House Hearing on Nuclear Solutions for AI Infrastructure

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 Infrastructure. I recognize myself for five minutes with an opening statement. So, listen. Good morning, everybody. We're glad y'all are here, and that includes the audience, by the way. Uh, 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 base load 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—most of y'all weren't here then, and just for the record, neither was I—much like the 1940s when Americans stood—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 y'all say data or data?—So, data. I there's one vote for data right there in the back. All right. Uh, according to one 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 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 one large lightwater 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 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 base load power and unmatched reliability. Nuclear's capacity factor of 92.5%—let that sink in—is the highest of 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 in 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 Kyros—Chyros—power, and Switch secured up to 12 gigawatts from Oaklo Energy, another witness here today, to partner with Microsoft to recommission a nuke 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 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, Talon Energy sold Amazon a data center and agreed to a behind-the-meter power agreement supplying up to 480 megawatts from a Susquehanna nuclear power plant. Although FERC blocked this specific agreement, I believe behind-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, which helps commercialize new nuclear technologies, including Xenergy's XC100 reactor. Just recently, DOE and X Energy submitted their construction permit application for a proposed project in Seadrift, Texas, which is right south of—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 HALEU to X energy, Carol's 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—industry would be interested—in using federal land at DOE sites to host AI data centers—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 era. I look forward to our discussion today, and I'm going to yield the balance of my time to the gentle lady to my right, the ranking member.

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 second 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, 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 a 24/7 supply 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 costs of rapid data center expansion are 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 the total greenhouse gas emissions for U.S. data centers in 2023 were 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 underutilized 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 serves the data centers 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—the ratepayers—They should not be first in line to absorb high risk and be financially burdened with the typical rates associated with deploying a first-of-a-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 risk being absorbed by the ratepayer, 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, 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 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'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. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Chairman Babin. I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee for a statement.

Well, uh, thank you, Chairman Weber and Ranking Member Ross for holding this hearing today. And I want to thank the witnesses, uh, for being here and for your expertise. We have a real challenge ahead of us. Uh, 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 and advance 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 plainly 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% and slash funding for the flagship Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program by 51%. The budget also states that it is, quote, "prioritizing fusion research," but it proposes to cut fusion research by 6%. Now, this may be old-fashioned, but I think words actually should mean something, uh, especially when they come from the United States government, and these words uh do not reflect the actual proposal. Now, uh, 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, uh, 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, uh, 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 ranking member of the full committee yields back. I now recognize the—every Ross to the right of me.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent 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. Without objection. Uh, 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—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 Schwager, the chief technology officer of Oaklo. Our next witness, Miss Kathleen Barron. Bon. Am I saying that? Miss Kathleen Barron. I can do this. Barron. Okay. Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy and Growth Officer at Constellation Energy. Our final witness, Dr. Jeremy Renshaw. Thank you for the easy name to say. Uh, executive director of AI and Quantum at EPRI. I now recognize Mr. Schwager for five minutes to present his testimony.

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 Schwager, and I am the CTO at Oaklo, an advanced nuclear technology and fuel recycling company. Prior to Oaklo, 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. Oaklo is developing fast fission power plants known as Aurora Powerhouses to provide clean, reliable, and affordable energy at scale. Oaklo is at the forefront of transforming the technological basis and business model associated with nuclear power in America, and 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 a commercial reactor at Idaho National Laboratory. 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% 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. Oaklo 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. Oaklo's Powerhouses build 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 Oaklo will change that, leveraging a legacy that blossomed with research and test reactors such as the Fast Flux Test Facility and Experimental Breeder Reactor II, which was a fast reactor that ran at INL for 30 years at a capacity of 20 megawatts of electric power. Oaklo'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 Miss 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, as 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. Number one, 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. Number two, 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, number three, 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. Oaklo 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.

Thank you, Mr. Schwager. Uh, you have a very interesting quote which I love when you say AI has triggered a Sputnik moment. Is that—I don't mean to put you on the spot, but is that original with you?

Well, not to me personally, but original to who helped me write this.

Well, that's a very, very good point. Miss Barron, I'm going to yield five minutes to you.

