John Hopkins said earlier this week he expects a power purchase agreement for NuScale Power’s Tennessee Valley Authority project to be resolved by the end of 2026 — even as NuScale’s stock has plunged nearly 30% year to date amid fresh questions about ENTRA1, the company that was supposed to finance and build the plant.
The fall matters because the project announced last September would be huge: NuScale agreed with ENTRA1 and the Tennessee Valley Authority to develop a 6-gigawatt small modular reactor system that could become the largest SMR in the United States — and perhaps the world — if it is built. NuScale’s shares initially jumped when the deal was unveiled, but investor confidence has been strained ever since as uncertainty mounted over whether ENTRA1 can deliver the money and execution its partner needs.
The financing hinge is stark. ENTRA1 was selected by the U.S. government in October to receive $25 billion in funding to scale new energy infrastructure under a broader $550 billion agreement between the United States and Japan. NuScale relies on ENTRA1 to handle most of the financing and construction execution for the TVA project; under the arrangement the Tennessee Valley Authority would commit to buy power from NuScale’s SMR system at a pre-negotiated price if the parties conclude a power purchase agreement, a typically highly structured and legally binding contract.
That sequence — a large public-era endorsement for ENTRA1 followed by investor questions — is the story that has kept pressure on NuScale’s stock. Traders and analysts point to the gap between the optimism of last September’s announcement and the practical need for binding contracts and clear financing to reach construction. NuScale’s competitive edge, its status as the only SMR company with design certification from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has not erased those concerns.
Tension has deepened because of reporting in February that raised fresh doubts about ENTRA1’s experience. A February report said ENTRA1 "is largely unknown in the nuclear industry, never completed a nuclear project and, according to the address listed on its website, is headquartered out of a WeWork office in Houston." That description sits uneasily beside the October decision to pick ENTRA1 for $25 billion in government-directed funding — a choice that now underpins the fate of a multigigawatt project and NuScale’s near-term stock performance.
Investors have pushed back. The company’s share price surge at the deal’s announcement has given way to a drawn-out reassessment. The stock was held back, according to company notes and market observers, by uncertainty over whether ENTRA1 will ultimately receive the funding and follow through on construction. A class action lawsuit adds another layer of risk: plaintiffs allege NuScale misled investors by exaggerating ENTRA1’s experience and capabilities when promoting the partnership.
The next year will clarify which parts of the plan are real and which are not. Hopkins’ public timeline — a resolved power purchase agreement by the end of 2026 — is the clearest deadline on the calendar that matters to shareholders. If the TVA signs a firm PPA at a pre-negotiated price, financing can be packaged and construction contracts can move forward; if not, the project will likely stall and NUScale’s stock could endure further declines.
There are other players with different risk profiles. Smaller competitors are advancing their own designs: one rival reported it held $2.5 billion in cash and no debt while targeting deployment of a microreactor by the end of 2027. But none of those details change the immediate hinge for NuScale: ENTRA1 must prove it can turn government selection into usable funds and concrete construction plans, and the TVA must commit to a contract that binds those promises to revenue.
The clearest conclusion from the facts on the table is blunt: until ENTRA1’s funding and capabilities are proven in contracts — and until a binding PPA is signed — NuScale’s smr stock will trade on doubt rather than on its NRC certification or the size of the potential project. Hopkins has given investors an end‑of‑2026 finish line; the market will treat that date as the moment this deal either becomes credible or collapses into another stalled clean‑energy promise.
