October 2, 2025
MANILA – The Philippines is edging closer to reviving nuclear energy after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed Republic Act No. 12305, the Philippine National Nuclear Energy Safety Act, on Sept. 15—a move that could reshape the country’s long-stalled energy ambitions.
READ: Marcos signs law creating PhilAtom, new nuclear regulatory agency
The law paves the way for the creation of the Philippine Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority (PhilAtom), an independent quasi-judicial body with “sole and exclusive jurisdiction to exercise regulatory control… for the peaceful, safe, and secure uses of nuclear energy and radiation sources in the Philippines.”
While this development marks a step toward revival, the word “nuclear” has, for decades, been more of a ghost than a fixture in the Philippines’ energy plans.
For many, it immediately evokes the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant—completed at a cost of over P106 billion in 1984 but never producing a single watt of energy, now reduced to little more than a relic of the past.
With the passage of the Philippine National Nuclear Energy Safety Act, the question remains: What must the country do to finally move forward?
In an interview with experts from multinational management consulting firm Arthur D. Little, Michael Kruse, the firm’s Global Managing Partner for Energy and Utilities and Nuclear Lead, emphasized that the most urgent step is ensuring PhilAtom’s true independence.
This, he said, means having the agency be insulated from politics, all while ensuring that it is well-funded and staffed by professionals. It must be able to oversee not just construction but also long-term operations and decommissioning.
“And in addition to that, PhilAtom also needs to have the readiness to act according to state-of-the-art safety-related principles,” he added.
One of the firm’s principals, Anna Rellama, echoed Kruse’s concerns, stressing that without true independence, PhilAtom risks becoming another “pet project” doomed to fail under the next administration.
“So the more we can avoid that just in the establishment already, the better,” she added.
Rellama also highlighted that pursuing nuclear energy is of “a very different magnitude,” emphasizing that PhilAtom should not be treated as a patchwork of existing energy bodies, such as the Department of Energy and the Energy Regulatory Commission.
“If we were just to establish this (PhilAtom) as a patchwork of some sort from various agencies, then we may not have that oversight that we would actually require for it to be established independently and properly,” she said.
Rellama also underscored the need to introduce the concept of nuclear energy to the public, to reassure them that it is going to be set up credibly.
“[PhilAtom needs to] overcome political volatility, making sure that the public actually sees the safeguards that are being put in place, and this can be in the form of it not being a patchwork,” she said.
If PhilAtom is to remain independent and non-profit, who will build and operate the actual reactors?
According to Kruse, PhilAtom cannot be a private, for-profit entity and must remain separate, funded independently from private sector interests.
“When it comes to building and operating a nuclear power plant, as seen in other countries, this can be handled by private sector entities, industrial players, or utilities. It can also be done in combination with partial state involvement. There are various ways of structuring it,” Kruse explained.
Rellama agreed.
“Ultimately, the government cannot do it by itself, right? Because there will always need to be that value chain, supply chain, and everything around it. So it will need to be a public-private endeavor,” she said.
Lessons from other countries
No country in Southeast Asia operates a nuclear power plant, but the Philippines can still draw lessons from countries outside the region, according to Kruse, citing South Africa, which partnered with France to build its plants.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is another model worth considering, particularly for how it built four reactors in just over a decade.
Kruse noted that the UAE does not face the same financial challenges as the Philippines, having fully financed its project through government funds without private sector investment. Still, the UAE’s use of Korean technology and its intergovernmental agreement could provide a framework for the Philippines.
For Rellama, another key lesson from Southeast Asia is the importance of not rushing the process, emphasizing that the credibility of PhilAtom must come first.
“If we look at other neighbors as well, we can see that we cannot really rush it, thus emphasizing actually the importance of this independent nuclear body, because it is only through the good implementation of this that we can fully embrace that credibility that would make the public as well as that would make the public trust this initiative, and two, that would make even investors have the confidence that we are doing this properly,” she explained.
Nuclear waste
Another flashpoint in the Philippines’ push for nuclear energy is the issue of nuclear waste. With concerns over waste often overshadowing potential benefits, both Kruse and Rellama called for a more nuanced perspective.
“There is a certain public skepticism about waste because it’s an emotional topic. But people tend to overlook that there is a lot of other industrial hazardous waste actually being produced in countries from the chemical sector and other sectors as well, that also needs to be dealt with. So I would take a quite rational stance when it comes to nuclear waste,” Kruse said.
Rellama agreed, but underscored that communication will be crucial in alleviating these fears.
“Even if the risks are low, though… there will always be perceptions because people will zone in [on] specific facts and items because it is an emotional topic… In this case, it really all boils down to communication in our view because we will need to acknowledge a lot of these things,” she said.
She noted that several countries already manage successful nuclear ecosystems, while in the Philippines, other industries already generate hazardous waste even outside the realm of nuclear energy.
“Thus, it’s a matter of framing, and it will all boil down to how we communicate this to the public, especially to the community that will be around this future facility,” she said.
Small modular reactors
For an archipelago of more than 7,000 islands, small modular reactors (SMRs) are particularly appealing.
Unlike traditional large plants, SMRs can be built in smaller units, deployed on individual islands, and scaled gradually—making them a suitable option for a country like the Philippines.
Energy Secretary Sharon Garin has said that while small- and medium-sized modular reactors are not yet commercially available, the government hopes to start considering nuclear energy proposals from the private sector by 2026.
READ: Gov’t opens door to nuke project proposals in 2026
Kruse was also optimistic about the idea, saying that making it work would be economical for the country.
“If the promises actually hold true, they will be economical from a levelized cost of energy point of view and can also be produced in high numbers to bring down the levelized cost of energy; they can provide, actually, a quite flexible technology that especially for countries like the Philippines, countries that do have remote isolated locations,” he said.
Rellama expressed how SMRs could also ease the process of winning public trust in nuclear energy.
“When it comes to public acceptance, for example, you would need to focus only on a small group first, and this allows you to be focused, and this allows you to implement any public acceptance initiatives on a smaller scale,” she said.
Kruse pointed out how if the Philippines manages to be the first to actually commercialize SMRs, the country could shape the global SMR supply chain, not just in Southeast Asia.
“If the Philippines moves early, it could position itself as a supplier for SMR components, contributing to GDP and influencing dominant designs that others later adopt. The question is, will it be the Philippines, Indonesia, or Thailand that takes that role?” he said.
Looking ahead
When asked about the chances of the country’s nuclear endeavors being a success, both experts believed that the Philippines has a chance.
For Kruse, the success largely depends on the “will of the government,” explaining that countries like the UAE have proven that rapid development is possible.
“It depends on the will of the government to provide stable framing conditions to set up a nuclear ecosystem and to also assure that there is a sufficient incentivization of private sector players in moving ahead with such a program,” he said.
“If this is actually done properly, I’m confident that within the next 15 years, there could possibly [be] a nuclear power plant in the Philippines. However, that means there needs to be sufficient commitment being evident in the country,” he added.
Both, however, agreed that nuclear power is not a short-term project.
“When it’s about nuclear, nuclear is a long-term technology venture. We call it often engaging in a hundred-plus years of marriage,” Kruse said.
Thus, the central question remains: can the Philippines, long burdened by an overreliance on coal and dwindling gas reserves, finally turn to nuclear power to light its future—or will it remain haunted by the ghost of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant? Only time will tell./mcm