Korea mulls acquiring Westinghouse stake in US investment package
Westinghouse headquareters in Cranberry Township, Pa. / Screen capture from Westinghouse's website
Experts say investment should guarantee Korea's voting rights, commercial returns
Korea and the United States are reportedly discussing a possible Korean investment in Westinghouse Electric, as plans to include the construction of eight large nuclear reactors in the U.S. in a broader investment package have gained a momentum.
The prospect of Korea's acquiring a stake in Westinghouse has drawn attention because it could give the country greater leverage in addressing intellectual property (IP) issues that have long constrained its nuclear export ambitions. But experts caution that a financial investment alone may do little unless it is accompanied by meaningful voting rights, governance safeguards and clear commercial returns.
According to government sources, the two sides have put the Westinghouse issue on the negotiating table after the U.S. proposed the idea. The potential investment is being discussed alongside a project to build eight large-scale reactors in the U.S.
For Korea, the most immediate strategic benefit would be a stronger position in negotiations over IP. Korea’s state-run nuclear plant operator, the Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, and the country’s exclusive power distributor, the Korea Electric Power Corp., settled their dispute with Westinghouse in January 2025, ending litigation over whether Korea’s APR1400 reactor design incorporates U.S.-origin technology subject to export controls.
The settlement removed a major obstacle to Korea’s overseas nuclear projects and opened the way for future cooperation. Yet it also underscored the vulnerability of Korea’s export strategy to IP claims and U.S. regulatory authority. A stake in Westinghouse could create an institutional channel for cooperation and potentially give Korean companies greater access to the U.S. nuclear market, where Westinghouse retains technology, licensing and project-development capabilities.
Still, the scope of such benefits would depend heavily on the terms of the deal.
APR1400 nuclear reactors Shin-Hanul 1 and 2 in Uljin, North Gyeongsang Province / Courtesy of Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power
Westinghouse is currently owned by Toronto-based global investment firm Brookfield, which holds a 51 percent interest, and Canadian uranium producer Cameco, which owns the remaining 49 percent. Any Korean purchase would require an agreement with existing shareholders, while the U.S. would be expected to retain substantial influence over sensitive nuclear technologies and export controls regardless of the formal ownership structure.
That raises the risk that Korea could commit substantial capital and construction capacity while securing limited influence over management, board decisions, technology licensing or profit distribution. Unless a deal includes voting rights, board representation, access to specific projects and enforceable changes to commercial terms, Korea could end up functioning largely as a financing and construction partner rather than as an equal strategic stakeholder.
The history of Westinghouse illustrates the risks of an aggressive bet on the nuclear industry. Toshiba acquired Westinghouse in 2006 for about $5.4 billion, anticipating a global nuclear expansion. But delays and cost overruns in U.S. reactor construction projects sharply increased costs. Westinghouse filed for a bankruptcy protection in 2017 and Toshiba was forced into a financial restructuring.
Lee Jeong-yoon, head of civic group Nuclear Safety and Future, said that even a full ownership would not necessarily translate into an access to sensitive U.S. reactor technology. He said that even when Toshiba acquired a 100 percent stake, it was kept away from U.S. technologies such as reactor design.
“There may not be much that we can obtain,” he said.
Export-Import Bank of Korea (Korea Eximbank) Chairman and President Hwang Ki-yeon, left, shakes hands with TerraPower Chairman Bill Gates in Seoul, Aug. 14. The two discussed financial cooperation for commercialization of small modular reactors and expansion into global markets. Courtesy of Korea Eximbank
Lee said Westinghouse’s current move toward initial public offering (IPO) must be also considered because Korean investment into the American company could improve the latter’s valuation, while Korea may have to take greater risks of increased construction cost and construction delay.
“The first question is whether the Korean investment would involve buying existing shareholders’ stakes at a premium or subscribing to newly issued shares through the IPO. A minority stake alone would not secure IP rights or nuclear export rights for Korea. There is a risk that Korean public funds could boost Westinghouse’s valuation and help Brookfield and Cameco recoup their investments, while Korea assumes the risks of cost overruns and construction delays in U.S. nuclear projects,” he said.
He added, “Unless the deal guarantees board seats, veto rights over key decisions, IP licensing rights and clear terms for profit sharing and loss allocation, it could amount to a financial investment rather than a strategic one. The central question is whether Korea would become a genuine owner of Westinghouse, or merely provide capital and construction capacity to support a successful IPO and the construction of U.S. nuclear reactors.”
Jeong Yong-hoon, professor at Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology's Department of Nuclear & Quantum Engineering, said the possible share purchase would be unnecessary if it does not guarantee rights worth the investment.
“I agree the U.S. ownership of Westinghouse would remain dominant, limiting Korea’s ability to expand its influence over management control, decision-making structures or profit-sharing arrangements despite committing capital. A stake would be meaningful only if Korea is guaranteed an influence commensurate with its financial contribution. Otherwise, the investment may offer little strategic value,” he said.