Thank you. Uh, good morning. Uh, Full Committee Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Lorren, 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 uh 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 uh 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 uh 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 citing 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 uh which is comprised of hundreds of—of workers and their families—are supportive of this opportunity to add…

Uh, 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, uh, by the full committee chair, Constellation has been working to enable data center development in the places where we operate.

Uh, last September we announced that we will restart unit one, which is the undamaged reactor at Three-Mile Island. Uh, it was one of our best performing, uh, reactors, uh, when it closed prematurely at, uh, before the end of its license life in 2019 due to economic factors partly caused by poor policy choices. But it will resume operation as the clean 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 0 megawws at our Clinton Clean Energy Center in in, uh, central Illinois to support Meta's facilities in the Midwest region beginning in 2027. This agreement will allow us to relicens the Clinton station for another 20 years and allow it to operate till at least 2047. And it also calls for us to upgrade 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 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's President Trump's recent executive orders direct that the Department of Energy shall prioritize work with the nuclear energy industry to facilitate 5 gawatts of power upgrades 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 45Y and 48e technology-neutral tax credits for nuclear generation, which is consistent with comments from the administration and their recently passed House reconciliation measure. Second, Congress should retain funding for the Department of Energy's loan programs office for nuclear, uh, 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 cited right at or near the 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 cost 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, uh, a lack of clear federal rules. So, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and look forward to your questions. Thank you, ma'am. Dr. Renshaw, you've got a hard act to follow. You're recognized for five minutes. Chairman Weber and Frankie Dr. Renchaw, I'm sorry. Turn your mic on. I'm sorry. Would you like me to start over? In a word, heck no.

All right. Um, EPRI has worked with AI for decades, observing rapid growth in computational needs, accelerated by recent breakthroughs in generative AI. Advances in GPUs 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 cues 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 reduce risk. Nuclear plants provide safe, reliable, and carbon-free base load 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 materials must still be managed. As with any technology, first-of-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.

I thank the witnesses for their testimony. I now recognize myself for five minutes. U Mr. Schwagger, 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, OK has secured Eber 2 fuel and selected Idaho National Laboratory for its Aurora reactor. So in your opinion, how important is DOE to Oko's success and its ability to provide those 12 gawatts of power to hyperscalers like switch? Thank you for the question and also for your, uh, work on the advanced program. We appreciate that industry. Uh, I would say I I've worked with the DOE about 45 years off and on and, uh, the fast flux test facility was in that DOE program. EBR2 and the recycled fuel that we're going to receive I think is essential. When my associates in the industry say, "Well, what's Oklahoma going to do for fuel?" I go, "Well, it's handled." And I think it, uh, this 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, uh, made available through DOE. So that program gets us to, uh, where we want to be faster and that's crucial right now, especially in the development of AI. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may complain that the president's FY26 budget as well as DOE's reorganization will hurt companies like Oaklow. Can you describe your interactions with President Trump with the Trump administration and any of their actions that slow the development of Aurora? So, as CTO, I'm not as tightly coupled with, uh, the business side as you can imagine. Um, but the Oaklo business plan is less reliant on the federal government. So the that what Oaklo is trying to do is fund go build power plants and then sell that power and and we're well on track for that with private funding. Uh, so Oaklo uniquely is not going to be much affected by the, uh, government policies like with the federal loan program. Um, so that's what I can comment to. I don't I don't know the inner workings of the rest of it.

Okay. Very few of us do. I thank you for that, Miss Brun. I'm going to come to you. Over the last decade, non-regular utilities have been at the forefront of displaying next-generation nuclear reactors. Southern Company completed construction as we all know AP-1000s at Bogle, and the TVA Sens Valley Authority recently announced that it submitted a construction permit for Genova's BWXR 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-regulate regulated entities? What's inhibiting for example your company from constructing a new reactor? I I'll yield the time to you. Thank you for the question chairman. Uh, so as you point out the the, uh, 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 cost in the competitive markets because of that dynamic. There is no guaranteed rate recovery for any one 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 in guarantee rate recovery. That is the explanation for why you had seen Bogle move forward in Georgia and in BC Summer's case, um, in South Carolina. Um, I think what's changed is that there are now corporates that are looking to help fund, uh, investment in new technology. We have supportive federal policy that is helping many reactor developers, uh, including Oaklo come to the market, and we have an interest, uh, across, uh, the financial sector, the OEMs and then ultimately, uh, the operators to work together to try to figure out how to bring these projects to bear. Um, 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. Wish I could train my wife not to look to my past to something about the future. But I want to come back to you. Uh, 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 y'all serve? So, um, 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 that's permitted i.e. the non-monopoly markets. Uh, we serve about three-quarters of the Fortune 100. So we have both large, uh, commercial industrial customers and then residential customers that that we rely on and we have to compete to serve those customers by providing the best price and the best product.

