Oklo Aktie

Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us, and welcome to Oklo First Quarter 2026 Financial Results and Webcast.

[Operator Instructions]

I will now hand the conference over to Sam Doane. Senior Director of Investor Relations. Sam, please go ahead.

Thank you, operator, and good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to Oklo's First Quarter 2026 Earnings and Company Update Call. I'm Sam Doane, Oklo's Senior Director of Investor Relations. Joining me today are Jake Dewitte, Oklo's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer; and Craig Bealmear, our Chief Financial Officer.

Today's accompanying slide presentation is available on the Investor Relations section of our website. After my opening remarks and the forward-looking statement disclosure, Jake will walk through our business update and strategic progress, and Craig will cover our financial results and closing remarks.

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 disclaimer included in our supplemental slides. Additional information 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.

Thank you, Sam, and thank you, everyone, for joining us today. Before we get into the quarter, I want to step back briefly. It has been almost exactly 2 years since Oklo became a public company. And since that time, there has been incredible progress at Oklo and for the industry as a whole. For Oklo, the story has increasingly moved from strategy to execution.

Since becoming a public company, we have built a customer pipeline across data centers, industrials, energy and government customers. We have advanced major customer relationships, including Switch and Meta. We broke ground on our first Aurora powerhouse at Idaho National Laboratory, Advanced Site work Procurement and Department of Energy Authorization for Aurora-INL and continue to make progress with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including approval of our Principal Design Criteria topical report.

We also advanced Aurora-Ohio, including plans with Meta for a 1.2 gigawatt power campus, while continuing to expand the fuel infrastructure needed to support deployment. This includes progress on the Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility at INL, the Tennessee Advanced Fuel Center and our fast-spectrum plutonium criticality experiments.

On the isotope side, we acquired Atomic Alchemy, built the Groves test reactor facility in 229 days, and we are developing our first isotope customer contracts for offtake from the radiochemistry laboratory. And importantly, we strengthened the balance sheet to support deployment and long-term growth. Oklo's no longer just preparing for deployment. We are actively building the platform to support it.

The broader environment continues to move in a direction that is providing tremendous momentum and supports our strategy. We are seeing U.S. nuclear tailwind shift from policy endorsement to execution, which manifests across power markets, fuel recycling and now into space travel and exploration.

The White House launched the National Initiative for American Space Nuclear Power and the DOE has been directed to assess readiness for up to 4 space reactors within 5 years. That is a very strong signal that nuclear is increasingly being viewed as strategic infrastructure beyond the grid, beyond this planet and beyond the century.

Our business touches several of the world's expanding needs. Almost every incredible thing we have done in space has been powered by isotopes, and that will most likely continue to be true, which means isotope production, fuel development, compact reactors and materials testing are all relevant markets. And even before permanent space reactors are deployed, our isotope business can support space applications through radioisotope materials for systems like radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which are used to provide reliable power in extreme environments.

At the same time, PJM continues to highlight the need for new firm supply, including bridging a potential 50- to 60-gigawatt capacity shortfall over the next decade in a proposed reliability backstop procurement framework. That supports our view that co-located and campus-style deployment models can be an important part of serving large loads and also underscores why we are progressing deployment of power assets in power park-type like locations, such as those we are developing in Southern Ohio. Demand continues to build for reliable baseload power.

And on the fuel side, the DOE has issued requests for applications to advance privately funded used nuclear fuel recycling, while states are increasingly competing to host integrated nuclear campuses that can support clean, reliable and affordable energy at scale. Together, these developments reinforce the idea that used fuel should be viewed not as a liability, but as a strategic domestic energy resource.

We are also seeing ongoing innovation at the NRC to expand the licensing pathways available to small advanced reactors, which helps accelerate deployment. Part 57 is designed around faster repeatable deployment of microreactors and smaller advanced reactors. The NRC has discussed targeted licensing and deployment timelines of 6 to 12 months. That is a very different cadence from traditional nuclear licensing frameworks we were discussing just a few years ago.

Part 57 also proposes fleet-based licensing and more standardized reviews for smaller repeatable reactors, which could significantly streamline future licensing for projects with multiple same kind assets, aligning with Oklo's repeatable deployment multiple powerhouse campus-style development approach.

Part 57 also appears to leverage DOE and Department of War authorized operating experience to reduce duplicative NRC reviews. That is important because our initial deployments of DOE authorized assets will generate real engineering, construction, safety and operating experience. And that experience may inform and streamline future NRC reviews, enhancing the strategic value of those early asset deployments.

The NRC has also finalized Part 53, an important modernization step because it creates a risk-informed technology-inclusive framework for advanced reactors though the development of the proposed Part 57 may be even more directly relevant and beneficial for Oklo.

NRC modernization is moving in a direction that appears highly aligned with Oklo's targeted fleet deployment model of advanced reactors with repeatable designs. 2 years ago, the advanced nuclear conversation was still largely about policy support, customer interest and long-term potential. Today, the conversation at Oklo is increasingly about execution. We are advancing licensing pathways across 3 businesses, securing multiple fuel pathways, converting demand into deployable, repeatable projects and deploying and operating assets to meet that demand.

We believe that Oklo is well positioned to meet market demand as an integrated platform across 3 business units, power, fuel and isotopes. Power as the anchor product, clean, reliable baseload power and heat delivered through our Aurora powerhouses. Fuel is the enabler, fabrication, recycling and multiple fuel supply pathways that support deployment. And isotopes that expand the platform into high-value domestic market sectors that will supply products for critical uses, including space, defense, industrial and most importantly, health care.

These are complementary businesses with capabilities designed to reinforce each other over time. That integration is central to how we believe Oklo can scale. And we are in action, building assets across all 3 of our business verticals as we speak. On the power side, we have Aurora-INL, our Aurora powerhouse at Idaho National Laboratory. Aurora-Ohio, our planned 1.2 gigawatt clean energy campus and Aurora Eielson, a cogeneration project planned to provide heat and power for Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska.

On the fuel side, we have the Aurora fuel fabrication facility at INL and the Advanced Fuel Center in Tennessee, which begins with our first phase, a used nuclear fuel recycling facility. We are also developing plans for the potential use of plutonium-based fuels as a bridge fuel. And in isotopes, we have Groves, our radioisotope test reactor, which is targeting criticality by July 4 of this year. and the Idaho radiochemistry laboratory, which already has NRC license and is working towards generating early commercial isotope revenue starting in 2026.

We are actively executing across all 3 business units of our vertically integrated nuclear platform, building the infrastructure, fuel pathways, licensing strategies, supply chain strategies and commercial capabilities needed to deploy repeatedly.

We used this slide last quarter, but it is worth revisiting briefly because it is a helpful reminder, of how the pieces fit together, in the conventional nuclear value chain, mining, enrichment, power generation and long-term waste storage are fragmented across different parties.

Oklo's model is designed to connect fuel fabrication, power production, fuel recycling and isotope production into an integrated loop. Power creates fuel demand, recycling supports long-term supply, recovered materials can support isotope opportunities. So this is a quick reminder, but an important one, power, fuel and isotopes are all synergistic capabilities, not separate strategic directions. We believe Oklo is the key player in the nuclear sector advancing the strategic integrated business model.

Since our last company update just 8 weeks ago, we've continued to make progress across all 3 business units. In Power, Aurora-INL has submitted the Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis or PDSA, for review with the Department of Energy. Advanced Procurement and site development and received approval from the NRC for our principal design criteria topical report.

Aurora-Ohio has moved forward with PJM interconnection applications. For Aurora-Eielson site characterization has been initiated. And with Project Pluto, we announced a strategic partnership project with Battelle Energy Alliance and Idaho National Laboratory for an industry-leading initiative to integrate AI into reactor and fuel system design.

In Fuel, early construction activities at A3F are underway and final design deliverables are complete. The Tennessee fuel recycling facility continues through application readiness review with the NRC and site preparation continues.

We also announced a collaboration with NVIDIA in Los Alamos National Laboratory to support fuel validation work for plutonium bearing fuels. And in isotopes, Groves has its PDSA and review has its DSA submitted and received a certificate of substantial completion for construction. The Idaho Radiochemistry Laboratory is also advancing our first customer contract, paving the way for potential revenue generation in 2026. Across the company, our mindset has shifted toward asset deployment, which is supporting asset delivery across all 3 business units, enabled by multiple regulatory pathways and unlocking several growing potential revenue opportunities.

First, we'll start with the fuel business updates. Fuel availability is one of the most important gating items for advanced nuclear deployment and is one of the areas where Oklo has spent years building differentiated capabilities and optionality.

A3F is the Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility at INL, which will be fabricating fuel for the Aurora-INL and supporting future Aurora deployments. On the DOE authorization side, A3F has received approval for its Nuclear Safety Design Agreement or NSDA and its Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis or PDSA. The next milestones are approval of the Documented Safety Analysis or DSA, completion of the readiness review and start-up approval.

On execution, early construction activities are complete. Final design deliverables are complete, and the next major execution milestone is expected to be the construction contract award.

The Tennessee Advanced Fuel Center is our first major step toward long-term recycling capability. Site preparation activities continue in Tennessee. Technology development continues to mature the design, and the NRC application readiness review continues. As of April 2026, the Department of Energy has initiated an accelerated private sector-led pathway for nuclear fuel recycling, moving away from the once-through cycle toward reprocessing for advanced reactors. We will continue to evaluate the right pathway as the project advances.

We also announced the collaboration with NVIDIA and Los Alamos National Laboratory to advance nuclear fuel validation. We see this collaboration as a potential key strategic enabler because it brings together Oklo's fast reactor platform, NVIDIA's AI infrastructure and Los Alamos' fuel and materials expertise.

The collaboration supports AI-enabled modeling, digital twins and validation work for plutonium bearing fuels. It also advances fuel development for Pluto, one of our DOE reactor pilot program projects. The broader significance is that AI can help accelerate nuclear development, while nuclear can provide firm power for AI infrastructure. In this case, the collaboration links Advanced Nuclear Power, AI-enabled research and nuclear fuel R&D, and it supports the technical foundation for plutonium-bearing fuel work. It is another example of how our power and fuel strategies are connected to some of the most important infrastructure needs in the market today.

Moving now to power asset updates. Aurora-INL remains the anchor of our power deployment strategy, and we are advancing regulatory procurement and site work in parallel.

On the DOE side, we have executed the Other Transaction Agreement or OTA, and received approval for the nuclear safety design agreement. The preliminary documented safety analysis is currently in review, and the next milestones are approval of the documented safety analysis, completion of the readiness review and start-up approval.

The DOE pathway allows us to continue advancing construction, procurement and system integration, while the project moves through authorization. At the same time, and as we have noted in previous updates, we continue to work with the NRC in parallel as demonstrated by the NRC's approval of the principal design criteria topical report for the Aurora INL.

This approval is important because it establishes the fundamental safety, reliability and performance requirements that can guide future reactor licensing and design activities. It also clears the path for the report to be referenced in future applications, reducing the need to rereview established material. To be clear, that is the point of parallel pathing our regulatory approach. We are using the DOE pathway to move the first asset forward, while continuing NRC work that supports broader commercial licensing and future repeatability.

On the site, field execution continues at INL, including the transition to deep foundation excavation, long lead procurement work is advancing across major systems and supplier engagement is progressing for the reactor module and the balance of plant needs.

We also announced a strategic partnership project with Patel Energy Alliance, the management and operating contractor for INL to use AI technologies to accelerate advanced reactor and fuel system design work. The project will apply INL's Prometheus AI platform to support AI-enabled engineering workflows, modeling, simulation and technical documentation, including work related to Pluto, which is a plutonium-fueled powerhouse. Together, the regulatory progress, site execution and AI-enabled design work are all aimed at accelerating deployment, while improving engineering efficiency.

At Aurora-Ohio, we continue to advance campus development and permitting readiness. Meta and Oklo announced plans earlier this year to develop a 1.2-gigawatt advanced nuclear power campus in Ohio. And this quarter, Oklo submitted PJM interconnection applications as part of the most recent cluster study, which is key to overall site development and project deployment timelines.

We are continuing to look for avenues to enhance site differentiators as we advance the Ohio campus and broader development strategy. We also continue coordination with regulatory bodies to support permitting, site readiness and project scope alignment, while advancing engagement across community, policy and commercial stakeholders in Ohio.

Aurora-Eielson represents a different but highly strategic power use case. The Defense Logistics Agency Energy on behalf of the Department of the Air Force issued an notice of intent to award to Oklo. The project is an Aurora-derived powerhouse planned for Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. Site characterization is ongoing with ground investigations expected to begin this summer.

The project is planned to deliver and meet or at least 5 megawatts of electric power with the primary use case for the asset being the delivery of steam for district heating, integrating with existing base energy infrastructure. Strategically, this demonstrates distributed nuclear for mission-critical defense operations. It is not only about electricity. It is also about heat, resilience and energy security in a demanding operating environment. It expands Aurora applications beyond commercial campuses and supports the broader case for resilient nuclear power.

The last asset updates are on our isotope projects. This business continues to move from development toward near-term operations and commercial activity. This quarter, we completed construction activities for the Groves facility, receiving a certificate of substantial completion for construction for this greenfield facility in just 229 days. That timing matters and is foundational to our strategy.

Nuclear is often viewed as slow by default. Groves demonstrates that with the right design, scope, supply chain authorization pathway and commercial mindset, nuclear assets can move much faster than people may expect, and they implications go beyond groves itself. The lessons we are learning around procurement, construction, installation, regulatory sequencing and commissioning will inform how we deploy future nuclear assets across the platform.

On the DOE authorization side, Groves has executed its OTA and received approval for its NSDA. The PDSA is in review and the DSA has been submitted. The next milestones are completion of the readiness review and start-up approval. From an execution standpoint, the focus now is in final installation of reactor equipment, integrated system testing and fuel delivery with the target of July 4, 2026, criticality. We are pleased with the pace of progress, and Groves is helping show what a faster model for nuclear asset deployment can look like.

The second isotope update is the Idaho radiochemistry Laboratory. This is an NRC authorized facility. Oklo received its NRC material handling permit earlier this year, which enables the processing and handling of licensed radioactive materials and supports early commercial isotope activities. This facility gives us the ability to safely process, handle and supply purified isotope materials under the appropriate regulatory framework, allowing us to engage on commercial offtake opportunities.

On the commercial side, customer engagement continues to advance, and our first commercial isotope contract is pending. We are not naming the customer at this stage, but this represents continued movement toward early commercialization of Oklo's isotope platform. The broader read-through is that we are building the pieces required for commercial isotope supply, authorized isotope handling capabilities, purified isotope processing and commercial supply opportunities. This is the path this lab is intended to support.

Before turning it over to Craig, I want to briefly highlight our Board of Directors. As Oklo moves from development into execution across multiple assets, we continue to build the Board with experience aligned to the scale and complexity of what we are doing. Michael Thompson now serves as our Lead Independent Director. We also added Dr. Mark Peters, David Christian, Derek Kan and David Park as new directors.

These additions bring deep experience, executing complex and highly technical projects across energy, industrial, infrastructure, finance and technology sectors. That breadth matters. We are building a vertically integrated business across fuel, power and isotopes each has significant tailwinds, but each also has distinct execution needs. Adding this type of experience supports our ability to move faster and do more simultaneously as the company scales.

With that, I will turn it over to Craig for the financial update and closing remarks. Craig?

Thanks, Jake. 2026 has started off strong for the company as we added both strength to our balance sheet and deployment of capital to advance our strategic agenda. In the first quarter, Oklo's net loss was $33.1 million made up of loss from operations of $51.2 million and income tax expense of $3.2 million, offset by $21.3 million of net interest and dividend income.

Our cash used in operating activities in the first quarter of $17.9 million includes our net loss of $33.1 million, primarily adjusted for noncash charges of $15.6 million from stock-based compensation as well as $0.4 million of other adjustments.

Cash used in investing activities was $359 million, including net cash used for purchases of marketable securities of $321.2 million following the closure of our successful ATM program in the first quarter. In addition, capital spend of $32.8 million increased planned property, plant and equipment growth across all 3 business units. Other investment activity during the period was $5 million.

We are trending toward our guided ranges we provided for 2026. Cash used in operating activities of $80 million to $100 million as well as cash used in investing activities for the deployment of property, plant and equipment of $350 million to $450 million, demonstrating Oklo's deployment efforts across our 3 business units of power, fuel and isotopes.

As we focus on accelerating procurement and construction efforts through the year, we expect to continue to make progress aligned towards these targets. Oklo ended the first quarter with cash and marketable securities of $2.5 billion, comprising cash and cash equivalents of $1.6 billion and marketable securities of $0.9 billion. This balance includes the additional $1.2 billion of capital generated in the first quarter from the completion of our ATM program. While also generating sizable interest income, this financing provides Oklo with a strong balance sheet, which leaves the company well positioned to benefit from ongoing policy and regulatory tailwinds and to execute on our business plans in 2026 and beyond.

Before we move to questions and answers, I'll briefly summarize the why Oklo investment case. We believe Oklo is differentiated by the combination of advanced nuclear power, fuel and fuel recycling, isotopes and a vertically-integrated business model. Our Power business addresses growing demand for clean, reliable, always on energy. Our fuel strategy is designed to support deployment, while reducing reliance on any single fuel pathway. And our isotope business adds high-value opportunities that are complementary to the broader platform.

We are also pursuing licensing pathways that fit the asset and stage of development, while early DOE authorized assets helping inform future NRC license deployments. Finally, our potential customer pipeline reflects strong demand across data centers, utilities, industrials, oil and gas and government applications. Together, these elements support our view that Oklo is building a scalable nuclear platform with multiple paths to value creation.

With that, thank you again for joining us. We will now open up the call for questions.

[Operator Instructions]

Your first question comes from the line of Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley Securities.

Maybe I'll start with Fuel. You secured supply needed for Aurora-INL and the recycling opportunity looks promising. But curious if you have an update on your fuel procurement strategy for mid-term opportunities like the Ohio plants with Meta and what you're seeing from enrichment companies out there and your ability to source fuel from them.

I'll start it and then, Craig, chime in. I think, appreciate that. Basically, what we see happening in the space is a number of things evolving. We're actively working with enrichers. Obviously, we have a long time partnership with Centrus. We continue to dig in with the enrichment companies to shape the right format and try to figure out the best ways to accelerate their ability to meet supply, which we feel increasingly encouraged by. We're seeing time scales and delivery schedule shift to the left, for the first time. That's pretty amazing. I think just given the activity in the space helps for that.

Similarly, we're seeing a significant uptick in different opportunities emerge on the government side for making extra excess materials available, and those are in the form of either basically high-risk uranium that can be recovered and down blended to make High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium or plutonium inventories or stockpile surplus plutonium that can be used blended with uranium and made as to a fuel that's equivalent to HALEU fuel.

The good news about those is those are all materials that can exist with very little spin-up time or I should say, sort of production time compared to setting up enrichment capacity. And that's something we've long been pushing forward and excited to sort of see and see happen because it enables a significant amount of what I think of as a bridge fuel to come to market sooner. So for the Ohio plants, it's in all sort of hands-on-deck approach, working from the fresh fuel perspective as well as looking at other sources from the government to help get those plants started, with the idea that they transitioned to refueling with sort of commercial HALEU supplies. Until recycling comes online, it makes sense to use in those areas as well.

And that's a key differentiator for us, right? We have intentionally selected a reactor technology and an integrated sort of strategy approach that allows us to source fuel from fresh HALEU sources from government reserves that includes uranium and plutonium that can be produced into fuel that can be fueled our -- fuel our reactors as well as recycling, which can produce fuel form that can be used in our reactors. And you can't do that across all reactor types. It's really unique to fast reactors in many ways, and that's something that we've been building the infrastructure for really since the beginning.

And Jake, I think the only thing I would add is in addition to things that are underway around the government helping on the supply side, it's early days, but it also feels like there's help being provided on the capital side as well. And just to emphasize Jake's point, we think having more than one pathway in the near term as that bridge to recycling in the longer term is just, it makes a lot of strategic sense, which is why we're progressing more than one avenue.

Your next question comes from the line of Jed Dorsheimer with William Blair.

Jake, can you just talk about some of the challenges and maybe the timing of going from uranium to plutonium in your Pluto reactor? And then also, the advantages that, that may provide.

Sure. Thank you, Jed, and thanks for the question. I think that's one of the key things here, with the fast reactor system like ours, you can use plutonium as a fuel source. And the way that works is you take the plutonium that exists, and this is all surplus plutonium that the government produced largely as part of the weapons program in the past. It's been deemed surplus by various activities, not really suitable for use in that program and was slated for disposition, well, the best way to dispose of it is to put it in reactors and split it, which is what we're intending to do.

And plutonium is a really good surrogate as a fuel form compared to, for example, Uranium 235, which is the main fissile isotope in uranium that you enrich the concentrate. So what that means is plutonium exists in a concentrated form today, it's being made available through a program that the government had request for applications for as moved forward by the executive order back in May. What that would do is pull that plutonium, enable it to basically be used as a fuel form for reactors like ours. And how that works is you take it, you mix it with uranium and zirconium to cast a metallic fuel form.

That fuel and technical jargon has been deemed or called or referred to as ternary alloy fuel. The long history of research and development in the fast reactor research and development programs in the United States and abroad. It has a deep history to its use in sort of a long supporting qualification base for that.

So long story short, we can use that plutonium as a fuel source to, instead of HALEU, which is particularly useful because that material exists and is more readily fabricatable than standing up and spinning up the larger scale HALEU supply chains in the near term. Over time, obviously, that takes over.

But that plutonium it's a finite reserve, right? It's a limited amount of material that we'll use to get started, so we'll build reactors that will start on it, and we'll gradually replace it and refuel it with either High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium, HALEU, that's produced or the fuel produced from recycling, which is a different type. It has all the transuranics mix together with uranium and everything else. Either way, it's a really important way to produce a lot of fuel.

That 20 tons that the government's request for applications is making available in this first tranche of plutonium is equivalent between 160 to 200 tons of HALEU. That's a huge amount of fuel to get started and help sort of create this bridge that can move a lot more reactors out the door more quickly.

In terms of challenges, there are some challenges with it, but they're manageable from the sense that we've used this, before, in fast reactors. We know how to manage its usage, and it's a great fuel source. So it's one of those things that from a handling perspective and from other pieces, you managed to do that a little bit differently, but it's something, again, there's a long history base of in the United States, and we know how to deal with. It's just an incredibly powerful resource to kick start building more reactors more quickly.

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.

I just wanted to go back to one of the slides. This Part 57 overview was helpful. Jake, can you maybe frame for us kind of expectations around timing for that? And then it does sound like maybe as part of that the DOE to NRC licensing conversion could be facilitated. Is that the right read? Or kind of how should we think about this in the context of transitioning to NRC licenses from the DOE authorization?

Yes. It's a great question. I think the general view -- just to clarify, I'll make it very clear, from how the framework for converting from DOE to NRC authorization has been mapped out and planned is accommodating through a number of licensing pathways in the NRC, if that makes sense. Like at the end of the day, the focus is going to be on how do you best transition an operating asset to an operating reactor. And that process will be developed, but it can fit into a number of different frameworks, 57 being one of them.

The way we see Part 57 is a culmination of a lot of work of regulatory engagement to drive the NRC to a more, I would say, performance-based regulatory platform and foundation. It's something that is kind of the fruits of labor spanning back over a decade, which is great to see. What I mean by that is not just the fruits of the Oklo labor, I mean the fruits of the labor of the whole industry and the NRC and the government to come up with a better framework that is focused on recognizing the actual sort of hazard and consequence profile of reactors and not laying over massive prescriptive overlays, which is pretty significant and sort of, I would say, streamlining and focusing the regulations on what matter.

57's timeline for implementation is something that I know is going through a period of, as I understand it, public comment period. I don't know the exact details on when that's going to be expected to be rolled out, but based on the timelines that the NRC has put all of that forward, I think they're expecting that to be ready, to be usable here as soon as later this year. It's possible that there may be some reasons that, that moves a little, but I think that's the intent. And I think that's the general timeline target. And so I think that's pretty powerfully important.

So it's a great platform that our reactors can be sorted into. We're generally quite excited about it. There's obviously an iterative dynamic that needs to be accommodated. It's going to be great, but I'm sure there will be ways to make it even better. And that's something that we're going to be eagerly engaged on.

But again, I think what's really important is, this is a massive step forward based on what had been looked at in the past and discussed for a long time and to see it more or less codified like this is incredibly encouraging for us at Oklo, in particular. Given the amount of time we've sort of taken the amount of work we've put in to really try to modernize regulations going back since our founding and seeing some of those concepts and ideas sort of come to light like this is pretty exciting.

So I think it's a great platform that we'll tend to use most likely for most of our plants going forward and most likely to convert the Aurora-INL. Of course, depends on a number of the final details that come to bear, but we're pretty excited about it.

And Jake, I'm not the engineer in the firm, but what really excites me about it is it almost feels like it really aligns with the strategy we've always had. Jake talked in his speaking points about fleet-based licensing. We've always had the plan to deploy a fleet of assets. We've always talked about our safety profile and our passive safety characteristics with low consequences. And Part 57 is really an enabler for that sort of design.

And I think the other thing that maybe excites me from an efficiency standpoint is it is trying to take unnecessary steps that have already been done in one process and leverage that. So I think there's just a lot of really positive things to take away for our powerhouse business as it relates to Part 57.

I'm sorry. I was just -- yes, I was just going to add. I'm so sorry, I'll just tie onto that. I think Craig hit this, and I think one of the things that's just very valuable about 57 is it is a culmination of a lot of work done dating back that spans things we were putting forward in our pre-application activity starting in 2016, work that the industry was working on from a few years after that, kind of onwards. It's very -- again, it's very encouraging. And I think it's exciting to see it come to bear like this because I think it's going to be quite transformative.

Your next question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG.

For the PJM interconnection request, do you have a sense for the turnaround time on that? And does approval come irrespective of where you are in the NRC regulatory process?

I don't have the best answer for the timeline on the interconnection request time scales. I don't know, Craig, if you do. I think the way...

Yes, I would say, Jake, it's measured in months, if not more than a year. And my understanding is that it's somewhat disconnected from our regulatory process.

Yes. And on that part definitely disconnected from the nuclear regulatory part.

So we think what we've done around PJM, it's really an important action just to make sure that we're thinking about the interconnection relative to all of our other critical path items as it relates to Aurora-Ohio.

Your next question comes from the line of Jeffrey Campbell with Seaport Research Partners.

Jake, I just wanted to understand what's the -- regarding the strategic partnership project with Battelle to integrate the AI? And you also have one with NVIDIA at LANL. Could you sort of synopsize what the goals of each program are, how they differ if there's any synergies?

Yes. They're complementary, a bit different, but they focus on bringing forward some of the state of the art modeling and computational capabilities from -- frankly, from an AI-driven kind of workflow and Agentic workflow perspective to support our reactor design and development work, so we're putting it to work on our Pluto reactor, which is a plutonium-dual variant and is quite accelerating. So the NVIDIA LANL is a great setup, most almost as kind of the premier plutonium laboratory NVIDIA is working with us and them to help bring forward some state of the art capabilities on various aspects around plutonium chemistry and material handling and management. That's going to be very, I think, constructive and moving certain process and basically certain processes and technology considerations forward.

