Unlocking ASEAN’s nuclear potential: a case for regulatory convergence on small modular reactors (SMRs)

Southeast Asia’s electricity demand is projected to rise sharply over the coming decades as industry activities expand, living standards improve and transport electrifies. At the same time, governments across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have committed to ambitious decarbonisation pathways, despite continued reliance on imported coal and gas in the energy generation mix.

Within this context, small modular reactors (SMRs), nuclear power plants typically in 50–300 MW range, factory fabricated and assembled on site, could provide dependable, low carbon generation to complement renewable generation such as wind and solar. The central proposition advanced here is that technology alone will not determine whether SMRs are successfully deployed in ASEAN. Regulatory frameworks specifically on nuclear safety regulation and licensing will be required. A greater harmonised regional approach could reduce duplication, strengthen safety outcomes and improve the bankability of first deployments in ASEAN.

Rising demand and climate commitments

Electricity consumption across ASEAN is expected to nearly triple by mid-century, driven by industrialisation, urbanisation and the rapid growth of digital infrastructure. Regional initiatives such as the ASEAN Power Grid are expanding cross-border interconnection to facilitate higher penetration of renewables. However, exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets and the long lead times associated with firm, low-carbon generation create growing system risks.

While nuclear power is not currently part of ASEAN’s generation mix, it has re-entered policy discussions as governments assess options for energy security and net-zero delivery. SMRs are attracting particular attention due to their compact physical footprints, inherent safety features and modular construction enabling repeatable deployment. Early international screening exercises have identified more than a hundred advanced reactor concepts; many remain “paper reactors”; therefore, a detailed analysis tends to focus on the more mature designs where evidence is stronger. As safety is absolutely non-negotiable, the licensing processes progress remains as critical as performance on paper.

Regional status and shared ASEAN constraints

Currently, no ASEAN member state operates a commercial nuclear plant, but intent and institutional readiness varies:

• Malaysia has reopened the option of nuclear power beyond 2035 and initiated preparatory work aligned with international guidance.
• Indonesia has outlined ambitions for multi-gigawatt capacity by 2040 to enhance energy security and support renewable integration.
• The Philippines has reaffirmed its national position on nuclear power and is actively assessing SMRs.
• Thailand has reintroduced SMRs into power planning processes, while clarifying regulatory responsibilities.
• Vietnam has revisited earlier nuclear plans within its net zero pathway.
• Singapore has commissioned Mott MacDonald to carry out a study of advanced nuclear energy technologies to assess safety and feasibility without a deployment commitment.

Across these programmes, common constraints are evident: fragmented regulation, uneven institutional capacity, financing uncertainty, limited specialist skills and challenges around public acceptance. It is likely that even with strong political will, most countries would require close to a decade to build the regulatory frameworks, skills and institutional confidence required for first operation and how quickly this progress will depend on the effectiveness of regional cooperation.

The challenge: fragmented regulatory scrutiny undermines the benefits of SMRs modularity

At present, each country maintains its own codes, standards, design requirements, safety classification systems, and licensing sequences. For first-of-a-kind technologies such as SMRs, this results in multiple national reviews of the same reactor design, often requiring near identical evidence packages in different formats.

The result is predictable: Vendors face repeated and resource-intensive submission processes; smaller regulators scaling up to interrogate complex designs separately; timelines lengthen; overall costs rise; and investor confidence suffers. Without ASEAN-wide convergence and harmonisation of regulatory frameworks, the attractiveness of SMRs, particularly on standardisation and repeatability, will be at risk of being undermined. Additionally, the attractiveness of the ASEAN energy market to the more established SMR technology vendors would also be less due to the increased cost and uncertain outcomes.

The proposed solution: three pillars for regulatory convergence

Maximum commonality

ASEAN countries could pursue shared regulatory building foundations such as harmonised terminology, aligned evidence structures and common core safety expectations. Convergence of industrial codes and standards, combined with mutual recognition of common regulatory outputs where appropriate, would significantly reduce duplication. This approach builds upon existing ASEAN practices under the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement, which reduces technical barriers to trade through harmonised standards and conformity assessment.

Technology centric licensing

The most demanding scrutiny should be applied once to the reactor design through a joint generic design evaluation undertaken collectively by ASEAN regulators, while site-specific considerations remain under national jurisdiction. This shifts effort from repeating full design reviews in each jurisdiction to a shared technical assessment with clearly defined national addenda. This approach is consistent with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Nuclear Harmonisation and Standardisation Initiative (NHSI) and is aligned with the IAEA Milestones approach, which provides a step-by-step framework for building nuclear infrastructure.

Supplier and technology neutrality

All vendors should be assessed against transparent, evidence-based criteria. Neutral supplier qualification, referencing standards such as ISO 19443 or NQA1, would broaden participation from eligible manufacturers and support the development of a resilient regional supply chain. Fuel strategies should also remain technology neutral. Where certain advanced designs require high assay low enriched uranium (HALEU), coherent regional approaches to supply, transport and safeguards will be beneficial, without allowing fuel choice to become a barrier to regulatory convergence.

From cooperation to convergence: a phased and practical roadmap

A practical phased approach to achieve convergence in ASEAN to include:

• Establishing governance and a shared regulatory language, using the ASEAN Network of Regulatory Bodies on Atomic Energy (ASEANTOM) to convene a dedicated SMR convergence forum to develop aligned terminology, IAEA-aligned evidence maps and standardised documentation templates.
• Conducting joint technology evaluations, against ASEAN regional needs. Recognising that each ASEAN member state faces distinct drivers and challenges in pursuing SMRs , a pragmatic solution could be to subdivide SMR technologies into categories based on their intended purpose, such as grid-connected baseload, industrial applications, or remote deployment, and to select a handful of suitable technologies rather than attempting to converge on a single option.
• Aligning codes, standards and supplier quality requirements, by converging materials, fabrication and inspection requirements, and introducing an ASEAN vendor qualification framework referencing ISO 19443/NQA1 with mutual recognition of supplier audits.
• Addressing fuel assurance and lifecycle considerations, covering regionally coherent strategies for fuel procurement (including potential HALEU), transport security, waste management and decommissioning, consistent with IAEA safeguards.
• Clarifying finance and market framework, through standardising revenue models and risk allocation mechanisms recognised by lenders across ASEAN and linking dispatchable nuclear capacity to the intermittency of renewables and the evolving ASEAN Power Grid initiatives.
• Transposing common outputs into national frameworks, incorporating common outputs into national licencing process and iterating real project data from early projects to reduce cost and schedule risk over time.

Implications for policymakers and industry

Regulatory convergence would streamline engineering deliverables across multiple markets, reduce rework and ambiguity in classification and testing, and enable pooling of scarce specialist expertise in ASEAN. This improves both the speed and robustness of regulatory decisions, while preserving national sovereignty over siting and operations. For investors, clearer and predictable timelines and region-wide processes would enhance bankability. For manufacturers and suppliers, common specifications and recognised quality systems would facilitate Southeast Asian participation in the global SMR supply chain.

Conclusion

SMRs will not substitute the need for rapid renewable deployment, but they will provide firm, low-carbon capacity that strengthens energy security and supports net zero objectives across ASEAN. Their successful deployment at scale will depend less on the physics than on the regulatory process. Maximum commonality, technology centric licensing and supplier neutrality offer a credible and practical pathway for ASEAN to translate promising reactor designs into bankable projects, firmly evidence-based, guided by safety as the first principle.