Right. All right. And the reason I asked that is for the benefit of the of the everybody watching. Y'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. Y'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'alls. Okay. Like y'alls to build. Do you believe that that'll affect y'all's ability to build a new reactor into the market? You know, I I 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. Uh, and and there's a finite license life to the existing reactor. So investing in the plants, asking for a second license extension, allowing the plants to run another 20 years. Uh, these plants can run well past mid-century into the 2070s. Um, secondly, we can upgrade them or do, uh, modifications at the site to create more, uh, output from the same physical plant. Uh, and those are investments that we have underway. And all in across just our fleet. If we were to do all the remaining upgrades available, we could make another 1,000 megawatt. So, equivalent to a whole new reactor. Well, thank you. I've well overstated my time, so I appreciate your diligence. And I'm now going to yield at least five minutes to the ranking member.

Thank Thank you, Chairman Weber. I'm going to take a little bit at the end, but, um, but not to quiz our witnesses. Thank you all for your very insightful and comprehensive testimony. Um, Miss Baron, I'm going to go talk a little bit about the monopoly markets because North Carolina is a monopoly market. And, um, 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 a debate within our legislature about whether to allow construction work in progress, um, which we don't allow for nuclear. And so I worry that ratepayers can end up with higher energy, um, prices like what happened in South Carolina when there a 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, um, 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, um, 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, um, projects like nuclear? Mike on. Mike on. Uh, thank you for the question. Um, and as I mentioned, we do operate in competitive markets. So, I'm a little bit outside of my lane, but I 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, uh, up and down the mid-Atlantic and into the northeast where you know unexpected, uh, cost increases have led to having states having to renegotiate contracts, uh, and, uh, the challenge that you identified being front and center because these programs are funded by by customers. Um, that being said, these are long-lived assets. I mean these stations according to the NRC can run for 80 years, uh, maybe longer, uh, but they do take a long time to build, and during that period of construction I agree it is a challenge at 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, um, and and not create the situation that you mentioned that you're facing in North Carolina. 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, um, base load power and actually even sell energy back to the grid be have this dispatchable resource that may be backup end up helping other consumers of energy. Are there any examples, um, going on right now in the country where you can tell us this this really works? It's a great model. Yes. So, first if you 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. Uh, one thing that is exciting is EPRI just announced this morning as part of the DC Flex initiative three test sites that will be starting from or, uh, locations around the world to evaluate data center flexibility in terms of using those data center 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. So, um, having this backup as dispatchable and also being able to do load shifting could be a really good model. Great. Um, I'm going to use my remaining 15 seconds to thank Joseph right here for his amazing service to the SST committee. Key is going back to North Carolina to pra 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 and I yield back.

Okay. The chair now recognizes the full committee, Dr. Babman for five minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um Mr. Schwiger, uh, and Miss Baron. Uh, several states including my home state of Texas have passed legislation, uh, to help attract or develop the nuclear industry there. Uh, Texas House Bill number 14, the Texas Advanced Nuclear Deployment Act had been sent has 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? Uh, Miss Baron, thank you for the question and, um, I mean I think the answer is leadership matters. Um, I think the 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 Gloffelty's report and then obviously the work the legislature did to enact the bill that you referenced. It it makes a big difference and it sends a signal that this is important and that the state supports it. Uh, 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, uh, supports the, uh, addition of new reactors as well. So, um, I think those are all tremendous signs. Uh, to get to the the number of your question though, you know, to get these reactors actually onto the grid, um, is a challenge. The industry is going to need to meet this moment. Uh, and we have a lot of leadership here at the table to, uh, to talk about

That further. But I, I, I agree with the premise of your question that, um, these actions at the state level make, make a very big difference to the industry. And then I'm going to ask Mr. Schwiger; I'm going to ask you a, a little bit different one. Oaklo has championed the use of milestone-based contracts to support the liftoff of advanced reactors, similar to NASA's commercial orbital transportation services, or CS Coots, 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% 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 3 Plus demonstration project, and what conditions should be included in milestone-based contracts to ensure, uh, schedule discipline? Okay. Uh, thank you. That's a two-part question.

