Everyone's reading this as the US committing $40B to SMRs. I'd pump the brakes on that framing. This is Japanese bilateral capital flowing through a trade pact, not a congressional appropriation or a DOE funding line. GE Vernova and Hitachi will build BWRX-300 reactors in Tennessee and Alabama, yes, but the $40B sits inside Japan's $550B investment commitment through 2029. That's a diplomatic demand signal, not a structural one.
If the trade relationship wobbles (and trade relationships do wobble), the capital commitment can wobble with it. The coverage treats this like a done deal removing demand uncertainty for SMR developers. I think that overstates the durability of the backstop by a wide margin.
No SMR has ever been added to a US grid. TVA submitted its construction permit application to the NRC in May 2025. The NRC accepted the review and expects to finish by December 2026.. which means we're still months away from a construction permit, let alone an operating license, let alone electrons on the grid.
I'd watch the NRC permit decision, not state utility commission filings. If that December 2026 review slips or surfaces design issues, the whole capex acceleration thesis needs rethinking. I'm directionally constructive on SMR equipment suppliers here, but the timeline confidence embedded in most of the market commentary feels higher than the evidence warrants.