Prepared remarks
Thank you for your patience. My name is Jael, and I will be your conference operator today. I would like to welcome everyone to the Oklo First Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Business Update Call. All lines are muted to avoid background noise. After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. I will now turn the conference over to Sam Doane, Director of Investor Relations. You may begin.
Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, and welcome everyone to Oklo's first quarter 2025 earnings and company update call. I'm Sam Doane, Oklo's Director of Investor Relations. Joining me today are Jake DeWitte, Oklo's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, and Craig Bealmear, Oklo's Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, I'd like to remind everyone that today's discussion, including our prepared remarks and the Q&A session that follows, will include forward-looking statements. These statements reflect our current views regarding trends, assumptions, risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed today. We encourage you to review the forward-looking statements disclosure included in our supplemental slides, which are available on the investor relations section of our website. Additional details on relevant risk factors can also be found in our most recent filings with the SEC. Please note that Oklo assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by law. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Jake DeWitte, Oklo's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer. Jake?
Thanks, Sam. And thanks to all for joining us today. We're looking forward to sharing our first quarter update and highlighting the progress we've made since our last update just seven weeks ago on March 24th this year. We continue to see strong momentum across both the industry and the political landscape in support of nuclear energy, and that momentum is accelerating in 2025. The current administration has made it abundantly clear that nuclear is a strategic priority. In a recent letter to the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the President named nuclear energy, AI, and quantum technologies as central pillars in what he called the golden age of American innovation. That message reinforces what we're seeing across policy and regulatory activity. A series of recent executive orders underscores the administration's commitment to nuclear energy, ranging from regulatory reform and streamlined permitting to the creation of a federal task force dedicated to next-generation nuclear deployment.
This includes actions to revoke outdated regulatory barriers, declare a national energy emergency to fast track projects, and establish an energy-dominance council focused on accelerating technologies like small modular reactors. Other orders reinforce federal oversight to reduce state-level interference and direct agencies to conduct cost benefit reviews of existing rules. And now, we're seeing signs that the administration may take its support even further. According to recent reporting, several new executive orders are being considered that would aim to quadruple the size of the U.S. nuclear fleet by 2050, declare certain data centers as defense-critical infrastructure, and direct the Department of Defense to take a more active role in nuclear procurement. These drafts also call for a wholesale revision of NRC regulations to streamline reactor approvals and rebuild domestic nuclear fuel supply chains.
While still in development, the scope of these proposals signals just how serious the administration is about reestablishing U.S. leadership in nuclear and how aligned that ambition is with Oklo's mission and model. Secretary Wright, a former Oklo Board member, has been one of the most vocal champions of the administration's commitment to expanding and accelerating nuclear deployment. He's made it clear that the U.S. must lead the global push to commercialize advanced nuclear technologies and that the federal government is prepared to support that leadership with urgency and action. We're encouraged to see that level of alignment at the highest levels, especially from someone who knows Oklo's mission and model firsthand. At Oklo, our foundation is built on the belief that advanced nuclear technology can and should play a transformative role in the global energy landscape. When we started this company, we saw an industry that had gone dormant, and we set out to reimagine what the nuclear energy industry could be.
That vision continues to guide us, delivering clean, reliable, and affordable energy at scale. As a reminder, our competitive advantage is built on the intersection of three key strategies: our business model, our sizing philosophy, and our technology. First, our build, own, operate business model sets us apart. We sell power, not power plants, under long-term contracts. This structure provides predictable recurring revenue and enables a more efficient regulatory path. Second, our small-scale modern design allows us to deploy quickly and scale flexibly. By leveraging existing supply chains and their factory fabrication, we can meet demand efficiently, reducing on-site complexity, and scale in lockstep with our customers' evolving needs. Third, our proven and demonstrated technology is backed by over 400 reactor-years of operational experience with liquid-metal-cooled fast reactors. This gives us a robust technical foundation with distinct performance and safety advantages.
Importantly, it enables us to move directly into commercialization without the need for a costly and time-consuming demonstration plan. Together, these pillars reinforce Oklo's position as a leading next-generation nuclear provider and will enable us to execute with speed, efficiency, and confidence. The key differentiator for Oklo is our ability to go straight to commercial deployment. We're not building a demonstration plant. Our Aurora powerhouse is built on mature technology derived from reactors such as the Fast Flux Test Facility, or FFTF, and the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II, or EBR-II, which operated successfully for over 30 years at Idaho National Laboratory. This isn't theoretical. We're leveraging real validated operating data that's already recognized by the NRC. Importantly, members of our team worked directly on both FFTF and EBR-II, bringing deep first-hand experience to the design and deployment of the Aurora.
We believe this operational legacy allows us to move with greater speed and confidence through the licensing process and positions us to bring our first commercial unit online in late 2027 to early 2028. While many advanced nuclear companies are still building one-off demonstrations to validate new fuels or designs, Oklo is already focused on delivering a commercial powerhouse. These early-stage efforts are useful to the ecosystem, but they aren't market-ready. We're taking a fundamentally different path, one that's grounded in experience and optimized for near-term deployment. As we continue to execute on our strategy, we remain committed to keeping the market informed with clear and consistent updates on our progress. Our company updates will continue to be structured around six key areas: project execution, licensing progress, fuel recycling and feedstock, customer pipeline development, strategic partnerships for corporate and business development, and financial updates.
