U.S. Government announces game changing nuclear partnership with Westinghouse, Brookfield, and Cameco

Why this matters

Energy demand in the United States is entering a period of dramatic growth after years of comparatively flat electricity load. A key driver is the explosion in hyperscale computing and artificial-intelligence infrastructure—massive data centers that require enormous amounts of power. For example, in 2024 U.S. data centers consumed about 183 terawatt-hours (TWh)—roughly 4 % of U.S. electricity usage—and that share is projected to more than double by 2030.  In fact, the International Energy Agency has noted that data centers in the U.S. are on track to account for almost half of the growth in electricity demand between now and 2030.  The U.S. Energy Information Administration likewise projects total U.S. power consumption will rise to record levels in 2025 and 2026, driven in part by new data center and electrification loads.

That dramatic shift presents a challenge and an opportunity for the electricity sector: providing large, reliable, 24-7 loads, while doing so cost-effectively and with low carbon-intensity. In short, we are entering a new phase of energy demand where traditional “business-as-usual” models are under pressure.

Into that environment comes nuclear energy—well-positioned to meet exactly this type of demand. Nuclear power plants provide high-capacity, continuous (“baseload”) power, with extremely high reliability and availability—characteristics that align very well with the requirements of data centers and AI infrastructure, which demand constant, uninterrupted power around the clock. These attributes have led to significant nuclear announcements over the past few years—with a large wave of these announcements happening in the past year and which we have written about:

• Major technology-industry players signing long-term power-purchase agreements (PPAs) with nuclear generators to underpin data-center power supply.
• Restart projects for previously shuttered nuclear plants becoming viable—backed by tech firms seeking clean, firm power for high-intensity loads.
• New reactor build commitments (both large scale and small modular reactors) announced to meet rising baseline load growth rather than just replacement.
• Strategic government-industry frameworks launched to support nuclear supply-chain expansion, financing innovations, and integration of nuclear into the grid at scale.

Historically, the U.S. nuclear sector has been constrained: in the past 15-20 years only a handful of large new builds moved forward—for example, two AP1000 units at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia and the aborted units at the VC Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina.  These projects ran into major cost overruns, construction delays and financing and regulatory hurdles.  As a result, large-scale new-build nuclear essentially stalled in the U.S. for a decade.

But now, the nuclear energy sector is showing real signs of re-acceleration and transformation.  A crop of investment from major tech firms, the linking of nuclear power to data-center PPAs, and purposeful government policy shifts are all contributing to a revival of U.S. nuclear.

Tuesday's surprise announcement that the U.S. government is entering into a major partnership with Westinghouse Electric Company and its owners—Brookfield Asset Management and Cameco Corporation—marks more than just another reactor contract: it signals a structural shift in how nuclear projects may be financed, supported, scaled and integrated with new growth sectors like AI/data centers and grid reliability. The government is moving from regulator and funder to strategic partner—and the nuclear industry may be entering a new era anchored in demand-growth, industrial scale and hybrid public-private business models.

And this announcement came out on Tuesday.  Just on Friday, the board of the state-owned utility Santee Cooper approved a proposal from Brookfield Asset Management to complete two new AP1000 power reactors at VC Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina—a further signal of momentum in the sector and of the willingness of industry and states to move ahead with large-scale nuclear.

Key deal highlights

While many of the financial and structural details remain confidential, early reports indicate that the parties have agreed to the principal commercial terms and are finalizing a binding term sheet expected to be released in the near future. Based on current public disclosures and statements from Westinghouse, Brookfield, Cameco, and U.S. Government officials, the key features of the partnership appear to include the following:

• On 28 October 2025, Westinghouse, Brookfield and Cameco announced that the U.S. Government has entered a strategic partnership to build at least U.S. $80 billion of new nuclear reactors in the United States using Westinghouse reactor technology.
• The program will deploy the mature Westinghouse AP1000 technology (and possibly other units) at scale, with the aim of creating more than 100,000 construction jobs and rejuvenating the U.S. nuclear industrial base.
• Under the deal, the U.S. Government commits to arranging financing and facilitating permits and regulatory approvals for the new reactors.
• In return, once the Government has made a final investment decision and entered into definitive agreements for construction of the reactors (aggregate value ≥ U.S. $80 billion), the Government is entitled to receive 20% of any cash distributions by Westinghouse in excess of U.S. $17.5 billion.
• Furthermore, if by 2029 an IPO of Westinghouse is anticipated to have a valuation of U.S. $30 billion or more, the U.S. Government may require an IPO and convert its participation interest into a warrant to acquire an equity stake equivalent to 20% of the public value of the company (after deducting the U.S. $17.5 billion threshold).
• The announcement links directly to executive actions: the partnership stems from the Administration’s May 23, 2025 Executive Orders, which emphasized advanced nuclear energy, grid reliability and meeting rising electricity demand associated with AI/data centers.