So I'm pretty excited about that. It's going to also help us streamline how -- and accelerate how we can manage some of the plutonium, I would say, material, I guess, frankly, like it's really the processing out from some of the stuff that might be coming in, in an oxide form or different forms that need some purification around it, just given Los Alamos' experience there and NVIDIA's capabilities and our capabilities. It's just a great way to work together to actually apply some of these, frankly, like, phenomenal compute capabilities to get insights and accelerate sort of the technology development process and some of the shortcut, not shortcut but accelerate the trial and error considerations there, which is huge, in terms of time savings and increasing throughput and forming sort of design of material handling that allows us to get deeper into that inventory or some of that surplus in plutonium and be able to turn it into fuel more quickly.

There's a lot more to unpack there for time's sake. I'll kind of leave it at that and then move over to the INL one, which is a focus on us partnering with them to use some incredible capabilities they've built around Agentic AI workflows for reactor design and analysis all the way out through aspects of licensing and manufacturing and construction.

What that is, is effectively, it's like using their tools to create effectively reactor design teams that are -- AI reaction design teams to help us do more with less because all of the exciting things we have going on, finding ways that are significant levers for our engineering team to do more with less is going to help us take advantage of all of these opportunities that are in front of us.

And partnering with INL has been kind of the home of this suite of reactor design and modeling tools and being able to tie that into some of the really cool stuff they've been working on for a bit on driving AI, frankly, Agentic designers is hugely enabling. Because when you think about reactor design, a lot of work turns into doing kind of multi-physics optimization. And now you can put all that in a single place and get a ton of information out really quickly by just firing it off and letting it run for a long time, which helps us define, explore and then iterate down on and optimize towards the design space is much more quickly and also gain a lot of insights in the process accordingly to reduce the design space accordingly and make it even basically faster the next time.

So we're kind of at, I guess, for the Vanguard of doing this with INL, we've been working with them for a few months on setting this up to see what could we do and what could be possible and very excited about that. So basically, it's going to be applying their reactor design and analysis tools and things we built together and tying that in from an Agentic AI kind of reactor design workflow or team, if you will. That now allows us to apply that into the Pluto program to accelerate the design work there for what we can do on the reactor front there.

We also expect that to span out to other design efforts, but that's the one where it was kind of the easiest natural tie-in to start. But I think it's going to be really helpful in us doing more and more quickly, frankly, with less because that's really important.

And Jake, what excites me is further down the road when we have a fleet of assets running on more than one fuel, I can see a world where we're trying to optimize minimum amount of fuel in for maximum amount of power for longest duration between refuelings. So building out this sort of capability now, I think, is just going to have further applications on down the road.

Your next question comes from the line of Sameer Joshi with H.C. Wainwright.

The Eielson Air Force Base cogen facility is 15 megawatts. That's a different model than your 75-megawatt standard, how does that development differ or is similar to what you're doing with the 75 megawatt? And is there a Department of War or Department of Defense pathway as well for this?

Yes, it's a great question. It builds off the experience from the, basically, what we've done from the past, if you go back to like our earlier design iterations, some of the Aurora when we were smaller, it basically picks up on those and as it carryover into the Pluto project -- which was carried into the Pluto project, which didn't carry over into the Aurora side.

Given the size of that, it's less -- it's more about the thermal power output, especially given the steam needs rather than the electric side. This is less of a comparison on electric power more on thermal power. So it's a 60-megawatt thermal power plant that will be designed to go up there. And we see that being a pretty important piece that naturally fits off of our kind of product road map and evolution because they have a lot of common carryover. There are some differences, of course, between the Aurora product line that's focused on the sort of 35-megawatt plus data center side and then this, but this has been core to some opportunities we see in defense and the other industrial applications and ties over pretty constructively there.

It uses the same fuel form and size and dimensions actually, just a bit less and then a bit of a smaller vessel with smaller sort of plant footprint because it's smaller, smaller piping and small heat exchangers, but all the same technology pieces. And in many cases, we expect the same vendors, which generally speaking, I think, is helpful. And again, the strategic aspects of the Defense Department's needs or sorry, Department of War's needs are pretty important to be able to match into and this gives us that flexibility.

The other piece that I think is important from that is, again, it shows the opportunity around the cogeneration side. Going back, I remember in my academic days and Caroline's academic days, there's a lot of excitement around high temperature reactors to produce process heat. But when you really dig into the market, the vast, vast, vast majority of the market is going to be served by steam temperature is under 450 degrees centigrade. And then the other big, like sort of the other big -- then there's kind of a moat of application of temperatures above that until you get to very, very, very high temperatures is that make no sense to heat like to transport it. So you're going to use other things, either combustion or hydrogen or electrified transport because moving a couple -- like 1,500-plus degrees centigrade heat is just really hard and really expensive and designing reactor to do so is also the same.

So it's kind of cool because it allows us to tie in with more moderate temperature reactor system. And the benefits that, that affords us with them being able to serve these kind of process heat applications, which are a massive opportunity, especially since again, such a huge percentage of processed heat energy usage is met by sub-450-degree steam. And this is a great example of what that looks like.

Now for a lot of those like facilities and plants, though, this size range plant is very -- is ideal. So it's why we've designed it like that and built it from that. It also has benefits from different authorization and regulatory pathways, potentially. However, given the Part 57 dynamic that's come out, it's most likely -- very likely that we'll go that path with this there, given that it has significant benefits and that's been the Air Force's inclinations. But it's important to also note that we are also part of the Defense Innovation Unit, Advanced Nuclear Power Program, the ANPI program. And that has some cool upside capabilities and benefits for us as well that may tie over to some of these DOE, DOW regulatory pathways. But at this point, the intent and plan for Eielson would stick with Part 57, but future Defense or Department of War applications might go a different regulatory pathway, depending on the structure there.

This is very much a pathfinder. It's been clearly communicated that way by the Air Force by a lot of the stakeholders. It's our view, too, and it's a great place to figure it out.

[Operator Instructions]

Your next question comes from the line of Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald.

Yes. I'm hopping around calls tonight, so apologies if the question has been asked. I want to start with some commentary from the Nuclear Energy Institute. It sounds like they're considering a plan to potentially finance billions of dollars of long lead time items for nuclear reactors. I was wondering if you can comment on that. And what might be the implications on your CapEx assumptions, deployment timelines if that indeed happens?

I mean I can take this one. So Derek, it's early days for those sorts of conversations, but we've talked about we've been very active clearly in the capital markets to make sure that capital is not a constraint for our asset deployment timeline. And we are looking now to explore government financing options and asset-level financing options if the terms and other things makes sense and that could even include supplier financing. But it's good that we're looking at those sorts of things. Just as you said, can that help lower our cost of capital? Can that help accelerate deployment as opposed to something that we absolutely need to have to progress our strategic agenda?

There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to Jake Dewitte, CEO of Oklo for closing remarks.

Great. Thank you, and thank you all for jumping in. We're excited to share these updates. I know it's only been about 8 weeks since our last one, but it has been a pretty dynamic period, including just in the last few weeks, the release of Part 57, couple that with the strategic advancements we've been focused on working with our partners in the National Lab Ecosystem as well as across sort of the, I would call it, the AI space.

And on top of that, we continue to see this broad mix of significant opportunities and tailwinds come together, to be quite supportive for solving through some of the biggest bottlenecks, right? Regulatory is one of the biggest ones that obviously has been focused on, and there's a ton of tremendous work there.

Again, the opportunity space around how we can convert with DOE authorization to an NRC license is a clear benefit and advantage because you can take the first build iteration cycles faster on the DOE authorization side and then have a path to bring it over in the right way to the NRC like license side, while also informing NRC licensing for future work. Again, we continue to ensure both of those, and we're taking both approaches.

And then on top of that, we're making steady progress on solving for fuel, which at this point has a multitude of potential pathways that get over and around the challenge of initial fuel loads. And we are uniquely positioned on purpose from a strategic perspective to be able to capitalize on that by using bridge fuel sources that come from different excess materials and inventories, while also working proactively and quickly with our long-term enrichment partners. So we're pretty excited about how that space is shaping up and how we're leaning into it and how we're positioned to take -- make the most out of diversity of fuel sources becoming available.

And finally, I think it's really important to highlight that it's an exciting place and time for us to be moving fully into build an execution in iteration mode. With the Groves reactor in Texas, we're differentiated in the sense that we've been able to build the reactor from the ground up on a thing that -- on a piece land that had nothing on it. And everything we put into it, it wasn't prefabricated or existing, already fabricated fuel the government had or components or building that existed or minimum kind of slab and tilts up. It was a full on civil construction build for a nuclear reactor with a vessel sourced and something that we -- in fuel sourced and all the components sourced in the supply chain that we needed or made, and we were able to do that and reach substantial completion in 229 days, something that, frankly, has been a bit impressive if it was just a normal building much less a nuclear reactor.

So we're really proud of the team for how we've done that. We're proving out that some of the key theses we've had that nuclear doesn't have to be incredibly big or incredibly slow and incredibly expensive. It can be done in radically different ways by taking the right business model approach, team and structure and solving to do that. And we've got some great experience points already.

So it's been very exciting [ journey ] for us to see that progress. We're very excited to then come back soon with even more exciting updates when we see you guys next in a few months. So thank you all for joining us, and appreciate the time.

This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.

Gentlemen, thank you for standing by. My name is Christa, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome you to the Oklo Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Financial Results and Business Update Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. I would now like to turn the conference over to Sam Doane, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Sam, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, and thank you for joining Oklo's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Company Update. I'm Sam Doane, Oklo's Senior Director of Investor Relations. Joining me today are Jake Dewitte, Oklo's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer; and Craig Bealmear, our Chief Financial Officer. After my opening remarks and the forward-looking statement disclosure, Jake will walk through the business update and strategic progress, and Craig will cover our financial results.

Our remarks today include forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties 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. Additional information on relevant risk factors is described in our filings with the SEC. We undertake no obligation to update forward-looking statements, except as required by law.

With that, I'll turn the call over to Jake. Jake?

Thanks, Sam. 2025 was a step change year for Oklo. We transitioned from product development into active project deployment across all of our business units. During the year, we broke ground on our first Aurora powerhouse at Idaho National Laboratory under the DOE's reactor pilot program, advanced key commercial partnerships across the value chain, including our early 2026 prepayment agreement with Meta to support plans for 1.2 gigawatt power campus and began initial construction activities on A3F at INL. We also completed the acquisition of Atomic Alchemy and made substantial construction progress at Groves in Texas, our first radioisotope test reactor. In fuel, we completed fast-spectrum plutonium criticality experiments supporting using plutonium as a bridge fuel. We announced the first phase of our advanced fuel center in Tennessee, and we progressed licensing activities across multiple assets. Taken together, 2025 was the year Oklo turned our platform strategy into deployed projects while also strengthening the balance sheet to fund that execution and our long-term growth.

Before I go deeper into execution, it is also important to understand how much the external environment shifted over the last 2 years. In 2024 and 2025, U.S. nuclear policy moved toward a more execution-oriented posture across licensing, asset deployment, fuel supply and capital formation. You can see the 4 main pillars here. First, executive actions and regulatory direction focused on accelerating licensing and enabling first-of-a-kind projects. Second, federal support mechanisms, including tax credits, loan guarantees and direct financing tools are improving the pathway to fund projects. Third, fuel sovereignty measures are pushing domestic capability across the conversion, enrichment, HALEU and strategic fuel materials. And fourth, implementation of the ADVANCE Act is aimed at reducing friction and licensing and enabling more efficient deployment pathways. The policy backdrop has shifted from a light tailwind to a very strong tailwind for the nuclear sector, and Oklo is positioned to move in that environment.

Going forward, we will talk about Oklo through 3 integrated business units: power, fuel and isotopes that together form a unique vertically integrated nuclear platform. Power is the clean baseload power and heat from our sodium fast reactors that can utilize a broad spectrum of fuels. Fuel provides Oklo with an integrated pathway to produce fuel required for our powerhouses as well as for our peers and competitors. This derisks deployment, strengthens long-term supply and unlocks nuclear energy abundance at scale through fuel recycling. And isotopes expand the platform into high-value products and services with strategic domestic importance that are natural co-products from our other business units. The key point is that integration across the value chain is designed to unlock multiple complementary value streams over time.

And first is power. We are building the power business unit because demand for firm, reliable power is growing quickly across the country. From data centers to industrial customers to government applications, our customers need clean, dependable baseload power, not intermittent supply. Our Aurora powerhouses are expected to provide that kind of reliable baseload power, and our commercial model is built around long-term offtake agreements. Power is also foundational to the rest of our business platform. Power deployments create the demand that can scale our fuel production and fabrication capabilities over time and first deployments establish reference assets that improve repeatability for future campuses. Our experience building our power delivery capability has illuminated key opportunities in other parts of the ecosystem that we are leaning into building and scaling. So power is both a near-term customer solution and a foundation for broader platform scalability.

Fuel is the second business unit, and it is one of the most important strategic parts of what we are building. Fuel availability remains one of the most significant rate limiters for new nuclear deployment. From inception, we have been building fuel capabilities to support our own deployment and broader advanced nuclear deployment. That starts with fabrication for us. Fuel fabrication converts raw fuel material into reactor-ready fuel forms. It is how we support Oklo reactors while also creating the potential to provide services to third-party reactors over time, either through directly fabricating fuel for them or hosting their fabrication lines in our factories. Oklo is also exploring opportunities to develop modern deconversion processes to streamline efficiencies, including what we recently announced with Centrus. This step has traditionally occurred at the fuel fabrication facilities themselves. But as we look at the future of nuclear fuel manufacturing, it makes a lot more sense to locate this with the enrichment facility.

The second big part of our fuel strategy is recycling. Recycling can recover uranium for reuse, can recover and produce transuranic bearing material that can be used as fuel and advanced reactors. It can enable high-value isotope production, and it can provide used fuel management solutions through recycling pathways. So fuel is both a deployment enabler in the near term and a scalable fuel cycle business over the long term.

And the third business unit is isotopes. We are building this business because there are attractive high-value end markets across health care, industrial, space and defense applications because strategic domestic supply for many isotopes remains constrained. From life-saving therapies to the long-duration power supplies that have powered human space exploration to the future of remote monitoring and sensing for security purposes, isotopes are key material for humankind's future. We see those isotope opportunities as complementary to our power and fuel business units that can produce isotope co-products that the isotope business unit can then package and sell. At the same time, we are pursuing purpose-built production using reactors and facilities optimized for isotope production, and we see a services revenue opportunity through irradiation for advanced nuclear technology research and development, defense research and development, semiconductor doping and hardening and other applications. Taken together, isotopes expands the platform into high-value domestic supply for critical uses while strengthening the economics of the broader business.

This slide shows how the 3 business units connect. In the conventional nuclear value chain, mining, enrichment, power generation and long-term waste storage are fragmented across different parties. Our strategy is to build a more integrated platform that links power production, fuel fabrication, fuel recycling and isotope production. When you can fabricate fuel into reactor-ready forms and recycle materials over time, you move from a one-way fuel cycle into a repeatable loop. That improves long-term fuel optionality, supports supply resilience and can unlock additional products across the value chain. It also creates new value streams. Recovered materials can support radioisotope production, which connects directly into our isotope business. So the objective is not just to deploy powerhouses. It is to build an integrated platform where power is an anchor product, fuel is an enabling system and isotopes extend the platform into high-value products and services. And the U.S. is uniquely positioned for a strategy like ours.

The U.S. has generated roughly 20% of its electricity from nuclear power over the last 30-plus years, while producing a very small physical volume of used nuclear fuel. More than 90,000 metric tons of U.S. used nuclear fuel fits on a football field, about 10 meters high. That material is often described only as waste, but in reality, it contains enormous energy potential. The energy potential in U.S. used nuclear fuel is comparable in scale to the sum total of major global oil reserves. This is what makes recycling and reuse so strategically important. Used nuclear fuel is not just a liability to manage. It is also a major potential domestic energy resource if the infrastructure exists to put it back to work.

That sets up the next slide, which is about one of the mechanisms now emerging to help build that broader life cycle infrastructure. The U.S. already has a major strategic energy reserve in used nuclear fuel, but realizing more of that value over time depends on building the infrastructure, capabilities and coordination needed to put it to work. That is why the DOE's Nuclear Life Cycle Innovation Campus program is so important. DOE has framed this as a first step toward potential federal state partnerships to modernize the full nuclear fuel cycle using regional campus models that can co-locate key parts of the life cycle. As this model advances, it could reduce development friction, improve execution time lines and support more efficient investment across fuel, recycling, power and isotope-related infrastructure. As importantly, employing used nuclear fuel as a resource instead of treating it as a liability could change the power outlook for the U.S. over time, supporting advanced reactor fuel supply for generations, strengthening domestic radioisotope production and improving long-term used fuel management outcomes.

From our standpoint, this matters because it reflects a more integrated model for building nuclear infrastructure in the United States, which is closely aligned with the strategy we are executing across our business units. We continue to be very supportive of state responses to the RFI and have started working with multiple states as they evaluate potential campus proposals. These efforts form the foundations for ensuring energy affordability and reindustrializing the nation.

And this is where the strategy becomes tangible. Across power, fuel and isotopes, we are already building assets that support a more integrated nuclear development model to unlock nuclear energy abundance. On the power side, we have Aurora-INL, our first Aurora powerhouse at Idaho National Laboratory and Aurora Ohio, our planned clean energy campus in Pike County tied to our partnership with Meta. On the fuel side, we have A3F at INL, our first fuel fabrication facility and our advanced fuel center in Tennessee, which is our first phase of used nuclear fuel recycling infrastructure. And in isotopes, we are building Groves, our radioisotope test reactor in the Idaho Radiochemistry Laboratory, which supports isotope processing and scale up. So when we say vertically integrated, this is what we mean, multiple real assets now moving forward across all 3 business units.

Since our last company update, we have made meaningful progress across all aspects of the company. In power, Aurora-INL executed its DOE other transaction agreement under the reactor pilot program; received DOE approval of the nuclear safety design agreement; continued construction activities, including blasting and signed with Siemens Energy for the power conversion system. We also signed the Meta prepayment agreement in support of up to 1.2 gigawatts at Aurora, Ohio. In fuel, A3F received DOE approval of both the NSDA and the preliminary documented safety analysis, and it was selected under the DOE Advanced Nuclear Fuel Line pilot program. In recycling, we signed an agreement with TVA to explore fuel recycling, initiated site prework on our flagship recycling facility, completed NRC pre-application engagement, initiated a rolling NRC readiness review and were selected for DOE recycling R&D funding. We also completed a fast spectrum plutonium criticality experiment and announced a joint venture initiative with Centrus around deconversion. And in isotopes, Groves executed its DOE OTA, received NSDA approval, submitted its PDSA and continued construction toward a July 4 criticality target. Separately, the Idaho Radiochemistry Laboratory obtained its NRC materials license. So this is execution across multiple assets, multiple licensing pathways and multiple business units, all moving forward in parallel.

Aurora-INL is advancing on a DOE first authorization pathway. We have already executed the OTA under DOE's reactor pilot program and received approval of the nuclear safety design agreement. Those are important because the OTA formally brings the project into the DOE authorization pathway and the NSDA locks in the safety and regulatory framework for the project. The next DOE milestones are the preliminary documented safety analysis, the documented safety analysis and then the readiness review and start-up approval. Each of those steps progressively aligns DOE and Oklo on a safety basis from final design and construction through start-up and operations. The significance here is that the DOE pathway allows us to keep advancing construction, procurement and system integration activities in parallel as the project moves forward.

Alongside the authorization work, Aurora-INL is also advancing on execution and build readiness. On site development, we completed site characterization at INL. Site preparation is underway, including blasting, and construction activities are progressing in line with the project plan. On procurement and supply chain, we have received responses for the majority of identified long lead component requests for proposal, supplier down selection is underway, and all major equipment now has vendors under contract. That includes the Siemens Energy contract for the power conversion system, active supply chain agreements for reactor module components and active vendor contracts for all major refueling equipment. So Aurora-INL is moving forward on both the physical site side and the supply chain side, which is what we want to see at this stage of a first deployment, and we are learning a lot on the way.

Next is Aurora Ohio, where the key update is our agreement with Meta in support of a 1.2 gigawatt Aurora campus. The agreement advances plans for phase deployment with an initial phase of 150 megawatts targeted around 2030, and it is supported by prepayment for power structure designed to improve project certainty and support Phase 1 development. Importantly, Oklo expects to use funds from the prepayment agreement to support fuel procurement. We also own approximately 206 acres in Pike County, Ohio, which gives us a site to advance campus development in parallel with commercialization and permitting work. So this is an example of customer demand, commercial structure, site control and fuel planning, all starting to line up around a real deployment opportunity.

Fuel availability is one of the key gating items for advanced nuclear deployment. So our fuel strategy is deliberately built around flexibility, supply optionality and execution readiness. As this slide shows, we are addressing that through strategic enablers, fuel supply pathways and strategic fuel partnerships. On the enabler side, our fast reactor technology is designed to be versatile across a wide range of fuel sources, and our fabrication capabilities are intended to convert different feed supplies into reactor-ready fuel. Over time, recycling can turn used fuel into a more repeatable strategic fuel supply. Oklo is pursuing a differentiated strategy here to help accelerate deployment even in the face of conventional supply chain bottlenecks.

And on supply pathways, we are working with DOE managed materials, HALEU from conventional and advanced enrichment providers and recycled fuel supported through our own recycling and fabrication capabilities. And on partnerships, we are working with DOE, building relationships around enrichment and deconversion and developing opportunities around recycled fuel. The goal is to solve for near-, mid- and long-term scale while maintaining flexibility as the market evolves.

A3F has a very specific role in our deployment strategy. It is a purpose-built facility to fabricate fuel for Aurora-INL using an existing building at INL, where Oklo is installing and operating the fabrication equipment. On the authorization side, A3F was selected under DOE's Advanced Nuclear Fuel line pilot program, which is intended to support accelerated licensing and construction of advanced fuel fabrication capabilities. Execution is already underway. Initial construction activities have begun, and A3F is advancing in parallel with Aurora-INL so that fuel fabrication does not become a deployment gating constraint. We have also received DOE approval of both the NSDA and the PDSA for A3F, which enables us to move forward with final design and construction. And notably, Okla's PDSA was the first facility approved under DOE's fuel line pilot program, which is an important validation of the pathway we are using.

Next is the Tennessee Advanced Fuel Center, which is our first major step toward building long-term recycling capability. On-site and development progress, we completed initial geotechnical surveys and soil borings at the Tennessee site and initiated site development activities. On regulatory and licensing progress, we completed our planned NRC pre-application engagement and initiated a rolling NRC readiness review in advance of a future license application. And on fuel supply and partnerships, we were selected for DOE recycling research and development funding. The broader point is that this project is advancing on the site, regulatory and funding fronts at the same time, which is how we intend to move recycling from concept into real long-term fuel supply infrastructure.

Staying on fuel, this slide is about upstream fuel infrastructure and specifically uranium deconversion. We announced a potential joint venture with Centrus focused on deconversion, building on our prior relationship. What is strategically compelling is the intended location. Centrus' site in Pike County, Ohio, colocated with Centrus' enrichment operations and adjacent to our planned 1.2 gigawatt power campus. Deconversion is a critical upstream step in the domestic fuel supply chain, and colocation has the potential to improve logistics, reduce friction and strengthen both cost and supply resilience over time. It is important to note that these deconversion capabilities can support Okla's fuel needs and the fuel needs of other reactors and reactor types, including light water reactors. So this is another example of how we are looking to expand fuel infrastructure alongside fabrication and recycling, while the current focus remains on initial venture structuring and project planning.

Turning to isotopes. The Idaho Radiochemistry Laboratory is an important near-term asset and example of timely execution. We obtained the NRC materials license for the facility, which is a key operational milestone. The facility is expected to make first revenue this year, which also makes it one of the more near-term revenue-oriented pieces of our broader business. Strategically, the lab has the potential to provide the foundation for developing our isotope processing methods and then scaling them up to support future VIPR facilities. So this lab is well on its way to be both a practical operating asset and a foundational capability for scaling the isotopes business over time.

Now to Groves, our first radioisotope test reactor deployment. Groves is moving through a DOE-first authorization pathway, and we have already completed 2 important steps, executing the OTA under the reactor pilot program and receiving approval of the NSDA. Those matter because the OTA formally brings the project under the DOE pathway, while the NSDA locks in the safety and regulatory framework for the project. The next milestones are approval of the PDSA, which has now been submitted, approval of the DSA and then the readiness review and start-up approval. Groves is progressing through a structured DOE-first pathway that's designed to enable full project build-out and position the facility for start-up and operations.

And rather than just talk about it, I want to show you what we've executed. We'll pause here for a short video from the Groves site, and then I'll come back and walk through the key build milestones.

[Presentation]

Now that you've seen the progress for the Groves project, here's where we are on the remaining path to criticality. Site development and the structure were completed in 5 months. The reactor tank is installed, fuel has been procured and interior mechanical, electrical and plumbing installation is in progress. Auxiliary equipment is also in various stages of procurement. From here, the focus is on finishing the remaining construction activities, final installation of reactor equipment, integrated system testing and fuel delivery. The current execution target is criticality by July 4. We and others are showing nuclear assets can be built and turned on in less than 10 months. These are real examples that shatter the widely held belief that nuclear is slow. Instead, we are demonstrating that new nuclear can deploy at pace.

Groves is progressing rapidly. The structure is up, major components are in place, and the remaining work is the execution closeout and commissioning path to criticality. And one of the exciting things about this project is that it is fully executing a commercially viable sourcing strategy across all components and not relying on preexisting or nonscalable or nonviable components and capabilities. The lessons we are learning are teaching us a lot on the way to full commercial operations.

Before moving on, it is worth taking a step back and explaining what Groves actually is. Groves is our first radioisotope test reactor. And strategically, it serves as a test platform for Atomic Alchemy's production scale VIPR reactor platform. It is named in honor of General Leslie Groves, who directed the Manhattan project. From a design standpoint, it is a pool-type, water-cooled, non-pressurized reactor built for thermal neutron radiation using pressurized water reactor fuel bundles with low enriched uranium fuel.

Why that matters is that Groves is not just a single asset. It is designed to give us practical experience across design, manufacturing, procurement, construction, installation and ultimately, operations. The value here is both near term and long term, near term in getting this first asset built and operating and long term informing how future isotope production assets can be deployed and operated.

And one important point across the company is that these assets are not all following the same licensing path. We are taking a tailored approach depending on the asset, the site and the development objective. For certain first-of-a-kind assets and DOE site projects, we are pursuing DOE authorization. That includes Aurora-INL, A3F and Groves. For broader commercial deployment and other non-DOE assets, we are pursuing the NRC pathway. That includes Aurora Ohio, the Advanced Fuel Center in Tennessee and the Idaho Radiochemistry Laboratory, which received its NRC license earlier this year. The key takeaway is that we are not trying to force every asset through a single framework. We are using the pathway that best fits the specific asset and stage of development while also allowing lessons from early DOE authorized assets to inform future NRC licensed deployments.

With that, I'll turn it over to Craig for the financial update. Craig?

Thanks, Jake. 2025 was a strong year for the company as we significantly strengthened our balance sheet such that capital can act as an enabler of the strategic agenda Jake has just presented. On a full year basis, Oklo has a loss from operations of $139.3 million, which was primarily driven by payroll, general business expenses and professional fees associated with the capital market and asset deployment activities.

The operating loss also included noncash stock-based compensation expense of $41.8 million, which was impacted by the increase in the firm's share price during the year. Our loss before income taxes was $110.2 million, which included the benefit of interest and dividend income of $29.1 million from the investment in marketable securities.

Additionally, on a full year basis, our cash used in operating activities was $82.2 million. This number is inclusive of approximately $13 million of prepaid capital project expense that will ultimately become property, plant and equipment and run through our cash flows for investing activities. When adjusting for this figure, we reached $69.2 million in adjusted cash used in operating activities, which was within our guidance we provided for 2025 cash used in operating activities of $65 million to $80 million, demonstrating disciplined management of the company's cash reserves while also capitalizing on the tailwinds to accelerate growth opportunities.