Since our last company update just seven weeks ago in March, we have continued progress across key areas of our business, from project execution and licensing to fuel strategy, customer positioning, and strategic partnerships. We advanced field work at key sites, made progress in our NRC engagement, and were selected as a qualified vendor through the Department of Defense's procurement process, strengthening our position to pursue future opportunities with military installation. We are in the process of formalizing new partnerships to support technology development and deployment of powerhouse and radioisotope assets at INL. On the financial front, we remain disciplined and transparent with updates on cash burn, operating expenses, and governance included in today's materials. At Oklo, we're executing against our plan and advancing steadily toward commercial deployment. We have completed a major milestone in preparing our INL site for the Aurora powerhouse.
Our team wrapped up a comprehensive drilling campaign involving seismic and geophysical studies at our proposed site at Idaho National Laboratory. The data we gathered will directly support our combined license application to the NRC and represents the final technical siting step ahead of submitting Phase 1 of our application. We also finalized a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Energy and an interface agreement with INL. These agreements ensure that our site development efforts are aligned with environmental standards and DOE coordination. With this complete, we're well-positioned to move into the next phase of licensing and infrastructure development with plans aiming for the plant to begin operations in late 2027 to early 2028. We recently initiated Phase 1 of the pre-application readiness assessment for our Aurora INL powerhouse, reaching an important milestone in our licensing efforts with the NRC.
This process, essentially a rehearsal, enables the NRC and Oklo teams to align on scope and expectations ahead of our formal combined license application submission. The goal is to surface and address feedback early, reduce challenges later, and build confidence and momentum as we move toward our formal COLA submittal. We expect we will soon receive an audit report from the NRC summarizing their feedback and recommendations, which we'll incorporate into Phase 1 of the application. The NRC's feedback will be categorized as follows: Category A, Final Safety Analysis Report, or FSAR, gaps, where information required by regulation may be missing; Category B, items requiring additional information or further clarification or justification is needed; Category C, other observations, suggestions, or potential issues that could affect the efficiency of review if left unaddressed. We have worked diligently with the NRC to ensure a robust and complete application that should reduce Category A observations.
However, every observation offers important insight into areas we can further develop to allow for an efficient and timely review of our Phase 1 COLA. We do anticipate some Category A, B, and C items, which is entirely expected and consistent with what other reactor developers have seen. These are clarifications and refinements, not fundamental application content flaws. This is exactly what the readiness assessment is designed to identify, and it helps both Oklo and the NRC get ahead of potential considerations and areas for alignment. Notably, Oklo is using this audit as an opportunity to test several key repeatable licensing pathways and expects valuable NRC guidance on how these novel approaches will best support rapid and cost-effective deployment. We're also encouraged by broader efforts at the NRC in modernizing its approach to advance nuclear. For example, the NRC finalized the construction exemption for TerraPower's Natrium plant, allowing construction of its energy island to begin while licensing continues.
That decision shows the NRC's increasing embrace of flexible, modern, and risk-informed approaches, setting a precedent that will also benefit a closed deployment strategy. It supports strong alignment with the NRC and will increase predictability and reduce downstream challenges as we move forward. We also continue to make progress on other regulatory fronts by nearing the submission of the licensing project plan for our Oklo Fuel Foundry, a key step in the broader fuel strategy and our licensed operator topical report, which has now been submitted to the NRC. The licensed operator topical report outlines a new licensing approach designed specifically for Oklo's Aurora powerhouses. Today, most U.S. nuclear plant operators are licensed for a single plant and must be on-site to perform safety-related actions, a model developed for the traditional light water reactor fleet. Oklo is proposing a different approach.
Instead of licensing operators for individual sites, operators would be licensed for the Aurora powerhouse technology itself. This should enable them to monitor multiple powerhouses from a central location and travel between sites as needed. Because Oklo builds, owns, and operates its powerhouses, this licensing strategy is well aligned with its business model and emphasizes efficiency and repeatability. Once approved, the licensed operator topical report can be referenced in future applications, significantly reducing the need to re-review previously approved material. This regulatory efficiency is central to Oklo's plan for scalable deployment across its fleet. By strategically submitting topical reports like this one, Oklo is laying the regulatory foundation for faster licensing pathways that support its broader commercialization goals. Each of these regulatory touchpoints reflects Oklo's proactive approach to licensing and our ability to execute efficiently.
Fuel strategy is a key differentiator in advanced nuclear, and Oklo is setting a new standard for flexibility and readiness. We're the only advanced nuclear company that has secured and is actively working with HALEU for our first commercial plant. On the commercial side, we've signed an MOU with Centrus, currently the only domestic producer of HALEU, to support our powerhouse deployments with a reliable supply source. And looking ahead, our technology is designed to take full advantage of recycled fuel, and we're actively developing that capability through our in-house fuel recycling program. This three-pronged approach, government-awarded material, commercial HALEU access, and future recycled fuel, positions Oklo with one of the most comprehensive and durable fuel strategies in the advanced nuclear sector. It not only strengthens our long-term supply chain but will also give us a significant cost and commercialization advantage.
We were recently selected as one of eight qualified vendors for the Department of Defense's Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program, or ANPI. This is a significant milestone, not just because it opens near-term opportunities for deployment on military installations, but because it reinforces Oklo's position as a credible go-to solution for energy resilience in high-security environments. The program is led by the Defense Innovation Unit, or DIU, which is focused on fast-tracking commercial technologies for national security applications. That means streamlined contracting, faster timelines, and a clear path to scalable deployment. Unlike traditional procurement pathways, ANPI uses a contracting mechanism called Other Transaction Authority, or OTA. This allows for a faster milestone-based approach from early design through prototyping and ultimately can even end with a power purchase agreement.
