U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

03/19/2026 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 03/20/2026 01:40

Heinrich Questions Experts on Nuclear Energy Development and the Trump Admin’s Plan to Release Congressionally Appropriated Funds for Nuclear Technologies

WASHINGTON - During a U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing to examine the Department of Energy's (DOE) implementation of President Trump's May 2025 nuclear energy executive orders, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the Committee's Ranking Member, questioned Kairos Power Co-Founder and CEO Dr. Mike Laufer and DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Theodore J. Garrish, on strategies to streamline nuclear energy development and the Trump administration's plan to release congressionally appropriated funds earmarked for new nuclear technologies.

On How Milestone-Based Cost Approaches Promote Efficient Project Development:

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

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

Heinrich followed, "It's also resulted in just a much faster development cycle. Correct?"

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

Heinrich continued, asking about High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) supply, "Let me pivot to HALEU. How critical is the timely development of reliable domestic HALEU supply, not just Kairos, but for the entire broader advanced reactor sector?"

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

On Disbursing Congressionally Appropriated Funds for Deploying New Nuclear Technologies:

Heinrich turned to Mr. Garrish, asking about the Trump administration's plan to disperse congressional-appropriated funds earmarked for nuclear development, "Mr. Garrish, last year's appropriation bill provided $3.1 billion to support the advanced reactor demonstration program. Obviously, that's meant to catalyze private sector investment in deploying next-generation nuclear technologies. What's the Department's strategy to disperse this funding effectively?"

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

###

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources published this content on March 19, 2026, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein. Distributed via Public Technologies (PUBT), unedited and unaltered, on March 20, 2026 at 07:40 UTC. If you believe the information included in the content is inaccurate or outdated and requires editing or removal, please contact us at [email protected]