Yeah. Uh, thank you for the question. I'd like to add to your first question that, u, education is so crucial. Uh, if you think back to post-Fukushima, uh, people's desire to use nuclear was pretty low, and I just didn't understand, right. Okay. Then, uh, for the milestone-based program, um, I think there, there's inherently value in it. The, the Oaklo approach is, 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, uh, all the, the, uh, Gen 4 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, a trunch of money that may or may not produce something. So the milestone presumably would, uh, have performance milestones in there, and then when achieved, then more money can be released.

Right. So yeah. So as far as what should be in the milestones? I'm not. Yeah. What conditions? Yeah. Conditions. Uh, that's going to take a little bit of thought, but, um, well, I don't have a 37 seconds left. I know there, and we have a problem, but I think, uh, conditions for milestone-based would be: do you have a technology that's viable? You know, the, the person seeking milestone support is their technology actually viable? So some sort of evidence; are you at a technology readiness level of four, five, six, somewhere in there, um, and then when you've established credible, uh, technology, then marking the progress of that, and I'm, I'm partial to that technology readiness assessment process that NASA pioneered in DoD as you've been using and DOE. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I have another question, but we'll have to submit that for the record. Thank you, sir.

The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, offer of California, for as much time as she may consume.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, you know, when we look at the international landscape and particularly at China, uh, there's we're seeing massive levels of investment towards, uh, AI infrastructure as well as nuclear energy. And, uh, I think they're building more nuclear than anyone else in the world. Meanwhile, we're debating here whether to limit programs that, um, 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, uh, 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, I can, I can just make a few comments.

Um, 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, um, you can move faster. Uh, we have a different model here. um, 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, uh, it's a bit more, more complicated. So, uh, but, but it allows, you know, involvement and, um, and appropriate input across different levels of government, and that's important. So, uh, I think our challenge, as I mentioned a moment ago, is, is to sort of meet this moment now, uh, and put all of our effort into, uh, trying to move forward as fast as we possibly can. And we have seen a lot of support for that, um, of late, which I think is important.

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. Uh, currently they're on pace to build reactors in about 52 months, so just over four 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. Uh, you know, it just seems to me, I, the chairman mentioned Fukushima, which made people around the world nervous, um, and the legacy systems are different than the next-generation system, which has broad support, uh, and I'm thinking about my own state, near Morrow Bay, there's a legacy, uh, 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 vault, uh, and they found new earthquake faults, uh, near the facility. We're keeping it open because of the energy needs, but people are uneasy, uh, about it because it's a legacy system, and 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. Ranch, do you have an opinion?

While EPRI doesn't comment on government policy, uh, 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. One of the things, and I, I, I'm glad that our, uh, colleague Mr. Byer is here. He's the co-chair of the fusion caucus. Um, but you know, we're, we're skating towards where the puck is going to be here, and, um, both in terms of new energy sources but also the energy use. There are 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, um, the energy issue is going to be different than it is today. Do you have a view on that, Dr. Renshaw?

Yes, I would say I would refer back to my testimony that the future energy needs are very uncertain. Uh, 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. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My time is expired, so I, I yield back.

Thank you, ma'am. The chair and I recognize Lieutenant Colonel Bigs from South Carolina for at least five minutes.

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 base load power generation that never goes dark. So do 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% of power generated in South Carolina comes from a nuclear plant. I am blessed to live just a few miles from one of the largest nuclear power stations in the United States. The Okone nuclear station has provided reliable power to the third 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. Swiger. The energy demand from data centers and manufacturing is only increasing while American base load 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?

Okay, thank you for the question. Uh, that's a bit of a toughy. I think that, uh, so I grew up in Washington state. There were five nuclear plants that were under construction. Only two, uh, actually one got built. Four were cancelled. And so, uh, when you look at what happened, it was, um, at the state level, they didn't have the funding, um, duration to support all five reactors. So I think what's crucial is that, uh, the US industry moves at pace. We, we've heard other panel members here talk about, or comm, uh, witnesses here talk about, um, 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, u, initiatives. Thank you.

