Tag: NuScale

Troubles at NuScale Power, Fermi America

NuScale remains one of the few SMR companies with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved reactor designs, yet investors and analysts have increasingly questioned whether commercialization is happening fast enough.

From Master Resource

By Kennedy Maize

“Energy hyperbole and the madness of crowds are evident with both NuScale Power and Fermi America. Bubbles burst.”

The most mature U.S. small modular nuclear reactor vendor — NuScale Power — and a politically connected firm planning to build perhaps the largest reactor project in the U.S. to power an enormous Texas data center — Fermi America — have both suffered recent, major, possibly existential blows.  NuScale and Fermi, both publicly traded, have seen their stock value plummet amid bad financial results, questionable management decisions, and attacks by the wolves of Wall Street, short sellers, and claims of securities fraud.

NuScale Power

Oregon-based NuScale Power (NYSE:SMR) is the only advanced reactor vendor in this new market with a design approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a “first mover” advantage. It also uses the familiar and well-understood pressurized light water cooled technology, which has decades of mostly successful operation. NuScale has also had an important major shareholder, Texas-based energy engineering and construction giant Fluor Corp.

“Yet, when you look at its stock over the last six months, it doesn’t look like a company with a first-mover advantage,” comments The Motley Fool, an online investment analytics site.

Fluor is unloading its SMR shares, a strategy the company announced formally in February but has been understood to be well underway before that. In February, Fluor sold 71 million SMR shares, netting $2 billion. The company said it plans to unload the remaining 40 million shares this quarter.

Assessing NuScale’s business prospects, Seeking Alpha noted that the “stock appears overvalued relative to its fundamentals, with limited near-term revenue and a long timeline to meaningful commercialization.” The shares have been trading at about $12/share recently, not much higher than when it went public at the end of 2020. The high point for SMR was last July, when the shares were going for $50.

NuScale’s arrangement with the somewhat mysterious ENTRA1, the company’s “global strategic partner,” is also raising doubts about NuScale’s future. The contract with ENTRA1, says Seeking Alpha, required “a payment of ~$507.4 million” to the firm, a staggering amount considering that NuScale has never made anything like a profit.

Simply Wall Street commented, “In recent months, “NuScale Power has faced a series of securities-fraud class action filings alleging it misrepresented the experience and capabilities of commercialization partner ENTRA1 Energy, following weak fourth-quarter 2025 financial results and concerns about its path to market.” 

One of the firms suing NuScale, California attorney Frank Cruz, in soliciting clients noted SMR’s astonishing net loss in the 2025 third quarter due to the ENTRA1 payment, “up from $46 million in the prior year period.” Cruz commented, “ENTRA1 had never built, financed, or operated any significant projects — let alone projects in the highly technical and complicated field of nuclear power generation — during its entire operating history” and “NuScale had entrusted its commercialization, distribution, and deployment of its NuScale Power Modules, and hundreds of millions of dollars of NuScale capital to an entity that lacked any significant prior experience owning, financing, or operating nuclear energy generation facilities.”

NuScale’s stock price has always been volatile, attracting short selling. That’s been the case recently. According to stock analysis Quiver Quantitative, “NuScale Power Corporation short interest was 38.92% of the float on April 15th, according to new data we received from Benzinga. Short interest totaled 66,321,822 shares, which was an increase of 23.88% from March 31st.”

Fermi America

Then there is Fermi America (NASDAQ: FRMI) with an incredibly optimistic business plan: the $60 billion “Project Matador,” using conventional electric generation, including natural gas and Westinghouse AP-1000 nuclear reactors, behind the meter, for a 17-GW mega data center in the Texas panhandle near the Department of Energy’s Pantex nuclear weapons plant. It would be named the “Donald J. Trump Advanced Energy and Intelligence Campus.”

Among the founders of the company: Rick Perry, former Republican governor of Texas and U.S. energy secretary under Trump from March 2017 to December 2019. His role in the new company is largely image and political influence. The chief founder of the company was billionaire venture capitalist Toby Neugebauer, who has a sketchy business history according to Houston Chronicle business editorialist Chris Tomlinson.

Fermi  LLC launched an initial public offering on the NASDAQ exchange last September as Fermi America, offering 25 million shares at an expected $18–$22 per share. The sale was successful, making Perry a paper billionaire. In March at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s annual Regulatory Information Conference, the company said it would break ground on Project Matador this year.

But the company had serious problems behind the initial hype, which became obvious this year: no revenue, no commercial tenant for its non-existent data center, losses totaling close to $500 million, a plunging share price. In December, the national plaintiffs’ law firm Berger Montague PC of Philadelphia filed a class action lawsuit against Fermi after an unnamed firm — widely believed to be Amazon — dropped out of a deal to be the first data center tenant, reportedly worth $150 million.

Fermi’s stock began plunging soon after the bad news began emerging. This month, without a public announcement, CEO Neugebauer “resigned,” taking with him Chief Financial Officer Miles Everson. The share price hit $5.