OTA contracts can also draw funding from DIU, any branch of the military, or other federal agencies, giving Oklo a versatile and well-supported path to deployment. For Oklo, this selection validates our technology, aligns with our commercial roadmap, and gives us added momentum with both federal and commercial partners. It's an endorsement that strengthens our position across the board. We acquired Atomic Alchemy earlier this year to expand Oklo's reach into the high-growth radioisotope market, and this company is already delivering. Founded in 2018, Atomic Alchemy is building a domestic and vertically integrated supply chain for high-value isotopes used in everything from cancer treatments and medical diagnostics to national security and advanced manufacturing. Their proprietary technology, including their Versatile Isotope Production Reactor, or VIPR reactor, is designed specifically for isotope production with a focus on efficiency, scalability, and simplicity.
They've already hit key engineering and regulatory milestones and are working closely with Idaho National Laboratory to advance deployment. With strong early customer interest and a proven team in place, Atomic Alchemy gives Oklo a capital-light opportunity to drive near-term revenue and long-term market leadership in an essential and underserved space. Today's radioactive isotope supply chain is outdated, fragmented, and increasingly unreliable, stretching across multiple facilities, geographies, and transport modes, making it risky, expensive, and slow. Atomic Alchemy flips this model with a vertically integrated system. The VIPR facility will consolidate reactor operations, processing, and manufacturing at a single site, dramatically increasing efficiency and reliability. This model is not only better suited to meet modern demand but also allows for global distribution with faster lead times and lower costs.
As demand for isotopes accelerates, this supply chain advantage will be a major competitive differentiator. The Atomic Alchemy VIPR platform is designed to support broad radioisotope production as well as radiation capabilities across medical, industrial, defense, and emerging tech sectors. From life-saving cancer therapies and diagnostic imaging to industrial sensors, aerospace applications, and advanced semiconductor manufacturing, these isotopes and radiation capabilities are essential to critical systems in our economy. What makes this solution so compelling is not just the diversity of isotopes and radiation capabilities we can produce, but the scale and reliability our integrated model offers. This is a broad and growing market with unmet demand, and Atomic Alchemy is built to serve it efficiently and at commercial scale. We believe that Atomic Alchemy is executing a smart, multi-project approach to market entry.
The first step is a lab-based demonstration project designed to validate the process and generate revenue quickly, potentially as early as 2026. This will involve a low-cost processing infrastructure and customer-ready material using third-party irradiation. The second project is the launch of a fully commercial VIPR facility, a four-reactor site dedicated to direct isotope production. Licensing is expected to begin in 2025 with operations targeted for 2028. That project is expected to be potentially funded off-balance sheet and supported by long-term supply agreements that are already under negotiation. With this roadmap, Atomic Alchemy brings near-term upside, long-term scalability, and significant value to our platform. Shifting to leadership and governance, we're thrilled to welcome Pat Schweiger as our Chief Technology Officer. Pat brings deep technical expertise across advanced reactor design, plant systems, and regulatory strategy, and a track record of scaling both fusion and fission programs from concept through deployment, including his comprehensive experience working at FFTF while it was operating, which was one of the fast reactors that Oklo builds its design from.
He's joining at a pivotal moment to help drive our commercial rollout, bringing the kind of strategic and operational leadership that will accelerate Oklo's next stage of growth. We're excited to have him on the team. We recently announced that Sam Altman has stepped down from Oklo's Board of Directors. Caroline and I first met Sam at a dinner in Cambridge, Massachusetts in April 2013. Since that first chance meeting, Sam has played an instrumental role in guiding Oklo, Caroline, myself, and our vision over the years. Sam has been a mentor, a leader, a supporter, a champion, and a friend since that meeting. Sam invested in the company and joined our Board in 2015, and he helped us grow through challenges and into the incredible opportunities that lay before us. We are deeply grateful for his early conviction, vision, leadership, and support. As we move closer to commercialization, this transition reflects a natural evolution from the company's early-stage development into where it is today. We are excited about the growth this represents. And I will now turn it over to Craig.
Thank you, Jake. As we move closer to commercialization, this transition reflects a natural evolution from the company's early-stage development into execution. Sam's departure also supports a shift of his role from that of an insider to a potential future commercial partner, removing a possible conflict of interest as we advance potential commercial discussions with OpenAI. Importantly, this change does not affect day-to-day operations. In conjunction with this transition, Oklo's Chief Executive Officer, Jake DeWitte, has assumed the role of Chairman of the Board, providing continuity and clear leadership as we enter this next phase of growth. At our last update just seven weeks ago, we discussed the additions of Dan Poneman and Michael Thompson to the Board. After now Secretary of Energy Wright's confirmation and departure from the Board, we are pleased with how we have grown the Board.
The experience and expertise in NRC licensing, fuel supply chains, strategic finance, and technology commercialization that Dan and Michael bring to the Board are great additions to our team. I will now provide a summary of our financials. Oklo's first quarter operating loss was $17.9 million, inclusive of non-cash stock-based compensation expense of $2.3 million. Oklo's loss before income taxes was $14.2 million, which reflects our operating loss adjusted for net interest income of $3.6 million. When adding back non-cash stock-based compensation charges and considering non-cash income tax benefit recorded for the quarter, you get cash used in operating activities of $12.2 million. We believe this puts us on track to deliver on our guided range of $65 million to $80 million for total cash used in operations for full year 2025. At the end of the quarter, cash and marketable securities were $260.7 million.