Business & market implications

For Westinghouse and its owners Brookfield + Cameco:

• This deal represents a dramatic boost in the firm’s potential backlog and monetization opportunities. The U.S. $80 billion program will trigger orders, supply-chain demands, long-lead-time procurements, and potentially an IPO exit scenario.
• Westinghouse’s conversion to a quasi-public/strategic entity under government partnership raises the profile of its technology, may lower financing costs, and accelerates commercialization of its fleet build model.
• The supply chain—e.g., from nuclear fuel (Cameco) through manufacturing and engineering (Brookfield)—is likely to see uplift, scale, and integration as part of a national industrial strategy.
• The announcement triggered a strong market response — Cameco Corporation shares jumped more than 20 % to a multi-year high following the news of the U.S. $80 billion deal, reflecting investor optimism about the company’s expanded nuclear-deployment role.
• Brookfield Asset Management also saw a positive uplift in its valuation on U.S.-listed shares as the deal highlighted Brookfield’s infrastructure and energy-transition platform positioning.

For the U.S. Government / national policy:

• A new role in U.S. nuclear deployment. This partnership marks a profound shift in the federal government’s posture toward commercial nuclear power—from a regulator and funder of last resort to an active strategic investor and market participant. By structuring the arrangement as a profit-sharing partnership, the government now has a direct financial upside tied to the success of private-sector deployment rather than simply offering subsidies, guarantees, or R&D grants.
• Risk management and governance considerations. While the structure offers potential upside, it also places the government in a dual role as both commercial partner and regulator. This arrangement could create challenges around transparency, regulatory impartiality, and the need for strong conflict-of-interest safeguards—particularly where decisions affecting Westinghouse’s commercial success overlap with government oversight responsibilities.
• Embedding nuclear in the national industrial strategy. The deal integrates nuclear energy into broader U.S. economic and security objectives—linking it to national defense, AI and data-center energy readiness, grid reliability, and domestic supply-chain sovereignty. It reflects a recognition that nuclear energy is not just a clean-energy solution but also a pillar of industrial competitiveness, workforce development, and national resilience.
• Global leadership and export competitiveness. The announcement emphasized that the partnership will “cement the United States as one of the world’s nuclear energy powerhouses and increase exports of Westinghouse’s nuclear technology globally.” This strategic push aligns with ongoing efforts to re-establish U.S. leadership in global reactor exports, counterbalance state-backed competitors such as Russia’s Rosatom and China’s CNNC and strengthen allied supply-chain partnerships. Currently, the country that can build the quickest and least expensive Westinghouse AP1000s is China. In international tenders, the U.S. often struggles behind other countries, especially ones with the ability to deploy nuclear projects on time and on budget—with the South Korean success in the Czech Republic being one example.
• A hybrid financing and governance model. Structurally, this arrangement is unprecedented in U.S. nuclear history—a hybrid public-private model in which the federal government leverages its convening power, credit capacity, and permitting authority while participating in the upside through profit-sharing and potential equity conversion. It blurs traditional boundaries between public policy and private investment, potentially serving as a template for future large-scale clean-energy megaprojects.
• Signal of long-term policy alignment. Taken together with the Administration’s May 2025 Executive Orders on advanced nuclear and critical infrastructure, the partnership reinforces a sustained national policy commitment to nuclear power as a cornerstone of the energy transition and the digital economy.

For markets and industry:

