, frankly, is $0.10 a watt Chinese--that's the
spot price for Chinese solar panels. I recall, you know, 15
years ago, when we were arguing about cap and trade, we had
these U.S. solar startups optimistically projecting a dollar a
watt, which I was skeptical of. And now it's $0.10 a watt. And,
you know, Goldman Sachs has done a big analysis of these and
they find that at current prices the winner by far is a
collocated solar field and battery and a--and a data center.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman's 15-year memory time has
expired.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Weber. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman Weber, thank you so
much for allowing me to waive on. It's--it's fun to be back
here.
And to the witnesses, thank you very much for sitting in
with us. I apologize for beating a dead horse, but I'm just
extraordinarily concerned about the future of our country with
the retraction in our investment in science and technology.
And Mr. Schweiger, I read you're head of engineering at
Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS). We're very excited about
everything that CFS is doing. I've been to visit a couple of
times. We have our congressional Fusion Caucus. I'm a co-chair
with another Democrat and two Republicans, and every--virtually
everyone on this Committee is part of the Fusion Caucus.
So we were--and we're thrilled that Commonwealth Fusion has
cut the deal with Dominion Power to build the first arc power
plant in the history of humankind here in Virginia, but we're
also concerned that China last year allocated $1.5 billion to
fusion. We were at $790, the new budget is down 6 percent to
$744 million. It's a 6-percent cut. In the CHIPS and Science
Act we authorized $1.04 billion, which is still way short of
where we need to be.
We met with Secretary Wright, our caucus co-chairs. The
Secretary was very supportive, it was a great meeting. But we
also know he doesn't control the budget. And it's not just the
fusion budget. It's also National Science Foundation has been
cut 55 percent, for example. What's happening at NIH (National
Institutes of Health) is very sad, in Congresswoman Delaney's
district, the--the so-called Bethesda declaration.
Mr. Schweiger, how do we ensure that fundamental enabling
science that will propel energy technologies is actually
prioritized, even in the current constrained funding
environment?
Well, what do we do to make sure that we're putting our
money where our dreams are?
Mr. Schweiger. OK, thank you for the question. It's a great
one.
So I had the--I'll call it privilege--to go to China for 8
years off and on, and learned--learned a lot about how the
Chinese think and how they run their programs. And I'd say--
this is my view--but America is--is recognized as the premier
country for ingenuity, thinking of new things and ways to do
it. And so when you think about how we're going to implement--
whether it's fission or fusion, my high bias is that Americans
are the ones that are going to do it because we're ingenious.
And so to the question, the--I think fusion has a ways to
go, right? There has not been a commercial fusion plant put
together. It's a good thing, we're supporting that. The--the
technology I'm representing is ready now. And so when you look
at implementing technologies that will help, whether it's AI or
just the power grid, I think America needs to step up. As my
fellow witness said, you know, let's use what we already have.
I think that's super important. And then let's get the new
technology moving forward as fast as we can, by whatever means.
As Dr. Renshaw said, everything above.
Mr. Beyer. Yes, yes. I think we all agree with as much as
we can.
Dr. Renshaw, to you specifically, one of the cases that we
made to Secretary Wright is, although we've seen an enormous
amount of private-sector investment in fusion and in fission
and others, which we--which we celebrate--I mean, TAE just
raised $150 million over the weekend, which we're excited
about--we still recognize that there are fundamental
engineering and science problems that would serve the entire
industry that can only likely be done by a Federal Government
approach.
For example--and Mr. Schweiger, you know this from your CFS
days--the high energy neutrons that are thrown off from a DT
reaction, you know, dissolve metal. We need some way to--to
figure out the--this--the engineering and the science that will
allow us to deal with the largest single downturn.
Isn't that, Dr. Renshaw, the most appropriate place for
Federal Government investment?
Dr. Renshaw. So I'll say that EPRI doesn't comment on what
the policy should be, but I can comment on where is the
technology going, and how can we get to an end state that is
beneficial to all.
So we're looking at how can we bridge the gap between where
we are now and where we need to be to be able to develop large-
scale fusion plants. I would say that, similar to the other
technologies that we mentioned in energy, there is no perfect
energy technology, fusion included. But there are some
significant benefits to deploying fusion.
So in--the ways that we can get there are similar to how
research and investment has been done in the past, where the
government is able to fund research and development programs to
be able to foster that innovative culture that Mr. Schweiger
had mentioned earlier. Some of the things that we're doing at
EPRI are looking at how can we advance the state-of-the-art in
fusion materials, as well as fusion plasma control. We actually
recently completed a challenge for this, and we brought in
organizations from around the world to compete on the best
concepts for developing and deploying fusion technologies.
Mr. Beyer. By the way--and Mr. Chairman, just--one of the
reasons we're so excited about milestones is because it
emphasizes competition. You know, we're rewarding the
entrepreneurs and the scientists and the engineers who can
figure the problems out. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back. I thank the
witnesses for your very valuable testimony and the Members for
their questions.
The record will remain open for 10 days for additional
comments and written questions from Members. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]