Commenting to the Washington Post on the fall of the house of Fermi, Princeton University energy guru Jesse Jenkins said, “The idea that a few politically connected people with little experience could pull off a many billion dollar, many gigawatt, fully off the power grid project, is quite a gamble.”

Conclusion

Energy hyperbole and the madness of crowds are evident with both NuScale Power and Fermi America. Bubbles burst.

———————

Kennedy Maize is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist who has covered energy and environmental topics for more than 40 years.  This post originally appeared at The Quad Report (May 1, 2026). His previous posts can be viewed here.

NuScale: Small Reactors, Big Legal Problems

From Master Resource

By Kennedy Maize

Small modular nuclear reactor developer NuScale Power, rocked by collapse of its only project and hammered by a freefall in its share prices, is facing another major threat. Boston-based law firm Block & Leviton announced Monday (Nov. 27) that it has filed a “class-action shareholder lawsuit in federal court, alleging the company ‘made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects.’”

Those who have followed NuScale closely have known that the company’s deal with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) was in trouble well before its cancellation announced Nov. 8. Just before UAMPS walked out of the deal to supply six 77-MW small modular reactors to serve cities in 16 western states, NuScale announced a deal with a company trying to develop data centers for crypto currency mining operations. That deal generated more skepticism about Oregon-based NuScale, as the announcement contained no financial details and did not generate an 8k filing at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Case 3:2023cv01689) was initially bought Nov. 15 by investor Scott Sigman against current and former NuScale officers John Hopkins, Chris Colbert, Robert Hamady and Clayton Scott. Hopkins is CEO, Hamady is NuScale chief financial officer, and Scott is chief commercial officer. Colbert was CFO before he left the company in August.

According to Securities and Exchange Commission documents, on Oct. 13 Colbert sold 75,585 shares of NuScale stock (NYSE:SMR) for $5.77 per share, yielding some $436,216. That was six days before Iceberg Research, an investment analysis firm specializing in short selling, hammered the company’s financial condition, including noting that the UAMPS deal was the only realistic business prospect the Oregon-based reactor developer had in hand and that the company was bleeding cash. The company’s shares fell to $2.08, compared to over $15/share in August 2022. NuScale’s third quarter 2023 revenue was $7 million with a net loss of $58.3 million, and $196.6 million cash on hand.

In a news release, Brock & Leviton, a firm that specializes in investor suits, said the litigation covers “investors that incurred damages on their purchases in NuScale Power Corporation securities between March 15, 2023 and October 19, 2023, inclusive.” The firm advised potential plaintiffs that “a class has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.”

The Sigman filing in Oregon set off a flurry of actions by law firms seeking to line up clients in the litigation, including, among others, Brock & Leviton; Bronstein, Gewirtz, and Grossman in Manhattan; Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego; and Johnson Fistel, also of San Diego. All are seeking “lead plaintiffs” in the pending litigation.

Robins Geller, a major securities fraud litigant, explains the lawyers’ feeding frenzy, “The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired NuScale securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the NuScale class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the NuScale class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the NuScale class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the NuScale class action lawsuit.”

Brock & Leviton laid out the grounds for the lawsuit. NuScale, the firm wrote, “misled investors by failing to disclose that

(1) due to the impact of inflationary pressures on the cost of construction and power, the Company and UAMPS would be unable to sign up enough subscribers to fulfill the CFPP (Carbon Free Power Project);

(2) Standard Power did not have the financial ability to support its agreement with NuScale; and

(3) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.”

Oregon Public Radio reported, “Over the course of several investor calls in 2023, NuScale executives told investors progress acquiring the needed customer base was ‘looking pretty good’ and that ‘we continue to make progress.’”

NuScale has issued no comment on the lawsuit.

——————–

This was originally published at The Quad Report, commentary on energy policy and politics.

Nuclear Go-Round: NuScale, Vogtle, Palisades

nuscale_small_reactor.original

Small modular reactors offer a lower initial capital investment, greater scalability, and siting flexibility for locations unable to accommodate more traditional larger reactors.  They also have the potential for enhanced safety and security compared to earlier designs. Deployment of advanced SMRs can help drive economic growth.

small-modular-reactors-foto-IAEA

From Master Resource

By Kennedy Maize

Ed. note: Nuclear Power is a much talked about technology in the current climate debate. Electricity veteran Ken Maize of Quad Report provides an update on three current nuclear issues: a new, mysterious NuScale power agreement; Plant Vogtle legal restitution; and the recommissioned 805-MW Palisades plant in Michigan.

NuScale’s Mystery Deal

NuScale Power has landed a deal with privately-owned blockchain data center developer Standard Power to provide two planned data centers in Pennsylvania and Ohio, 924-MW each, with electricity from arrays of NuScale’s 77-MW VOYGR small modular reactors, 12 for each data center. NuScale’s partner ENTRA1 Energy has the exclusive rights to develop, manage, own and operate energy production plants powered by NuScale’s SMRs.