The company intends to maintain a disciplined approach to cash management and capital allocation in 2026. We are raising our guidance for cash used in operating activities from $65 million to $80 million in 2025 to $80 million to $100 million in 2026. This measured increase will enable the company to expand headcount across its business units and execute on its business plans. As the company progresses asset deployments, we expect to increase our investment into projects across all 3 of our business units. We expect cash used in investing activities to range between $350 million and $450 million in 2026. This level of spend looks to drive progression of our strategy across all 3 business units, including powerhouse deployments at both Idaho National Labs and future power projects at locations such as Pike County, Ohio; fuel development for both our first powerhouse in Idaho as well as progressing potential fuel projects that could utilize HALEU, plutonium or recycled transuranic fuel pathways; isotope project for both groves in Texas; and potential projects in other locations; and other uses to support the overall corporation.

Oklo ended 2025 with cash and marketable securities of $1.4 billion. During the first month of 2026, we also raised an additional $1.182 billion net of fees, completing our $1.5 billion ATM program. This financing provides Oklo with a strong balance sheet, leaving the company well positioned to benefit from ongoing policy and regulatory tailwinds and to execute on our business plans in 2026 and beyond. Operator, we are now ready for questions.

[Operator Instructions] And your first question comes from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.

I appreciate all the updates here. Lots going on. Maybe just first one, you mentioned a lot of progress toward commercialization. I know there's a lot of focus around kind of the pipeline and customer status. Jake, can you maybe speak to where that sits today? Any new additions or conversion into binding agreements and any incremental visibility into more of that happening in 2026?

Brian, it's Craig. I'm not exactly sure why, but Jake just dropped off our line. I don't think it was because of the question. But I would say that clearly, Meta was an important anchor point towards that commercialization progress, as you mentioned. And kind of based on that, we continue to have conversations not only with Meta, but with other potential customers, both those we've announced and other ones that we're continuing to progress. But really, it is important that we think that Meta being an important anchor customer for us and the fact that we can do more not only in the Ohio location, but also with some of our kind of behind-the-meter on-campus customers and not only in the data center space, but there's a lot of work going on with U.S. military, predominantly in Alaska, but not limited to there as well as other industrial customers. And it does look like Jake's jumped back on. Jake, I went ahead and answered the question since I think you got disconnected.

Yes, it's perfect. I just -- I would say like I think at the end of the day, there's a pretty healthy pipeline that continues to kind of grow in different places. And I think one of the dynamics that's important is having Meta as a -- as one of the kind of basically a lead customer helps others want to come follow and kind of repeat that because sometimes finding the first customer is the biggest hurdle to get into. It creates a pretty powerful dynamic. And I think on top of that, like the locationing and how we built the strategy around where we see a lot of opportunity in Ohio is going to continue to kind of grow and scale with us.

Yes. Fair enough. And then just a second question on the CapEx guidance here. The $350 million to $450 million in 2026, it's a pretty meaningful pickup. Again, lots going on, and it seems like some areas accelerating. Can you maybe just provide a breakdown of where that CapEx is being allocated? You mentioned a couple of different locations. And then how should we think about the cadence into 2027 and future years off of this level? And then maybe just curious how much of the CapEx is being allocated to the Meta Pike site in Ohio?

Yes. So Brian, I'm not going to provide kind of a business unit-by-business unit or project-by-project breakdown at this point. And part of that is we're still doing a lot of work kind of refining cost estimates for certain projects as well as kind of progressing procurement activities across those projects. And it kind of feels like with where we are commercially, it would be good to kind of let those progress before throwing project bogeys out there as we're progressing procurement strategies.

But that being said, it's progressing things across all 3 business units. But clearly, the Idaho project is an important piece of that spend just given the criticality of giving that first power project up and off the ground. But we are also starting some preliminary work in places like Ohio for the Meta powerhouses. And there's also quite a bit of work that's underway in recycling for projects, for the potential project in Tennessee, things we're doing to get isotope projects off the ground. And there's also some scoping CapEx available for some of those fuel projects that Jake mentioned across HALEU, plutonium and transuranic fuels.

In terms of '26 to '27, I think given the project pace of delivery, I do think that we'll continue to see CapEx that will be at those levels. But it's really just a reflection of multiple projects going on in multiple dimensions across all 3 business units.

Yes. And I'll just echo, I think that's an important part about the positioning we have and also like the -- frankly, the ability to move more quickly and scale into the opportunity space as it is here and kind of set the direction and set ourselves up for very long-term success by flexing into all of that is, I think, a very important thing to be doing, which is great that we're in a position to do it.

Your next question comes from the line of Dimple Gosai with Bank of America.

Just a question on the regulatory strategy here, right? Can you give us a status update on the COLA timing and the PDC topical report review? Like how do you sequence the DOE authorization at INL with future NRC licensing for subsequent sites?

And on the same topic, did the government shutdown at the end of last year and some of the staffing constraints that we heard of at the DOE and NRC move any internal licensing time lines or anything? And does this change the schedule at all in terms of deployment or filings or anything? That's the first question.

Yes. I think -- I appreciate the questions. There's a couple of things in regulatory that are important. I think there's -- look, there's still, I think, sometimes some confusion about DOE authorization versus NRC licensing and how these things all fit together. The key thing is DOE authorization allows us to do the most important thing, which is build, which is learn by building now in a faster path, which is what we just talked about and shared a lot of information on. The progress we've been able to make on the [ ore plan ] wouldn't have happened without that pathway going forward. And in many ways, arguably, this is the way the policies were set up a long time ago. And it dates back even a little more recently, but still some time ago, back in 2018, there was a bill passed into law and signed into law called the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capability Act, and that set the stage for using Department of Energy capabilities and resources, including the regulatory authorization side to support kind of the first of the kind of builds because DOE has just a wider range of regulatory experience and flexibility. And now with the executive orders, they directed a pretty clear approach and prioritization of DOE to leverage that and build the capabilities to do that, which, frankly, they largely already had. It just said, put them to use to support these things, which is amazing because it's completely shattered the paradigms of the past. It's really eliminated a lot of the significant regulatory inefficiencies that have existed.

On top of that, it sets a good pathway for us to then build that first plant. But then also what we expect to see coming from the NRC as part of executive orders there that build on all the work from the ADVANCE Act before are driving a lot of new regulatory, frankly, pathways and development there that bridge from the DOE basically authorization itself. So we're expecting the NRC to fairly soon issue basically their approach, if you will, for converting a DOE authorized and built an operating facility to an NRC license facility, and we're in a great spot to be able to go through that and experience what that looks like.

That inherently is not like a call out because you're not getting a license to build and operate the plant. The plant is already built. So it's really a conversion process, which is cool. But they have to do the safety review and they have to reference and leverage everything before. Not only that, but we've also been working to include and loop and the NRC into our basically regulatory review with DOE. So they're seeing how it's done and they're getting experience watching and shattering those pieces, which is pretty powerful. And this is a key kind of opportunity to go, I think, faster.

It's really -- it's hard to overstate the value of focusing on actually moving out of the way of sort of if you think about what a nuclear company historically would have to do, what our product was, if you really look at it objectively before these opportunities existed, our first product was really more built towards shipping permitting applications, right, paperwork. Now because of the DOE authorization approach, it's building while doing that, which allows us to learn and iterate way more quickly because naturally, things come up and evolve and that helps you learn for really hard things that are actually really important to like deployment and scale.

Now all of that also translate very effectively to what we're going to do with the NRC in Ohio. And I think what's pretty clear is DOE and their approaches and the milestones we fit with them show that they can do a safety review of searching fast reactors. And they've done a lot of those before because they oversaw the power plants that we build our legacy off of. On top of that, the NRC has also shown by recent developments that they've had, including, for example, the construction permit work with TerraPower that they can do that work as well. And looping them into this and leveraging the experiences and expertise that DOE has because DOE has done this stuff before is quite constructive and quite efficient, frankly.

So we're waiting to see the new framework from the NRC to start executing down the pathway of preparing to convert a license. But in parallel, we maintain -- we continue to work through effectively developing out the combined license now to submit for Ohio.

That said, it's very important to also flag something else. Part of the executive order is there's significant regulatory work and rewriting going on that could significantly influence our approach in a constructive and productive way that we would expect to reduce costs and time lines as well as add additional regulatory kind of confidence and certainty. So that is all a very live situation as we speak, and we're watching eagerly as various things flow out from the NRC on that front. But it's fair to say that, that's probably going to be quite constructive, but also have some tweaks, if not more significant changes on our actual regulatory, I'll call it, semantic strategy. In other words, we still get an NRC license, but the vehicles by which we might do that may be a bit different because of what's happening at the NRC.

That said, we've been preparing and continuing to go through the pathway of pre-application that addresses general and somewhat generic or cross-cutting issues that are important for licensing for us. And those will set the stage for us to actually have -- reference those in whatever application structure takes place going forward from the NRC. Again, at this point, we still expect a Part 52 combined license, but that's just because we haven't seen what the new menu of options are going to look like as well, which we expect to happen over the course of the next few months, and then we'll adapt kind of a strategy from there.

But a couple of key things that we see are obviously just having the experience of going through the Aurora plant in Idaho under DOE authorization, going through the DOE regulatory process, having the NRC part of it, taking an iterative approach, learning by actually building and scaling that and then applying that outward. On top of that, we're also getting experience from NRC licensing already on the isotope side, having obtained an NRC license now. It's a great win. To your latter part of your question, Dimple, yes, we did face some delays on that with that license application back in the fall during the shutdown. But now we have the license in hand and off we go. I don't see any of the other effects that are, frankly, at this point materially affecting our progress on the other activities that we have going on with the NRC and with DOE. But that was definitely something that was noted.

And then the last thing I'll just say is one important thing, too, that's very helpful is in the current frameworks, which again may evolve and change a little bit, but -- or frankly, a lot possibly, the approaches with what we're licensing and the work we've been doing on the isotope side, not just the material handling license, but the actual production reactor, like basically like the full commercial version of Groves that we've spent some NRC pre-application time with, that has a different pathway than what the commercial, like Aurora power plant version has. And having the experience that we gained across both of those and what we're gaining on the recycling side and what we've done on steel fabrication is very helpful because we see a whole spectrum of different parts of the NRC and can cross-connect best practices and help guide things from our development of an application as well as our engagement with them in the review process, and that helps in many, many ways in terms of some scaling efficiencies and bringing best practices from various business units across. And that's pretty unique for us because we're taking on that broad kind of set of -- broad set of projects. So yes, that's kind of the way I'm seeing that landscape evolve and how all this is moving forward.

Your next question comes from the line of George Gianarikas with Canaccord Genuity.

You mentioned in the past that about 70% of the Aurora powerhouse components are being sourced from nonnuclear supply chains, which is, I think, you brought Kiewit into the picture. Is there any update on what the 75-megawatt reactor CapEx should look like? And if not a complete update, maybe any early indication on the dollars per kilowatt there?

Yes. I mean I think this is one of the things that's actively evolving from where we're at in terms of the build cycle and what we're seeing is doable and also what we're seeing can be done to either move some time lines to the left and build it faster and pay more to do that or not, right? But generally speaking, speed is a very important thing for us. So that's how we're trying to focus on this. That also gives us a lot of insights into what we're going to do from a more, I would say, optimized strategy with the Ohio plants that would allow us to scale those according to what makes the most sense from sort of like the experiences learned from the Idaho plant.

So what that's all to say is we're going to have more information as we continue to get into the actual deeper works beyond some of the civil and truck works and have some relevant updates that come accordingly as I get deeper into it. But what we've learned on the procurement side is we've been able to find ways to pull schedule to the left in different ways constructively. We've been able to find ways to look at how some things can be accelerated, but one aspect of that is sometimes it helps the fact that we have the Aurora plants in Ohio coming afterwards because it can maybe accelerate some things here in Idaho to help us with other components and other parts and other sourcing for scaling those to the other Ohio plants and maybe having some benefits that happens that way.

So the general view we have is it's evolving as we go through on this and as we develop and enhance the relationships we have and we look at different angles of attack on the different fronts of what drives cost and what doesn't. And some things are candidly not worth necessarily driving the modernization for the first plant that we'd like to see in terms of the actual supply chain and the procurement of it. So we might pay a little bit more to move faster and other things, it is working on that. It's a bit of a dynamic situation that we're continuing to evolve and look at.

At the end of the day, though, like my view is like, generally speaking, all of these things can live like pretty much every part outside of the fuel can live outside of the nuclear like conventional supply chain. But I think what's really important is I think that paradigm has actually been sort of inverted as of late because there's -- we're seeing growth in the industry for the first time in a while. So you're actually seeing folks bring forward more disruptive approaches and kind of taking away some of the legacy models and approaches that were driving significant costs and inefficiencies by sort of locking into the status quo across different suppliers in different parts of the entire sort of value chain, if you will. And a pretty cool thing that we're seeing is that we can actually get to be, I don't know, a lot more thoughtful engagement from our partners about how to do that and more constructive engagement about knocking out some of the synthetic like nuclear cost multipliers that have existed before.

I know I say this a lot, but it's hard to overstate the value of modern -- of basically taking out some of those nuclear cost multipliers, right? The "nuclear idiot index," if you will, is really, really high and is right to be changed by changing how we design, how we try to minimize and reduce parts that come in with some of the typical nuclear classifications to them by taking advantage of passive and enhanced safety features, but also by modernizing how our suppliers and ourselves actually deliver those plans. But we're finding that there are some places where, you know what, just easier to deal with legacy for the Idaho plant to get it up and running because that's more important. But that sets the stage for then how we can actually solve that problem in Ohio because we learned the best practices to do that. So it's pretty interesting to see that combo sort of evolving and taking shape.

Generally speaking, though, we're seeing a very different way of engagement across most of the supply chain and not having some of the conventional legacy requirements. And what I really mean by that is not being a light water reactor is actually really constructive. Counterintuitively, a value of that is not having to play in the legacy supply chains with the historical cost structures in place there. That's actually worth a ton because it gives us a lot more flexibility because we're not buying light water reactor parts by and large. I mean, yes, there's some similarities, but we're not a light water reactor. So a lot of it is different. And that gives us a lot more flexibility. And it also helps us focus on where do we need to flex into building ourselves, what parts make the most sense to buy to go faster or build ourselves and maybe build ourselves to scale or build ourselves to deconstrained supply chains or build ourselves just to be cheaper. So it's an active growth aspect of the business, and it's also how we're looking at not just sort of the capital cost modeling and data sets, but also the long-term cost structures of the business and also like opportunities in the business.

Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley Securities.

Somewhat of a follow-up to some of the comments there, Jake. For the agreement with Meta, they ended up choosing 2 sodium-cooled reactor developers following their nuclear RFP process. Can you rehash some of the benefits of your design and why Meta might have chosen it?

Yes. I think the answer right now is the fact that we've got -- I think they see the benefit of fast reactor technology between us and TerraPower, right? That's just repeating what you said. But basically, I think that translates across a couple of like vectors. One is the technical maturity, something that's vastly underappreciated even by a lot of nuclear experts. I think the fact is as a society, we've built a lot of these plants, we've learned a lot about what doesn't work and what does work. And in the U.S., notably the experiences we got through EBR2 and FFTF, the ability that those plants had to achieve pretty exciting operational characteristics, both in terms of operating capacity factors, in terms of occupational dose rates, in terms of how to service and run those plants, right? Like their operating capacity factors were competitive and exceeded, in many cases, light-water plants at the time, which shows a lot of the inherent benefits of the technology itself. And it's the only technology that's really been able to do that. And on top of that, I think there's a clear project -- like clear trajectory on the cost benefits of sodium being a relatively materially benign fluid with commonly available steel. In other words, you can use it and it's quite compatible with stainless alloys. That's great in terms of opening up supply chains and reducing costs and avoiding major cost drivers of very exotic alloys you might need if you didn't have those benefits and then also not being pressurized and then having the benefits of being able to operate at relatively higher temperatures and then the features that come from that for passive heat rejection through the phenomenal heat transfer characteristics that sodium has as well as operating at higher temperatures and what you can do to reject heat to air because you're at slightly higher temperatures. So all in all, it translates to a lot of generally speaking, cost, I would say, cost benefits as well as the strong operational history and high technology readiness. I think those are big features there.

Ryan, maybe just a couple of adds there. I think as we continue to emphasize in calls like this, the importance of having multiple field pathways, I think, was another important point of distinction and being able to have proof points against those pathways. And I think another important part on Meta was already having a ROFR in place and access to land in Ohio, I think, was another important advantage. And then we've leveraged that land access even more with what we could potentially do with Centrus.

Your next question comes from the line of Vikram Bagri with Citi.

I have 2 questions. I'll ask them together. First, maybe for you, Craig. Can you talk about the timing of Aurora-INL? It appears time line shifted slightly to the right with the change in language from late '27 to early '28. Now it says 2028. Am I reading that right? And what led to the shift in timing?

Also, I see it's a 75-megawatt reactor. Can you talk about what the CapEx requirements for this reactor will be or when you will have a greater clarity into CapEx requirement?

And then secondly, for you, Jake, I see you conducted fast spectrum plutonium criticality experiment. Can you share what that entails and your expectation of timing of plutonium allocations that we've been looking forward to?

Yes, in terms of the last bit of your question, I'll take that first, that we're still doing a lot of work. And Jake kind of mentioned this dynamic of challenging the cost versus the time line because trying to bring time lines forward could have a cost element to it, and we're really trying to balance both of those pieces. And I think we'll have more information to share around what the cost of that first asset looks like later this year as well as how we look to bring cost down on future deployments.

And in terms of the time line, I think I've been pretty consistent in the various investor meetings that I've been in that we're targeting a 2028 time line. We know it's an aggressive target, but we feel like the industry and our customers are pushing us towards being able to hit those time lines. And it's also, I think, important why we're doing things on project like growth where we can learn how to bring down capital costs and learn how to bring down project time lines as well.

I think one thing we saw with the -- like what we're having happened with -- I think that basically, the time line elements are as we're putting all these things together, right, like we're -- we have a path of being able to start hitting important construction milestones this year, doing some plant commissioning work but getting the full plant in nuclear heat production just is going to really happen in 2028, right? It's just where it's going to be. So I think at this point, we're seeing that line up to make that kind of the case.

We're always looking at different ways that might pull parts of the schedule to the left, and there might be some things that kind of help with that. But a lot of this gets to how we can execute on building this thing and doing it quickly and moving through learning and iterative processes relatively quickly. And I think it's important because we're trying to also make sure we capture lessons learned and not designing the fly to implement all those things, but that help us with Ohio. And that's important because that means that the following plants are going to obviously show those improvements significantly. And that's a key thing about small reactors, right, is the cost and time line of iterations are just way lower. And that's how you really drive learning and scale as we see everywhere.

On to the plutonium front, yes, it was pretty cool. We got to partner with Las Alamos National Laboratory and go out to the Nevada National Security site. Basically, what we got to work with was a small plutonium, like, basically metal assembly that we use uranium as a reflector and plutonium as the primary fueling board and got to run it through some criticality basically benchmarks and tests as well as some reactivity measurements, which means you're actually taking the system, putting some power into it, heating it up a little bit and looking at the thermal expansion and the other effects that cause it to shut itself down naturally. It's important because while a lot of that data has been out there, doing it in this kind of way helped us get more fidelity in certain ranges of particular interest for us relevant to our use as well as just to enhance our overall models for validation purposes. It was pretty cool because it was really doing that, right? I think we're putting in a couple of kilowatts at most in terms of thermal power, but in a very small system that's literally very small, it matters and it was able to heat the system up and we got to see all those insanely like fast dynamics and responses.

I've gotten to spend a little time around like a high [ strinium ] fast reactor system in my past, but this thing was even faster in how it behaved. It's very, very like tightly responsive, which was awesome. And the way they ran it was just a pure testament to like how robust a small tightly coupled fast reactor is in terms of like inherent feedbacks and all those benefits.

So that was helpful. We anticipate there's going to be more work there that just adds more fidelity to basically improve reactor performance and reduce some uncertainties throughout the system that ultimately translate to dollars saved or more dollars earned, right, for both. And then the other part of it is with the plutonium awards, we're expecting those things to kind of progress. I know the Department of Energy is going through the active kind of reviews of the request for applications they put out, and we're pretty excited about our positioning for that. But time lines, I think we'll watch it eagerly this quarter coming up, but I think it depends on a couple of factors that are still evolving.

Your next question comes from the line of Jeffrey Campbell with Seaport Research Partners.

My first one is, will the deconversion discussions you've noted result in Centrus increasing its enrichment capabilities from its current small volumes? Or do you envision the deconversion capability as independent of any particular uranium enrichment supplier?

I mean from the deconversion technology side that we've worked through and we've been developing out, it's pretty flexible. I mean it's based on a UF6 input and try to supply some things we think can help scale and drive costs more effectively at the facility level. So it's pretty flexible.

Part of why we explored it with Centrus to start is just given the positioning we have in Ohio, the fact we're going to be building a lot of plants right there by where they have it. There's some significant economies of scale of putting deconversion there as well as potentially fuel fabrication there and the reactors there. So you have a pretty cool campus that goes from enrichment to deconversion to fabrication to actual reactors, all in that general area and in a very attractive market to be in overall.

So that's how we see kind of the opportunity on that. I think the space we see is -- I think we've got some cool technology pieces. We're eager to explore what that looks like to integrate with theirs, like their facility and their approach. The idea would be, of course, to support their significant growth and expansion. But yes, we see this as being broadly suited for any kind of uranium hexafluoride approach. So any of the, I'll call it, more conventional centrifuge enrichment approaches.

When we talk with other enrichers that use uranium hexafluoride for different processes, a similar benefit. And then there's some of the other technology developers that are working on true metal-to-metal kind of enrichment. And obviously, you don't need deconversion for that. And for us, that's also great because you can just take the metal right into fabrication. So it's kind of how we're looking at the landscape.

My second one is, I thought your point about pursuing different licensing pathways is interesting. Specific to fuel and fuel recycling, why did you choose the NRC licensing pathway for Tennessee? And how does this differ from the fuel facility licensing under DOE at INL?

Yes. As we see it, like the DOE INL one set up very well under the -- well, first of all, we were going to need to make fuel for the Aurora plant. So a long time ago, we said, where can we do this and what's the fastest way to do this? And at the time and as it maintains to be true now is to use one of their existing buildings and set up the fabrication equipment there. But we want to scale that outward as soon as reasonably possible. And already sitting on a DOE facility, just makes sense to have that under their kind of purview. So we look at how that can scale given the reactor pilot program and the fuel line production pilot program.

In terms of the commercial kind of use case around the recycling, given where that is and it's designed to be a fully commercial facility, like that is something we see as taking an NRC licensing approach. Inevitably, by the way, we've also engaged with the NRC in pre-application on fuel fabrication because at some point, we're going to need full commercial fuel fabrication. So that also will end up becoming more -- become NRC licensed. But being able to get the repetitions of permitting and regulatory oversight and execution by actually building and operating these things under the authorization just moves faster and the programs were there for the fuel side. The NRC side, then we see those converting over to the NRC or at least helping inform where we do go fully with the full NRC licensed commercial fuel fab facility. And then it's similar that we're just kind of at that stage on the recycling piece already and needed to do a lot more pre-application work there because there's more, I would say, fundamental licensing-type topics to cover on recycling, and that's why we've been at that for several years now and why we're pretty excited to move into this kind of rolling readiness review after completing the major items we wanted to in the pre-application side.

So that's actually part of the story that probably gets maybe a little bit underappreciated, but the progress made on NRC licensing for the recycling facility in Tennessee is quite exciting. It's quite staggering actually to see how much work has gone into that and how much progress has been made through preapplication getting ready for a full application submission.

That said, with the DOE life cycle program out, I also -- I would not be surprised if there is a pathway that makes sense to pursue recycling through a DOE authorization approach for kind of a pilot facility. That's something we'll evaluate should that make sense to do. If it does make sense, then we'll kind of take our lessons learned to go there while we continue working with the NRC for full commercial scale. But we just see that all these DOE pathways allow us to move to first of a kind more quickly and then better position us for NRC licensing at scale.

Your next question comes from the line of Sameer Joshi with H.C. Wainwright.

I just have one on the Atomic Alchemy Groves test reactor. There's roughly 3.5 months left for your targeted criticality on July 4. There is some amount of construction left and some procurement of auxiliary equipment left. How confident are you that you would meet that deadline?

Yes. I mean this has been a great rallying pride for the company to both design and build quickly and also learn lessons quickly and very quickly. So like when you look at how far this has come, we feel pretty confident that we're going to be able to hit or meet that -- hit or beat that date of being able to pull rods and take the system critical. Fuel has been ordered. All the major items generally have been ordered. There's still some work about trying to see what we can do to make sure we build ourselves enough buffer time to be able to receive and manage all this. But it's a logistical effort to time all the permitting steps with the ability to receive the fuel, to load the fuel, have the equipment on hand, find some ways to maybe accelerate how we can come up with some solutions that allow us to have the right kind of things that are available now versus maybe what we want to have more commercial scale and have some replaceability for them for certain things on instrumentation and detection. But that's part of what this feature in this facility is for. It gives us the ability to run it, work with what's available and then have some flexibility to pivot those things in. But you look at how far this has come by doing -- going from a bare field to excavation to putting the concrete in the foundation, putting in the vessel, loading that, building out the structure, having other major items in order, getting stuff ready to be received and installed, like it's pretty exciting how that's all coming together. So we feel very good about that. It's a challenge. It's not going to be easy, but we feel very good about the position we have. And I constantly am trying to say, how can we make sure we can move faster and do better.

And what's interesting, too, is like there are going to be some other companies that are going to achieve criticality before that date probably, which is very exciting because, again, what I said is it shows there's a spectrum of solutions that are going to deliver on that. What's great about this one is it includes real civil works. And some of these other ones kind of are just a different scale. They don't quite have the same effort or they're maybe using preexisting prefabricated fuel from DOE facilities or inventories and other things that kind of allow you to hit that kind of critical milestone, which is awesome, like it's really important. But like part of what we've learned in this process is and with Groves that's so exciting to me is it's a full design build that wasn't using pre-existing stuff, right?

Like I mean, yes, there are some things that are on inventory and shelves from our suppliers, but it's not like we're trying to -- we're not using fuel that was already made by somebody else and sitting on some DOE warehouse or something like that. Like the whole thing has gone through from -- pretty much from scratch. And it's a pretty powerful story and us and our ability to actually build and deliver that and execute in building something that fast that's actually going to make really make -- it's going to be pretty cool.

Your next question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG.

Just one for me today. Craig mentioned the fact that you had land in Ohio help -- help win the deal with Meta. And I believe you got that land from an economic or with help from an economic development council in the state. So can you speak to why they saw Aurora powerhouses as an attractive use for the land? And do you see similar opportunities in other states?

Yes. This is like -- this is -- I love this question. This goes back to Mike's strategic vision that I think, Caroline, the co-founder saw here and some of the rest of our team saw with respect to these opportunities of taking federal land resources that were being sort of cleaned up and made available and repurposed for economic development and Fed is a great position for that, right?

If you're not familiar with the site, it is home to one of the largest enrichment plants in the whole world. It's incredible feet of industrial like might and strength. But as that plant was retired and they're looking at repurposing a lot of that land, it became an opportunity for saying, hey, there's a lot of infrastructure here that would make sense to build into, we should do this.