• A rising tide…will it lift all boats? The partnership could lift sentiment and valuations across the global nuclear industry. By demonstrating that large-scale, commercially driven nuclear deployment can attract direct federal participation, the deal may change risk across the sector, improving access to capital for other reactor developers, component suppliers, and utilities exploring new build projects. But it also may impact other nuclear projects—either by setting an expectation about their project delivery or through inferences about potential government preferences.
• A shift in nuclear financing models. The structure signals a potential shift in how nuclear projects are financed, with greater willingness among both government and private capital to de-risk permitting and construction through shared participation. With federal credit capacity, sovereign backing, and permitting facilitation now in play, institutional investors, infrastructure funds, and pension capital could increasingly view nuclear as a more bankable long-term asset class. This may lead to new project-finance structures, hybrid debt-equity vehicles, and expanded SMR and large-reactor programs modeled on this approach.
• Ripple effects across the supply chain. The announcement is likely to catalyze expansion in domestic manufacturing, fuel enrichment, and engineering capacity. U.S. suppliers of critical reactor components, forgings, nuclear-grade materials, and fuel (including HALEU) could see multi-year order growth as the industrial base scales to meet anticipated demand. This could also revitalize U.S. heavy-manufacturing regions and draw new entrants into the nuclear supply ecosystem. Of note, neither the AP1000 nor the AP300—the two reactor models referenced in the announcements—need HALEU and can operate using existing or near-conventional fuel supplies.
• Pressure and opportunity in regulatory frameworks. With the federal government now acting as both facilitator and investor, licensing timelines and NRC processes could accelerate—something the Administration has been working on since President Trump took office—but expectations for accountability and performance may rise as well. Companies may see closer alignment between Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission initiatives on new plant licensing, to include both advanced reactor and large-plant licensing, along with expanded use of programmatic environmental reviews and streamlined approvals under the FAST-41 permitting framework.
• Strategic consolidation and capital-markets impact. The deal may spur new mergers, partnerships, and IPO activity across the sector—which is already super hot right now. Investors are already speculating that Westinghouse’s potential public listing—if triggered by the government’s equity option—could reset valuations for other advanced-reactor and fuel-cycle companies. The broader nuclear technology ecosystem, including fusion developers and nuclear-powered data-center initiatives, may benefit from the increased market credibility and liquidity this deal could provide.
• A new benchmark for project economics. Finally, this partnership may become a reference point for future large-scale energy infrastructure, demonstrating that nuclear projects can attract private investment when structured with aligned government participation, predictable risk allocation, and visible demand from energy-intensive sectors such as AI and data centers.
• Execution and cost risks. Despite the scale of this partnership, the program faces the same risks that have historically challenged large nuclear builds—cost escalation, supply-chain constraints, and skilled-labor shortages. Inflationary pressures and interest-rate volatility could also affect project economics and timelines.
• Policy durability and market expectations. The long-term success of this model will depend on sustained political and policy support. Changes in administration or budget priorities could affect financing continuity, export policy, or regulatory coordination. The prominence of this deal may also reshape market expectations—raising questions about whether similar support will be available for other reactor vendors or technologies.

Summary of government benefits and considerations

• Profit participation. Under the announced structure, the U.S. Government will be entitled to 20% of Westinghouse’s cash distributions exceeding U.S. $17.5 billion, once it has made a final investment decision and entered into definitive project agreements. The potential value of this interest will depend on Westinghouse’s long-term profitability and the pace of new reactor deployment under the program.
• Equity conversion option. If Westinghouse pursues an initial public offering valued at U.S. $30 billion or more by 2029, the Government may convert its participation interest into an equity position equivalent to approximately 20% of the company (post-threshold). This structure provides a pathway for the Government to participate directly in any appreciation of Westinghouse’s enterprise value.
• Potential for cost recovery. Although the Government’s total commitment of up to U.S. $80 billion has been described as including financing support, permitting facilitation, and credit enhancements, the precise mix of instruments has not been disclosed. Depending on how the program is structured and executed, the profit-share and potential equity position could offset some portion of the Government’s financial exposure, though the timing and magnitude of any recovery remain uncertain.
• Economic and policy benefits. Beyond direct financial returns, the partnership is expected to generate broader economic benefits through expansion of the domestic nuclear supply chain, increased employment, and greater export competitiveness for U.S. nuclear technology. These indirect benefits may contribute to national industrial and energy security objectives.
• Risk factors. The ultimate value of the Government’s participation will depend on construction performance, market demand, cost control, and regulatory stability. As with any large-scale infrastructure program, risks include project delays, cost escalation, interest-rate shifts, and evolving political or policy priorities. The structure nonetheless provides a defined mechanism for potential financial participation rather than a one-way expenditure or grant.
• Policy precedent. By monetizing its support through a participation interest and optional equity stake, the partnership represents a departure from traditional subsidy or loan-guarantee approaches. If effective, it could inform how the federal government structures future collaborations in strategic clean-energy and critical-infrastructure sectors.

Taken together, the scope and structure of this partnership make it one of the most consequential developments in U.S. nuclear policy and industrial strategy in decades.