Um, for Miss Baron, how could the licensing, licensing process be simplified to allow for quicker project initiation to power generation?

Uh, thank you, Representative Biggs, for that question, and, and, um, thankfully that has been a subject of much attention of late with the president's executive orders and focusing on streamlining the relicensing and licensing timeline. Um, there, there's no question that we need a very competent and very responsible federal regulator to be overseeing the industry. Uh, but we also need to move as quick as we possibly can, making sure that we meet all, you know, regulatory and safety requirements. Um, and, and we reduce unnecessary, uh, 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, and do our work as quickly as possible, we can achieve the goal of getting the reactors online faster.

Great. So, we're on a roll. I'm just going to continue with you. Um, 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?

Well, in my testimony, I mentioned some critical policies, including 45Y and 48E tax credits, uh, to support investment in, in new, new reactors. As 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 AP-1000, 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, have to work together. Thank you so much for, for your insight. And with that, I yield back.

Thank the gentle lady; the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Oregon for at least five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our ranking member and our witnesses for being here today. Whether we're using nuclear or, um, 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, uh, 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, um, microfluidics tech hub is a consortium tackling R&D to make chips, uh, more efficient and easier to cool. Uh, 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 the space and how energy demand projections change depending on what we are able to accomplish in that efficiency space?

Yeah. 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.

Thank you, Miss Baron. Um, and again, chain off of the conversation with Miss 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, um, 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, um, flipping the bill and subsidizing the costs as risks of powering these, uh, data centers continue. Can you describe how Constellation is protecting ratepayers from unnecessary costs?

Uh, thank you for the question, and, um, you know, I, I, I as we talked about early in response to ranking, ranking member Ross, the 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 off over here on the east coast. Um, but, but once the resources reach end of, end of a kind and you can get some more predictability, then it's, then it's easier to manage the cost. Of course, I, I mean, I think it's true that if you look at the Georgia example, Vogtle unit 4 was 30% cheaper than Vogtle unit 3. And so when you can get an order book in place and you can get to that end-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 or likely some type of, uh, 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 techn, of that technology investment if it happens. But there still is a lot of work to, to get to that point. And, um, that's what we're working hard to do.

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?

I mean, there's no question that the, the LPO when it provides loans can help bring down the costs of these new technologies, and that has benefits, uh, across the country for all ratepayers when you have a technology that can, 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. Thank you. I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, and thank the witnesses for being here today. Mr. Baron, I'm going to start with you, and, 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, uh, 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 Americans' nuclear cap 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, uh, 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?

Thank you for the question, Representative. And, 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, the government was supporting that technology and that there was a future for Rolls-Royce and potentially other SMR developers, uh, in the UK. Uh, and we're pleased to see that that has borne out the case that the UK has selected Rolls-Royce, um, to move forward. So, um, you know, what's happened in the intervening years since we made that investment is that we've had tremendous support here in the US, and we have a lot of very promising designs that are underway. Um, and so we're, we're hopeful that the US will, will see that same level of investment, uh, both in the work that, that Oakland is doing with the military and with commercial customers across, across the country.

So I'm going to continue on somewhat in that vein. Uh, in April, Representative Harrian Tinig and I, uh, introduced the Small Modular Reactor Commercialization Act, and that was aimed at securing the United States' preeminent position to industrialized grid-scale small modular reactor technology. The bill amends the outdated, arbitrary 300-megawatt threshold for SMRs, which was, which has really disadvantaged the US and establish a working group to continuously recommend policy that protects American status at 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, uh, what it takes and on this bill in order to move, move and have the workforce that we need to, u, commercialize these SMRs? Did you want to cover that? Who are you directing the question to? I'm happy to answer, but now that, now that we've taken this time, all three of you, but I'm going to start with Miss Poon.

I, 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, I, I, you know, and sort of modernize the code in order to, to ensure that it can be commercialized. So, um, that, 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 four-year schools into industry to, uh, to power it moving forward, and we are doing that at Constellation. Mr. Schwarger.

Uh, so when I was young, which is a few years ago, uh, 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 PhD to run it. So, I think one of the keys in, uh, getting these SMRs to market and 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. or Dr. Winshaw.

