Korea mulls acquiring Westinghouse stake in US investment package

Korea and the United States are reportedly discussing a possible Korean investment in Westinghouse Electric as part of a broader package that includes building eight large nuclear reactors in the U.S. The deal is drawing attention because a Westinghouse stake could strengthen Korea’s position on nuclear intellectual property issues, but experts say voting rights, governance and commercial terms would matter most. Westinghouse is owned by Brookfield and Cameco, and any purchase would need shareholder agreement.

Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power and KEPCO settled their dispute with Westinghouse in January 2025, ending litigation over whether the APR1400 design uses U.S.-origin technology subject to export controls.

Westinghouse is currently owned 51 percent by Toronto-based Brookfield and 49 percent by Canadian uranium producer Cameco.

Toshiba bought Westinghouse in 2006 for about $5.4 billion, but the company later filed for bankruptcy protection in 2017 after delays and cost overruns in U.S. reactor projects.

Lee Jeong-yoon said that even a full ownership stake would not necessarily give Korea access to sensitive U.S. reactor technology.

Jeong Yong-hoon said a stake would be meaningful only if Korea is guaranteed influence commensurate with its financial contribution.

Published Sep 10, 2026 1:27 pm KST

Updated Sep 10, 2026 1:34 pm KST

Experts say investment should guarantee Korea's voting rights, commercial returns

Westinghouse headquareters in Cranberry Township, Pa. / Screen capture from Westinghouse's website

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.

据报道，韩国和美国正在商讨韩国可能投资西屋电气公司，作为一项更广泛合作计划的一部分，该计划还包括在美国建造八座大型核反应堆。这笔交易之所以备受关注，是因为西屋电气的股份可能会增强韩国在核能知识产权问题上的地位，但专家表示，投票权、公司治理和商业条款才是最重要的。西屋电气目前由布鲁克菲尔德和卡梅科两家公司共同拥有，任何收购都需要获得股东同意。

韩国水力核电公司和韩国电力公司于 2025 年 1 月与西屋电气公司达成和解，结束了关于 APR1400 设计是否使用受出口管制的美国原产技术的诉讼。

西屋电气目前由总部位于多伦多的布鲁克菲尔德公司持有 51% 的股份，由加拿大铀生产商卡梅科公司持有 49% 的股份。

东芝于 2006 年以约 54 亿美元收购了西屋电气，但由于美国反应堆项目延误和成本超支，该公司于 2017 年申请破产保护。

李正允表示，即使获得全部股权，也不一定能让韩国获得美国敏感的反应堆技术。

郑容勋表示，只有当韩国的影响力与其财政贡献相称时，持股才有意义。

发布于2026年9月10日下午1:27（韩国标准时间）

更新于2026年9月10日下午1:34（韩国标准时间）

专家表示，投资应保障韩国的投票权和商业回报。

位于宾夕法尼亚州克兰贝里镇的西屋电气总部 / 图片来自西屋电气网站

据报道，韩国和美国正在讨论韩国可能对西屋电气公司进行投资，此前，一项将在美国建造八座大型核反应堆纳入更广泛的投资计划的方案正在推进中。

韩国收购西屋电气股份的前景引发关注，因为这可能使韩国在解决长期以来制约其核能出口的知识产权问题上拥有更大的影响力。但专家警告说，单凭资金投资可能收效甚微，除非同时赋予韩国有意义的投票权、治理保障措施和明确的商业回报。

据政府消息人士透露，在美国提出这一想法后，双方已将西屋电气项目问题提上谈判桌。这项潜在投资正与在美国建造八座大型反应堆的项目一同进行讨论。

对韩国而言，最直接的战略利益在于在知识产权谈判中占据更有利的地位。韩国国营核电站运营商韩国水力核电公司和该国唯一的电力分销商韩国电力公司于2025年1月与西屋公司达成和解，结束了关于韩国APR1400反应堆设计是否采用了受出口管制约束的美国技术的诉讼。

该和解协议扫清了韩国海外核能项目的一个主要障碍，并为未来的合作铺平了道路。然而，这也凸显了韩国出口战略在知识产权纠纷和美国监管机构面前的脆弱性。入股西屋公司可以为合作建立制度性渠道，并有可能使韩国企业更好地进入美国核能市场，而西屋公司在该市场拥有技术、许可和项目开发能力。

不过，这些好处的范围将很大程度上取决于交易条款。

庆尚北道蔚珍市新韩蔚1号和2号核电站APR1400型反应堆 / 图片由韩国水力核电公司提供

西屋电气目前由总部位于多伦多的全球投资公司布鲁克菲尔德（Brookfield）和加拿大铀生产商卡梅科（Cameco）共同拥有，布鲁克菲尔德持有51%的股份，卡梅科持有剩余的49%股份。任何韩国的收购都需要与现有股东达成协议，而无论正式的股权结构如何变化，美国预计仍将对敏感的核技术和出口管制保持相当大的影响力。

这增加了韩国可能投入大量资金和建设能力，却只能在管理、董事会决策、技术许可或利润分配方面获得有限影响力的风险。除非协议包含投票权、董事会席位、特定项目参与权以及对商业条款的可强制执行的修改权，否则韩国最终可能主要扮演融资和建设伙伴的角色，而非平等的战略利益相关者。

西屋电气的历史说明了过度押注核能产业的风险。东芝于2006年以约54亿美元收购西屋电气，预期全球核能产业将蓬勃发展。然而，美国核反应堆建设项目的延误和成本超支导致成本大幅上升。西屋电气于2017年申请破产保护，东芝也被迫进行财务重组。

公民团体“核安全与未来”负责人李正允表示，即使完全拥有股份，也未必能获得美国敏感的反应堆技术。他指出，即使东芝收购了100%的股份，也仍然无法接触到美国的反应堆设计等技术。

他说：“我们可能得不到太多东西。”

8月14日，韩国进出口银行董事长兼行长黄基渊（左）在首尔与泰拉能源公司董事长比尔·盖茨握手。双方讨论了小型模块化反应堆商业化及拓展全球市场的金融合作事宜。图片由韩国进出口银行提供。

李表示，西屋电气目前推进首次公开募股（IPO）的举措也必须考虑在内，因为韩国对这家美国公司的投资可能会提高后者的估值，而韩国可能不得不承担更大的风险，例如更高的建设成本和更长时间的工期延误。

“首先要问的是，韩国的投资是会溢价收购现有股东的股份，还是会通过IPO认购新发行的股份。仅持有少数股权并不能确保韩国获得知识产权或核能出口权。韩国公共资金可能会推高西屋公司的估值，帮助布鲁克菲尔德和卡梅科收回投资，而韩国则要承担美国核电项目成本超支和工期延误的风险，”他说道。

他补充道：“除非该交易能保证董事会席位、关键决策的否决权、知识产权许可权以及明确的利润分成和亏损分摊条款，否则它可能只是一项金融投资，而非战略投资。核心问题在于，韩国究竟会成为西屋公司的真正所有者，还是仅仅提供资金和建设能力，以支持其成功上市和美国核反应堆的建设。”

韩国科学技术院核与量子工程系教授郑永勋表示，如果股权收购不能保证获得值得投资的权利，那么这种可能的股权收购就没有必要。

“我同意美国对西屋电气的控股地位仍将占据主导地位，这将限制韩国即便投入资金，也难以扩大其在管理控制、决策结构或利润分配安排方面的影响力。只有当韩国能够获得与其资金投入相称的影响力时，持股才有意义。否则，这项投资可能几乎没有战略价值，”他说道。