And so back before ChatGPT, before kind of this recognition of an inflection point coming on power needs, we saw that, hey, there could be some opportunities to fit some power plants there. We're going to need fuel from Centrus. So we announced several years ago a relationship with them to potentially sell them power and be able to build some infrastructure there, including the power plants. And so we started working with them to do that and had that vision. And then all of a sudden, all these dynamics start to come together very attractively, all in a relatively short order, but we have found that position as a really useful thing to have.

Along the way of doing that, we also learned the exact thing you're asking, which is there's actually some good opportunities if we do that in the right ways strategically at the right time in other sites. And so yes, that is the thing we're doing. Like I think I alluded to earlier in the call is what we're -- everything we need to do to deliver power to customers is illuminating things and opportunities for us to do, in some ways, more, in many ways more and do it more efficiently and cost effectively by doing it ourselves and sort of leveraging our side. So instead of working with others who have the land, developing the land ourselves or partnering with folks to develop land together and bringing power to is a pretty important differentiation for us. So we're pretty excited about like the opportunities we see around that. And by being -- because of our business model, we have to solve those things. So it's important because then we're forced to solve the really tricky things that actually make deployment hard, which isn't always just the building of the reactor, it's all the stuff around it.

So our insights on that are actually allowing us to create a lot of value by doing those things. So yes, we see that, and we see other opportunities that are pretty exciting. And what they saw with us was they wanted nuclear in the area because they had a strong history of nuclear. They wanted economic growth because they had a lot of jobs that were in the area for that, but were then being phased out as decommissioning is kind of progressing. And we were well positioned to support some of that. Now we're going even bigger there. So there's a lot of opportunity that's going to come because of that. And I think they also saw that like from -- and obviously, I'm interpreting my opinion of them. I mean they're the best ones to ask directly, but like they also saw that we were like building power and infrastructure is great because it creates halo effects. And again, this was pre the whole data center boom, but it creates halo effects for other industries. And obviously, data centers get a lot of that attention now. But I think that's what they saw was if you build -- if you have some power plants coming here, you're going to probably have some other opportunities that come with that. So that's, I think, what they saw and how we saw it.

Your next question comes from the line of Eric Stine with Craig-Hallum.

So obviously, the Meta agreement quite important, and it does create that mechanism for prepayment. But also, I would assume, predicated on a firm PPA. So just curious progress there. And you mentioned that other potential customers may want to follow this model. So maybe just talk about or characterize the PPA discussions with other potential customers.

Yes. I guess like the way I kind of think of it is we -- this is one of the cool things about how we look at the landscape with what we've tried to position ourselves into is power is a massive need for a lot of folks. And our ability to work with Meta was -- we positioned and structured so that like, they want us to be successful, we want to be successful, we also need to make sure and just like they do kind of that we have the opportunity to work with different potential partners in different areas and in different ways. And the way we try to structure that agreement allows us to have the ability to obviously prioritize where we are in Ohio with them, but also provides opportunities for them to either work with us or others to work with us on either growing there or around there or in other sites.

And so overall, like I think what we see is -- I mean, we're seeing the inbound and the focus on actual structure now that we have an example of it really kind of change in a constructive way. So we're really talking about like meaningful binding offtakes that emulate similar dynamics to it to have a structure that looked like prepayment that allow us to drive project certainty, but also allow us to make sure we're working with partners that are committed to sort of success here for us and have the right understanding and the right sort of, I'll call it, grace built into how they're going to work with us as well as commitment, and that's pretty important.

And we're finding -- we found that like I think the tone and the tenor and the approach and the conversations we've had has focused into the major players are going to be the right ones to kind of look at there and has kind of accelerated the conversation set since announcing that deal. So we feel pretty -- I think I feel personally quite excited about how this sets the stage for how we're going to work with both Meta and potentially others as they come to the table. But we don't see a shortage of need or appetite. I mean there's way more opportunities.

It's just -- it's a huge number of opportunities. But this does allow us to have a framework that helps us clearly know who and how to prioritize and who's going to come to the table with the right things that kind of show that commitment as a partner to help us actually execute successfully. I hope that kind of answers the question. I don't know, Craig, if you want to add anything to that.

No. I like that.

Okay. And just so on that, I mean, so next step then would be to see a firm PPA with Meta. I mean, is that the right way to think about this here with that mechanism now in place? And as an example, whether it's with Meta or someone else, it would be a firm PPA just to kind of move this area, this development potentially in Southern Ohio forward?

Yes. I'd be kind of clear, like I think this is a binding commitment to provide power and from us for them to buy power from us. So like what we see is this sets the stage to then get into the actual execution on the preprocurement on the longest lead items a fuel and some other items as well as ensuring the project into those stages. So then, yes, convert over to a PPA.

I know we've been saying this for a long time, but the approach we've been taking with customers is not to rush to PPA, but find better binding offtake structures. And this is very much what we had in mind because overdefining a PPA now isn't the right answer versus having a binding commitment that allows us to scale into the right kind of PPA structure after this goes forward. And that's a very important like point of kind of distinguishment, I guess, or differentiation because of what this allows us to do to define that as we work through this with them.

So yes, looking out over the next year or so, I imagine that's where we'll kind of see the PPA come together. But I mean, part of that is the time lines are going to evolve a little bit based on exactly specific need sets and how to best structure this. But like at the end of the day, that's what's important here is that this is a binding offtake and a binding agreement to support that.

And Jake, I would just add, it's trying to progress both the asset deployment plans in lockstep with the commercial discussions on the PPA so we can make sure that we get the right asset level returns. But clearly, the lock-in elements that Jake mentioned that we have with Meta really becomes an important enabler for the projects we intend to do in Ohio.

Your next question comes from the line of Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald.

Just one for me. Jake, government policy and the regulatory environment broadly has been pretty supportive. I'm wondering, based on your ongoing conversations with the DOE, the NRC, do you expect any new government programs or regulatory changes this year that potentially could help you guys accelerate your plans even faster?

Yes. I think what we see is the governments like -- I mean kind of gave a very [ long-winding ] answer to Dimple earlier on this similarly. But like we do expect there to be additional like federal action that's continuing to be supportive and trying to find different ways to help accelerate around this. I think the nuclear life cycles initiative is an important one. I think that's pretty also significantly underappreciated, but it's basically setting the stage for very significant federal commitments to states that are focused on addressing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and the natural economic development kind of approach to doing so is going to be anchored around recycling. So we're pretty excited about how that looks and what the benefit is going to be that trickle out from that.

Additionally, from the executive orders, there's continuing to be significant activity around the NRC and kind of, let's say, reform and modernization work at the NRC that includes a significant amount of work going into modernizing and updating the -- like basically the suite of regulations there. And we're seeing some of that start to trickle outward, but we know there's a lot more coming. And I think that's going to play out across -- I mean, from what we can tell, like everything, which is generally, I think, a pretty darn good thing. So we expect there to be added clarity, enhanced schedule certainty, reduced time lines, reduce costs across the board around a whole bunch of different relevant things for us. And given we have so many projects and given we're doing so many things across the space because of the opportunity of integrating these things, we see that those line up really favorably for us to benefit from those. And in some ways, being agile and nimble like we are, gives us a better pathway to take advantage of those than if we had a license application in already. I know it sounds kind of funny, but that's kind of how we see the space.

We have time for one more question, and that question comes from the line of Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers.

So on Brian's CapEx question in 2027, Craig, you seem to suggest the investment spend could continue at 2026 levels. Depending on approvals and partner capital, is it possible to see a further stair stepping into next year? And given what seems like $2.5 billion of pro forma cash and investments, including the January ATM you hit, is it reasonable to say that, that's sufficient to carry you through at least to next year? And finally, do you have enough fuel for that 75 megawatts at INL?

So I'll let Jake answer the last question, but we're very well capitalized for 2026 and beyond. But -- and I think as we've talked about in earlier conversations, the one thing we've not yet been able to execute on, but it's definitely part of our overall long-term capitalization strategy is what we might be able to do at what I would call the asset-level financing approach, so things like project financing.

And in terms of the level of spend, I think one thing that Jake's talked 2.5 years at Oklo is expect the unexpected because I think we see more opportunities ahead of us than we did this time last year. But I do think what's going to happen in the years ahead is I think kind of the nature of the spend will change in terms of seeing more. As our projects progress, especially in the fuel space, we talked a lot about recycling, I could see that kind of the split of the capital changing over time, which is also why I think it's important that we've been able to demonstrate an ability to raise capital in the capital markets.

And we've got other levers at our disposal in the future, which would be project financing. We're having discussions with the energy -- with EDF, which used to be the loan program office. And we definitely make sure that the treasury team under Graham Johnson's leadership is always kind of on top of the next thing. And I'm really proud of what the team achieved in 2025.

That concludes our question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Jake Dewitte, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, for closing comments.

Thank you, and thank you all for joining us today as we get into kind of the opportunities with -- or basically updates on all these opportunities that we're leaning into and executing against.

2025 was a pretty exciting year. It wrapped in a pretty high note and hit off to a really good start this quarter that we're currently in based on some of the milestones we talked about hitting with the Meta announcement, for example. I think as we continue to scale into building and execution, we are postured as a very, I think, strong position to learn through doing and something that has not been in the nuclear ecosystem in meaningful ways largely since kind of the 1960s, I would contend. And so very exciting time for the space, very exciting time to see all sorts of new things be learned in a modern context, including how to best design and build and deploy and scale across the ecosystem.

Given our positioning and our posture and our business model, we're also uniquely suited to learn a lot about where the opportunities are for us to lean into, both in terms of where we can create value, whether we build things ourselves, whether we acquire or merge or buy companies or just partner with folks to buy sourcing or supplies from them or material from them, it gives us a lot of good insights about how to actually execute here.

That's the key thing now. What we're solving for is broad, scaled nuclear execution, which really translates to how we can build, how we can license, we can operate, how we can source and supply in-house and do all the things we need to do to actually do what we're trying to achieve.

We're also really excited by the progress we've made on the isotope side. We've shown we can obtain an NRC license. We've shown we can execute against DOE authorization across multiple lines, and we've shown that we can also build a real physical asset, a real reactor in incredible time lines and also internalize all those lessons learned, the things we've learned that are hard, the things we've learned that are easier, the things that didn't work and the things that do work and help apply those to where we go forward and aim for turning that reactor on by July 4, which will be a really exciting milestone for us.

So with that, I'll go ahead and say thank you again for everyone who joined and look forward to the next quarterly update. Thank you all.

Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's conference call. Thank you all for joining, and you may now disconnect.

Thank you for standing by. My name is Tina, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Oklo Third Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Business Update Call. [Operator Instructions]

It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Sam Doane, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, and thank you, operator. Welcome, everyone, to Oklo's Third 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, our Chief Financial Officer. Today's accompanying slide presentation is available on the Investor Relations section of our website.

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. Additional information 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. The first half of this year brought an incredible wave of momentum across the advanced nuclear sector from new federal programs and executive actions to growing customer and investor interest in clean, reliable power. That momentum has continued into the third quarter and is creating a very different environment for deployment than even a year ago. We strongly believe Oklo is uniquely positioned to thrive in this environment. Our mission at Oklo continues to be focused and clear. To deliver clean, reliable, affordable energy at a global scale.

We started this company with the belief that Advanced Nuclear Power could play a transformative role in the world's energy future. That meant rethinking everything? Are we design reactors, how we license and feel them and how we operate them and engage customers. That same vision continues to guide us today and it remains fully aligned with where we believe policy, technology and customer demand are headed. Our competitive advantages come from the intersection of several core strategies. Our business model, our scalable design and our proven technology.

First, our build-own-operate model allows us to sell power directly to customers under long-term contracts. That creates recurring revenue and streamlines the regulatory process by keeping ownership and operational control within Oklo. Second, our small scalable design means we can deploy assets quickly and incrementally, matching customer demand while leveraging existing industrial supply chains and factory fabrication. That reduces on-site construction risk, lowers cost and supports faster rollout. And third, our liquid metal [ stadium ] cool technology is built on a foundation of more than 400 combined reactor years of operating experience worldwide, including the experimental [ breeder reactor 2 ], which operated successfully for 3 decades in the United States. That operating record is one of the most tested, demonstrated and validated in advanced nuclear history, and it gives us deep confidence in the performance, safety and reliability of our design. It's also the reason we can move directly into commercialization without the need for costly time-consuming demonstration plans.

Oklo was building on that proven foundation to become the hub for metal fuel and fast reactor innovation, integrating design, licensing, fuel supply and recycling into a unified platform. This gives us a significant flexibility across fuels, [indiscernible], recycled material and down-blended alternatives and positions Oklo at the center of how this next phase of Advanced Nuclear Power will scale. Additionally, Oklo's work across areas needed to deploy its reactors to position the company to benefit from capabilities, including products and services from fuel fabrication recycling and isotopes to go along with power and heat sales from its reactors. Together, these advantages position Oklo to deploy at speed and scale with the model built for long-term growth and leadership in advanced nuclear energy.

We have continued to make meaningful progress this quarter across every part of the business, from licensing and project execution to fuel development partnerships and the customer pipeline.

On the regulatory front, we were selected for 3 projects under the Department of Energy's new Reactor Pilot Program, or RPP, giving Oklo access to Department of Energy authorization pathways that accelerate deployment time lines and complement our ongoing NRC work. And we submitted our principal design criteria topical report to the NRC and received notice of acceptance in just 15 days, about half the time typically expected. NRC also indicated that the draft evaluation is expected in early 2026 which would be less than half the traditional review time line. And just before the RPP announcement, Oklo also completed a readiness assessment with the NRC for the Phase 1 of its [ coal ] application, which found no gaps to application acceptance for review.

We also broke ground on the Aurora INL, marking the start of physical construction activities. We also advanced plans for Atomic Alchemy Pilot Project under the RPP. Finally, we successfully completed fuel assembly flow testing, demonstrating progress in the fabrication and handling systems that will serve many Oklo powerhouses.

In fuel and recycling, we announced Oklo's Advanced Fuel Center up to $1.68 billion investment that anchors our long-term fuel supply chain and were selected for the Department of Energy's Advanced Nuclear Fuel line pilot program, which accelerates U.S. fuel fabrication capacity. We achieved a key regulatory milestone with the Department of Energy's approval of the Nuclear Safety Design Agreement, or NSDA for the Aurora fuel fabrication facility. The NSDA, the first approved under the DOE's fuel line pilot projects was completed in under 2 weeks and demonstrates a new authorization pathway that can help unlock U.S. industrial capacity, strength in national energy security and accelerate domestic fuel production under the executive order, deploying advanced nuclear reactor technologies for national security.

The approval reflects the strength of our technical submissions and proactive DOE engagement and builds on our Aurora INL groundbreaking to advance an integrated model of fuel production, plant construction and power delivery. We also strengthened our partnership with Idaho National Laboratory through a new agreement with Battelle Energy Alliance, the labs management and operations contractor. The collaboration focuses on advancing fuel and materials research that supports Oklo's and other companies' commercial deployments and takes advantage of Aurora INL's unique ability to generate real-world data during operation, including fast neutrons for testing and research. That data will help us characterize materials faster, characterize fuels faster, improve designs more efficiently and continue driving innovation across the nuclear technology landscape.

In other words, this partnership is about expanding the Aurora INL's mission to include fast neutron radiation capabilities. These are capabilities that have been lacking in the U.S. for decades. We signed new international partnerships with European nuclear companies Blykalla and newcleo to advance joint technology and field manufacturing capabilities and demonstrate our emerging technical leadership in this space.

On the customer pipeline side, we're evaluating potential power sales with the Tennessee Valley Authority as part of our Tennessee Fuel Center initiative and we're continuing to advance discussions with both previously announced and new customers as we expand our commercial pipeline across data centers, utilities and defense markets. We are also exploring potential fuel offtakes with the Tennessee Valley Authority as part of our Tennessee Fuel Center as well. And financially, we closed the quarter with a strong balance sheet, approximately $1.2 billion in cash and marketable securities with cash burn tracking in line with expectations.

Following the close of the third quarter, we also filed a new shelf registration to maintain flexibility and access to capital markets as we scale. Taken together, these milestones reflect the execution momentum behind Oklo's potential for near-term success, licensing, acceleration, supply chain buildout and commercial traction all living in parallel. This quarter marked a major milestone for Oklo with our selections under the Department of Energy's reactor pilot program. The [ RPT ] was established earlier this year following new executive actions that directed [ UE ] to take a leading role in advancing next-generation reactor deployment as part of the broader U.S. energy renaissance. Nuclear power is a federal priority with strong bipartisan support, reflecting the shared recognition that Advanced Nuclear Energy is essential to meeting America's energy security and economic objectives.

Oklo received 3 of the 11 granted awards, 2 led by Oklo and 1 by our subsidiary, Atomic Alchemy. The awarded projects include [ local ] Aurora INL, our first powerhouse, atomic Alchemy Pilot plant for radioisotope production and Oklo's Pluto, a test reactor supporting advanced fuel and component development. Participation in the reactor pilot program gives us access to a Department of Energy Authorization pathway, aligning our projects with federal review and creating the potential to accelerate construction and operation time lines. Just as importantly, the RPP provides a venue for generating operating data that will help derisk commercial licensing for future powerhouses, strengthening our overall regulatory foundation.

This selection positions Oklo's one of the first advanced reactor companies moving from design to build under DOE oversight, reinforcing that the momentum behind nuclear energy in the United States is broad-based, durable and growing. The DOE's authorization pathway represents one of the most important policy shifts we've seen for advanced reactors in decades, expanding regulatory tools without reducing safety expectations.

For Oklo, it effectively provides a structured approach and process to begin constructing our first powerhouse under DOE oversight while maintaining full alignment with NRC standards. The DOE pathway enables faster demonstration of clean power while maintaining the same rigorous safety expectations and provides an opportunity for a rapid transition to an NRC license for full commercial operation.

Here's what changed. In May, new executive actions established a clear DOE authorization process for first-of-a-kind nuclear plants, a process that now complements rather than replaces traditional NRC licensing. Within months, we moved to qualify our Aurora INL powerhouse under that framework. We expect to finalize our other transaction authority or OTA agreement and have approval of our Nuclear Safety Design Agreement, or NSDA, with the DOE by the end of the year.

So here's how it works. DOE will authorize construction and initial operations under its modernized framework, which allows us to begin building while the longer commercial NRC transition proceeds in parallel. We don't need full operating approvals to finalize construction, which reduces idle time without compromising safety. Once the initial data is collected, the project can then transition to NRC oversight. This approach builds on DOE's decades of experience managing nuclear facilities with an exceptional safety record from naval propulsion to national laboratory programs. It doesn't lower the bar. It simply puts the right reviewers in the right place.

From a broader perspective, this model has the potential to unlock U.S. industrial capacity, strengthen national energy security and create a repeatable template for future advanced reactor deployment. Importantly, DOE and the NRC are complementary, not competitive. Their teams have a long history of collaboration, and we expect continued coordination throughout this process to ensure a smooth handoff when conversion occurs. For investors and customers, this change hopefully means less time line risk, better capital efficiency and earlier validation of cost and performance. The bottom line is that DOE authorization derisks the Aurora INL regulatory path and allows Oklo to focus on building and operating powerhouses while maintaining the same safety rigor and establishing a scalable modern pathway for the next generation of advanced reactors.

As we pursue authorization under the DOE, we're maintaining steady momentum with the NRC to prepare for full commercial licensing. This is a parallel engagement strategy, not competing reviews, but coordinated progress that lets us move faster while maintaining regulatory rigor. Our work with the NRC remains focused on 2 priorities: first, completing ongoing pre-application reviews and topical reports for the Aurora INL and future sites; and second, leveraging data from DOE authorized operations to further inform NRC licensing for the broader commercial fleet.

In practice, this means we'll finalize DOE authorization documentation and begin Aurora INL construction and operations under DOE oversight while continuing NRC pre-application work for follow-on deployments. The learnings from real-world performance data, fuel behavior and operating experience will feed directly into the NRC's combined license process, which we expect could compress the time line from the Aurora INL 2 fleet deployment. We expect to submit licensing actions next year to support construction for subsequent sites, and our goal is to use operating data from the Aurora INL to strengthen each subsequent submission. This strategy ensures that as DOE authorizations advance early construction and operation, the NRC pathway continues in parallel, creating a repeatable data supported model for commercial powerhouse deployment.

We expect the result to be a clear regulatory sequence, build and operate under DOE, then transition to NRC oversight. Acting on lessons learned, we will demonstrate a replicable commercial licensing framework for the next generation of Oklo powerhouses.

Idaho National Laboratory, we've officially broken ground on our first Aurora powerhouse, marking a major milestone in Oklo's transition from design and permitting to active construction. As mentioned, we're progressing under DOE's reactor pilot program, which provides federal oversight and coordination as we move from preparation to build. [indiscernible] has mobilized major equipment to the site and earthworks began October 27 to be followed by controlled blasting in mid-November, targeting full excavation in early January.

For Oklo, this is a defining moment. It represents the shift from planning to physical build with the same discipline and execution framework that will carry through our future projects. This first site establishes the template for our [indiscernible] powerhouses demonstrating our ability to execute as we move toward operations. With construction now underway at INL, we're also making strong progress on the procurement and supply chain front, securing the long lead components and supplier commitments that are scheduled on track. This quarter, we completed major procurements for in-vessel and ex-vessel handling machines primary and intermediate sodium pumps, the reactor trip system and fuel assembly nozzle fabrication.

These are some of the most technically significant systems in the powerhouse and having them under contract early locks in pricing time lines and fabrication slots with qualified vendors. It also demonstrates the maturity of our supply chain, a key differentiator for Oklo, showing that we can sort of put components through proven industrial partners rather than relying on bespoke first-time suppliers. We are procuring these components in a dynamic and continually evolving environment. I mean fluctuating tariffs, supply chain pressures and inflation. These challenges make procurement especially challenging. But our business model and the repeatability of our asset deployment plans will allow us to learn from our experience over time, even if costs are higher or there are other unexpected developments that impact our first few powerhouses. We have the opportunity to iterate and improve as we scale up our operations to ultimately build a reliable and cost-effective supply chain.

It is also worth noting that the future reactor deployments may benefit from a reduction in costs compared to the Aurora INL in part due to the required additional fuel and core testing capabilities. This progress builds real confidence in our ability to execute efficiently and scale repeatedly as we move from this first powerhouse to a broader fleet under the DOE's reactor pilot program and future commercial deployments.

Our wholly owned subsidiary, Atomic Alchemy also achieved a major milestone this quarter with its selection under the Department of Energy's reactor pilot program. The selection makes the Atomic Alchemy pilot facility eligible for DOE authorization, creating a faster pathway to construction and operations. The pilot facility is designed to prove isotope production validate supply chain readiness and derisk the deployment of a larger commercial scale VIPR facility. In the near term, the team is finalizing [ dely ] authorization documentation and advancing site selection and procurement with the intent to be operational by mid-2026.

Over the medium term, Atomic Alchemy will begin at a separate lab scale facility, production and initial isotope sales, creating an early revenue stream while expanding commercial and operational experience. Longer term, the focus shifts to securing an NRC license for full-scale VIPR facility, scaling to multiyear offtake agreements and carrying forward the procedures and quality assurance systems, proven in the pilot facility to streamline future deployment.

What's important here is that Atomic Alchemy isn't just an adjacent business. It's a strategic extension of Oklo's technology platform. The business creates near-term production revenue potential and represents a paradigm shift in an underserved high-potential market. The Atomic Alchemy VIPR Reactor or Versatile isotope production reactor is also quite a bit different than Oklo's Aurora. The VIPR reactor is designed to produce isotopes and therefore produce neutrons. It is an open water cool type reactor that is not pressurized and uses conventional 17x17 pressurized water reactor fuel bundles fueled with LEU at a shortened type. This means the reactors can be built and supplied quickly and produce a variety of isotopes that serve health care, defense and industrial applications. Isotopes are, generally speaking, vastly undersupplied in the U.S. and can play a similar role to critical minerals in terms of national resilience and security.

Our unique and differentiated approach to fuel brings together several complementary sources to cover near, mid- and long-term needs. Near term, we're drawing on DOE materials like [ EBR 2 ] fuel and potentially plutonium-based feedstock to fuel early units. Midterm, our partnerships with Centrus, Hexium and others expand fresh HALEU [indiscernible] and reduce single vendor risk. Longer term, our Tennessee Advanced Fuel Center positions us to recycle and fabricate our own fuel domestically at scale from used fuel inventories. Taken together, this strategy reduces cost and schedule risk strengthens U.S. energy resilience and ensures we can keep building regardless of how the enrichment market evolves.

Fuel remains one of the most important inputs for advanced nuclear power and one of the most complex to forecast right now. The reality is that the cost environment for HALEU and related materials looks very different today than it did in 2024. Tariffs, supply chain constraints, inflation and [indiscernible] sanctions have all changed the market dynamics. The global investment landscape is still shifting and so are the pricing assumptions that come with it.

This is challenging work, and we're owning it. We're building the most resilient, diversified fuel strategy in the sector because we know fuel optionality will determine who scale successfully in the years ahead most quickly. We don't yet know where HALEU costs will ultimately land. But what we do know is that Oklo has more pathway than flexibility than other companies in the space. We'll continue refining our cost models and expect to share more detailed updates next year as the pricing picture becomes clear, but the takeaway today is straightforward. Fuel markets are changing and Oklo is built to adapt, especially in the current fuel environment with additional government materials becoming available to serve as bridge fuel supplies.

We think it's useful to spend a little time eliminating HALEU's supply chains and how they work. The current models in the U.S. and in the world, generally speaking, involve several steps starting with your [indiscernible] mining to then [indiscernible] to then conversion, to the enrichment, to then [indiscernible] conversion and then ultimately to fuel fabrication. Next-generation models might change this significantly. This is one of the reasons why we take a multipronged approach in partnering with HALEU providers, not just to work with those operating today in the supply chains that fit today's models, but also for next-generation technologies that have the potential to have lower capital and operating costs that can simplify the processes and offer value chain consolidation and operate more flexibly, which can all together mean opportunities for lower cost HALEU.

And beyond HALEU, Oklo's also taking a multipronged approach for sourcing fuel both in the near term as well as the long term. We discussed this a little bit already, but there are several major pools of material to think about for fueling our reactors going forward. For one, there are significant government uranium reserves. Some of this material stands in highly enriched form and can be downloaded into fuel for reactors. Some of it might also be in prior or previously irradiated fuel that can be recovered and then produced in the fuel for reactors. That is where we're getting the first 5 tonnes of fuel for our first plant, 5 tonnes to fuel produced from EBR-II fuel that has been recovered and downblended to make fuel suitable for use in our Aurora plan.

An important feature about some of that material is that it carries impurities because it's the time in a reactor. Those impurities do not necessarily make it suitable for all reactors to be able to use it, but our reactor by being a fast reactor and by being designed to be versatile and its fuel can use it. Additionally, the government has significant reserves of plutonium that it is now making available as a bridge source of fuel for commercial power plants. This is significant because the government recently announced up to 20 tons being made available in tranches, that could be made into about 180 metric tons of Aurora fuel. This is a massive bridge supply of fuel that can get us beyond not just our first few plants, but out into our first 10 to 20 plants within an opportunity to scale beyond that with commercial enrichment sourcing as well as recycling.