Yeah, I would agree with what has been said so far. If I can add one, 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 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.

Thank all of you, and I yield back. My time's up. Yields back.

Chair recognized gentleman from California for at least five minutes.

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. One in five ratepayers are behind on their power bills, uh, as of last year, and rates are more than 80% 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 Los Angeles. Real estate developers are racing to build even more data centers to keep up with demand. Um, 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, number one? Well, my question is, are we building new power capacity really to satisfy the demands of data centers more than of ordinary just citizens and their homes and their businesses? And how do we ensure that none of those costs are being passed along to ratepayers? And I don't know if you can speak to that because I I think maybe you're more on the technical side, but yeah, go ahead. I'm I'm happy to try. I'm not not an expert on on California per se, but I do think um, and there was a prior question about, you know, are we going to see this sustained level of of uh 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 um, and all of that is going to benefit California and the country uh 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. Um, and uh, you know, I think that's what we're all up here trying to do. Um, and so that's what I would say to that question. Right now we've um, you know, in California, I don't think that new nuclear is even allowed by law at this point.

That's right. Uh, we have Diablo Canyon, which is an older plant which is um uh whose life has been extended recently through legislation, which is actually tremendously costly to to continue to operate. But in terms of other parts of the country where new nuclear is allowed, uh, 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 you anyone has ever done an analysis as to how much of that permitting may be um repetitive, um if there is permitting requirements that um are that could be streamlined that are more low-hanging fruit to get things moved along more quickly and uh in a more cost-effective way without sacrificing safety, community input, siting issues, uh that kind of thing. Are there if if we're interested in making the permitting a little bit uh have more sense to it and uh 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?

Well, I mean, I gave the example of the early site permit that we have where we have to evaluate the environmental and other uh seismic issues associated with a new reactor even though we're looking at the exact same site where we have existing reactors. So, those kinds of things clearly are uh 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 um uh certificated. But I also think it's a 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. Uh, and those can bring down the cost and shorten the time of bringing on new reactors.

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 okay if you don't know.

Uh, well, I think so I've worked in in fusion and fission, and the US has policies in place that are making fusion permitting go faster, and so uh, you know, then 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 um the US is is moving faster with permitting, so uh, and envision there's some momentum gaining here, but I think it's important to support that and give it impetus, 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, uh, one thing that we could also utilize, not to to beat a dead horse, but AI, um, AI is very good, It's streamlining and distilling large volumes of information. You may have hundreds of pages in a report. The person who is 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.

Thank you. I yield back.

Gentle lady yields back. Gentleman now recognizes the gentle this chair now recognizes gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Herd, for five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for convening this meeting on a very important topic. Um, 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 or orders focus on the nuclear supply chain, existing reactors, new reactors, and much more. Uh, 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. Schwher, Oaklo CEO, was at the executive order signing ceremony if I'm correct. How do these EOs impact Oakllo's plans to build your reactors?

Well, they'll certainly help. Um, again going back to the business model where Oakllo is is raising their own capital, building their own plants, and then selling that power. Um, the EOs don't have a direct impact on Oaklow as a company. I think there are uh to the nuclear industry in general. It's great to have some tailwinds moving it along.

Good. I'm happy to hear that. Miss Baron, I think Constellation CEO was also at that executive order signing ceremony. Similar question. How do these executive orders impact constellations plans related to maintaining our current nuclear fleet and also for building new reactors?

Uh, thank you for the question. Uh, that is true. My boss was there, and um, 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 um and looking at the uh 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 as you mentioned. Um, 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 is going to be a big help.

What what do you think is the most challenging part of the EO to implement? Is anything come top of mind, Miss Baron or Mr. Schwiger or Mr. Renshaw?

Well, as I mentioned in in my testimony, there are some ambitious goals. I mean, 10 new large reactors under construction by 2030. Um, it's ambitious. It's appropriately ambitious, but we have a lot of work to do to make that happen.

Mr. Schweer, most challenging part of these EOs to implement? Any thoughts?

None at the moment.

Okay. Mr. Wrench, how about you? any 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?

Um, I'll go back to EPRE generally doesn't comment on policy or directions that Congress should take. So I will uh refrain from answering.

Okay, fair enough. I want to ask um this is a question for all of you. So uh 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?

