Nuclear power study finished in Oklahoma

  • March 7, 2026

Nuclear power in Oklahoma? It’s what the Oklahoma Corporation Commission spent the past year studying as the result of a bill passed last year in the legislature.
The conclusion to the question?
“At the highest level, there’s a conclusion that the establishment of nuclear energy in Oklahoma is feasible, “said Mark Argenbright, Public Utilities Division Director at the Corporation Commission.
The Nuclear Energy Generation Feasibility Study was approved on a 3-0 vote by the commission and will be delivered by the deadline set last year by the legislature. The commission was ordered to conduct the study and present the findings within 9 months. The 9-month deadline, Argenbright explained to Commissioners, is Monday, March 9. It wasn’t the corporation commission by itself.
Argenbright explained it involved representatives from more than 20 organizations including the Oklahoma Department of Energy and Environment, University of Oklahoma, the Hamm Institute, Envoy Public Labs on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy, the City of Altus Nuclear Energy Institute, the Attorney General’s Office along with participation from AEP, OG&E, the Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority, and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.
“And the study itself, I think it provides a thorough analysis and presentation of the information pertinent to the questions raised in the legislation. The study does offer conclusions and recommendations. At the highest level, there’s a conclusion that the establishment of nuclear energy in Oklahoma is feasible,” he said.  “But there are a multitude of things to consider before you would go down that path. And the study offers some ideas of things that might be considered before, in anticipation of taking those next steps. The study does not lay out a path to actually do it.”
The report is to be made available to the governor, President Pro Tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. But it is so large, it cannot be a simple email sent to the leaders.
“I’d just note that the study and its appendices is over almost 350 pages, and the references that are attached, I don’t even know how many pages those are, but the study itself, that file is about 77 megabits, and the references that are attached are over 400 megabits. So it’s a lot of pages there.”
Instead, Argenbright asked that the report or conclusions be put on the agency’s website and also made available to the Department of Libraries.

“I’d also note that the significant plot, the size of the files involved with this, this probably can’t be forwarded. We don’t think it can be forwarded via email. So we would recommend setting up a SharePoint site and providing a link for parties to forward this to.”

Some public comments were filed last year with the commission and many opposed any nuclear installation in the report.
“So as I’m reading through what’s in this report, I do want to point out publicly for anyone that’s listening that it does talk about the environmental and ecological impacts,” said Commission Chair Kim David.
“It does talk about the safety criteria, and it does address the workforce, education, training, and development. So the concerns everyone addressed based on the history of what’s happened in Oklahoma, it looks like we did our job and we addressed those factors,” she remarked.
“ And hopefully that eases their minds. We heard their concerns, but we also knew that that was something that we would be addressing in this.  So I just wanted to make sure they realized that.”
As reported last fall by OK Energy Today, some public utilities in the state filed comments with the commission.

Part of the study is to seek public input and among those utilities that responded were Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company and Public Service Company of Oklahoma.

WESTERN FARMERS

In its response, Western Farmers explained it is “heavily reliant on renewable energy” with about 24% of the 2024 portfolio comparised of energy from wind, solar and hydro sources. Its governing Board of Trustees is focused on “cost containment as a priority.” It also supported the Commission’s study of nuclear power, stating, “Nuclear energy is just one piece of energy policy as is fossil, wind, solar, battery, hydro, hydrogen, etc.”

“The advantages of nuclear energy in this state include the potential for low operating costs ($0.03-0.04/kwh) when compared to current fossil generation costs ($0.04-0.06/kwh depending on fuel price) and zero carbon emissions,” explained the cooperative. It also said there would be “disadvantages” including that base load units don’t fit well within the current operations of the energy market.

“The first challenge that needs to be overcome is to develop the next generation of workforce to operate and maintain these units,” declared cooperative in its filing with the Corporation Commission. “Getting state colleges and career tech institutions involved early will be key to success in developing the workforce or partnering with companies that already have nuclear workforces like the U.S. Navy, Tennessee Valley Authority, Entergy, Constellation, etc.”

Western Farmers pointed to another challenge, “The need to ramp up development of partnerships with state higher education institutions and career tech centers to start offering programs related to nuclear generation. This is a challenge as you need to show the students there is somewhere to go when they graduate.”

Oklahoma has no existing nuclear energy facilities in the state but Western Farmers pointed out that at least 28 states that can leverage experience with nuclear facilities.

“It is presumed Oklahoma does not have any (or little) expertise within its borders because of the lack of currently existing faciilities.”

OGE

Oklahoma Gas and Electric, in a one and one-half page response, said it had included nuclear generation costs in its recent Integrated Resource Plans as required by the Commission.
It also pointed out that the firm’s own 2024 IRP should the projected capital cost of Small Modular Reactors “to be relatively high compared to other available generation options, and these costs for generation are ultimately borne by OG&E’s customers.”

In conclusion, OGE said it looked forward to demonstrations of safe, robust, and cost-effective new nuclear generation projects and participation of such projects in the company’s future RFPs.

PSO

Public Service Company, in its response to the Commission’s Notice of Inquiry, raised the controversial topic of CWIP or Construction Work in Progress.

While declaring that “Nuclear power is safe,” PSO said that if domestic nuclear generation experiences significant growth over the next 25 years as forecasted, “it represents a significant economic opportunity for the state of Oklahoma.”

Jerry Bohnen