And the way this works is by taking the plutonium and blending it with unenriched uranium to make a fuel that can be used in our reactors. That negates and avoids the need for any enrichment and can accelerate time to market as well as reduced total capital investments needed to actually produce fuel for our plants. We are exploring the opportunities to use this material given that it can be a significant bridge to future supplies. Those future supplies really comprised of 2 main approaches is how we think about it. There are the conventional enrichers that, in many cases, are already producing LEU and are either actively or exploring expanding production into HALEU as well as advanced enrichers that bring forward different technologies and centrifuges that have unique upside and potential but may, in some cases, stand lower on the technology readiness development spectrum. But these technologies offer opportunities for value chain consolidation, lower cost of production, lower cost of operation and ultimately, the ability to use lower-cost feedstocks. This can ultimately translate to lower cost HALEU at scale as well.

And ultimately, recycling is a key part of our fuel strategy because of how significant it is in unlocking significant reserves of fuel. I use that term duplicity on purpose, significant because it is hard to overstate how much material there is in the U.S. that can be made into fuel. The reason this is the case is because reactors in general, only use a few percent of the fuel in one path. So today's reactors, for example, only use about 5% of the fuel in a single path through the reactor. That means the use fuel that's discharged or often refer to as waste actually has about 95% of its fuel remaining. With our recycling technologies, we can tap into that, pull that material out and reuse it as fuel in our reactors. We can also recycle the fuel from our reactors as well as other advanced reactors that will likely get built. This positions Oklo well to have a long-term, very durable supply of fuel going forward.

Continuing on recycling. One of our biggest advancements this quarter was the announcement of our Advanced Fuel Center in Tennessee, beginning with the fuel recycling facility located at Oakridge. This is the first privately funded recycling facility of its kind in the U.S., representing an investment of up to $1.68 billion in creating more than 800 permanent jobs. In addition to the fuel recycling facility, this investment is expected to include other Oklo assets, such as one or more [ POWERHOUSE's ] and a fuel fabrication facility. The facility has another layer of vertical integration to Oklo's business, enabling us to convert use fuel into new metal fuel for our powerhouses. It strengthens U.S. capability and gives Oklo more supply chain control on our path to scale.

We're tracking towards an initial production ramp-up in the early 2030s with regulatory engagement already underway through the NRC pre-application process. We're also working with the Tennessee Valley Authority on potential collaboration around used nuclear fuel feedstock transfer as well as power generation from are powerhouses. This project isn't just about fuel supply. It's about creating a durable domestic foundation for advanced nuclear power. It anchors Oklo's long-term fuel strategy and positions Tennessee as a national hub for clean energy manufacturing and innovation.

In parallel, there's growing federal support for advanced fuel recycling. Just last week, the Senate Energy and Public Works Committee announced the Nuclear Refuel Act of 2025, which proposes updates to the Atomic Energy Act to provide regulatory clarity for licensing advanced fuel recycling facilities. If enacted, this legislation could further streamline the licensing process for our Tennessee facility.

Building on the momentum from the Tennessee Fuel Center, we were also selected by the Department of Energy for the Advanced Nuclear Fuel Line Pilot Program. This program is designed to accelerate construction and operation of domestic fuel fabrication facilities, strengthening U.S. capability and ensuring that advanced reactors like ours have a reliable long-term supply of fuel. Under this initiative, DOE awarded 3 Oklo led fuel-related projects, allowing us to build and operate facilities that directly support our powerhouse deployments and complement the work underway at our Advanced Fuel Center and Aurora INL fuel fabrication facility.

The Fuel Line Pilot Program nears the intent of the reactor pilot program to create alternative pathways for advanced nuclear deployment that move faster, streamline reviews and leverage private investment alongside federal oversight. For Oklo it does 3 important things. It presents an opportunity to secure near-term fuel for early [ PowerHouses ], producing one of the biggest bottlenecks facing the industry. It reinforces U.S. manufacturing and fuel independence supporting the national effort to rebuild the [indiscernible] nuclear capacity and it stacks directly with our Tennessee facility, creating a vertically integrated ecosystem for recycling and fabrication and deployment.

Together, these programs, the reactor pilot and fuel line pilots form the backbone of a modern U.S. new [indiscernible] strategy. And Oklo's one of the few companies positioned across both with the capabilities to deliver on near-term milestones while building the infrastructure for the long term.

With that, I'll pass it to Craig to share progress on our strategic partnerships and financials. Craig?

Thanks, Jake. As Jake mentioned, Oklo is leading the advanced nuclear effort here in the United States but we are also experiencing growing international momentum around fast reactors and metal fuel technology. This quarter, we signed new transatlantic partnerships with Blykalla and newcleo, 2 European companies advancing fast reactor and fuel fabrication technologies. These collaborations strengthen our supply chain strategies, expand our technology base and align with broader trends across both the United States and Europe for a renewed commitment to nuclear innovation, manufacturing and partnership.

With Blykalla, we entered into a joint technology development agreement to collaborate in key areas where there's mutual benefit such as balance of plant components, regulatory learnings and fuel strategy. We also co-led their recent funding round building across Atlantic partnership that benefits both companies. With newcleo, we've launched a strategic partnership to develop advanced fuel fabrication and manufacturing infrastructure in the United States under domestic oversight. Newcleo could invest up to $2 billion through an affiliated vehicle to expand U.S. capacity and support our metal fuel platform.

Taken together, these collaborations represent the next step in Oklo's evolution and could help us accelerate cost reduction, leverage international capital and extend our reach into markets where demand for advanced nuclear power is growing rapidly. Oklo is combining proven fast reactor technology with a global ecosystem of partners suppliers and investors who are equally focused on delivering scalable, zero-carbon baseload power.

I'll now provide a summary of our financials. Oklo's third quarter operating loss was $36.3 million, inclusive of noncash stock-based compensation expense of $9.1 million. Oklo's loss before income taxes in the third quarter was $29.2 million, which reflects our operating loss adjusted for net interest income of $7.1 million. On a year-to-date basis, when adjusting for noncash stock-based compensation charges, changes to working capital and deferred income tax benefits, the cash used in operating activities equates to $48.7 million. We still expect on a full year basis, our cash used in operating activities to be within our guided range of $65 million to $80 million that we disclosed at the start of this year.

In addition, to build on earlier discussion point in this company update, we have started to make modest capital investments in 2025, which include advancing deployment of activities at INL for our Aurora powerhouse and fuel fabrication facilities as well as for the reactor pilot programs for which we have been selected. The reactor pilot program not only includes work in our power and fuel businesses, but also the award received by Atomic Alchemy. This spin has been enabled by various accelerators we have seen across the business in 2025.

Finally, in the third quarter, we successfully completed an at-the-market fundraising program generating $540 million in gross proceeds, providing the company with additional cash on hand to deliver our enhanced growth agenda. As a result of the capital raise, we ended third quarter with approximately $1.2 billion in cash and marketable securities on our balance sheet.

As we wrap up, I want to connect the key themes you've heard today to what makes Oklo a compelling investment opportunity. We are now executing not theorizing on Advanced Nuclear Power. Our proven fast reactor technology is designed for speed, simplicity and scalability. And our first powerhouse at INL is under construction. We've built a fully integrated fuel strategy that few others can match. From early access to fuel for the Aurora INL powerhouse, to fabrication under the Department of Energy's field line pilots to long-term recycling through our Advanced Fuel Center in Tennessee. We have based our strategy on feedstock integration and multiple long-term fuel cycle delivery pathways that should provide cost stability and supply security as we grow our fleet.

Our radioisotope business has a high-margin adjacent revenue stream that leverages a similar technology base, regulatory pathway, facilities and core competencies to further diversify our earnings potential. And our build-own-operate model creates recurring revenue through long-term power contracts, driving margin visibility and capital efficiency.

Finally, our growing customer pipeline for power spans data centers, defense, utilities and industrials confirmed strong durable demand from what we are building. In short, Oklo is delivering on its plans, proven technology, a differentiated field strategy global partnerships and a business model designed to scale. We're executing today and positioned to lead the next era of clean, reliable energy.

Operator, we are now ready to take questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley.

Just want to make sure I'm clear on the DOE authorization. Does the INL plant shifting to the DOE pathway, change your requirement to submit a [ cola ] with the NRC for that project? Or is that something you still have to do? And has the government shut down impacted your ability to do that at all?

Thanks for the question. I think -- so yes, we no longer need to do a [ colo ], right? So we're going through the DOE authorization process, which is inherently quite different. So we don't have to do that anymore. At the end of the day, to build. At the end of the day, we'll still do some kind of combined license type application to the NRC, Part of it is being a little bit redefined and developed based on even just this MOU signed between the NRC and DOE, which was a pretty big deal just last week or the week before. It sets the stage for how the facility would then become a commercial operating NRC license plans at some point after we get through some of the initial startup and operational kind of frame or [indiscernible] paradigm, I should say.

But yes, now it's just through a different DOE process. What's huge about this, is this -- this is a muscle that if you think about it, there's 3 major agencies have, right, to do nuclear authorization on permitting. Obviously, the NRC then the Department of Energy and then the Department of War. And those 3 agencies have those abilities. DOE and DOW haven't really used those very much recently, but they have that history. And so they are like they've used them and they do have continued oversight of the programs, but they're using them now a lot more. And this, by the way, wasn't just something that happened overnight. Like this goes back to the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, NEICA that was passed into law in 2018 that's at the stage of this. It was just following the executive orders that really supercharge this effort. And DOE has really leaned into it, and it's kind of empowered that ability to do these things.

What's cool about it, is it changes the cadence compared to what the NRC had. The industry framework said, you have to do a lot of upfront licensing work before you can build and operate the plant meaningfully. Part of why we're able to break ground and move into meaningful construction is because the DOE process gives you the flexibility to build while you're going through the different steps of basically authorization up until leading fuel and turning it on. And that gives you a lot more flexibility to just move into a build mode and iterate a lot faster. Something that I think is really important and that you see in pretty much every other industry.

So in many ways, it has taken off a huge run of the regulatory risk has changed the paradigm that we can build in parallel and is open the path for a different kind of approach. And remind you, the Department of Energy has a long history of doing regulatory oversight and authorization of setting fast tractors like we're developing, they were the ones that provided the regulatory authorization for EBR-II for [ FFTS ] and continue that oversight into operations. They know how to do this better than probably anybody. So it's a really great kind of fit.

We looked at this pathway as it existed before back in the past but it wasn't in any way modernized. And then since NEICA pass and then following the EOs, it has been, which made a ton of sense then for us to move into that space. Not to mention kind of the enhanced work between the NRC and DOE to obviously leverage this. The interesting thing is, right, DOE reviewers, NRC reviewers as well. They would all also use our national laboratory experts in this country, one of the key kind of things we have in the country. And what's great about that is that actually means that there's going to be residual expertise and experience gained through [indiscernible], are approaching us through DOE that will also help us in the NRC space.

So it's a huge kind of change in many, many positive ways that is going to let us move faster to build and turn on the plant and also then convert over to commercial operations and scale from there. Doesn't take away NRC licensing. It just changes the cadence to kind of accelerate the ability to get something built and get into NRC licensing in the commercial space in a meaningful way, which is really, really accelerative for us.

Got it. Appreciate that detail Jake. And then my second question, I've asked you this one before. But curious if your thinking has changed regarding order conversion from pipeline to more of something firm? And if it's starting to make more sense to try to lock in a PPA with a customer as we get closer to '26, '27 and ultimately, that first plant being built?

Yes. Well, our view has always been find and build the right partnerships and deals with customers and takes time to do that in the most constructive way possible for the company and not necessarily rush into PPA timing but rather build better offtake structures because doing this inherently is not the same exact thing as sort of just doing a power offtake purchase from like a solar project, which is what much of the I would call it legacy conventional PPA structure has been built for. There's a lot of room to be also more creative. And that opens the door to do a lot of things that are important for frankly, derisking a lot of things for us that the off-takers are also incentive aligned to do with us.

So yes, I mean, we've continued to develop customers in the market, and we continue to do that here and that is part of kind of our intentional cadence and strategy to do that. And I think as we work towards what we're executing against we expect to be able to kind of mature those in the places that do make sense for everybody to kind of build a really constructive usual relationship that is part of an offtake agreement that also helps derisk some of the stuff today into that for them, for their power offtake that's pretty powerful. So that's kind of where our focus -- I shouldn't say kind of that is where our focus has been for the last over 12 months or so. And we're continuing on that pace because that's what the market is quite supportive and receptive to and we expect that to continue and position us well so that going into the next year and beyond, we'll start converting those into that kind of -- those kinds of structures as it works.

Each of these different off-takers and groups is going to have different knobs and levers and things to turn that work better for them, respectively, than maybe their peers or competitors. So we got to make sure we were kind of with the right ones that can kind of lean into this in the right ways in cadence and then focus on moving that into the kind of execution phase. So that's how we think about that.

I think 1x factor that's interesting is part of the executive order structure includes the government's ability to be -- and also as we've seen in their policy actions, and I think as we hear about policy actions that are still developing around the AI side of things, enhancing the ability for them to be host and/or even some kind of middlemen or some kind of enabling structure for data center development at DOE sites. So this is still developing and speculative in many ways but there's some interesting potential based on what the EO is put into law, put into executive action that could enable sort of interesting structures too, to expand deployments under the DOE authorization that are providing to the government for their own use cases as they think about critical resource needs and critical capability needs, resource needs, meaning AI and compute needs. So it's kind of cool to see what that might look like, too, which is interesting. So that's probably the biggest shift that a lot of this has opened the door for.

Otherwise, we've continued to work at pace in saying, hey, let's find the most constructive way to work with our customers and ultimately convert them forward based on what -- how we can work together and what we can do to sort of more or less guarantee success in this project in a beneficial way.

Our next question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.

This is [ Tyler Bisset ] on for Brian. Wanted to follow up on a prior question. I just wanted to confirm, are you guys still targeting commercial operations at INL to commence between late '27 and early '28 or the shifting to the DOE pathway, accelerate that time line? And it sounds like full activation is targeted for early January. So what are the next sort of milestones we should be watching out for that supports that time line beyond January?

Yes. I mean this is what's really exciting about the reactor pilot program. It opens the door for quite a bit of different ways of doing things and thinking about things in terms of cadencing these milestones. So a couple of big things to pull back. We have 3 pilot programs awarded to us. We talked about those a little bit in earnings. One as you were, I know the other is for the [indiscernible] pilot prototype production reactor. That is on pace for that plant and specifically in place to turn on in June, July of next year, 2026. It's incredible, it's awesome, it's really cool to see how that's progressing. So that's a pretty big set of milestones alone to achieve that. So obviously, we'll continue to update the market as we hit milestones on that front as we execute into that.

Then there's the Pluto reactor, which is basically plutonium fuel testing reactor that will have a continued set of milestones as well. That bridges well into serving both research and development purposes for us to serve that for the government. We announced earlier today partnering with Idaho National Laboratory, the Battelle Energy Alliance about providing fast neutron radiation capabilities. Pluto will kind of expand on that capability set, but that has an incremental set of milestones that will march forward about moving towards basically [indiscernible] driving fuel systems and critical assemblies and test reactors that are happening on a pretty fast time scale as well that we'll continue to update the market over the course of the next 6 -- well, the next 3, 6, 9, 12 months out.

And then back to part of where your question was on the Aurora INL plant. The authorization path that's important here it allows us to move into the construction activity much more quickly, so we can start building the plant. We broke ground in September. We're moving into major excavation work here coming up shortly and then moving through the full-scale procurement and activities as we speak, including something we've already done, so we're ramping forward into. That is going to be pretty important for us to be able to turn that plant on. We are still targeting in the '27, '28 time lines for that plant to commence operations to turn on and go. There are some things that might be accelerative to benefit that but some of that can also just help take out or accommodate some slack and other things in the system. It's just important that you can move fully into the build stage so that you can move through these things more iteratively.

And then on top of that, the key thing that's enabling all of this is the ability to actually like fabricate fuel to put into these reactors. And that's a critical part of the supply chain that we've been focused on for a very long time. And with the reactor pilot program and then the associated fuel pilot program allows us to move into. And as we talked about and we announced earlier today, we see some pretty sizable milestones there in a really compressed time window and illuminate objectively how clearly beneficial these things are for us.

We are building a fuel fabrication facility to make fuel for Aurora plant in Idaho, where you can partner with the government, we're using existing building in Idaho National Laboratory to do that. That building needs to have some refurbishment and then have equipment go into it. That building going through the traditional kind of legacy DOE because it's the DOE facility. DOE authorization path before the executive orders, we were moving at a pace that was in the order of like 2 years to kind of get close to a milestone that then when we reset the process under the pilot program, starting from 0 there. Grant, we had some work done so we can kind of copy-paste over that, but we moved in 2 weeks to hit this significant milestone that is now allowing us to actually do the construction work there and sell equipment and fabricate fuel much more quickly.

So there's clear benefits that we're seeing that we are going to be in pace to have things moving faster and be able to deploy in term at plant on. I will caveat that, that plant in Idaho, it is not going to be selling commercial power to the grid under the authorization. That's not what is intent is. You might be able to do some work selling into not just power, but a radiation services to the lab complex and the Department of Energy as part of the authorization. But the point is we get this built more quickly, get the initial operational experiences and everything else, and then we can take that path over to the NRC. And as indicated by the expanded MOU, signed the MOU signed by DOE and NRC just in the last week or 2, they made it clear that the NRC is going to build on the DOE work for that. So we expect -- look, there's some new work, obviously, to do that kind of thing, but it's supportive that they're already getting in front of that. Part of why they're looking at that as to build off the success that we can do under the DOE.

And again, the feature DOE have compared to the NRC. The NRC has been doing a lot of work to get ready to the license advanced reactors. DOE has been licensing in tractors for a long time. So they already have those muscles internally, now they're just using them a little bit differently, externally, and that's hugely beneficial because then NRC going to be able to build off on reference testing. So it kind of keeps the same pace and cadence of operations for what we're trying to do for the Aurora plant but opens the door for accelerated milestones on that. And then additional accelerated milestones for other things going on.

Awesome. Super helpful. And then really appreciate the incremental details around the 20 tons of plutonium reserves potentially being made into 180 tons of Aurora fuel. Can you help me understand what underpins that conversion math or your assumptions because that was a lot more than what we were estimating. And then is this an opportunity for your fuel recycling facility? Or would processing this material require a separate NRC license facility? Because it sounds like that fuel source could accelerate your deployment schedule.

So one of the things that we got -- I love that question for so many reasons. And I'm sure some folks are probably going to be a little nervous going to spend the whole time getting into the technical details, which I'll try not to because [indiscernible] a pre-recorded practice sessions we were thinking about getting really, really deep on all this. Let me rephrase that. I was just doing that because this is one of my favorite things technically.

So to answer your question, Yes. So the key thing about plutonium right, is it's an incredibly useful fissile material as a fuel source. In other words, if you think about HALEU is 19, it's up to 20% less than 20% rich [indiscernible] the balance here in [ 2028 ]. And the fast reactor, pretty much all the [ isotopimplitonium ], but especially the stuffing available, which is mostly [ 239 ] with some [indiscernible] [ 40 and 41 ] in there. But that material, it's a great bridge fuel because it can be a direct replacement for the [ U-235 ] without needing any enrichment right [indiscernible].

So you blended in with uranium. And in our case, you have in zirconium obviously making toll-fuel, but you just blended [indiscernible] with uranium to make a HALEU equivalent [indiscernible]. Now the thing about plutonium is it's an even better fuel than uranium. So you need less of it to get commensurate performance. So on average, and it depends by the variations in flavors in the fuel, but on average, if you basically it's about 11-or-so percent equivalent. So about 11% or so plutonium is equivalent in our reactors and behavior and performance to about 19 -- just under 20% [indiscernible] uranium. So that's where that conversion in math comes from. So that's why it's such a potent fuel form, so to speak.

So that's pretty cool. That's obviously very accelerated for a lot of things. And for that facility, that's one of the things that was encompassed in the pilot program, the fuel pilot program awards and being able to do that kind of work there. at an initial stage on initial scale. So it may, at the end of the day, convert over to a larger scale kind of commercially licensed facility, but to get through some of the initial sources of that material and initial supplies, assuming that that's fully made available and we have access to [indiscernible] on that, then we have the DOE fuel pilot program selections to support that.

It's hard to overstate the significance of the government moving this material away from a $20-plus billion taxpayer funded liability to bury it literally mix it with [indiscernible] sand and burying the desert in New Mexico versus making it available to be a bridge fuel for the advanced reactor industry. And completely changes the [indiscernible] where you knew longer or feel constrained because of that. It's huge, and what's significant about that, obviously, is not just that you can build more reactors sooner but that means you can scale more powerful and significant orders to the enrichment market as well as what we're doing on the recycling side. It's incredible. It is absolutely incredible.

So for me, like that was one of the most exciting things to have happened this year because of what that catalyzes for building more things sooner without like having to be dependent on other factors. And then instead using that basically the ability to build more plants to convert to more fuel orders to then help scale that fuel supply side more quickly. So for a long time at Oklo, we've been working to advocate for government bridge fuel supplies as a key enabler to kick start the commercial fuel supply chain. And I think we're seeing that really take root and open the doors for that to move in a totally different way.

Yes, seriously. It's a really, really significant policy move to enabling the deployment of more nuclear power quickly, more quickly.

And I'll just add one little piece for that. Like not all reactors and fuel fabrication approaches and benefit from plutonium the same. It has different characteristics to it. We just know it works really well in fast tractors because we spend a lot of time developing and researching it for that. So that obviously is part of the benefit of fast reactors and their ability to be quite fuel-agnostic and feel flexible.

Your next question is from the line of Vikram Bagri with Citi.

It's Ted. I wanted to ask about the Pluto test reactor. So it looks like it's going to be deployed after the first reactor at INL. Is this going to be the template for all the future reactors? And what are the differences to Aurora? Is it only that it's going to be run on plutonium? Should we also assume a 75-megawatt size for it? And then just lastly, what are the main learnings that you hope to obtain from this test reactor?

Yes. It's a great set of questions. So basically, it's a little bit different as bespoke to enable the accelerated sort of fast neutron radiation testing capabilities at a system like that can afford. That's important for a couple of reasons. Like part of what we've talked about is at the company right? If you think about what Oklo does, obviously, the reactor part is what people focus a lot on. We sell power, we sell heat. We have these other parts of the business that we had to build to deliver into that [indiscernible] fabrication, which will help us, obviously, make fuel for our reactors, potentially for others, too, which is part of what some of the investments in partnerships, which we announced this quarter touched on.

Additionally, we talked about recycling, which is great because we can make fuel for ourselves as well as potentially for others and sell various materials and isotopes coproducts from that as well as possibly recycling services, all great. And then obviously, the isotype side of the business, which is specifically focused on that.

Part of the reactor part of the story, though, and also somewhat ties over to the isotope side is we are a fast tractor, we use fast. We make fast [indiscernible]. We will have [indiscernible] terms to help test and characterize materials and fuels. That is not a capability that we've had in this country in 30-plus years. And it's not a capability that the Western world has had in a similar time frame, so like in 20 years or so. So it's an important thing that we're bringing to bear. The government set forward on building a big dedicated test reactor, but it was a government program. So it actually had a lot of sort of challenges around it.

What we're doing with Aurora plant and our ability to do that and therefore, also offer that as a potential revenue-generating aspect of the company, which is hey, we have [indiscernible], we can provide rate-easing capabilities, not just for our own use but for others as well as what we're doing on the Pluto side, which expands that and gives us that cadence of experience in a plutonium-based system is pretty accelerative to opening the door for moving into better deals and different materials and expanding the fuel performance envelope so that we can maximize what we do.

We're in a good spot to be able to build and operate, that's great, but there is going to be so much more we can get out of these materials with more end fuels in terms of timing the reactor and just ultimately better economic performance with more data that we can generate using us. So that was part of the incipient to look at doing the Pluto test reactor. It's a smaller system. It's not producing electric power. It's a primary job. I mean as of now, its primary job is focused on making fast neutron. And it's a culmination of activity so I think of it more as a program than just a single reactor that will involve taking simpleton critical, getting some experience doing that with our national lab partners, doing some work around the [indiscernible] handling and management and then moving that into obviously the full scale like Pluto reactor.

The reactor will be smaller in its power production and will also be optimized these plutonium. These plutonium is inherently in the nuclear space, higher worth to use that terminology fuel means we can actually use less overall fuel if we concentrate up the plutonium a bit more, which is what generally speaking process reactors have done. So that means we can kind of use a higher loading of plutonium total less -- total fuel mass, get more thermal power out of it, and therefore, more neutrons to test things with it. And it's a pretty favorable thing to do with that. But the system will give us a very significant amount of repetition about doing the actual work around plutonium fuel fabrication going forward.

The fuel will look, generally speaking, very similar to the Aurora fuel, if we use plutonium in it. In terms of form factor and pipe, it would just use a lower amount of plutonium in it because we have -- what we're designing to in the oral plan is going to be interchangeable between HALEU, [indiscernible] fuel and transgenic [indiscernible] fuel. And that means you kind of dilute the plutonium more compared to what Pluto will do.

When you think about Pluto as a program, it's the cadence to build on top of the fuel [indiscernible] fuel fabrication piece in physical plutonium-reactor part. So over the course of the next year, we're gaining experience with plutonium criticality and work around that. and then we'll move that into the next up of actually building the plants going forward. Those are high-level kind of perspectives on where it goes, but it's a pretty significant enabler for getting those repetitions in our belt and start fueling Aurora plants with plutonium bearing fuel.

Now just to put a number on this, like the thing that's really powerful about moving in this space, like building out these fast neutron radiation capabilities, yes, it opens the door to do additional things for radiation services. You tend to do some additional isotope production using different material types. And yes, it's important because it helps us with ourselves as well as other companies can come to us or government programs should come to us and either rent or buy radiation type time, radiation time or similar types of kind of exposure in the environment to help bring some materials that are quite mature, but need a little bit more to go over the finish line that are inherently basically economically better than what we have to use based on what the experiences are today.

Those are still great because we can make that work. But that looks -- this is a platform for R&D and margin improvement. There's one way to think about it. So anyway, that's kind of the cadence of how we see things.

Got it. That's super helpful. And then I just had one follow-up. On Slide 9, it mentions the breakdown of CapEx by components. And I think it's lifted by number of components. Are you able to share just directionally what that is in dollar terms?

Yes. I mean, I guess I'll kind of hand this over for Craig, if you want to kind of answer some of it, and then I can chime in.

Yes. So I think directionally, we would expect the dollars to be similar to the components. In terms of an actual dollar breakdown, we're still refining a lot of our cost estimates now that we've got [indiscernible] onboard and now that we're deepening some of our procurement activities, and we'll probably have more to share on that going probably into 2026.

Our next question comes from the line of Jed Dorsheimer with William Blair.

I guess first, I don't know if Jake want this or Craig, but just if you could talk a little bit about backlog. I think it was 14 gigawatts, has that changed at all? And maybe just a little bit of color on the discussions that you're having. Is it mostly utility? Is it mostly hyperscaler? Just that breakdown, if you would. And then I have a follow-up.

Yes. Jed, I can take that. So I'd say the 14 gigawatts is still predominantly made up of data center and hyperscaler customers. I think I mentioned to you last time we were on the phone. We've also got other potential customers in the mix that aren't identified customers as part of that 14 gigawatts that could maybe even cause that number to go up. I know the bigger question is, when do you convert that into a PPA. And I'd say we are [indiscernible] on that, with pace and urgency and actively exchanging term sheets. I never want to promise an exact date on when we might announce something because it takes Oklo to be on the same page with the customer. But I'm really pleased with kind of how those commercial discussions are progressing.

And not just on the PPA price, but I think we're also seeing good traction on -- similar to what we were able to achieve with [ Equinix ], which was a prepayment for power. We're also progressing conversations with customers that could convert into prepayment for power or prepayment for fuel or some other asset-oriented contribution to the deal itself.