Lastly, we have filed our proxy statement and will be holding our Annual General Meeting on Wednesday, June 4, 2025. To close, I'll briefly highlight why we believe Oklo stands out in the advanced nuclear and energy landscape. We are deploying proven fast reactor technology in a compact, scalable form, reducing cost, complexity, and time to market. Our business model is built around long-term power sales, delivering recurring revenue and strong margins. We look to drive superior economics through repeatable deployment of a common design asset that can be further enhanced with recycled fuel to drive capital efficiency and a competitive levelized cost of energy. Our customer pipeline totals over 14 gigawatts and spans sectors like data centers and defense, proof of strong and growing demand. We've developed a streamlined regulatory strategy backed by years of licensing expertise and a repeatable COLA process aligned to our business model.
And finally, we're not just building powerhouses; we're building a platform that integrates generation, fuel recycling, and radioisotope production, unlocking multiple high-value markets. Thank you for joining us today. Operator, we're now ready for questions.
Questions and answers
Thank you. The floor is now open for questions. Your first question comes from the line of Ryan Pfingst of B. Riley. Your line is open.
Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Jake, you mentioned the recent reports about additional executive actions expected to support nuclear power. It sounds like these could include the DOD taking on a greater role in ordering reactors and installing them on military bases. Can you talk about the regulatory authority for nuclear power that the DOD has today and your thoughts on the Department's ability to potentially accelerate reactor deployments whether through programs like the ANPI or otherwise?
Yeah. Thanks for the question, Ryan. I mean, I think, DOD does have the authority to regulate nuclear plants for their use cases and for different opportunities around that. So, we see some interesting angles there. There's been kind of a mixed approach taken in the department, and I think what we've heard about some interest is looking at ways to make sure that they are not going to be held up or held back at all by any kind of regulatory permitting issues that could happen outside of their control. Obviously, they have the ability to control it all. So, I think there's some appetite and some potential interest in doing that. That said, their active infrastructure and their capabilities hasn't been exercised a ton for these kinds of use cases in a while, to put it somewhat, I guess, simplistically. So, I think there's some significant opportunities for them to step up and perhaps provide an alternate pathway for some of those use cases, which is I think pretty exciting.
Additionally, I think it creates a pretty good dynamic to look at efficiencies where if you are placing these at military installations or other government installations, if you see the broad activities across the government today just trying to find ways to streamline and make the regulatory processes much more efficient and modern and quick and timely, I think you see opportunity for how these activities, these potential activities around sort of expanding DOD roles here could be done. But DOD does have that capability set. They do have that authority. And so, I think it's a matter of looking at how they can best use it to push and accelerate these things.
Great. Appreciate that, Jake. And then, the fuel slide was a helpful reminder of the actions you're taking on that front. Can you give us an update on other parts of the supply chain and your confidence in commencing a fairly near-term construction effort?
Yeah. I mean, this is a feature set we've designed for supply chains heavily since the beginning. There's a lot of ways you can design a reactor, a lot of different materials, fuel types, coolants, all sorts of things you can do. Some of which obviously are technologies that need a lot more R&D and development before they're ready to go. Some others just need a lot more supply chain development before you can procure the various parts needed in them. In our case, we've designed heavily to leverage what's out there as much as we possibly can. Fuel is obviously the big watch point because that's kind of the biggest, I would say, sort of challenge and opportunity, if you will, that we see. But everything else, we try to leverage existing supply chains from inside and also outside of nuclear as much as we can. And that's a real feature with sodium technologies, right? You can use common stainless materials.
You can source those from many other industries, from the process side of things. When you look at the steam generation side, that's partly why we partnered up with Siemens last year to help drive that and kind of accelerate that for them to be able to deliver. And they do that very well, obviously. So, generally speaking, this is a thing that we're going to be sort of pushing forward as we try to accelerate what we can do to actually break ground and start building as quickly as we can. And I think that's something that we see on the supply chain side. Most of the limitations are really centered around fuel, and the other long lead items are looking at 18-month kind of windows. And our ability to then also bring in sort of the order book and backlog that we have behind it helps us sort of scale more of that as well. So, when we talk to suppliers, it's not just about one; it's about more. And that kind of motivates the right kind of partnerships, if that makes sense. So, that's how we're looking at this.
Great. Appreciate all that detail. I'll turn it back.
Your next question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi of BTIG. Your line is open.
Can you tell us when you might start taking delivery of the fuel from the MOU with Centrus? Is there a deadline by which you need to finalize that agreement?
Yeah. I think just to clarify, right, the first fuel we're getting for our first plant, that was awarded to us through a competitive process by Idaho National Laboratory and the Department of Energy. So that material is all from there. That's for our first plant. Everything with, like, commercial procurement happens for our second and beyond plants, and that's where we're looking at obviously working with Centrus and others. What we see is we're in the process of kind of figuring out the right structures to supply for what we need and kind of the growth and scale. So, I think the idea is, as we look at partnering with different folks on the enrichment side, it's really working to sort of what's the right ramp rates for them and for us given the customer offtakes and how customers might be engaging or not engaging on this is something that we're kind of watching as this develops. A lot of that is still developing, but generally speaking, that's how we're structured on that sense.