NuScale and ENTRA1 created an exclusive global partnership in 2022 to commercialize NuScale’s SMRs. Standard Power describes itself as providing “blockchain miners focused on Bitcoin and other Proof of Work algorithm cryptocurrency mining an industrial scale infrastructure as a Service platform. The company provides infrastructure as a service with industrial-grade electrical and data center designs, as well as site selection based on low power costs and low environmental impact.” The company’s only identified site is 125 acres in Coshocton, Ohio, about equidistant between Columbus and Pittsburgh, Pa.

The announcement of the nascent deal produced a substantial bump in NuScale’s stock, which has been hammered for many months. The company’s 52-week high was $12.36/share. In 2022, NuScale used a “special purpose acquisition company” (SPAC) to divorce itself from Fluor Corp. NuScale’s shares (symbol: SMR) opened on the New York Stock Exchange on Friday at $4.96, up marginally from its 52-week low of $4.91. It closed on Friday at $5.76, a 23% jump.

NuScale’s press release is filled with lots of business rhetoric and standard industry buzz words: clean power, proven technology, innovative design, and so forth. But there is little detail and considerable obfuscation. The Motley Fool investment website commented, “This contract is probably worth a lot to NuScale — but how much it’s worth remains a mystery.”

No financial details are provided in the press release, nor in the company’s Oct. 6 8K filings at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Nor are there any timelines for the deal. The Motley Fool observed, “This being the case, it’s hard to say precisely what effect the contract will have on NuScale’s bottom line — or how long it will take to show up on that bottom line.” To date, NuScale has no significant earnings.

Also, NuScale has no track record. Its other deal, with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), is long delayed and losing steam. The multiple-reactor project was originally planned to be in service in 2009.

Finally, the press releases state that NuScale’s technology is the only SMR that has Nuclear Regulatory Commission design approval. True but misleading: NuScale’s 50-MW design had NRC approval. In 2020, NuScale upped its reactor design to 77 MW. In March, the NRC announced a review of the changed design, stalling the prior approval. NuScale and ENTRA1 can’t apply for a license to build and operate the reactors until that review allows.

Vogtle #3/#4 Reparations

Southern Co.’s Georgia Power will pay public power system Oglethorpe Power Corp. $413 million to settle a lawsuit over cost escalation at the $35 billion, two-unit new Vogtle nuclear power expansion. Oglethorpe, a generation and transmission cooperative, owns 30% of the 2,000-MW Vogtle project.

As part of its ownership agreement, Georgia Power agreed to limit Oglethorpe’s exposure to cost overruns for the construction of the two 1,000-MW Westinghouse AP1000 pressurized water reactors. The costs of the project ballooned, more than doubling from the initial estimate of $15 billion for the two units.

Georgia Power and Oglethorpe disagreed on how much the investor-owned utility owed in refunds to the public power system. Oglethorpe sued in July 2022, seeking $695 million. The settlement last week (Oct. 6) will award Oglethorpe $308 million for already incurred cost overruns and and $105 million for estimated future costs. According to the Associated Press, Southern Co. says it will write off a $152 million loss as a result of the settlement. The settlement provides that Georgia Power will pick up two-thirds of additional costs beyond the current estimate, according to Morningstar.

Construction on Vogle 3/4 is running seven years behind schedule and is still not complete. Unit 3 went into service July 31. At the same time of the settlement, Georgia Power announced another significant delay in finishing Unit 4. In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the utility said it has identified a “motor fault in one of four reactor coolant pumps” and will have to replace the pump. The company said it has a spare on hand and the failure is “an isolated event.” As a result, the plant will not be able to start up this year, as Georgia Power had planned, and will be delayed into “the first quarter of 2024.”

Palisades Recommissioning

Holtec International has formally applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for permission to end its decommissioning of the elderly, mothballed 805-MW Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan and near Lake Michigan and restart it. If the NRC approves restating the plant’s operating license and Holtec can line up financing, it would mark the first time a retired plant undergoing decommissioning would go back into service.

Restarting the Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactor requires the NRC to formally waive portions of its order terminating the plant’s operating license. The license “prohibits the company from operating, placing fuel into or retaining fuel in the reactor.”

Holtec acquired the plant from Entergy in June 2022 for access to the decommissioning fund. In September 2022, Holtec applied to the Department of Energy’s Civil Nuclear Credit Program for funds to restart the plant, with support from Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. DOE denied the request in November.

Michigan is providing $150 million for the restart. Early this year, Holtec applied to DOE’s Loan Programs Office for funding. Holtec in September won a long-term power purchase agreement with rural electric power cooperative Wolverine Power Cooperative.

CMS Energy of Jackson, Mich., built Palisades between 1967 and 1970 at a cost of about $1.2 billion in 2023 dollars. It went into limited service in 1971 and got a full operating license in 1973. CMS sold the plant to Entergy in 2007 for $308 million (it cost $630 million to build in 2007 dollars), along with a power purchase agreement to buy the plant’s output. In 2007, the NRC approved a license extension to 2031.

In 2018, Entergy announced it would close the plant in 2022. Whitmer in May of 2022 asked DOE for funds to keep the plant open, a move that failed. Entergy closed Palisades in May and sold it to Holtec in June.