Got it. That's helpful. Just along those lines, the discussions does as Atomic Alchemy in having that standing up a fueling recycling, even if that's in the future, has that kind of moved some of those discussions along from a supply chain risk? And -- sorry yes, that's...

Well, I would say Atomic Alchemy is probably -- the types of conversations we're having around feedstock for isotope production taking customer discussions into contract conversion. The steps are the same, but it's definitely with different counterparties on both the feedstock side, the supplier vendor side and all of that. But I think we are excited around the tremendous progress that the team is making around the reactor pilot program that Atomic Alchemy was awarded. And in addition, we're also making good progress on the lab scale facility that will be down the road at INL. And I think, as I've said earlier, there is the possibility for the lab scale project that we could be generating revenue and gross margin. It's going to be in the single million dollars, not anything bigger than that, and it won't be exactly ratable. But we're excited about what we might be able to do to actually turn some of that -- the lab scale facility, especially in the gross margin in the first half of next year.

Got it. And then just one for Jake. If I just look at using an EBR for isotope production and isolation, do we need to wait until you get the VIPR up for sort of an [indiscernible] tailoring? Or can that be done in between? I ask because [indiscernible] is really well suited for cobalt and Lutetium, which are being used for sort of the radioisotope or radiopharma market right now? And just curious on the EBR side, whether or not you need that tailored reactor before you can do that or if there's an in-between?

Yes, it's a good question. I mean there's a couple of steps actually to parse that out. So one, there are some things we can do in the near term without a reactor in terms of isotope sort of consolidation and recovery that we are making progress we talked about any update towards in Idaho, where you'll be able to actually have infrastructure and facility capabilities to actually do some of that work and start producing some of the isotopes from those kinds of sources.

But for sort of the most meaningful, and that's great because we get some practice repetition, maybe help accelerate revenue which is cool. But at the end of the day, it helps position us with experience to then move into the next stage, which is where the reactors really unlock significant differentials in performance. And yes, [indiscernible] do that. They're also not in the U.S. And there's a pretty important focus on these production capabilities being in the U.S., not even in our nearest neighbors, right? And so -- and [indiscernible] limited. They can do some things pretty well but they can do everything very well. And the [indiscernible] production reactor design is designed to do pretty much most everything pretty well that you can do with thermal neutron key caveat.

So the nice thing about that reactor is we'll have its prototype up running by the middle of next year. It uses standard pressurized water reactor fuel bundles that are just shorten in height at commercial scale. And that's often instilled with LEU. And it's part of what we were drawn to with this business was it wasn't trying to design because some of the margins and the numbers that these radios isotopes bringing to you. Have drawn some folks in the field to look at really exotic reactors because you can pay for it because of that. So you kind of build like a Formula 1 custom reactor to produce these isotopes when maybe all you need is like a [ 4 to 50-year ] something, something to that. It doesn't have to go quite as fast or be quite as exotic and therefore, way cheaper and easier to build. And that was one of the things that really attracted us to Atomic Alchemy, is we were working with them. So that's one of the features here is what that will enable.

But then there's the other part, which is some isotope, really I would say you best produce, if not uniquely produce in a fast spectrum environment, you need fast neutrons to really do that. And that's where being able to harvest some of the fast neutrons in our fast reactors will unlock those capabilities pretty attractively and then tie that in to the Atomic Alchemy kind of sales channels and global productization and sales channels. And that's a pretty cool feature set that we'll be able to have.

If you look back in the analyst history, the [indiscernible] facility, one of the reactors from which we derive our legacy as a reactor that our Chief Technology Officer has been Chief Technology Officer, spent a lot of time at had quite cool set up to do a bunch of fast neutron like isotope production work, like a ton and pretty attractive economics to go with it. And that was in a somewhat constrained way of thinking about it. And then on top of that, the Russians have been significant players in the isotope market at a global scale because they've been using our fast neutron capabilities to do that, too. So it's a pretty significant game changer that does diversify away from capabilities that you can't do with just thermal [indiscernible] reactors. But at the end of the day, those are pretty important things.

One other thing I'll just throw out that we've talked a little bit about, but it's important to kind of illuminate to go back to the VIPR reactor, one of the things that's designed for is also being able to do silicon radiation which is, generally speaking, the or one of the gold standards for achieving silicon doping right? If you do phosphorus like type vapor deposition or infusion, it's kind of limited in wafer thicknesses and other things like that. Neutrons permeate the material much more uniformly and will then transmute and make that phosphor [indiscernible] happened naturally, and it's a pretty attractive thing. That capability used to be used when it existed in the way because the ability to do that radiation kind of on the way.

So we're also -- that's one of the cool things about VIPR, it could do stuff like that too, right? So a lot of flexibility that you couldn't otherwise do without a system design that be versatile in nature.

Your next question comes from the line of Jeffrey Campbell with Seaport Research.

Congratulations on all the progress. I hadn't planned this one, but I found the last discussion brief as many. So Jake, let me just ask, when you get around to trying to do isotope radiation with an Aurora, are you going to be able to do it in a way that won't interrupt your fuel cycle? You mentioned the Russian reactors, it has kind of a peculiar fuel cycle that allows it to go in periodically and do the irradiation. And of course, they can't do it without any interruption. But typically, reactors have to match their refueling cycle with their radiation. So I'm just wondering if you think about that?

Yes, it's a great question. By and large, like the focus of those reactors is really power production, but some of the flexibility that will be afforded to us by, for example, the word, Idaho as well as the Pluto reactors will give us a lot more flexibility to do more work around those things. So think of it more as imagine some like 4 normal commercial optics, we want to harvest on those neutrons because it makes sense we're going to have to fit it into the power cadence because that's the primary driver. But we'll have some flexibility and some other reactors that will give us more flexibility to kind of match that accordingly because we're going to be doing other testing work.

So there's going to be some interesting planning in coordination like it is for other test reactor or radiation and test reactors to sort of optimize to that and do the trade-offs. But generally speaking, yes, for the vast majority of the focus, if we're going to use any of their fast neutron capacity, would be largely skewed towards minimizing, if not completely avoiding interference on the power operation schedule, while there will be a couple that we'll have more flexibility that we can kind of optimize to on the isotope side if it makes sense to do so.

So it's kind of one of those acknowledgments of yes, we're going to have to look at possibly parsing some of the asset operation schedules, if it makes sense to do, and that's the key question is if it makes sense to do.

Okay. Yes, that makes sense. The other question I wanted to ask you is, if you could give us any update on your proposed natural gas or Aurora partnership with Liberty Energy. Liberty has recently spoken about it at a high level, and they seem to indicate they've been aimed towards large projects. I wondered if there's been any diminished appetite on Oklo side as its progression to Aurora construction has accelerated?

Yes. I think in general, we still see it as a pretty powerful bridge. I think we've seen now several other groups be talking at a broad thematic about the gas to nuclear [ camo ] and bridging capabilities and features that offers. So we continue to see that as a positive thing in different customer discussions. I think what we see in general though, and this is a bit anecdotal. So take it for that. But I think some of the near-term focus and priorities at the moment is around utilizing stuff that's basically on grid to be the nearest term operation will kind of preference, where that will be a key enabler for getting some stuff built or powering [indiscernible] already being built and filling in the power to either meet additionality goals or other kind of feature sets that this can do.

And then that is in parallel happening, but just the temporal nature of the project planning isn't kind of followed by the benefits of being able to bring gas into enable power at a site for either a colocation or near location or even behind the meter approach that gas [ Canadian ] will pretty successfully.

So I mean it's still a pretty powerful feature in market conversations and discussions. But I think at the end of the day, like I don't think there's much diminishment on it. I think if anything there's a lot of validation that it's valuable and it's a future and it continues to kind of evolve and progress.

One of the challenges I think we see in the commercial markets. I don't know if you call it a challenge, but one of the things we've observed is a lot of focus on the hyperscalers has been on the energy objectives they have over the next -- on multi-month scale time frames, right? Maybe that [indiscernible] to 24 months or less but like stats where they're obviously really, really focusing most of their activities is making sure they're in a good position for all of what they need them. And they're increasingly looking at the longer-term views, just given how constrained the power markets are as a whole, realizing they need to expand those horizons and that systematically continue to see evolve and gas as an ability to bring power to a facility or site sooner is pretty powerful.

I still think -- I'll say that I still think that the understanding of the benefits that making fuel government fuel availability, like was it increasing government fuel availability like the plutonium side, which can be quite accelerative to building new [indiscernible] plants faster and more plants fasters. It's still being digested in the market. So like that may have an ability to help show a path to bringing nucleon even sooner, and that's, I think, pretty potent. And I think it's still very early innings for folks understanding of what that means given the nature of it's still pretty fresh.

Yes, that makes sense. But at least I wasn't completely irrational. So I appreciate the color.

Your next question comes from the line of Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald.

Just one question for me. Is there a level of prepayments you need to make to secure some of these long lead time items in either the nuclear, nonnuclear supply chain? And wondering if you can quantify how much capital it will require to just ensure access to those long lead time items as you scale?

I can take that one. So like we're currently working on progressing I don't want to mention the vendor specifically, but some of the other supply chain partnerships we've already announced, and there might be some form of a prepayment, but it's in the -- it's in that 10% range. So it's a number, but it's not significant. And I think one of the reasons, though, that we're so glad about the success we've had around the capital raise is that we can -- we don't need to have capital be a constraint that if we find an opportunity and it makes sense in terms of the returns to do a prepayment because we can get a better price point on the asset, then we can go forth and do that.

Your next question is from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG.

Just a 2-parter on the fuel line pilot at INL. Do you have a target online date? And then the facility was also selected for a DOE program, which you mentioned. And I'm wondering if there's an economic opportunity there as soon as the facility comes online or if that's also something that needs NRC approval to monetize?

Yes. So I just want to understand the Aurora plant, so that is going through DOE authorization to get built and turned on initially and get through some of the initial operational cycles. And then the intent is to move that over into a commercially operating space. I will flag like moving that over to [indiscernible] license is the most likely path. It's not impossible, though, that given some of the dynamics of what's happening on the DOE side that there might be pathways to kind of sell into the government that could exist. We're not planning that that's exactly where it is, but that is something that has been and it was in the EOs and that might be something that does evolve, but the plan is to convert that over to a [indiscernible] that experience you gained. Were sitting to the day is great because you point to real data with the real plant and just move some of that stuff pretty constructively forward.

The Atomic Alchemy plant in Texas, the intent we have on there is to primarily be serving where DOE is. It's not impossible that we go convert it over to a license as well. There's some optionality potentially there. But the general view is keep the DOE facility get the experience of living running it, giving some radiation work, provide them some support to DOE emissions and possibly opening the door for other things. But at the end of the day, that's kind of how we see that and that similarly is kind of how we think about the Pluto reactor as well.

Again, it's possible that there's a feature set to convert many of these facilities or convert these to energy license, all of them to energy licenses, that's a possibility, but the general [indiscernible] is we kind of see the Aurora now being the one that would make the most sense to do that with the other 2, not necessarily, but it depends on some factors that may evolve.

One other thing I'll flag is coming out of the executive orders, one of the things that's mentioned and clearly defined in there, just to highlight is the fact that DOE authorization or DOE authorized facilities can support and provide clinical product right? Whether that be power or heat or isotypes, or whatever it is, to the Department of Energy use cases, that can then by how these things are defined can be and proceed and be built like -- sorry, things that do that work can be under basically authorized under DOE authorization. And that could mean, for example, we are in a position where we build more plants under DOE authorization because they're serving DOE. So that could be something that also occurs. There's nothing firm on that, but just given that the EOs put that out there and it does open the door for the possibilities that, that might be something else.

The nice thing and the key thing here that's so important for why we felt confident and excited to move in this pathway that's accelerative is because it's clear that the understating view, we are working well together and working together to, I would say, be efficient in how work done by one will be complementarily kind of informative to the other. And that's an important kind of capability set. And again, that's evidenced pretty clearly by the recent MOU between DOE and NRC which is supportive of the fact that getting DOE authorization and going through the technical work to do that will be constructive in NRC either licensing in version and or, I should say, really and future NRC license applications for future commercial plans.

And our final question comes from the line of Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers.

What are the prospects for rounding up remaining fuel needs to maximize your made in INL powerhouse to 75 megawatts? And if you don't have it upfront as you commence operations, the later get NRC approval and can commence full commercial sales. At that time, could you refuel to maximum capacity?

Yes. Although given the recent activities and traction around a multitude of kind of fuel policy arrangements as well as what we're seeing in the commercial fuel supply markets. I think we feel increasingly confident that we'll be able to have the fuel needed to run that facility if not immediately at the onset and full power pretty close to the immediate onset of full power. Not that this is the plan because we feel, again, increasing confidence that there's going to be extra HALEU that we can use for that facility from actually a variety of sources, which is the diversity sources as part of the confidence the inspiration of the company.

The other part of it is we can in that reactor if we needed if we were able to get, for example, access to some of that plutonium piece stock, make that into fuel that could be located in commingled with the reactor fuel there. It just means some assemblies would have sound-bearing fuel, some would just be [indiscernible] fuel and you can design it to work just fine in that configuration manner. And given that, that material exists in a pretty much ready to fabricate form, it gives us a lot of confidence in how that can actually kind of proceed. So that's how we see that kind of playing out.

Great. And last for me. To the degree you start employing, which sounds like a great opportunity, this plutonium mix to help bridge quicker plant deployments. Does that have any implications on NRC regulatory process? Do they have to shift because of the new fuel mix and having some plutonium in there? Does that have any proliferation concerns of any kind?

Yes, it's a great good question. There are some inherent things that are a little different. To go back in the history of this plutonium kind of its legacy and policy history. The President's executive orders directed 34 tonnes that was slated for diluted disposed to be made available for reactors [indiscernible]. Before the program of diluted disposed, which is are we going to spend $20-plus billion of tax rate money to just blend the stuff up to [indiscernible] sand and bury it. The program before that was actually fabricated into fuel as part of a joint treaty with Russia at the time for stockpile reduction. And the plan was to take that material fabricated into fuel for light water reactors and then use one reactor what was called the [ MAX ] program and the facility in South Carolina to do that.

That program -- you could spend a long time and for time sake, I'll keep it very simple and a little bit simplistic. That program had significant struggles because plutonium fuel and light water reactors while very doable is inherently something very different than what we do as a country here. So the infrastructure to do all that wasn't necessarily in place because plutonium does behave notably differently in a slow neutron reactor than a fast reactor. It's still behave differently the uranium and the fast reactor, but the difference is more amplified and accentuated in the thermal spectrum or slow neutron reactor, especially water cooled reactor.

And it wasn't something the utilities were really one thing. Fuel markets were not constrained. It was not something that there was a market for. And it was a [indiscernible] government run approach where the facility got way out of controlling costs and everything else because it wasn't mainly driven by a kind of a more, I would say, entrepreneurial or enterprising kind of dynamic.

So the recommended options, the best path coming out of that program basically not being in a spot to not proceed was to actually the technical analysts were to say, okay, the best thing would be to put it in fats factors. But we don't have any fast reactors. So the next best option is just to dilute and dispose it. Well, now we're going to have fast reactors, right, based on what we're doing. So our view is, hey, this is great because [indiscernible], there are other companies developing reactors and other things that can use this material, and there is a fuel crunch. So now we're in a different world or how they think about that.

That facility that I talked about under the light water [ MAX ] program was actually going through and have gone through a -- like all of that was set up to be under NRC per view, generally speaking. And so there's a lot of infrastructure in place and experience around that. So there are some differences with things you need to do on the regulatory side for this. But it's not -- it's generally speaking pretty well known. But what's really powerful too, is that DOE spending kind of with the [indiscernible] program to include the fuel pilot program to help fuel these reactors under the pilot program. They also are sending their authorization capabilities, and they are the ones that already oversee from a [indiscernible] and authorization perspective [indiscernible] work. So it's great to be able to kind of tie in with that. And we've been expanding our partnerships with some of the national labs who have experience doing all that work. So it kind of helps us drive and build out that expertise set in partnership with the experts that we have in this country and kind of accordingly kind of be able to scale that forward.

So that's like -- that's how this core sort of charts. I've got some things that are a little bit different than the earnings side, but nothing significantly departed and stuff that's largely like noble manageable. I mean again, there's controls and elements to it. But generally speaking, this is -- this has a history and [indiscernible] behind it in a multitude of way between DOE and NRC.

Where there is -- and to your other part of the question, where there is kind of an exciting opportunity around this, is the story in the conversation around proliferation. And I say that because the kind of only way to permanently destroy plutonium out of this universally sufficient. So by putting it in the reactors, you're visioning it and you're trying to get into 2 [ fission ] products that like stars have a really hard time synthesizing through Super Novas and to back into plutonium. So that's a [indiscernible] way of saying like this is a pretty good way to get rid of it and generate power in doing so and solve a fuel crunch while doing so.

So if anything, our view is pretty strongly is you obviously apply all the relevant state-of-the-art. And this is something we've leaned into because of our work and recycling in other fields. Applying state-of-the-art capabilities on safeguards and security around managing this material from receipt into fabrication and then into reactors and then in the reactors you're just [indiscernible] in it. So it's actually a pretty cool setup and something that as a country we were due to do. There are some, I would say, predicts out there, mostly just pretty clear antinuclear. [ ADVOCATE ] to have said, "Oh, this is a [indiscernible] concern." I've never understood that because destroying plutonium I think is the best way to get rid of it. Isn't objectively the best way to get rid of it. So yes, it's just a pretty elegant solution to actually get rid of the material.

I think what it really distill that was just like, oh, this is different, and then it's just change. It takes a little bit of time [indiscernible] and people like makes a lot of sense. The other concern is like well, we'll incentivize other countries to do the same, which I would also argue, well, I think if we incentivize other counties to destroy their plutonium that's also kind of a feature in the [indiscernible] world. So not necessarily the worst thing on that front.

And then I think what's important, too, is this is legacy material from [ weapons ] program. As we think about the future and recycling, you're not separating out pure plutonium using state-of-the-art technology, which again gets back to how I think at a policy level, we should be thinking about leading in the world stage. If we, as a country, are as what we announced in Tennessee, recycling material in a manner that does not ever produce pure separated plutonium instead produces uranium transuranic mix that's [indiscernible]. That's that's a good spot to kind of lead from. And so that's kind of how I think about the space.

And with no further questions in queue. I will now hand the call back over to Jake Dewitte, CEO and Co-Founder of Oklo. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you all for joining in today. We appreciate it. There's -- this is the second call since the executive orders were signed. The first call since we had the reactor pilot program and fuel pilot program selection. So it has significantly changed how we think about the regulatory landscape and the regulatory strategy we're employing accordingly.

It's significant in its accelerated features but also in its regulatory derisking features. This aligns pretty well with what we're also seeing in the policy landscape driving sort of a continued focus and effort on modernization not just the Department of Energy, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Our work with the NRC has not stopped. It still continues. But now it gets the benefit and the accelerating benefit of working with the Department of Energy and the National Laboratory ecosystem that supports this, that will help NRC reviews and generally seeking, enable a world where NRC reviews will be accelerated and made more efficient and generally speaking, improved by the experience is already done by the DOE.

DOE have a tremendous track record of safely authorizing and reviewing and overseeing nuclear facilities. And the NRC and DOE, don't forget were born from the same entity, the Atomic Energy Commission. And so there's a lot of kind of common threads. They worked together for a long time, and we're happy to see that, that's kind of continuing and in some ways, they're even getting closer again to work together. And I mean that in a constructively independent way where NRC can use DOE's best resources and information because one of the best ways you can do safety analysis and safety oversight is good understanding of what the system is you're overseeing and leveraging our nation's leadership, technically speaking, that the DOE has, the national labs have to help support that. It's a pretty powerful combination.

So I like to think that we're now kind of moving into this next chapter of this new wave of nuclear that's leveraging the best features of government to its maximum ability and that's a benefit for all of us. Additionally, the opportunities around making more fuel sources available. For example, this plutonium material as well as continued traction and efforts to stand, to build out and invest in and expand the uranium's fuel supply chain are pretty accelerative because the bridge fuel opportunities that the plutonium gives us is a game changer and building more reactors more quickly and using that to help accelerate the investment and development of the uranium enrichment market.

Uranium enrichment is radically undersupplied in this country, practically meaning like 18%, 20%. We need more of it for just our existing plants. And we also needed, of course, where we're making less than 1 time a year, but for HALEU. And so things we can do to help signal more powerful optics orders and investments and therefore, expansion in the HALEU side, supported by building more reactors sooner using bridge fuel is pretty accretive to realizing more fuel supplies and to use maybe a bit of a silly term, dual leadership in [indiscernible] because back in the 1980s, we as a country, had more fuel production capacity, meaning conversion enrichment, de-conversion fabrication in the rest of the world combined. And now we definitely don't. So a big opportunity for how that's proceeding. And bridge fuels are a really important piece of that.

And then on the reactor front, one of the great things about the pilot program and the benefits there is an ability to move into building a big thing that we have long thought from policy would be very supportive of nuclear is to move the front-loaded paperwork to be developed largely or largely as in parallel as possible with the actual building of facilities so that you can do the kind of learning of building while you do the regulatory work so that you know what you're building on to and you know what your licensing. But also you can have a build and then you get the final authorization before you actually load the fuel and actually run the plant. And the DOE pathways allow us to do that. So we can accelerate time lines. And it's bringing forward an ability to start going from -- going from greenfield and the design of a reactor to turning reactors on. And what looks like it's going to be less than 12 months for at least what we're doing on the Atomic Alchemy side as well as some other companies that are pursuing this that were selected under the program.

That's as someone said recently, kind of Manhattan project level speed of being able to do these things. And that's a real feature to moving all of this excitement and enthusiasm into real-world application and the iterations that come from being able to build and build more quickly. So this is a bit of a dream set of scenarios that I think [ Carolyn ] and I long dreamed about when we were starting the company, and it's all coming together in a very, very accretive time for us, not just to be positioned to take advantage of it because of where we are as a company and the maturity we have but also the resources we have to bring to bear to it. So we're very excited that we are selected for 3 of those reactor pilot programs as well as the fuel line programs and executing on that as we also scale forward with additional customer development and future sites and deployment opportunities.

So thank you all.

Thank you again for joining us today. This does conclude today's conference call. You may now disconnect.

Good day, everyone, and welcome to Oklo Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Business Update Call. At this time, I would like to hand the call over to Mr. Sam Doane, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, and welcome, everyone, to Oklo's Second 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, our Chief Financial Officer. Earlier today, following the close of markets, we released our second quarter 2025 financial results. Today's accompanying slide presentation is available on the Investor Relations section of our website.

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. 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. We're starting today's update by highlighting a wave of federal actions that are accelerating momentum behind advanced nuclear technologies and how Oklo is extremely well positioned to benefit. Over the past quarter, we've seen exceptional policy movement from sweeping executive orders to major legislation and national infrastructure strategies. Together, these actions reflect a coordinated federal push to speed up deployment of advanced nuclear technologies, strengthen domestic fuel supply chains and enhance U.S. energy independence.

For Oklo, this shift is highly beneficial. These aren't just favorable signals, they're concrete steps that support faster licensing, faster deployment and better project economics for first-of-a-kind deployments. The next few slides will unpack the most significant drivers, the executive orders, the One Big Beautiful Bill and the Federal AI action plan, all of which align directly with Oklo's licensing strategy, customer partnerships and long-term cost advantage. The executive order signed earlier this year marked a historic shift in federal policy toward advanced nuclear. These executive orders build on legislation from the last Congress and administration to clearly recognize civil nuclear energy as a national and economic security priority. That designation alone reshapes the policy landscape and unlocks access to key government assets, including alternative fuel materials that do not require further enrichment.

When used in advanced reactors like Oklo's, these material stockpiles could be made into fuel for more than 3 gigawatts of powerhouses. Just as important, these orders direct the DOE and NRC to move faster, streamlining regulatory reviews, reforming reactor testing and targeting 3 operational advanced reactors by July 2026. It's rare to see this level of alignment across permitting fuel access and deployment.

The executive orders go beyond signaling support. They include clear directives that align directly with Oklo's strategy. First, they revitalize the domestic nuclear fuel supply chain with a specific emphasis on recycling. Oklo is one of the few fast reactor companies positioned to use downblended alternative fuel materials, which don't require enrichment. This fuel, combined with the industry-leading advances we are making in fuel recycling can give us a significant structural advantage.

Second, the orders prioritize deployment of reactors at national security locations, including AI data centers and defense sites that aligns with where our customers are heading and where our small scalable powerhouse designs excel. Third, the orders mandate licensing reform, capping fees and setting an 18-month review window for new reactors. That level of regulatory clarity and speed will accelerate Oklo's path to market and strongly supports our combined license strategy. And finally, these orders direct DOE to accelerate reactor testing and target 3 operational advanced reactors by July 2026. That's an aggressive timeline and one Oklo could qualify to help deliver on.

The One Big Beautiful Bill signed into law in July delivers a suite of policy wins that are directly aligned with Oklo's business model. First, it preserves robust investment and production tax credits through 2033 that then phase out through 2036. These credits improve our project economics and offer additional certainty for early-stage deployment. Second, the bill strengthens the loan program's office, establishing the energy dominance financing program. This is important because it provides access to long-term capital for projects that can't yet tap traditional debt markets like first-of-a-kind deployments.

Third, it accelerates NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act reviews by setting strict deadlines for environmental assessments and impact statements. That helps reduce permitting delays and improves timeline confidence across our project portfolio. And finally, the bill allows for 100% bonus depreciation for assets that begin construction by 2029 and are in service by 2033. That gives us the ability to capture meaningful tax benefits as we build out fuel and manufacturing capabilities.

The federal government's AI action plan also released in July as a major new dimension to the demand landscape for advanced nuclear. The plan calls for a rapid expansion of AI infrastructure, including high-security data centers and resilient domestic energy systems to support them. It explicitly recognizes that achieving AI dominance requires building new sources of reliable, dispatchable power like advanced nuclear reactors.

Our powerhouses are uniquely suited for this use case, delivering distributed baseload power that can be co-located with mission-critical AI workloads. The policy also calls for streamlining permitting, deregulation and expanded workforce training to support infrastructure deployment. As AI infrastructure scales, we expect both commercial and policy momentum behind advanced nuclear to continue building, and Oklo is focused on delivering power solutions that meet that need.

With that context, I'll turn it over to Craig to walk through how our mission, model and design choices are translating into real execution advantages.

Thank you, Jake. Our mission at Oklo has always been clear to deliver clean, reliable and affordable energy at a global scale. Our co-founder started this company with the belief that advanced nuclear could play a transformative role in the world's energy future. That meant rethinking the entire model from how we design reactors to how we license, fuel and operate them. That vision continues to guide us today, and it's now clearly aligned with where policy, technology and customer demand are headed.

Moving to the next slide. Oklo's competitive edge comes from the intersection of 3 key strategies: our business model, our sizing philosophy and our technology. First, we build, own and operate our powerhouses, selling power under long-term contracts. That creates recurring revenue and enables us to move more efficiently through the regulatory process. Second, our small scalable design allows us to deploy assets quickly, match customer demand in an incremental fashion and significantly tap into existing supply chains with factory fabrication, which reduces site complexity, cuts cost and supports faster rollout.

And third, our technology is based on proven liquid metal fast reactor designs with over 400 reactor years of operating history behind it worldwide. That gives us a deep technical foundation with built-in performance and safety benefits. Importantly, it enables us to move directly into commercialization without the need for a costly and time-consuming demonstration plant. And finally, I really can't emphasize this point enough. It provides flexibility for Oklo to use fresh HALEU, recycled fuel and down blended alternative fuel for our powerhouses.