But it's super, super helpful and important, right? We have fuel. It's actually at Idaho. We're setting up the fuel fabrication capabilities to actually be able to take that fuel and fabricate, put that in our first plant. But that material has all been produced from government reserves and inventories, and that's kind of another key watch point for us is some of the actions that are potentially coming from the government. Ideally, there's a lot that moves forward on the fuel side, and we're really well positioned to be able to benefit from a lot of that beyond just what we already have.
Got it. That's helpful. And sticking with those, I guess, second and later plants, when we talk about the timeline for subsequent COLAs, I think in the past you said six to 18 months; would that apply to reactors in different sizes, let's say if a customer wants to do a 75 megawatt design, or is the timeline the same as the first custom COLA that we're doing about to do?
Yes, the timing for the subsequent plants will depend a bit, but I anticipate it will occur in a staggered yet parallel manner with the INL plant. The INL plant is a full commercial facility situated on a national lab site, which brings several advantages. Following this, we are excited about the progress of potential follow-on plants and sites. Currently, we’re considering a couple of significant locations and have announced various customers. The market is quite dynamic, and we plan to submit additional applications in parallel with the initial ones currently under review. We expect to see some acceleration benefits from this process, with the most notable advantages emerging from the later COLAs. We are engaged in innovative efforts with the NRC to expedite licensing for high-volume deployments, and they are developing capabilities to enhance their review processes. We believe we will be among the early adopters benefiting from these advancements. Looking ahead, it is quite possible that in about a year, we will have additional COLAs under review alongside the one for the INL.
Got it. Thanks, Jacob. I'll turn it over.
Your next question comes from the line of Vikram Bagri of Citi. Your line is open.
Hi, it's Ted on for Vik. Thanks for taking the questions. I wanted to ask about the funding needs for the business, just given the larger reactor size that was mentioned last quarter, the growth needed for Atomic Alchemy, potential costs from tariffs, and then also potentially higher HALEU prices than the initial plan. Just wondering whether given all those factors, additional capital will be needed. And if so, when we could expect roughly that might be raised?
Jake, I can take...
I'll just start really quickly. I think, again, an important point is on the fuel, right? We have the fuel allocated and awarded to us. So that helps a lot with the first plant. And then, as we've looked at things, I'll turn it over to Craig here, but I think that's a big help regarding how you sort of manage some of the HALEU pricing. But with that, I'll turn it over to Craig for kind of the dynamics on that.
Yeah. And just to reemphasize the point, the balance sheet's got adequate capital on it for the deployment of INL. Now, it was almost two years ago since we announced the leaseback and a year since we closed. And since that time, HALEU prices have gone up, as you mentioned, Ted. We've also dramatically grown the order book, and we've now got customers wanting a much higher size powerhouse offering that is more capital efficient, but it is going to cost more capital per unit. And then, we're two years on from the dispatch, which means we're two years on toward bringing recycling forward. So, we'll want to be positioned such that capital does not become a constraint as we look to progress those growth plans. And we'll make sure that if there is a need to raise capital, we'll do that when the time and circumstances are right so that we can do it in a strategic manner, not a reactive manner.
Got it. Thank you. And I had just one follow-up. On the VIPR facility that was mentioned, could you just elaborate on what the NRC process looks like for that? So, it looks like there'll be a construction permit submitted this year. How does that process differ from the process for the Aurora powerhouse? And then, also just in terms of intensity required with the NRC? And are there any additional costs for that over and above what's provided in the guidance?
Yeah. I think, I mean, the licensing process in progress is really centered around a Part 50 license application, which is a bit different. This is a non-electric power producing reactor. So, it benefits from a different regulatory approach that looks a lot more similar to what university and research reactors look like. So, good news there is there's some benefits that happen from that from an efficiency side, but it is inherently built to a two-step process where you get a construction license and then an operating license. However, given kind of the nature of the review of those systems and that we expect that the construction permit review will happen at first. You'll build significant amounts of the plant and you'll apply for the operating license thereafter. This is similar to the process taken by Kairos, which received their construction permit, and then a couple other active groups that are doing work in the space on that.
So that's what the application review process looks like. Again, that's quite different than a Part 52, which is for power reactors, so electric power producing reactors, and doesn't have the repeatability functionality built into it because typically these kind of test reactors or these non-power producing reactors are built around kind of that not needing that repeatability. So, what's kind of neat about it from the Oklo side is we're going to have a lot of experience and expertise around both those processes, and there's some efficiencies that we're looking at seeing as possible benefits to inform sort of future activities around either continued regulatory modernization efforts, as well as potential legislative efforts around applying some of the best practices between the two to each other. And we'll obviously be kind of at the center of that experience set, which is kind of neat actually, but that's how we see those things going.
Generally speaking, it's considered to be a simpler and more straightforward process to get a non-power license, right, than a power reactor license just given the relevant hazards around a non-low power reactor operating in that kind of environment. So, typically speaking, the regulatory process kind of reflects that.
Got it. Thank you.
Your next question comes from the line of Eric Stine of Craig-Hallum. Your line is open.
Hi, Jake. Hi, Craig. Hello?
Hey. How's it going?
Hey, Eric.