Thank you for the question. I think the uh the one barrier I see right now is just fuel supply. You know, getting enough fuel. There's a lot of plants that need Halo that are in the works, and so whatever can be done to get that fuel released for use. Um, and then uh funding research to be able to undergard what these the new generation plants are trying to bring to market.

Can I ask uh 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?

So, so Oak's doing that. We're working with Idaho National Lab right now to recycle the EBR2 fuel and then uh one of the next objectives at Oaklo 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 US government, and uh we think it's a wonderful thing because there's a lot of spent fuel that could be used before it's buried.

Miss Baron, do you see any with advanced reactors coming online, do you see any role that spent fuel inventories might play in fueling those systems?

Uh, I I'm learning along with you about the Oaklo design um 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 US, and it would be a great development if if that could be a source of power for a new reactor design.

Yes, something to consider indeed. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is expired. I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. The chair recognized gentle lady from North Carolina for at least five minutes.

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 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?

So that that is a very deep question. So we'll only scratch the surface on that today. But certainly there are disproportionate um impacts, especially on underprivileged communities because they're often cited in less desirable areas that may be close to um 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 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 greater um regional areas, and pollution can of course cross and state lines. So we have to be cognizant that it affects all of us.

Thank you for sharing that insight, Miss Baron. 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. I did, but um I I appreciate that question and in response as well to 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. Uh, 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 um 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 to have water to cool our reactor. And it 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, uh, 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 for the water side as well. Um, and then just to the last question on the potential for using AI to to help with clean energy infrastructure development. One 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 Konoingo up in the Sescuana, 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 more 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, small example, but we're hoping those kinds of things we can come back to you with with with even uh more impactful examples in the future.

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 US leadership at the intersection of technologies like quantum and AI?

Yeah. So I would say that AI and quantum are two of the most exciting technologies today. They're 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. Um, certainly in the research triangle area of North Carolina, here in the DC area, there are top-notch universities as well as well as many other areas around the country and around the world. So I I would expect that as we continue to advance research and development in the areas and then move to practical applications, we'll 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.

Thank you. That's my time.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

You bet. Chair now recognizes uh the gentle lady from Maryland for at least five minutes.

Uh, thank you um 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 an incredible testimony so far. So many of you highlighted um earlier your testimony and your answers about how the US is obviously barreling towards this um 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 uh center expansion um 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. Um, as we look to the 2030s um 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 uh materials is my own six districts 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 uh 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 things, Dr. Renshaw. Um, 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 um uh of energy. How does the collaboration between high-energy consumers and nuclear energy producers like Xenergy's partnerships with Amazon and Dell Chemical meet the needs of AI companies while keeping energy prices down for US 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.

Yeah. 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, that the cost of financing for all of these is is really the largest driver. So as we can move from pilot phases to demonstration and then production, I heard enthine 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 uh 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 beneficial. So, building on that, would you say that would be something that would be through um a public-private partnership? Do you see it in terms of uh 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 um you know more from a government level um as we look at it ahead because I think that's incredibly important.

Yeah, in this case, I would say all of the above are important and helpful. Um, 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 co-witnesses can testify to that. In fact, I might defer to them if you want more details on what would be important. No, I would love to hear from them and, um, briefly, then I want to get on to research for a second as well.

Yeah, 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 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 there's a lot of folks working on how to make that happen right now. But, um, you know, the offtaker matters; the government policy matters, but we are going to need to look to third-party capital as well.

Okay. Finally, Oak Ridge National Laboratory's perspective: the loan programs office—this is an important financial tool for Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and we want to see it presented. Secretary Wright supports this program as well. So, thank you all. Um, I'm just going to submit for the record a question that, you know, the budget request cut, due to the president's budget cut, DOE's ARDP program by 51%, 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 it for the record, but thank you all, and very informative. I yield back.

The gentle lady is back. The gentleman, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois for at least 5 minutes, at least. I'd like to understand the legal reading of that and what the penalties involved are. Um, anyway, um, let's—Miss Barone is an attorney if you're interested.

Well, okay. Um, well, since I haven't yet been assigned a subcommittee here, I think you have considerable leverage in that negotiation over me. Um, that's it.