Together, these advantages position us to deploy at speed and scale with a structure built for long-term growth. This past quarter, we made meaningful headway across all elements of our milestone framework from licensing and project execution to field development, customer growth and strategic partnerships. We advanced our NRC engagement, completing Phase 1 pre-application readiness and saw our licensed operator topical report formally accepted for review. We also took another step towards deployment at scale by selecting Kiewit as our lead constructor for the first Aurora powerhouse at INL.

On the customer front, we expanded our pipeline of commercial opportunities with both the Department of Defense and Liberty Energy and advanced our corporate development efforts through agreements with Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power and Vertiv. We also remained disciplined on spend, keeping our cash burn in line with expectations and ending the quarter with a strong balance sheet.

I'll now hand it back to Jake to walk through the progress we made this quarter across our licensing project and commercial front. Jake?

Thanks, Craig. We continue to make meaningful progress this quarter across our regulatory priorities. We completed Phase 1 of the NRC readiness assessment for the Aurora INL combined license application. The NRC found no significant gaps that would bar acceptance for review, reinforcing our readiness to submit Phase 1 of the application, which we expect to file in early Q4 after incorporating NRC feedback. We also had our license operator topical report accepted for review. This is an important part of our repeatable deployment strategy. It proposes licensing operators by Aurora technology rather than by site. Once approved, this report can be referenced in future applications, streamlining regulatory timelines and supporting scalable deployment.

We're also seeing continued tailwinds across the regulatory landscape. The NRC recently accelerated Terra Power's review timeline by 6 months and introduced new fee reforms, reducing licensing costs through waivers and lower hourly rates. These changes further reinforce the momentum we're seeing and could benefit Oklo's licensing path going forward. And finally, recognizing that there's a lot to track on the regulatory front, we launched a public regulatory dashboard on our website that provides a transparent view of our progress across powerhouses, fuel and radioisotope licensing, helping keep all stakeholders informed as we move forward.

Fuel is one of the most important inputs for advanced nuclear, and it's one of the areas where Oklo has built a significant strategic advantage. Our design enables a differentiated fuel strategy built around 3 complementary sources: access to government stockpiles, commercial supply partnerships and long-term recycling capabilities. This approach provides greater flexibility, cost control and resilience than traditional fuel models.

First, we were awarded 5 metric tons of high-assay low-enriched uranium or HALEU from the Department of Energy in 2019 for our first powerhouse at INL, and we're uniquely positioned to utilize additional government fuel stockpiles made available under recent executive orders, including enriched uranium and plutonium-based materials that don't require further enrichment. These stockpiles, effectively waste materials that would otherwise be destined for costly disposal programs can instead be turned into a productive asset for clean energy by Oklo. Second, we're working with enrichers such as Centrus and Hexium to meet both near-term and long-term commercial HALEU needs. Centrus supports early deployment with available domestic supply, while Hexium's next-generation atomic vapor laser isotope separation or AVLIS enrichment technology could enable lower cost scalable production over time.

And third, our fast reactors can use recovered nuclear material from both today's nuclear fleet and future advanced reactors, positioning us to recycle fuel over time and build a vertically integrated long-term supply model. Together, these efforts form a comprehensive and resilient fuel strategy, one that supports near-term deployment, while building long-term supply independence.

As mentioned, fuel is a critical enabler for advanced nuclear deployment. That's especially true for HALEU, which comes with its own cost dynamics. Enrichment is measured in SWU or separative work unit and so are its costs. Cost of enrichment are actually driven by both ore and enrichment process efficiency. Producing 1 kilogram of HALEU requires roughly 35 to 60 SWUs plus 30 to 50 kilograms of natural uranium depending on market conditions that can create a wide range of cost outcomes.

That said, Oklo's design and business model position us well for this market. We benefit from needing consistent high-volume fuel across many small units. That matches well with enrichment module capacities and allows us to scale demand over time. Smaller cores also mean more units in the field, creating steady annual uptake that supports long-term supply agreements. We're also watching next-generation enrichment closely. Laser-based approaches like Atlas could unlock more cost-effective batch-friendly production over time. Our engagement with Hexium positions us to benefit as that innovation matures.

In short, we're managing HALEU costs in the near term, while building a supply model that reduces volatility and lowers long-term fuel exposure. Oklo's fuel strategy isn't just well designed. It's being executed today to support rapid deployment and long-term resilience. We've secured HALEU from DOE for our first commercial unit and our fast reactors are uniquely capable of using down-blended uranium and plutonium-based fuels, stockpiles that would otherwise be slated for disposal. With recent policy changes unlocking access, we can fuel dozens of early units from existing government material.

We're also executing on commercial partnerships, Centrus for long-term HALEU and Hexium for long-term innovation. Their Atlas technology could materially improve enrichment economics over time. And our fuel strategy doesn't stop at procurement. We're building towards recycling. Oklo's reactors are designed to run unrecovered fuel, supporting a close fuel cycle and long-term resilience. This isn't just a vision for the future. We're operationalizing the strategy now with a model designed to scale.

There's a growing consensus that nuclear power is fundamental to the country's energy future, but historically, costs and time delays have held it back. Nuclear power is already the most land and material-efficient energy source, but decades of legacy design, complex safety systems and custom-built construction have driven up both costs and timelines. At Oklo, one of the reasons we're in a strong position today is the disciplined approach we've taken to design and cost engineering from the outset.

Our liquid metal sodium cool design enables inherent and passive safety, reducing the number of safety grade systems we need. That simplifies our architecture, streamlines regulatory reviews and lowers both capital and operating costs. We've also minimized the physical footprint of each powerhouse and designed around supply chain scalability, leveraging conventional components and proven industrial partners.

In the next few slides, we'll talk through how these choices translate to faster and more cost-effective deployment, starting with our supply chain and system architecture. This is where our design and supply chain strategy come together to deliver real execution benefits. Roughly 70% of our powerhouse components are sourced from nonnuclear supply chains, industrials, energy and chemicals, for example. These sectors offer mature, scalable manufacturing capabilities that we can tap into today at lower cost and with shorter lead times than traditional nuclear fabrication.

This isn't just about lowering cost. It's about reducing schedule risk as well. By designing around standardized shippable components like the reactor module, steam generators and power conversion system, we simplify installation, support parallel builds and minimize on-site construction complexity. We've also reduced the number of safety-grade systems by designing for inherent and passive safety. That helps streamline procurement and reduces the regulatory burden on our supply chain.

Our preferred supply agreement with Siemens Energy is a great example of this strategy in action, and we continue to build out that ecosystem with more partnerships to come as those deals reach commercial readiness. These decisions help us scale faster, deliver sooner and meet the needs of customers who value both certainty and speed.

We're also pleased to announce that we selected Kiewit as the lead constructor for the Aurora INL powerhouse. Kiewit is one of the most experienced engineering and construction firms in the country with deep expertise in complex energy infrastructure, including nuclear projects. Their capabilities go beyond construction. They also bring integrated procurement as well as asset and component fabrication capabilities that align well with our modular repeatable design approach.

We've entered into a master services agreement with Kiewit intended to support the full scope of design, procurement and construction for the Aurora INL project. Preconstruction activities are scheduled to begin this quarter, including site mobilization, early procurement and groundwork. We're targeting a preconstruction groundbreaking in late Q3. This partnership and these efforts help ensure we're positioned to deliver our first powerhouse on a realistic executable schedule with commercial operations targeted between late 2027 and early 2028.

In parallel, Atomic Alchemy, our radioisotope business has also begun site characterization work on its commercial isotope production facility at INL and submitted its materials license application through the NRC for its demonstration facility, continuing momentum on facility development for domestic radioisotope production. The demonstration facility will also produce revenue-generating isotopes, marking an early step toward commercial operations.

We also signed a memorandum of understanding with Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, one of the largest and most experienced nuclear operators and builders in the world. The agreement is focused on exploring opportunities to collaborate across a range of areas, including project development, licensing, manufacturing and supply chain coordination. This partnership reflects a shared interest in deploying advanced reactors globally and in continuing to drive innovation across the nuclear value chain. It also aligns with our broader strategy of forming international partnerships that can support commercialization and accelerate deployment.

As part of our work with data center customers, we also announced a joint development agreement with Vertiv, a leader in data center infrastructure. The partnership focuses on co-developing integrated power and cooling solutions that take advantage of our ability to co-locate power generation and compute infrastructure. With Vertiv, we're building smarter nuclear power systems for compute-intensive infrastructure that could be a huge win for our customers.

Vertiv will use steam from our powerhouses to drive chillers, improving the overall energy efficiency of the data center. This helps reduce total energy costs and allows customers to streamline infrastructure with a single integrated solution. It's a strong example of how we're working directly with customers and infrastructure partners to deliver tailored solutions at the core of their operations, not just selling power, but operating integrated value where it matters most.

We continue to have active discussions with other commercial partners and suppliers to round out our deployment ecosystem, ensuring we can deliver scalable energy infrastructure with speed, reliability and efficiency.

With that, I'll hand it over to Craig to expand on our commercial momentum and walk through the financial and customer updates from the quarter.

Thanks, Jake. One of the partnerships we're very excited to highlight this quarter is our work with Liberty Energy. Liberty was an early investor in Oko while we were still a private company and former CEO, Chris Wright, served on our Board prior to his appointment as the United States Secretary of Energy. We are excited that there continue to be opportunities to collaborate with Liberty in a meaningful way. This partnership is designed to solve a very real customer challenge, how to access reliable power now with a clear path to zero carbon baseload power over time.

Together, we have the potential to offer a fully integrated solution that starts with Liberty's gas generation and load management platform that can transition to Oklo's nuclear powerhouses as they come online, providing a faster path to clean energy. This is a strong validation of Oklo's business model. It demonstrates how our powerhouses can integrate with existing infrastructure to deliver a phased approach that's flexible, financeable and customer aligned.

Customers get the uninterrupted energy today and a long-term certainty around clean baseload power. And together, we're building a joint commercial platform designed to scale. We are finalizing the commercial structure of the partnership and believe this is a scalable blueprint for high-power demand sectors that prioritize reliability and long-term energy certainty.

We were also selected by the U.S. Air Force as the intended awardee for what would be a first advanced vision deployment at a U.S. military installation. Under the terms of the Notice of Intent to Award or NOITA, Oklo was identified as the successful awardee to design, construct, own and operate a powerhouse that would deliver both electricity and heat under a long-term purchase agreement. This represents a major milestone both for Oklo and for the broader advanced nuclear sector. It reflects growing recognition of the role nuclear power can play in national security and energy resilience, particularly at distributed and remote sites where reliable power is mission critical.

Oklo is actively working with the U.S. Air Force and Defense Logistics Agency, or DLA, on next steps, and we look forward to providing further updates as the process advances. I will now provide a summary of our financials.

Oklo's second quarter operating loss was $28 million, inclusive of noncash stock-based compensation expense of $11.4 million. Oklo's loss before income taxes in the second quarter was $24.3 million, which reflects our operating loss adjusted for net interest income of $3.8 million. On a year-to-date basis, when adjusting for noncash stock-based compensation charges, changes to working capital and deferred income tax benefits, the cash used in operating activities equates to $30.7 million. We still expect on a full year basis, cash used in operating activities to be within the guided range of $65 million to $80 million that we disclosed at the start of this year.

In addition, based on our earlier discussion points in this company update, we now see an opportunity to potentially accelerate some modest CapEx investments from 2026 into 2025, which could include advancing deployment activities at INL before year-end, progressing fuel supply and fabrication activities in response to the executive orders and other activities to deploy powerhouses beyond INL.

We also completed a successful marketed first follow-on equity transaction on June 12, generating $460 million in gross proceeds, providing the company with additional cash on hand to deliver our enhanced growth agenda. And as a result of the capital raise, we ended second quarter with approximately $683 million in cash and marketable securities on our balance sheet.

To wrap up, I want to briefly highlight why we believe Oklo is one of the most compelling opportunities in the advanced nuclear industry. We're deploying proven fast reactor technology in a compact, scalable format designed to reduce cost, complexity and deployment timelines. We are vertically integrated across power generation, fuel recycling and radioisotopes, unlocking multiple high-value revenue streams.

Our business model is built around long-term power sales, delivering recurring revenue, margin visibility and customer stickiness. We are pursuing superior economics through standardized design, repeatable deployment and recycled fuel that drives long-term capital efficiency and competitive levelized cost of energy. Our 14-gigawatt pipeline spans data centers, defense, utility and industrial customers, reflecting strong and growing demand. And we've developed a streamlined licensing strategy aligned with our business model backed by regulatory expertise, a repeatable collo path and accelerating federal tailwinds. At its core, Oklo is more than a technology company. We're building an energy platform to serve the world's next era of growth.

Thank you for your time. Operator, we are now ready to take questions.

The first question today comes from Jeffrey Campbell from Seaport Research Partners.

Congratulations on all the multifaceted progress. Regarding pressurized water reactor fuel, current law appears to dictate that the DOE cannot take title to utility stent fuel until a permanent disposal site is designated. What's your take on how this might be amended to support Oklo's future recycling effort? And I ask this question in the atmosphere of the significant nuclear power push that's been coming from the executive orders and the deal to fiddle.

Yes. Thanks, Jeff. It's a good question. So, as the law stands and the policy stands, there's nothing that gets in the way of us being able to work with utilities and the government to take the material and actually recycle it. The main challenge is, generally speaking, having the infrastructure facility to do it. There are some logistical dynamics about what's the best and most efficient path given kind of the nature of the situation, which is that -- by definition, the Department of Energy is supposed to be disposing of this material in a repository that is not happening. So, the Department of Energy is reimbursing effectively the utilities for holding a material on site because they fail to meet their duties under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

That said, we have a great opportunity to help address a lot of that. And it kind of hits on 2 fronts, right? Like the biggest thing for us is it allows us to deal with fuel supplies. I mean used fuel is effectively 90-plus percent unused fuel. And with recycling, you can actually tap into and harness that material and use it. That's a massive reserve of material. And very importantly, advanced recycling techniques like what we're doing, coupled with a fast reactor like what we're doing, enable you to do that in a very cost transformative way. The paradigm that has largely existed in the academic sphere has suggested nuclear recycling is economically challenging, that maybe arguably has some legs to stand on in the era of much lower fuel costs and when you're trying to produce a fuel that today's light water reactors can use, which requires a much higher purity fuel form, that's not the case with a fast reactor. You can tolerate a much lower sort of purity fuel form. In other words, you can have all the transuranics mixed up together and comingled.

The implication then is therefore a lower cost facility, which then you're amortizing a lower cost over more fuel throughput, which means the actual fuel produced from recycling will be a much lower cost even we think, than fresh fuel, like considerably less. So that's a pretty attractive paradigm for that alone, especially given that when we look at how do you meet the order book and how do you scale into the opportunity, tapping into recycling is a massive upside. But it also helps change the paradigm around waste management considerably, right?

So, you're taking a material, you're reducing volume substantially. You still produce, no matter what you do, some high-level radioactive waste that will need some form of disposition. But you change the characteristics of it radically in recycling. Generally, you shorten the half-life to be something that decades away in several hundreds of years, not hundreds of thousands of years and you change the nature of the form factor because you reduce the volume, but you can also then co-alloy these fission products to things that you need to dispose of with things like glasses or metals or things like that, all of which open up much more different -- well, you have just a much larger diverse set of opportunities and options for disposal and disposition, which is great because you can create a much more, I would say, community-oriented kind of consent-based siting approach for how you dispose of this, not to mention interim storage becomes a lot more palatable because of the nature of the material and having less volume.

That said, some utilities have a different push and pull to get this done sooner than later. Others are sort of taking a little bit of a more, I would say, conservative approach waiting for some of these infrastructure plays to come out to bear. In other words, let us build -- waiting for us to build and start operating before they're going to want to jump into something. But we're finding some constructive engagement with folks to figure out how do you actually find the optimal path to move this material over to us to then be able to fuel it and find the right sort of pathway that manages the different stakeholders, right, from a risk and sort of title perspective in the best way.

There is a reality that what we're doing is also a pretty considerable service to managing these fuel to the government who has the title to dispose of it for the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And therefore, has some benefits that are pretty helpful there. Not to mention, there are some other things we can do, right? We can take some of those fission products that will be disposed of. There are some industrial medical applications for some of those. And I think another kind of key part of this is the fact that really reducing the volume really changes how we think about this stuff.

And then I think from the utility side, the most interesting fuel for us to start with is actually the freshest fuel out of the reactor. In other words, the stuff that's in the pools today, not the stuff in the casks. That stuff is also interesting, but if we had to pick and choose, we'd pick the pools stuff first, which is great because that's where the most kind of constrained pressure is in storage. So all in all, like I actually think that on the heels of the executive order, which make it clear that this is going to be a direction that we move into, it builds on work that came from the Biden administration. And before that, from Trump 1, we find that we're in a spot to be executing fully and to actually developing out the right sort of plan to site, locate, build this facility and start receiving and actually recycling material and producing fuel. All that does take time.

We've been at the pre-application and site selection work for a long time here, but it's all lining up for us to be kind of accelerating to move a little bit faster, especially given how much it unburdens us on the fuel side.

No, that's great color. And we could also add that the taxpayers are currently paying for the storage of the fuel. So there might be an argument there as if there's any resistance to moving that waste towards Oklo. I just wanted to ask you, sticking with fuels. Can you provide some color on the recently announced Atlas effort? It appears Hexium is most focused on Atlas for lithium to produce Tritium at this time. So I was interested to hear how the shift to uranium might be accomplished. I mean I'm aware of the history of Atlas, I mean what's specific to Hexium, how we move them to uranium.

Yes. I'll just give you a little more color for everyone's benefit. Jeff, talking about Atlas, it's atomic vapor laser isotope separation. It's one of the more promising techniques for isotope separation using some pretty cool technology. I mean, like you combine lasers, isotope separation, it's pretty cool stuff. But it has significant improvements in efficiency, cost and operational characteristics that generally speaking, suggest a lower levelized cost of separative work unit or levelized cost of enrichment unit than centrifuges do in the current paradigm, which has significant upside for reducing the overall cost of fuel delivered to our systems.

The techniques used for Atlas can be tuned for a number of different isotopes and Hexium initially was starting to focus on looking at some of the work with lithium just given some of the dynamics that they saw with opportunities for that. But they also saw the opportunities in uranium part of the reason that bringing them in markets and help them sort of move that technology forward. They come out of the same -- in many ways, the origination of a lot of this technology was focused on enrichment capabilities for things like uranium, so the ability to use it for that as well as some other, by the way, stable isotopes that are relevant to the medical isotopes part of the business that we have.

They all kind of are actually complementary. So that's part of how we're looking at these partnerships is the ability to produce isotopes in high-purity forms for different use cases. Obviously, the big attractive one is enriched uranium for fuel, but there's also important aspects about producing higher-quality targets with enriched isotopes for radiation and Atomic Alchemy facilities or even just selling the products themselves.

So that's an area where we continue to be engaged and focused on in finding the right ways to partner and kind of deepen the partnerships we have in those spaces. Again, sort of at the high level, enrichment is, I think, at this place where we're, for the first time, seeing a pretty significant -- let me rephrase this, first time in a little while, probably in the last 20 years that we're seeing a pretty significant pressure of new technology coming forward because of technology R&D, coupling with an opportunity in the market with this massive demand for new enrichment capacity that's bringing forward new and more innovative approaches that have the potential to significantly change cost curves.

Atlas has a long history behind it. And I would argue the large -- largely the reasons it didn't get commercialized on the first go where the market was pretty soft, uranium demand back in the '90s. It wasn't clear if those investments were going to be worthwhile. And then the other factor is, we've gotten a lot better at laser techniques like a lot better technologically in the last 30 to 40 years. So, it's really changed the paradigm to make it an interesting time now for this, which is why we're at that opportunity, while also continuing to engage with folks who are working with more established center use technologies like Centrus.

The next question comes from Sherif Elmaghrabi from BTIG.

On the deal with Liberty, I imagine some of those customers are members of that 14-gigawatt pipeline that you've got. But it's interesting on the revenue side, could Oklo start recognizing revenues sooner, say, when those projects are seeing gas -- generating power from gas?

I can take that. So, it's still early days for how we turn that agreement into an actual set of commercial terms and conditions with our customers, and I'm not really at liberty to no pun intended to say who we're progressing those discussions with. But yes, you're correct. If there was a mechanism whereby we participated in early power sales, and that could potentially lead to revenue recognition for the company.

Okay. Interesting. And Jake, one more. In your prepared remarks, you mentioned that you guys have one of the only reactor designs that can run on down blended fuel. Can you just speak to why that is? I thought that was pretty interesting.

Yes. It's a great question. I think it kind of has a bunch of details into it that obviously I can like to get into. But for times like, I'll be a little brief. There's kind of a couple of ways to look at it, right? So down blended high enrich uranium that's fresh, highly enriched uranium, by and large, is probably going to be useful for most everyone. That said, there's not a lot of that material that's coming available. The material we're seeing is typically stuff that's either going to have been rejected for prior use because of some level of impurity contamination or because it was already irradiated in reactors.

In both cases, especially in the latter, you build up isotopes in the nuclear space, we call those the isotopic vectors, but isotopes of uranium that are not conducive to use in reactors that use moderators and slow the neutrons down. I think pretty much any reactor that uses TRISO fuel or graphite moderators or water is equivalent, they can't really use those very well without significant neutron penalties because of the nature of some of those isotopes, whereas in a fast spectrum reactor, it's really not that significant. It's even a penalty at all, so you can handle those materials.

Furthermore, the other aspect that's interesting here is another source of this material is the excess plutonium inventories that for the President's executive orders are being made available to industry. That's a sizable opportunity that's honestly, I think, kind of hard to overstate because of the potential implications it has. We're talking about that material could be made into hundreds of thousands of kilograms of HALEU equivalent material. But the nature of that material is heavily biased towards, I would call it, a more streamlined usage and designed to accommodate in fast neutron reactors. And the reality gets into a lot of details, but plutonium-based fuels have a long history of sort of their usage in fast reactors. They also have usage in water-cooled reactors and can be used but there doesn't exist the fuel fabrication infrastructure to support that. And it's a lot more complicated from a reactor -- let me rephrase it.

It can be a lot more complicating with the core design and reactor design from what we do today. The French obviously do this, the Japanese have done it, it's solvable, but it introduces a change that isn't exactly the most -- isn't one that I'd say today's operating plants are rushing into necessarily, given that fresh LEU is a superior fuel form. And part of the reason is just because plutonium has a very different -- it's much more absorbing of neutrons, both to fission and to just capture than uranium 235 is the low energy spectrum. It's also in the higher energy spectrums, but that delta causes a lot of localized kind of dynamics that you really have to account for and manage against a light water reactor. Again, doable. But in a fast reactor, it's just frankly, easier to achieve and accommodate. And also the fuel fabrication for plutonium bearing materials using the fuel, which is like what we use can just be done in a way that from a facility design and management perspective, generally speaking, has just simpler considerations than around, for example, fabricating into oxide fuel for light water reactors. So there's a lot of nuance around it, but it's one of the key things that's pretty attractive and differentiating for us. And we see those materials as being pretty valuable and the opportunity to sort of bridge us you use those materials in the near term that then help us alleviate the demand need for HALEU in the very near term, which then gives us a lot more grace as those supply chains build up so that we can start shipping fuel and reactors more quickly as a result of that.

So that's one of the things we're working towards and are excited about on the heels of those executive orders.

J. Dorsheimer from William Blair has the next question.

Jake, first question for you is just as you look at your pipeline and as you look at the opportunities and conversations, I'm curious how you're thinking about the opportunities behind the meter versus front of the meter is there seems actually to be almost more excitement behind the meter around data center build-outs. And so I'm just curious how your -- how you would think of the power generation domestically split between those 2? And then I have a follow-up.

It's a great question and what we see is it's evolving pretty considerably and kind of just goes at the pace of different opportunities and different announcements of kind of everything from policy to build-outs to actual projects. So, I think what we're finding is paper, I would say the bias is majority focused on behind-the-meter applications and opportunities. But the practical reality of getting to that seems to focus probably more near term on some front-of-the-meter deployments before that happens. And what I mean by that is I think it depends, right, because we are in conversations, we were talking about Liberty have the nature of both of those happening. It's just that delivering kind of the right suite, which is part of why the partnership with Liberty is so important, delivering the right suite of options to deliver power at that reliability and availability rate.

I'm confident that in time, nuclear can demonstrate and validate it and do that. But to start with, like it's just a little bit more economically challenging to do it on a pure nuclear solution versus having a diversified fuel source. So long story short, I think we're finding that in many ways, the behind the meter is more elegant on paper and makes a lot more sense. But in some of the near-term actual deployment realities and implications, being grid tied and connected to it is helpful. Now I'm sorry, Jed, I'm probably over-interpreting towards more -- when I say behind the meter, being I'm saying truly behind the meter with like minimal expectation of the grid. I think where you're behind the meter and you're connected to the grid, that is kind of probably that near to midterm sweet spot while all these things evolve. But I do think there's, generally speaking, some degree of preference there, but we also see, in some cases, the front of the meter has some high value in certain markets. But I feel like I'm just kind of giving you a long rambling answer to say we're seeing it's a mix and it varies heavily by state, by location, by customer, but it does feel like probably the weight of it prefers a behind the meter offering in time.

Yes, you hit on it. I mean I think the hybrid was really what I was getting after. It seems to be where most of the demand is developing right now around SMR. So that's why I was asking. As my follow-up, just shifting gears on the radiopharma market, it's about a $30 billion opportunity. I'm just curious, is there a -- and growing, I should say. As you look at the isolation of particular isotopes, obviously, small quantities can sell for a tremendous amount of money. Are there specific isotopes that you have an inherent advantage or moat around given your processing capability that you're going to be focused on? I'm just curious as those might be specific to certain drugs or applications. Any more details around that would be helpful.

Yes, I love it. It's awesome. And we have -- there's so much more that will be unfolding going forward on this because you are nailing exactly it, which is how do we prioritize select and where are the ones we have sort of unique advantages into. So, starting at a high level, like what we see is there are some near-term opportunities on a couple of sort of isotopes that we're going through looking at what those markets like -- and kind of the supply chain pieces are to prioritize as part of some of our pilot efforts that are happening out in Idaho right now. But then from there, we see a pretty significant scaling advantage, and we're looking at ways to get engaged in and possibly even opportunities to maybe invest into the supply chain or at least partner in the supply chain to sort of enhance what we see as some of the moats that we can build and have in terms of some of the production of either sourcing of stable isotopes or just rocked targets.

But I think at the -- at scale, so I'm kind of giving you a little bit of an answer of come back again because we're going to have a lot more as it comes. But I think at scale, the other thing we see is that part of the angle of why we're attracted to Atomic Alchemy, it's kind of twofold integration. One is the benefit of being able to pull stuff out from recycling where we do have some isotopes that are going to be made in bulk quantities, things like Stronium 90 in particular, but there's a bunch of others that have interesting potential industrial applications that are -- could be unlocked at scale in a voluminous way based on what recycling can tap into, which is a pretty cool space to be in.

So, there's that kind of piece. And there is some a lot of those isotopes are generally going to be longer-lived isotopes that are held up in the waste because most of this waste has been decaying for some time. So, there's that part and unlocking some of the things you can do with those that right now, frankly, don't really exist. And that's one of the hard things, but cool things about this is some of the stuff we're going to pull out and going to be able to pull out. People haven't even bothered to look into the use of it because it's just not available to even research with or study very much, so they don't prioritize it. But we expect this first to nucleate an entirely different ecosystem and philosophy around research and development around different isotopic uses because of all of a sudden it becoming available.