Good. I'm glad. I wasn't sure what was going on there. Hey. So, just curious I know you've done the readiness assessment. You've had quite a bit of interaction with the NRC, but also know the NRC is known for that being a pretty onerous process on the licensing side. So, as you get closer to submitting the COLA, I mean, is your confidence higher, or what has maybe changed in your view, if at all, as to your prospects to move, as you said, into a commercial facility and not having to go through kind of the typical demonstration plant that might have to operate for three, four, five years?
Yes, to clarify, this is a full commercial plant that will operate at full capacity. Since it's our first plant, there are learnings we need to design for and engineering adjustments to make as we progress. However, we're not starting from scratch; we are leveraging existing technologies and knowledge from previous sodium fast reactor projects, particularly from significant successes at EBR-II and FFTF. Historically, advancements in non-light water reactor technology often go unrecognized, especially since much of the pioneering work occurred decades ago, and many records were not digitized. This means accessing valuable information has typically been challenging unless you're in specific academic or research circles. Fortunately, we've been able to navigate this landscape, thanks to our experiences. From the early days of our company, we engaged with regulators and sought support from the Department of Energy and national labs to modernize and digitize old information for regulatory use.
This initiative began in 2016 and continues to yield positive results today. As part of our ongoing engagement with the NRC, we've had over 600 meetings, leading us to feel confident about our application submission. We're conducting a readiness assessment to identify and bridge any gaps, much like TerraPower did, which has been beneficial for their progress. Our long-standing engagement with the NRC since 2016 sets us apart from other non-light water companies, establishing our credibility and maturity in the regulatory space. It’s crucial to focus not only on obtaining a license but doing so in a scalable and efficient manner. Since our initial interactions in 2018, the NRC has been receptive to our innovative proposal for a new review plan. However, the pandemic disrupted our in-person meetings, presenting some challenges. Yet, since re-engaging in person in 2022, we’ve made significant headway on open issues, and the current regulatory environment supports our efforts, particularly with the push for AI and bipartisan backing for efficiency in regulations.
Overall, the pre-application discussions that began in 2016 and were renewed in 2022 have been instrumental in preparing us and the NRC for our upcoming application. The feedback has indicated they are ready for us to proceed, and we anticipate moving into the next steps of the review efficiently, while remaining aware that challenges may still arise.
Yeah, no, that's great color. Thank you. And then, just for my follow up, I mean, should we still think about timing of the actual COLA submission to be, I think in the past you'd said kind of coincide with the ADVANCE Act and the October timeframe?
Yeah, that's how we're looking at it. I will say that with all the pending activity around executive orders and all these other things, there's, I would call it, good uncertainty, because it could motivate some reasons that things might move somewhat faster. But at the end of the day, like, that's how we're seeing kind of the timing evolve here. So, we expect to transition out of the readiness assessment with the feedback we get from that to support us submitting for actually a Phase 1 application in a few months after kind of the feedback from that. And then that would position us to then do readiness on the Phase 2 part. And then, also with the feedback from that position us to be able to submit that sort of in the Q4 timeframe is what we're expecting.
Your next question comes from the line of Jeffrey Campbell of Seaport Research Partners. Your line is open.
Good evening. Jake, on Slides 9...
Hey, Jeff.
Hey. On Slides 9 and 11, the fuel recycling and the feedstock preparing the submission to the licensing project plan for the Oklo Fuel Foundry, I like that name. Can you add some color on how this licensing effort might be different than that for Aurora? What the primary hurdles might be? And what the timing might be like?
It's a great question. We are currently involved with the NRC in the pre-application activities for submitting a proposal for large-scale fuel fabrication work that is separate from other efforts. To recap, we have fuel sourced from the INL and the Department of Energy designated for our first plant, which will be fabricated at the Idaho National Laboratory. We are constructing a pilot fabrication facility by installing the necessary equipment within an existing building. As we expand and address the growing backlog, we are planning to establish a large commercial-scale fuel fabrication facility to meet demand. This process follows a different regulatory path than the typical Part 50 or Part 52 since it pertains to materials handling and not reactors. The duration of this approval process will vary based on site specifics and infrastructure readiness, but we anticipate a complete application review could take between 24 to 30 months, potentially extending to 36 months depending on required infrastructure installations.
Given the current regulatory landscape, there may be opportunities to expedite these timelines. Overall, there is a consensus that this process should proceed more quickly than reactor approvals, so any advancements in these timelines should be beneficial. We are also actively assessing various site opportunities, and as those progress, we will provide updates to the market and our investors. In summary, we believe this approach will enable us to scale effectively into the promising numbers and customer bases we are targeting.
Right. And that's very helpful. And the point about being faster than a reactor license certainly makes sense. And my follow up is, is this essentially somewhat similar to the way you've talked about your COLA licenses and having multiple applications, even as you're waiting for INL? Is this already an effort to create a blueprint for potential fuel foundries in a variety of locations? And in other words, already thinking about scalability in the fuel foundry in the same way that you're thinking about?
It's a great question, and we definitely consider this aspect. While we're not necessarily planning for the same level of scalability, the insights we've gained will certainly be beneficial moving forward. We expect this facility to be quite large to satisfy our needs for some time. Looking ahead, we're also exploring options for building in different locations as required. Generally, this project is advancing, and while it might sound simplistic to say, we're preparing to construct one facility while acknowledging the potential for future scalability. This is a bit of a vague response, but we see the possibility for scalability. However, the infrastructure and regulatory framework don't easily support the same repeatability as reactors do, since it’s not anticipated that many of these will be built. We plan to apply lessons learned and make adjustments where it makes sense. As we proceed with the licensing process, we will continue to evaluate our opportunities, and it does seem likely that we'll want multiple locations, but we won't pursue all of them simultaneously. This kind of expansion will probably occur in increments over the next five to ten years as we consider long-term growth and possibilities.