One of the areas where AI is going to have a real impact, I hope, is on the compliance and engineering costs 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 he's in the process of replacing a very large group of engineers 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 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 cost 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, that you could imagine a very rapid turnaround in that.

I was wondering, do you are you starting to use, you know, AI to generate any of the paperwork or the electronic paperwork so far for your regulatory things?

So, we have an AI protocol that's in writing for Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and we're starting to use AI in expanding capacity. Uh, when you start looking at the design of a first-of-a-kind plant, I think you can use AI to a limited capacity. Uh, but there is a lot of detail that goes into how, for example, a heat exchanger is designed. I was referring to the site-specific details.

Okay. That when you have, okay, I—one of these, 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, 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 group that is anticipated by this guy that makes AI data centers was about 5% of this current group size could produce all of that paperwork using AI trained on projects that have already been completed. Um, that's let's say one.

All right. Another thing, I, you know, I worked at Fermilab for many years, so we're a very good customer, and one of the deals that we had was that we'd get a call from the control room as, "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 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 two-week-long projects to do to train models and then rapid response to people that type in queries. 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, "Okay, it's going to take two weeks and two days because we had an ice storm in Texas." And is—is that sort of—are you getting that sort of negotiation out of the data centers at this point?

Yes. So I'll take maybe the first part and then defer to Miss Barone 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 grid resource even for the top 40 highest peak load hours during the year. If cleaner energy sources were used, such as hydrotreated 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 Miss Barone to talk more about that.

No, I don't have anything to add. I think EPRI has shown tremendous leadership in helping the industry get to exactly—your question is, "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?"

Yeah. 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 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. Electricity isn't that big a deal for me." Um, 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 load leveling the load on this. Um, 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 10 cents 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 US solar startups optimistically projecting a dollar a watt, which I was skeptical of. Now it's 10 cents a watt. And you know, Goldman Sachs has done a big analysis of these and then find that at current prices, the winner by far is a collocated solar field and battery and a data center.

The gentleman's 15-year memory time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia for five minutes.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman Weber, thank you so much for allowing me to weigh in. 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 um, I am just extraordinarily concerned about the future of our country with the retraction in our investment in science and technology. And Mr. Swagger, um, I read you were head of engineering at Commonwealth Fusion Systems. We're very excited about everything that CFS is doing. I've been to visit a couple of times. Um, we have our congressional fusion caucus. Um, 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. Um, but we're also concerned that China last year allocated $1.5 billion to fusion. Um, we were at 790. The new budget's down 6% to 744 million. Um, it's a 6% cut. Uh, in the Chips and Science Act, we authorized 1.04 billion, which is still way short of where we need to be. Um, we met with Secretary Wright, um, our caucus co-chairs. Um, the secretary is very supportive. Um, it was it was a great meeting. Um, but he—we also know he doesn't control the budget. Um, and it's not just the fusion budget. It's also—the National Science Foundation's been cut 55%, for example. Uh, what's happening at NIH is very sad, and in Congresswoman Delaney's district, the so-called Bethesda declaration.

Mr. Swagger, how do we ensure that fundamental enabling science that will propel energy technologies is actually prioritized even in the current constrained funding environment? What do we do to make sure that we're putting our money where our dreams are?

Okay. Uh, thank you for the question. It's a great one. Uh, so I had the—the—I'll call it privilege to go to China for eight years off and on and learn a lot about how the Chinese think and how they run their programs. And I'd say this—my view—but America is is recognized as the premier country for ingenuity, thinking of new things and ways to do it. And uh, 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 uh, 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. Um, 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. Uh, as Dr. Renshaw said, everything above.

Yeah. Yeah. I think we we all agree with as much as we can. Dr. Renshaw 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—um, 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. Uh, for example, and Mr. Swagger, you know this from your CFS days, the high-energy neutrons that are thrown off from a DT reaction, you dissolve metal. Um, we need some way to to figure out the—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?

So I I'll say that EPRI doesn't comment on what the policy should be, but I 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 I would say that similar to the other technologies that we mentioned in energy, there is no perfect energy technology, fusion included, but there 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. Swagger had mentioned earlier. Um, 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.

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.

All right. The gentleman yields back. I thank the witnesses for your very valuable testimony and the members for their questions. Uh, the record will remain open for 10 days for additional comments and written questions from members. The hearing is adjourned.