And then additionally, there's a direct production kind of on a specific basis of radiating targets and producing that material, which is part of what we were attracted to Atomic Alchemy's Viper reactor design to do, given that we see it as one of the sort of most cost attractive options we've ever seen, where it's kind of a -- I'm going to use a very blunt kind of analogy, it's not maybe the best, but like instead of building -- designing and building a custom Formula 1 race car to produce some of these isotopes that's extremely expensive, but can produce some of these isotopes and the cost of those isotopes actually can justify doing so.

So, it's fun from a technical perspective for sure. It makes the deployment development everything really, really hard on those, which is why a lot of these reactors haven't been built. Instead, Atomic Alchemy took an approach saying, "Hey, let's just build like a Ford F-150 version of a reactor that does the job, maybe it's not as fast as some of these other things, but it's totally buildable, suppliable today, and you can build a lot more of them and just have -- make neutrons more cheaply than maybe anything else to irradiate these materials and produce them. So that then allows us to tap into those known isotope fields with a potential vector being more cost competitive than what exists or just lower cost of production, frankly, than what exist.

That said, I think those markets seem to be in many ways today in an inelastic state of demand. So, you just keep supplying and they're going to take as much as you get, but there's also the case where having that capacity and that flexibility and that versatility of different isotopes can actually open the door to do more things. So I'm kind of giving you a non-answer, Jed, but it's partly because we'll have more to talk about there soon, but also part of this is actually looking at what this opens the door to incentivize and create an ecosystem that thinks more broadly out of the mindset of abundance of different isotopes that right now, people can't even think about using. So, there's the usual players, but I think there's a lot more that could be coming in the horizon because now we can focus on how we can actually produce those and not be as scarcity limited as we have been.

So yes, I think it's -- like you said in your comments, it's that size market and I think growing. I think that's one of the things we see as a way to unlock even more growth is by sort of bolstering production and availability of a much more diverse set of radioisotopes, but then we'll get more use cases of them because people will bother to actually invest and use them, which you can think about creates a really cool ecosystem to be a pretty significant part of. So that's part of how we see that playing out.

The next question is from Ryan Pfingst from B. Riley Securities.

First, could you give us a sense of potential timing around Eielson project milestones or maybe just how licensing and development might differ for projects located on military or defense installations like that one?

Yes. It's a fascinating question because the reality is all shifted a lot on the heels of the executive orders being signed. Obviously, a strong focus on those was leveraging defense use cases and accelerating defense use cases. This is a great one of those. But it does set the stage for some interesting things to be supportive of either more streamlined or potentially, I would say, more like focused and therefore, potentially faster reviews on the environmental and fighting aspects of this. The Air Force has pursued through the Eielson project, and they want -- they want us to get an NRC license for this plant. So that's the general plan.

Of course, they also have the capability of the Defense Department to authorize on their own. So should that be something they want to do for other deployments or in different cases or even do different things, they have that optionality, which is kind of cool. That said, the nature of that facility and working in Alaska is, of course, interesting and unique. And so, we're going through the aspects of actually getting all of that work in motion and the siting work to then sort of come forward with what the timelines and the various details of that are going to look like with respect to like application submission timelines, wind of expect to break ground, do all that kind of stuff.

Given that you have a short construction window, given all of those factors, it's obviously very seasonal. It's like we have to kind of play with and optimize against those. So, what we expect at the moment is going forward, we'll be able to get into the more detailed site work and everything we would need to do really next summer and then the schedules will kind of anchor in accordingly from there. But it's all actively developing as part of this path. And I think the Air Force has said this a couple of times in a couple of ways, but I think of it as the pathfinder aspect of this. They see huge opportunity for what nuclear can do to bolster their mission capabilities. And I think what they want to see is how we can or what they want to do is be able to work with the industry to find ways to deliver that in different models of what that needs to look like.

One of the things you're constrained by any time you're working with the government is their contracting structures and mechanisms. And so also in addition to working with those and finding the right pathways for that to do the things that they want to see happen. A heavy amount of focus from Defense Energy in the past has been using defense land to build renewable projects that are effectively shipping off the grid. Maybe the defense department is benefiting some from that, but this is different, right? This is internal facing and so prioritized. I mean, it's cool, it's a little different, but pretty cool, but also opens the door for just the combination of different approaches of how we optimize that. And additionally, it's not just electricity they're buying, there's a lot of steam that they're buying from our plants, too.

So, what that means is if you think about what a nuclear system is, it's primarily producing heat. Typically, you produce that -- you turn that heat into electricity. But in this case, you siphon off some of that heat before it gets turned into electricity and actually use it to heat infrastructure. And that has obviously a lot of value for a lot of reasons. So especially up in Alaska. So, it's a little bit of a -- it's developing and we're working through all those pieces, and we'll continue to keep sort of the market updated as that progresses. But that's how it's sitting -- basically how it's progressing and how it's sitting up now.

Yes. I appreciate that, Jake. And then for my second question, shifting away from the federal side to commercial customers. How should we think about LOI to order conversion at this stage? Does the Liberty collaboration and some of the other partnership announcements you've made recently accelerate when we might see a firm order with one of the data center customers that's in your pipeline today?

Yes, I'll start with a little bit and then ask Craig to jump in as well. But I think in general, it's supportive in opening up different apertures of the conversations. But as we've said generally in the past, what we find is the demand isn't going anywhere. The opportunity in the market is pretty significant. The details are then figuring out the right ways to constructively build long and deep partnerships that really manage kind of the various aspects of these projects and the deployment realities in a much more sustainable and scalable way than just rushing into a PPA to make it sound kind of a little bit simplistic in how I answer that.

But that is kind of the reality, which is we continue to keep these conversations at pace, and we continue to find a lot of enthusiasm and excitement. It really just seems to be as we kind of progress these things, the opportunity space of what's possible in terms of deepening and strengthening ties is looking at all parts of sort of the ecosystem to be supportive of our success and also, honestly, candidly, the success of the nuclear industry as a whole. And we're excited about the positioning we have to kind of help lean into that. But yes, I mean, on the Liberty side, it does help set the stage for doing some things a little more, I would say, well, a little different cadence in Tempo in some cases where you have that gas infrastructure. And what we continue to see is that the focus tends towards nuclear is a long-term solution, gas having a lot of opportunity in the near term. And really a cool thing for us is, we've been kind of pioneers in that bridging gas to nuclear on a new capacity, new deploy perspective.

And I think we're seeing how that kind of unlocks thinking about different sites and different cadencing in different ways. But yes, so I'd say it does help. It kind of changes some of how we kind of cadence and tempo some of these customer discussions. But at the same time, we're still kind of focused on the macro, trying to make the most of the opportunity, if that makes sense through kind of the right partnerships. I've talked for a long time, though, Craig can add some more detail and color.

Yes, I would just say partnerships take time. And because we're trying to do things beyond just optimizing on a PPA price, I think it will take us a little bit longer to get things in place, but for all the right reasons. Our business development team stays quite busy and is traveling quite a bit, and they're keeping the legal and finance team quite busy as well. So, I think we're moving things. And it also a little bit goes back to Jed's earlier question around -- I think it's safe to say that the interest in front of the meter feels like it's grown a lot in the last 12 months. And I think that's also where we're trying to be customer responsive as we progress those customer discussions.

And as I think I've said, Ryan, probably on earlier calls, we're entertaining prepayments like what we did with Equinix, things we might do at the asset level investment. And so there's a whole host of avenues of things that we're exploring with our customer base at the moment.

The next question comes from Derek Soderberg from Cantor Fitzgerald.

My congrats as well on the capital raise. I'll just keep that one question here. Jake, in the prepared remarks, you mentioned TerraPower's regulatory timeline. I think you said it's sped up by 6 months. I was wondering what the reason for that was? What did that entail? And are you already seeing some tangible benefits from the executive orders on regulatory timelines? Could Oklo see a sizable timeline shift forward as well?

Yes, I appreciate the question. I think that's one of the exciting things is we've seen the NRC be quite responsive and take an approach lines that reflects clearly what the policy objectives and goals of this administration are to move those things more quickly based on what they did with TerraPower. And we're similarly seeing benefits. It's interesting when we went public, when you kind of had a review path of 24 to 36 months to then the ADVANCE Act capping things and the different contingencies around the 25-month period to now saying it's 18 months, like it's pretty great.

That's helpful. That said, there's still, I think, various things and then and what we're seeing in the pre-application space, I think, is constructive to those things. I think it's been interesting because we went through Phase I readiness that helped the NRC map out, especially in the wake of kind of where things are now, how they would plan to do the review, make sure they had all the information they need to do it, which kind of amplifies in some ways the importance of those. We were pretty encouraged as well that we had no sort of significant gaps that were needed there. That's a big win for us and for the NRC, I think.

So, at the end of the day, we feel pretty good about where that positions us on that part. Still a lot more work to do, but that's good. And then looking at the next phase in Phase II and that progressing, I mean, I think it will be very clearly aligned to say, okay, let's make sure we have a very strong like angle on how we get through the actual licensing steps and process in that 18-month window, which is just great for everybody, right, because it accelerates things for us.

There are other aspects that play though, we have to be mindful of just the realities that can perhaps raise the bar a little bit on the front end of what's on the acceptance side and how the NRC plans. We want to be mindful of that. Obviously, part of why we're doing readiness assessments is to manage that, but that can be something that affects those timelines and how we think about making sure we're submitting something that's in the best sort of position for everybody.

And then additionally, one of the things that we're pretty intrigued by is how the EOs are setting the stage for completely different licensing pathways, which is pretty powerful given that there's still a lot of moving parts at the NRC front, but opening the door for things that might be doable under Department of Energy authorization that could accelerate timelines considerably for a number of things. That's pretty dang exciting, too.

So, we're engaging in those to look at ways that might accelerate our ability to bring something online. There is a path potentially to having a regulatory review done under the Department of Energy, build the plant, turn it on. And then after you've kind of done that initial work, you can transition to the facility. These are things that haven't really been done before, but that's kind of the beautiful thing about today. We're actually reinvigorating the whole ecosystem to think outside of the boxes and the shells that we as an industry have thought in for the last candidly, 50-plus years. So now there's like so much more potential on the table about, hey, what could we do? What could this look like? Like there's no reason that can't necessarily be done. Maybe that's a faster way to get some first plants built. Maybe that's a faster way to get through [Technical Difficulty] first licensing challenges and hurdles.

So, there's not a clear answer yet because we're still not even 3 months out from those, but we're working through both sort of all parallel paths that we can to sort of optimize against what makes the most sense, not just from a time perspective, but from a time and from a scalable and deployable perspective to kind of enable us to try to get more plants built sooner and faster.

And so, when I think about things simplistically, the executive orders really drive more aggressive timeline schedule, which is great. That means you kind of take some of that permitting challenge and risk of timing risk to a different level, right? So, it's a different kind of -- you got a lot of risk reduced just by that. But then additionally, you have a totally different change of kind of the fuel side because of what's happening in the EU to make more fuel available from this excess plutonium material that could support dozens of reactors being built without needing any HALEU like that's huge because that helps set the market for us to then build more plants, have stronger partnerships with HALEU providers to then get to those HALEU kind of production goals at the right pace and scale. So, like it's a very, very supportive ecosystem right now that's really changed the equation from where we were just 3 months ago, frankly.

The next question is from Craig Shere, Tuohy Brothers.

Hopefully, some quicker ones for me. So, do you have a timeline or road map for announcing PPAs on your INL plant? Do you have line of sight on sufficient fuel for full 75 megawatts there at this point? And given government support with rejected plutonium fuel that you say can support a lot. At this point, once you get past initial regulatory hurdles, could we see multiple powerhouses all announced at once?

Yes, good questions. Yes, we continue to move through. We're finding that there is more interest in power from the Idaho plant from different folks and then different ways, not to mention the other benefits we get from it. Part of what's beautiful about that plant is the benefit to provide fast neutron radiation capabilities. We're continuing to explore different ways that we can partner with government and other things -- other groups and focus on industry and academia, leverage some of the positions we have there, utilize some of that. Additionally, part of the -- what we're doing with Vertiv is setting the stage to build a pilot thermal-based cooling system at that plant and demonstrate that which is great. That's getting some interest from different folks to come in and be part of that. So, we're finding it's probably going to be a mix of offtake and use case, and that's what's been important about how we structured that is to be flexible. I guess I would say I've long bet that there would be a lot of demand for that power, and we're seeing that that's definitely the case.

So, how we structure it, again, gets back to the prior conversation of what Craig was saying, looking at the right ways and making sure we're doing all the things that get the most for sort of where everyone wants to be and how to structure it in the right ways. But the main value to me in that plant is getting it built, but it's obviously great that we can do additional things with it like we're showing. And having a diversity of use cases like we're showing is pretty important, too, because you find different ways to get different partners to the table in meaningful ways, too.

Bridging from that to the fuel piece, yes, we are uniquely positioned with those 5 tons of material that's awesome. We would like to have some more to run that plant in a normal way all the way up to 75 megawatts and it's pretty clear that there's a number of sources. It hasn't been finalized what we're going to do with that, but there is way more material. So, we're working through the different logistics about how and what the right sources and cadencing is going to be for those with in mind -- well, let me rephrase while maintaining in mind the other part of what you said, which is setting the stage for multiple announcements kind of at once.

I think one of the things that we see that is exciting about fast reactors and recycling is the ability to effectively tap into known reserves of heavy metals and power the entire planet's energy needs for basically the durable lifetime of the planet. It's a bold aggressive thing to do, but physics in many ways is for that. So, building out the right pieces of infrastructure to actually realize that is something that we've long been motivated, driven by and dream of. So, part of that includes getting the right pieces in place to build a lot more plants a lot faster, right? And that's what we can do on the heels of the EU announcements.

So, I think what we see is, generally speaking, working towards what the next plants are going to be and figuring out the right partners that we can have at the table to make those [indiscernible] to next. And then most of our conversations after the sort of Idaho and Airport pieces, those become larger campuses with more plants at them. So that's kind of how we explore that.

So, yes, I mean, all of that has set the stage very favorably for that. But again, we could run it and have something more quickly, but leave some significant things off the table, which we think is the less optimal thing to do than build the right partnerships that help us really be successful in delivering all these things we want to do, which also, by the way, is what's so exciting about nuclear today, of building the right kind of dynamics and partnerships to do this. And one of the nice things about our model of designing owning and operating, we have a very clear sense and insight factors we need to drive and manage our that when we find partners who can lean in to help us with those can do so in the most accretive ways. It's a lot simpler.

This is a crude analogy, but to kind of have a 2-body problem like that in that sense than it is to have a multi-body problem where you might have a utility in between a developer or even both or all of those in between and trying to figure out and solve for the different pain points has it just kind of complicates the deals in the space of operation. So, it's helpful for us that we kind of have this approach.

Now I will say another thing we're seeing, though, and is a possibility always been the case from onset for the business. I think we've long been convicted that utilities aren't really going to be interested nor are they really the right ones to move forward on first-of-a-kind deployments for these kinds of technologies. But they can be very useful partners in some cases where you build and develop yourself unlike we're doing, we make this easier, you could turn the -- flip the asset over to them, you could sell the assets to them, right? That is a possible thing that can be done and something that was kind of baked into some of the story -- not stories, but conversations that [ Carolyn ] and I had before we founded the company way back when.

So, I think it all the stage for some pretty accretive dynamics for how it's all come together to, I would say, make nuclear pretty like clearly inevitable is how I would characterize it for my opinion.

Eric Stine from Craig-Hallum is next.

Hey, Jake and Craig, just want to sneak in a few here at the end. So, the topical report accepted by NRC, I mean, is there a way to think about the timing of that process? I know that you're kind of taking a different path. So maybe that's a bit of an unknown, but maybe initial thoughts on how that speeds up the timeline? And then once you get through that, kind of what percentage of the process would that take care of that you then don't have to replicate for each successive deployment?

Yes, I think there's an interesting cadence of tactics and strategy about pre-application and topical reports. I think there can be an appeasement strategy where you feed the NRC just and don't actually move deeply into the licensing space until you spend a lot of time doing all that and be very conciliatory and not be kind of innovative and leaning into the opportunity to do things, especially now a little bit differently. I think that's been the playbook that is kind of how the industry has thought about things before, but hasn't really yielded very many successful results clearly. But what we see is more important to kind of leverage them in a much more strategic way in terms of targeting and achieve beyond just the first plant instead of kind of taking some what a topical report is, is an ability for like you to take an issue or a regulatory issue to the NRC, I'm being obviously a bit simplistic in close deal, but to the NRC and have them do review and issue some kind of safety evaluation report typically out of it, which provides a good precedent to be able to reference going forward in future applications.

So in some ways, you're able to do some -- let's like preseason licensing, but where the score actually counts. So maybe better analogies, early season games. I don't know, anyway, the score does count, but you don't get the whole thing at once.

It's a great way to like compartmentalize or incrementalize certain things you need to do. It's also a really good way to deal with generic broad cross-cutting issues that might affect fleet-wide considerations, like in our case, are we looking at licensing operators or instead of licensing a single operator to run each individual single reactor, which is the typical model or maybe site, which is a typical model, it's actually a trained operator can run any of the plants of that class anywhere wherever they are. It looks a lot more like how aviation does pipe ratings, right?

So instead of having a pilot that can fly one or maybe 2 tail numbers of a specific plane like Airbus or Boeing 737 or A320, like now you instead have -- that would be insane and really inefficient, probably why they don't do it. But when you think about smaller reactors and more of them going to a model where instead, "Hey, no, I can actually fly all A320s or 737s or whatever, bigger plane." That kind of pipe rating similarity is at play here where you can then do that for the whole fleet of reactors. So there's a lot of scalability benefit to that.

I think the general time line has been about 12 or so months from that. That does take some of the operational considerations that we will be able to reference some of those with our applications. But what it's really mostly helpful for is actually for the plant second, third, fourth and beyond. That's where it's a lot more helpful, always have been building this kind of thing.

It's kind of like when I think about licensing, I think about going back when I was younger playing sports, whether it be soccer or golf or whatever, you don't swing at the ball or hit at the ball or just kick at the ball. You got to kick through, you got to swing through, right? You got to follow through. And that's the same thing here. We're not optimizing for just the first. It's about how we set the stage to hit the things after that. So through the first and beyond. And so that, for example, is a very clear one to do.

There's additional things we're working on with the NRC from the preapplication perspective that helps set the stage for that. So we expect, I would say, it's pretty hard to point to a specific point of singular acceleration for the first plant, but it's going to provide significant acceleration for the plants thereafter, which is part of what's so important about this kind of model and how we've kind of taken that approach.

And then accordingly, on the tactical aspects, these are all strategic implications in how I think about it. There's some tactical aspects, too, which is maintaining the right momentum with kind of the right review teams and right reviewers at the NRC on different items of interest. And so making sure you kind of have the right content in the right way in the right order to sort of deal with setting the stage for successful review is pretty important to focus on getting the right review and that's how we've tried to approach it. So that's kind of how we've set the stage for executing into that.

And I think like doing a custom 52 approach, they're taking a lot [indiscernible] to this, and yes, they referenced the design certification, but there's a lot of one-offs in between them and even differences in how they kind of looked at the actual plant builds on a site-by-site basis to some degrees so that like given what we're trying to do here, that full approach we don't see any significant departure from this. It's not like we're taking a Part 53 licensing approach or something like that. This is a Part 52 combined license.

[indiscernible] kind of putting those together. But what's nice about that is you don't have to deal with the pains of regulatory rulemaking, which is what the design certification is. So from an actual administrative perspective, rulemakings are way harder than license issuances from an evolution and development perspective because of what you have to do for rulemaking or how it's typically been done. So like at the end of the day, that's how we saw some of the advantages on that kind of approach to combine those things.

[indiscernible] scalability. Like it's really about, again, like subsequent licensing, this industry has done a lot, but we haven't had a lot of subsequent license [indiscernible] did a lot of work because we had a hard time getting through the first plants, right? So now we're looking at seeing those benefits come to bear. And I think that's one of the cool things is the NRC has spent a lot of effort and time to be ready to do that. I mean they did do a lot of that. It just didn't get built, so it's great that we can tap into doing a lot of that as well from a subsequent license application perspective, from the reference license application perspective.

Next up is Max Hopkins, CLSA.

To be brief, so you guys mentioned the MOU with KHNP. I want to touch on the supply chain. I guess, as you guys move forward, you said 70% of materials could be nonnuclear. For that 30% of nuclear required components, are you guys looking to Korea more to maybe BWXT in the U.S.? Or is there any focus on kind of those nuclear-specific materials coming down the line?

Yes, it's a great question. And I'll zoom out a level real quick because I think this is kind of a key narrative piece. There's a whole thing about nuclear having been expensive and difficult and those other things for time to build and understand why and where that comes from, the real experience. We've also seen success stories through the things that people like to point to for big plants. But there's another whole vector of attack here, which is what we, I think, as an industry need to think a lot more about, which is how we get back to realizing the true cost potential of nuclear.

Look, there's the term I know it's we've used it before. I think it comes out of SpaceX and from Elon Musk, but was the idea of an Idiot Index of what's the ratio of the actual delivered cost of something divided by its actual cost of raw materials. And in nuclear, a lot of times, those are really, really, really high multiples. And a lot of that points to, for a lot of reasons, just kind of how things have been done in the industry, but it's not how they have to be done because, again, nuclear has the fewest material needs per megawatt hour of all energy sources. So there's a lot of room for cost improvement, frankly, just there.

And the way I see it and in my experiences, and I think that we've seen at Oklo and what we've tried and designed towards is there's kind of 2 main ways you attack that. One is designing systems that have the passive and inherent safety features that reduce the number of what are called "safety-related or safety grade or nuclear-grade" systems and components. That's one thing, right? And study fast reactors based on what EBR showed, have a good kind of trajectory on hitting those inherent and passive safety features, but then they have a lot fewer things that are required for the safety kind of functions in the plant.

The other aspect is how you deliver -- how you actually deliver the parts that need to fall under that kind of oversight or maybe just unique enough because they're only supplied in nuclear, how do you modernize some of that? And there's a whole bunch of opportunity there because in many ways, the nuclear supply chain went out of growth mode by and large, in the '70s and '80s, and it has only now started to come back. But when that happened, we were investing in modernizing the actual processes and procedures and protocols and even just methods of manufacturing and fabrication as well as quality assurance compliance, there wasn't a big impetus to do that.

Well, because those changes can be expensive. But we actually have a really big benefit and opportunity to take that and do it differently in a more fresh way today because of how you can work with doing sort of meeting those requirements in a more modern way. If you think about where the world was when those things happened, we were building a lot of Ford Pintos to be candid, right? That was what was going on then you have different level of quality assurance, a different level of expectation at an industrial level. And in fact, I would argue that in many ways, industrial quality assurance has cut up, if not leapfrogged kind of what typical nuclear has been and -- but done so in a much more efficient and effective way.

So you can obviously -- and also the pathways by which you achieve the kind of functional outcomes and outputs can be done the same way with like -- with these modern -- I mean, it's not exactly the same, but you can do commercial grade education for these pathways to actually get them to meet what's required in the industry or from the regulatory basis and from a quality control basis. So there's actually a lot of opportunity just from those 2 to drive a total change in cost, which then opens the door for how you think about the suppliers to meet that 30% mix of who fits into this.

And yes, some are going to be some legacy, but not large pressurized water reactor. We're not even a small pressurized water reactor, which means we have a very different set of what we can buy and use in the plant. We don't need a pressure vessel because we're not pressurized, right? We can use common alloys of stainless that are used in many other industrial applications that are shown to be compatible in a sodium system. And so you kind of basically partner up and work with different folks, both legacy as well as some newer entrants who want to get into this business and help them kind of meet what's required and do so in a, I would say, a more cost-effective way. So it's kind of an all-in very comprehensive approach on how you attack this problem and do things a bit differently.

It's not the best -- it's not always -- it's not the worst always, but it's also not always the best to go to legacy incumbent suppliers because they're used to doing what they've done, trying to get them to modernize can sometimes be challenging. So you find the right ways to work with them, but sometimes it's just better to work with some others. So a big focus has been we have opportunities to partner, obviously, with what's been done. We don't need all the full capacity of what the Koreans can do, but obviously, that means they can definitely do what we need them to do. So there's interesting dynamics there. There's also interesting dynamics about different fabricators [indiscernible].

And we found that some legacy providers and suppliers are really excited about modernizing and they see us as a big pathway to do that because it can help them get experience of doing things in a more modern and efficient way, but then also apply it over the rest of the operations and maybe change their cost curves as well. So like at the end of the day, we see it being pretty attractive to do that and kind of push on that angle of attack. So it's a long-winded answer that's deeply ingrained in Oklo philosophy.

And another thing is by building a lot of plants, you can kind of find an approach where maybe you find a couple of different partners for the same system. Maybe not, it just depends, but it gives you that ability to then find the best ways and right ways to partner with folks to be able to buy things from and do so at the right cost or just partner in a way to help them do it with ourselves or us do it, right? So it's a full dynamic about how you attack that problem. But at the end of the day, yes, it's quite helpful that we have, as I like to think about it, the physical cost drivers are generally on our side because we have such a material advantage as the nuclear technology as a whole.

And I'll just say like changing that paradigm from a light water reactor, if you're a light water reactor has different complications and challenges. And I would say, in many ways, it can be harder than it is to do it from like an advanced reactor perspective because light water reactors have a pretty specific way of doing things. And if you're going to try to do something differently, given that's the bulk of the plants operating today, there's a lot more inertia that's kind of resistant to that change and/or modernization or even just lack of appetite, a better way to do it than it is if you're a technology that doesn't have that same paradigm and can bridge outside of the sort of incumbent nuclear supply chains effectively.

And that's a big feature that sodium fast reactors have -- and in some cases, I think, have a broader envelope of opportunity than kind of any other type of technology because of the material compatibility and the technology kind of the operating temperatures in the history of operation. It's a little hard to do that also with gas reactors, I would contend just because, again, pressurized larger scale volumes, nuclear-grade graphite, all that. It doesn't mean it can't be done. It's just a different attack.

And everyone, at this time, there are no further questions. I would like to hand the conference back to Mr. Jake Dewitte, Oklo's [ Chief Financial Officer ], for any closing or additional remarks.

Yes. Thank you so much, and thank you, everyone, for calling in today.

Excited about the last quarter marked for us a pretty sizable change in the entire nuclear landscape, including, frankly, the art of what's possible in the wake of sort of the monumental changes made by President Trump and his executive orders, build on massive changes already in hand that go back to President Biden and the ADVANCE Act and work done around the Inflation Reduction Act to support nuclear and then go beyond back before that to President Trump first term with NICA and NIMA and those bills and then additional executive order signing and then back before that, even the President Obama. I could actually go on for long, but the reality is it's a very exciting time here in that we see a clear setup for a need for what nuclear to offer policy support that helps solve some of the biggest challenges or risk factors, including permitting as well as fuel supplies. So we're excited about watching how those fully unfold.

That said, there's still obviously a lot of work to do to capitalize on this. But it's a pretty -- it's frankly, it's a person who grew up in this space and loves this technology and loves this field, it's pretty hard to not find myself sort of pinching myself to make sure this is the reality that we live in that we have such a clear ecosystem of support -- and support in the most meaningful ways possible to actually go to execute on realizing the real promise and potential of the atom. So very excited about that. Very excited about what we accomplished in the last quarter and looking forward to what's ahead because there's a lot more to do.

So thank you, guys. Thank you all.

Once again, everyone, that does conclude today's conference. We would like to thank you all for your participation today. You may now disconnect.