Why this is so significant

• Unprecedented in scale and structure. This represents one of the largest commercial-nuclear build programs ever announced in the United States—valued at more than U.S. $80 billion—and the first time the federal government has structured a partnership with a reactor vendor that includes both profit-sharing and potential equity participation. It marks a departure from traditional models of public nuclear support, which historically relied on grants, loan guarantees, or procurement contracts rather than direct revenue participation.
• A new hybrid model of public-private engagement. The arrangement blurs the traditional boundary between the government as policymaker/regulator and the private sector as project developer. It introduces a “shared-risk, shared-return” approach more commonly seen in defense or aerospace joint ventures than in civilian energy deployment. If effective, it could reshape how strategic infrastructure is financed and governed—especially for industries that combine national-security significance with commercial scalability.
• Strategic timing amid surging demand. The partnership comes at a moment when U.S. electricity demand is rising sharply—driven by the expansion of AI data centers, electrification of transport and manufacturing, and industrial reshoring. With these pressures converging, the deal signals that the United States is re-entering the era of large-scale nuclear development as part of its long-term industrial and energy-security strategy.
• Acceleration through proven technology. By deploying the Westinghouse AP1000—a licensed, operating design with a completed reference plant at Vogtle—the partnership could compress deployment timelines and reduce risk exposure associated with first-of-a-kind (FOAK) technologies. This positions nuclear as a near-term, scalable contributor to U.S. baseload capacity, while complementing ongoing development of advanced and small modular reactor designs.
• Broader implications for U.S. industrial policy. If successful, this model could set a precedent for future federal partnerships in clean energy, critical minerals, and defense-energy integration—sectors where national strategic interests and commercial viability intersect. The structure may also influence how allied nations design co-investment models with their own nuclear technology vendors, reinforcing U.S. leadership in the global nuclear export and supply-chain ecosystem.
• Balancing ambition and uncertainty. While the partnership’s structure is groundbreaking, its success will depend on execution discipline and inter-agency alignment. Large-scale nuclear programs remain technically and financially complex, and even modest slippage in schedule or cost could affect both public perception and investor confidence.

Next steps to watch out for

Looking ahead, the coming months will determine whether this framework can deliver on its promise—translating policy ambition into bankable projects, aligning government oversight with commercial execution, and setting a durable model for scaling nuclear deployment in the U.S. and beyond.

While many structural details of the partnership remain to be disclosed, several key milestones and developments will shape how the deal unfolds in the months ahead:

• Finalization of binding agreements. The parties are expected to finalize and release the executed term sheet and definitive agreements, which will clarify the scope of government participation, financing mechanisms, and conditions for profit-sharing and potential equity conversion. These documents will also determine how risk allocation and oversight are structured between the government and private partners.
• Site selection and project sequencing. Early indicators suggest that multiple sites across the United States are under consideration for new AP1000 and potential SMR deployments. Site selection will likely depend on grid-access readiness, permitting conditions, and workforce availability, as well as alignment with regional energy and data-center growth corridors.
• Financing and credit mechanisms. Details on the U.S. $80 billion financing package are expected to emerge soon, including whether it will leverage existing DOE loan programs, private debt markets, or hybrid public-private vehicles. How these mechanisms are structured will influence both the pace of deployment and investor confidence across the broader nuclear sector.
• Regulatory coordination. With the federal government directly participating, close coordination among the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and other agencies will be critical. The partnership may test the limits of current licensing frameworks and prompt further process reforms—particularly for standardized reactor designs and multi-site build programs.
• IPO timing and valuation. Market attention is likely to remain focused on a potential Westinghouse public offering, which could be triggered by the government’s equity option if the company’s valuation exceeds US $30 billion. The outcome of any IPO will shape investor perception of nuclear as a mainstream infrastructure asset class.
• Supply-chain mobilization. The announcement has already prompted activity among component manufacturers, fuel suppliers, and engineering contractors anticipating multi-year procurement opportunities. Watch for new investments in U.S. fabrication facilities, enrichment capacity, and logistics networks as demand begins to scale.
• Broader policy ripple effects. Finally, this partnership could influence future federal-industry frameworks across clean energy and critical-infrastructure sectors. Its success or failure will likely inform congressional and agency approaches to energy-industrial policy, financing tools, and government participation in strategic technology markets.

In summary, the Westinghouse partnership marks a potential inflection point for U.S. nuclear energy—one that could redefine how public and private capital combine to meet rising energy demand. As the details take shape, industry participants, investors, and policymakers will be watching closely to see whether this model delivers on its promise of scale, reliability, and durable value creation.

We will continue to monitor this deal and others like it.  For more information, please contact Amy Roma, Partner, Stewart Forbes, Counsel, Stephanie Fishman, Senior Associate, and Cameron Hughes, Associate.