And Jake, I think the other trade-off is the size of the facility and the economies of scale you might achieve on one end, but there are logistical considerations when comparing one plant and one foundry in a single location versus multiple locations, and how that impacts logistics.
Your next question comes from the line of Sameer Joshi of H.C. Wainwright. Your line is open.
Hey, good afternoon Jake, Craig. Thanks for taking my questions. First, congrats on all the progress. My question is about the borehole drilling campaign that you just announced this morning. The press release mentions that it will inform your detailed engineering design. I'm assuming this engineering design relates to the building and its stability, as well as the balance of plant components like the steam generators and the power conversion system that may require modifications. Can you confirm that?
Yeah, the way I understood that was really if we expect to see like what the data does or sort of the insights from the site characterization due to impact sort of the detailed design. Yeah, I mean, generally speaking it's really just to make sure that the site characteristics and where we're exactly going to be building, like we just engineer all the right structural mechanical pieces in the right ways to support that that are kind of bounded by how we take that bounded kind of standardized approach as is. That's really how we kind of angle to incorporate that feedback. But it's important to have that information to support then also in the regulatory process, which is kind of why we do it, if that makes sense.
I understand. My second question is, perhaps this has been discussed before, but I want to clarify. Now that you have started Phase 1 of the pre-application readiness assessment, does this phase include the specific size of the reactor, whether it’s 50 megawatts or 75 megawatts, or is this detail reserved for Phase 2 or the next stage? I want to grasp this in relation to a previous question about whether subsequent COLAs can vary in size. I'm trying to clarify the roles of Phase 1 and Phase 2 and when you must indicate the size of the COLA, whether it’s for 75 or 50 megawatts.
Most of what we're doing is centered around a 75 megawatt size range, which is our standard design. If we need to adjust the size down, it's typically in response to customer requirements, but we would still adhere to the same analysis that supports the 75 megawatt framework. We see it as a unified platform from a licensing perspective. Each site will have its own license, and the benefits of this standardized approach will remain significant. Major design changes could alter that, but we're not planning for such changes in the near term, which is why we've decided to focus on the 75 megawatt range. If a customer requests a 60 megawatt version, we can simply operate the same plant at a lower power level and have the option to increase that output later. This same strategy applies to the Idaho plant. However, we have a limitation with fuel; we’re currently set to run the plant below 75 megawatts to effectively use the fuel we've secured, although we're exploring ways to acquire additional fuel to support higher output. The process of acquiring more fuel is ongoing, and it will determine if we can operate at full capacity for a complete cycle. Essentially, our approach is very much tied to the 75 megawatt level.
Understood. May I squeeze in one more for the Oklo Fuel Foundry? Will this facility be also able to handle recycled fuel for the fabrication facility?
It's an interesting question. What we are discussing regarding the fuel foundry is specifically about fresh fuel fabrication. Additionally, we've been active on the regulatory front since 2021, preparing for the fuel recycling facility, which will also encompass the recycling process and the fabrication of recycled fuel. The fuel foundry focuses on fresh fuel, but the design and processes will generally apply to handling recycled fuel as well. While it's still metal and involves casting, it must be managed differently due to the nature of the recycled materials used, specifically the transuranic feedstock for fuel fabrication. This is important because recycling allows us to avoid using HALEU, relying instead on transuranics and recycled uranium. Consequently, the material is more radioactive and produces more heat, requiring different fabrication methods. In summary, the regulatory activities for recycling differ from those for the fuel foundry, but there are indeed connections between the two.
Good afternoon. Thanks for fitting me in. So, let me jump on that same line of questioning. So, what exactly is the CapEx delta between a commercial scale fuel foundry versus recycling facility? And while the licensing for fuel may be quicker than for the plants, the Aurora powerhouses, how long are we talking about constructing a foundry or recycling facility or constructing?
There are a couple of key points to note. Essentially, we have two main sources of fuel for Oklo plants moving forward. The first is fresh HALEU, which we procure and fabricate into fuel for our reactors. The second source is recycling, where we will begin to recycle fuel from current power-producing plants, including both Oklo plants and other advanced reactors. We can take that material, recycle it, and create a new feedstock to produce fuel at our recycling facility, which could then supply some Oklo plants as well. Generally, we anticipate that the fuel foundry will likely become operational before the recycling facility, due to the unique demands of licensing and technology development involved. Our plan is to first establish the fuel foundry to fabricate the fuel for our plants, with recycling coming later to generate additional fuel. The benefits from these developments are expected to unfold progressively.
It’s also important to note that fuel fabrication not only allows us to produce fuel ourselves but also opens possibilities for forming partnerships with other entities to supply fuel. The same applies to recycling, which presents further opportunities to connect with various initiatives. Currently, in the United States, there’s a significant shortage of licensed facilities to fabricate fuel for advanced reactors, representing a major opportunity for us to establish one and potentially support other projects as well. Overall, several exciting developments are on the horizon, laying a strong foundation for our growth and scaling efforts.
Well, I'd say, Jake, there will be incredible CapEx there, but really, we'll have more to say as we've kind of completed some of this appraised work on both the foundry and the recycling. And so, I think it'd be too early at this point for us to talk about what that could look like.
