Brookfield looks to revive VC Summer project

South Carolina’s state-owned utility Santee Cooper has signed a letter of intent (LOI) with Canada’s Brookfield Asset Management to guide final, exclusive negotiations with Brookfield concerning the two partially built AP1000 nuclear units at the Virgil C Summer Nuclear Power Station in Fairfield County.

Santee Cooper, which co-owned the VC Summer project with South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G), launched the project to build two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the site in 2009. Construction of the units began in March and November 2013. However, construction was abandoned in July 2017, four months after Westinghouse (then owned by Toshiba) declared bankruptcy, after years of rising costs and delays. Together, SCE&G (now owned by Dominion) and Santee Cooper had spent some $9bn on the project. SCE&G customers had already paid about $1.4bn through higher monthly utility bills for the project, which was about 64% complete.

In 2018 Toshiba announced the completion of the sale of Westinghouse’s holding company to Brookfield Business Partners (a subsidiary of Canadian investment management company Brookfield Asset Management) and some partners. In 2022, Brookfield Renewable Partners (another subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management) and Cameco acquired Westinghouse Electric from Brookfield Business Partners. The transaction was completed in November 2023 with Brookfield Renewable and its institutional partners owning a 51% interest in Westinghouse and Cameco 49%.

The LOH establishes a six-week initial project feasibility period during which the parties will jointly select a project manager and evaluate construction providers that would be used in resuming construction of the two units. The six weeks also would allow for advanced discussions with entities interested in buying nuclear power generated by the units and facilitate additional due diligence, leading to a memorandum of understanding.

“Brookfield came to Santee Cooper with a proposal that set out the path to turn our prior nuclear investment into lasting value for our customers and all South Carolinians,” said Santee Cooper Board Chairman Peter McCoy. “Our goals include completing these reactors with private money and no ratepayer or taxpayer expense, delivering financial relief to our customers and gaining significant additional power capacity for South Carolina. Brookfield’s proposal would do just that, and the company has the financial capability to stand behind its proposal.”

Santee Cooper President & CEO Jimmy Staton thanked Governor Henry McMaster and the South Carolina General Assembly members who encouraged the move. “As we move closer to a final deal, our goal remains the same: to enable completion of these two units and thus provide 2,200 MW of carbon-free, reliable nuclear power that delivers energy security for South Carolina and specific benefits to Santee Cooper customers who are paying our initial investment.”

Staton noted that Santee Cooper’s strategic decision to maintain the equipment over the past eight years positions the Fairfield units for a quicker and less costly path to completion. “The state of the units, and the fact that they use the same Westinghouse AP1000 technology that is now operating in Georgia and overseas, make these assets very attractive to the nuclear power industry.”

In 2024, with surging residential and industrial customer demand and supported by state leaders, Santee Cooper saw a potential opportunity to sell the assets to a third party who would complete the unfinished nuclear units. A competitive bidding process was launched in January 2025, receiving initial expressions of interest from over 70 potential bidders and 15 formal proposals.

Santee Cooper executives credited President Donald Trump’s Executive Order in May calling for the US to quadruple the amount of power generated by nuclear plants over the next 25 years for opening the door to the potential agreement.

Santee Cooper said Brookfield preliminarily agreed to provide the utility with some of the power generated. But that and many other details will have to be negotiated. Tom Clements, Executive Director of Savannah River Site Watch said there are still too many hurdles for the project to consider this a win right now.

He pointed out that, after eight years in the elements, all the equipment and the structure of the plant will need to be carefully inspected before it can be used. The permits to build and the licences to operate the plants will need to be renewed, likely starting from scratch. “I still believe that the cost, technical and regulatory hurdles are too big to lead to completion of the project,” Clements said.

The original project needed to be finished in seven years to get tax credits to keep the project’s cost from overwhelming the utilities, but it ended up behind schedule almost immediately. Executives lied about the problems to keep money coming in. Taxpayers and ratepayers ended up paying because of a state law that allowed the utilities to charge for costs before any power was generated. Four executives were convicted of misconduct with three receiving jail sentences and one home detention.

Savannah River Site Watch in August published a report outlining major stumbling blocks to revival of the project. It concluded: “Thoughtful analysts and the media must investigate the technical, economic and political challenges … and not just repeat the restart mantra. Restart doesn’t look to offer sustainable, efficient or affordable energy for South Carolina so must be viewed with caution. Likewise, the response to restart hurdles could also be instructive to other utilities or countries that, in a sea of concepts for imaginary “small modular reactors” – none of which exist in the US – might consider pursuing the AP1000 reactor, for which Westinghouse is making an endless sales pitch for a product that has faced massive cost overruns and unresolved problems in the US.”