Nuclear Supply Chain Loans Aim to Re-Energize U.S. Nuclear Capabilities

Energy Policy Perspectives: Vol. 19

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing (DOE EDF; formerly the Loans Programs Office) issued a conditional loan commitment to finance $17.5 billion worth of American Nuclear Supply Chain Loans aimed to support the procurement of long-lead nuclear components for up to five eligible projects/ten large-scale nuclear reactors. We view this as a constructive announcement, as it targets a true binding constraint, long-lead nuclear supply chain capacity, but component financing is only one layer of a much larger execution stack necessary to build new nuclear plants on time, on budget and at scale. Therefore, we believe it is better interpreted as a logical prerequisite to advancing incremental U.S. nuclear capacity and not evidence that a nuclear renaissance is now secured or imminent.

Nuclear Supply Chain Loans. Building off of President Trump’s May 23, 2025, Executive Order 14302, “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base” (one of his four nuclear focused executive orders that day), this announcement aims to help support its target of having ten new large nuclear reactors under construction by 2030 by using $17.5 billion of loan commitments to create bankable, bulk demand for long-lead AP1000 components before final project-level FIDs are reached (the DOE believes the loans could accelerate deployment by up to three years). The loans aim to support up to five eligible projects, covering up to ten Westinghouse AP1000 units in total (~1.1 GW of capacity per unit). Each project will be jointly owned by Westinghouse Electric, and a utility or energy company partner with each partner required to commit $500.0 million of project equity upfront ($1.0 billion total) prior to accessing the DOE loan funds. Westinghouse has signed letters of intent with seven potential partners but has not released specific names or project locations. The announcement also specified that these loans are conditional and that the DOE and the project partners must satisfy certain technical, legal, environmental, and financial conditions before a definitive financing agreement is reached, and the loan is funded.

Barriers to a nuclear renaissance. Demand, political support and now a more direct federal financing mechanism for critical nuclear components now exists but the U.S. nuclear electricity generation infrastructure and supply chain remains constrained across multiple layers. A true renaissance requires standardized designs, stable project ownership, credible EPC execution, experienced labor, NRC license processing capacity, domestic fuel-cycle depth, state-level cost recovery frameworks, data center or utility off-take structures, interconnection certainty, and a financing model that can survive delay risk. The construction of Vogtle Units 3 & 4 (the first and only AP1000 reactors built in the U.S. and the first new commercial nuclear reactors constructed domestically in over three decades), abandonment of V.C. Summer Units 2 & 3 (failed AP1000 project that spawned the “Nukegate” scandal which contributed to bankruptcy of Westinghouse and demise of the utility SCANA Corporation) and current struggles around nuclear reactor restarts (Palisades, Three Mile Island and Duane Arnold Energy Center) are recent examples that demonstrate the atrophy of the operating, regulatory, labor and grid-deliverability systems required to support new U.S. nuclear capacity. Vogtle Units 3 & 4 remain a cautionary tale as they took ~14 years and cost over $30.0 billion vs. initial expectations of 7 years and $14.0 billion due to a litany of issues, mostly unrelated to long-lead nuclear components. It remains to be seen whether utilities, regulators, EPCs, capital providers and particularly Westinghouse, given recent AP1000 history, can deliver numerous nuclear projects on schedule, and at a cost that customers and investors will tolerate.

Keeping it “in house”. The $17.5 billion headline amount also deserves scrutiny because it mirrors a key threshold in the October 2025 deal between the U.S. government and Westinghouse Electric’s owners, Brookfield Renewable Holdings Corporation (BEPC, $37.90, NR) and Cameco Corporation (CCJ, $108.89, NR). That deal contemplates building at least $80.0 billion of Westinghouse reactors and the U.S. government is entitled to 20% of Westinghouse profits after its owners have received $17.5 billion, thus the loan commitment could be the first concrete financing tranche of the broader Westinghouse-centered industrial strategy. Per the deal, the U.S. government can turn its profit share into an equity stake up to 20% and could require an IPO by 2029 if Westinghouse’s value surpasses $30.0 billion so the government is both enabling Westinghouse’s growth and potentially participating in its upside. This matches the industrial policy structure the Trump Administration has pursued with other strategic U.S. companies but should raise the bar for transparency around project selection, loan terms, private equity contribution, cost-overrun exposure, and public compensation for risk. There have already been talks of including nuclear projects in the use of foreign infrastructure investment packages (i.e. Japan’s $550.0 billion U.S. infrastructure investment package).