That's fair. Could we just presume that the recycling takes more capital and longer to construct versus just the foundry?
Yeah. I mean, generally speaking, because you're putting in fuel fabrication as well, yeah, it's going to take longer to build and take more capital, generally speaking, than the fuel foundry will, is how we think about it. Now, the thing with the recycling, though, is you also open up all these massive opportunities for additional potential revenues, right, from additional radioisotope co-product sales, additional uranium sales, additional actual true-bearing fuel feed sales. So, there's a lot of things that kind of come from that too. So, it kind of diversifies that piece, which is something that we're particularly excited about, not to mention the massive savings it gives us compared to fresh fuel, which is pretty huge. But yeah, we expect that to be something that takes longer and will cost more than the fresh fuel foundry.
Great. And my last one, you touched on this a bit in Sherif's questioning, but it kind of feels like the foreshadow new executive orders and Department of Defense involvement to grease the rails on U.S. nuclear could by far be the most meaningful on the fuel side, not government property and other things. Would you agree with that? And if so, what tangible perspective federal steps would you want to see on that front?
I’ll provide a detailed response. There's currently significant potential for growth in terms of policy and the willingness to utilize our national resources effectively, especially in relation to deploying capabilities on federal land. The Department of Energy is exploring ways to support the construction of data centers at existing sites, which could also allow them to take on regulatory roles for these facilities. While many factors are in play, this could lead to considerable benefits. At a minimum, it introduces a competitive dynamic with the NRC, which is beneficial overall. Furthermore, one advantage we have is our ongoing collaboration with the Department of Energy. They are working on designing and building a sodium-cooled fast reactor, which involves a regulatory process that provides valuable insights and evaluations that we can leverage. This cooperation can accelerate our advancements with the NRC, as it’s beneficial for regulators to build on the work done by others.
There’s also interest in Washington and among various organizations to explore how the regulatory powers of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the NRC can work together in a supportive yet competitive manner. In Idaho, we have a solid foundation with our site use permit, and we're actively engaged in development there. This opens the door for potential partnerships with hyperscale companies and further plant constructions, which could attract regulatory benefits from the Department of Energy. Additionally, we've partnered with Centrus to establish plants in Ohio, utilizing land from the Department of Energy that is being repurposed for development. We see many exciting prospects across various initiatives related to DOE and DOD sites. The ANPI program and our participation in the DIU process can help unlock further opportunities by providing power directly, especially since AI and energy are crucial for national security.
There are also ways to utilize government-owned materials as fuel, which could expedite progress if we can build on existing collaborations and innovations in small-scale test plants. We are eager to see these opportunities grow and evolve in the near future and are strategically working to expedite plant construction and resource allocation to maximize potential benefits.
Thank you. I'd now like to pass the call back over to Sam Doane for a question from Oklo's retail investors. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Yeah, we had one question come through. The question is, can you elaborate on the current stage of your discussions or agreements with data center operators or hyperscale customers? And how these conversations are shaping Oklo's deployment timeline and reactor siting strategy?
Yes, I can address that. As we mentioned in our previous call, we are actively engaged in discussions with all our customers, particularly those in the data center sector. We are in the process of exchanging term sheets and discussing commercial terms. Our goal is to optimize our commercial strategy, focusing on three key areas: power purchase pricing, structuring deals that may include some form of investment in Oklo—such as prepayments like those made by Equinix or potential asset-level investments—and collaborating with customers to better share and manage risks. We recently welcomed Mike Donohue to lead our business development efforts specifically for our data center solution customers; he reinforces our strategic and thoughtful approach. Earlier, Jake mentioned our progress on permitting, including the review of the first permit for our Idaho site. However, to file additional permits, we need to determine locations beyond Idaho, which is a crucial step for aligning our contracting and permitting strategies. We are making significant progress, and it’s fair to say that our business development team is among the busiest at Oklo.
Thank you. That concludes our Q&A session. I'll now turn the conference back over to CEO Jake DeWitte for closing remarks.
Thank you all for your time, as always. It's been about seven weeks since our last call, and there have been many developments in the broader macro environment. What we are observing is a consistent focus on AI related to energy needs, with hyperscalers identifying substantial growth opportunities for computing, though constrained by energy supply. Recently, during a congressional testimony, our former Chairman Sam Altman emphasized that energy is a critical area for government investment. This creates an exciting opportunity, especially with a supportive policy environment and an administration dedicated to infrastructure growth and favorable regulatory processes. We believe that we are at a point where many ideas can exceed expectations, even though challenges remain. Today’s landscape is unlike anything nuclear has faced before. Our unique business model, technological approach, and integrated framework are beginning to align and show promise.
We are moving toward faster technology development and deployment, which can fundamentally change the challenges that nuclear energy has historically encountered, such as misaligned incentives and complex transactional dynamics that hindered scaling. Now, major companies require vast amounts of power, are financially equipped to invest in building early plants, and are focused on reducing costs in the future. By integrating best practices from various industries and supply chains, we believe we can finally realize the potential of nuclear energy. Our long-term mission goes beyond quarterly and yearly objectives; we are working to harness the capabilities of nuclear energy. Considering the heavy metal reserves on Earth and the advancements in fast reactors and recycling technology, there is the potential for energy reserves to last for billions of years. We are excited about our work in this area and look forward to providing updates in the coming months.
This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.