Latest step in broader nuclear policy stack. The DOE financing is not intended to restart the U.S. nuclear industry, rather to address one very specific challenge: the inability to order, finance, and standardize long-lead nuclear components like reactor pressure vessels and steam generators, which can have lead times that exceed four years. It sits within the Trump Administration’s broader policy/strategy stack and acts as a necessary bridge between political ambition and industrial execution. It leverages the DOE’s balance sheet to create demand visibility, fixed-price bulk procurement and gives suppliers a basis upon which to invest in manufacturing capacity. While this is a positive step, the 10-11 GW of potential nuclear generation capacity aimed to be supported by these loans is a drop in the bucket relative to the growing U.S. electricity supply/demand imbalance with 1,200-1,500 of data centers representing 200-400 GW of electricity loads currently being planned. Westinghouse’s AP1000 units are the only NRC licensed large scale Gen III reactors in commercial operation today and the only new commercial reactors built in the past three decades, but industry participants will have to overcome the institutional memory of the dramatic difficulties experienced constructing AP1000 units over the past two decades.

Race to zero power criticality entering final stretch. In addition to the Gen III+ AP1000 reactor designs for large scale nuclear, the Trump Administration is also attempting to accelerate the deployment of small modular reactor (SMR) and microreactor designs. This includes light-water SMRs (lower technical novelty, higher compatibility within the existing nuclear ecosystem but unproven commercially) and more nascent, emerging reactor concepts which the DOE pilot program is attempting to accelerate toward technical validation. As previously detailed in our March 24^th EPP note “New Nuclear Takes Another Baby Step, Commercial Grid Relief Remains to Be Seen” (Vol. 17), the July 4^th zero power criticality milestone is approaching and helps to demonstrate the viability of new reactor technologies on their path to commercialization. Thus far Antares Nuclear’s Mark-0 reactor (on June 4^th) and Valar Atomics’ Ward-250 reactor (on June 18^th) have reached the zero-power criticality threshold, one short of the target outlined in EO 14301. With a little over a week remaining there is the potential for an additional 2+ companies to make the July 4^th deadline, perhaps an arbitrary date but a public checkpoint that helps measure the pace of Gen IV SMR/microreactor development progress. Further, on June 21^st Valar Atomics became first U.S. Gen IV nuclear startup to reach low power criticality, the next technical threshold after zero power criticality.

Analyst Certification

We, Christopher R. Ellinghaus and Gabriele Sorbara hereby certify that the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect our personal views about the subject companies and their securities. We further certify that no part of our compensation was, is, or will be directly, or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or views contained in this research report.

Financial Interests: Neither we, Christopher R. Ellinghaus or Gabriele Sorbara, nor any member of our households own securities in any of the subject companies mentioned in this research report. Neither we, nor a member of our households is an officer, director, or advisory board member of the subject company or has another significant affiliation with the subject company. We do not know or have reason to know at the time of this publication of any other material conflict of interest.

Analyst Compensation: The authors compensation is based upon the value attributed to research services by Siebert Williams Shank institutional brokerage clients. The authors of this report are compensated based on the performance of the firm, and have not received any compensation in the past 12 months from any of the subject companies mentioned in this report. The performance of the firm is driven by its secondary trading revenues, investment banking revenues, and asset management revenues.

Siebert Williams Shank Equity Research Ratings Key

BUY: In the analyst's opinion, the stock will outperform the S&P 500 on a total return basis over the next 12 months.

HOLD: In the analyst's opinion, the stock will perform in line with the S&P 500 on a total return basis over the next 12 months.

SELL: In the analyst's opinion, the stock will underperform the S&P 500 on a total return basis over the next 12 months.

Distribution of Equity Research Ratings as of: June 23, 2026

IBC (Investment Banking Clients) is defined as companies in respect of which Siebert Williams Shank (the “firm”) or its affiliates have received or are entitled to receive compensation for investment banking services in connection with transactions that were publicly announced in the past 12 months.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Other Important Disclosures

Investment Banking Disclosures: Within the past 12 months, the research analyst authoring this report has not participated in a solicitation of any subject company mentioned within this report, with or at the request of investment bankers, for investment banking business. Within the past 12 months, the firm and its affiliates have not managed or co-managed a public offering of the securities of any subject company mentioned within this report, nor has the firm received compensation for investment banking products or services from those companies.

Firm Compensation: Within the past 12 months, the firm and its affiliates have not received compensation for any non-investment banking products or services for subject companies mentioned in this report, and none of these subject companies have been a client of the firm during the past 12 months.

Stock Ownership: The firm and its affiliates do not own 1% or more of any class of equity security in this report, and do not make a market in any such securities.

Disclaimers: The information and opinions contained in this report were prepared by the firm and have been derived from sources believed to be reliable, but no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, can be made as to their accuracy. All opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice. This report is for information purposes only and should not be construed as an offer to buy or sell any securities. The firm makes every effort to use valuation methodologies that it believes to be reasonable in the derivation of price targets, but we do not guarantee that such methodologies are accurate.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Information: To receive any additional information upon which this report is based, please contact:

Siebert Williams Shank, Research Department

100 Wall Street, 18th Floor

New York, NY 10015

212-830-4500

equityresearch@siebertwilliams.com