Why taxpayers will share the pain of cost of building Sizewell C nuclear power plant

Published

3 years ago

November 29, 2022

admin

It was as long ago as 1982, back in the pre-privatisation days of the Central Electricity Generating Board, that the idea of building a new nuclear power plant in Suffolk – Sizewell C – was first mooted.

At that time, construction had yet to begin on the neighbouring Sizewell B, which for now remains the youngest of Britain’s operating nuclear power plants.

The first planning application was filed as long ago as 1989 and there have been countless false starts since.

The theoretical cost of construction was pushed up when Margaret Thatcher‘s government insisted that any company building a new nuclear power station would also have to have funding in place for not only its construction but also for the disposal of waste and the eventual decommissioning of the plant.

That proved a major obstacle to new nuclear build which was then further held up by Tony Blair’s reluctance to take on opponents of new nuclear build in his own party – although, in 2006, he eventually committed to the cause, as did his successor, Gordon Brown.

Hinkley Point C, the UK’s first new nuclear power station in a generation, was the upshot.

New financing key to unlocking nuclear

Yet the construction of the Somerset plant is years behind schedule. EDF, the French energy giant building it and which will construct Sizewell C, originally envisaged it opening in 2017. Hinkley Point C is also billions of pounds over budget.

And the coalition government’s decision to guarantee EDF a fixed price for the energy generated at Hinkley Point C, which was necessary to persuade the French company to go ahead with the project, was subsequently heavily criticised.

The National Audit Office (NAO) said the agreement had locked consumers into a “risky and expensive” project – although, ironically, the deal now looks good value following this year’s spike in wholesale electricity prices.

The NAO’s report did, though, make subsequent governments wary, once more, of new nuclear build.

Theresa May immediately demanded a review of Hinkley Point C on becoming prime minister and, even though her government ultimately approved the project, she also took note of a suggestion in the NAO’s report that new funding models be considered for subsequent new nuclear power stations.

That, in a nutshell, is why it has taken so long for Sizewell C to finally get off the ground. These plants are so monstrously expensive to build that no private sector company is willing to bear all of the risks themselves without some support from government. It is also why the likes of Japan’s Hitachi and South Korea’s Kepco have reluctantly walked away from building new nuclear plants at Wylfa on Anglesey, Oldbury in Gloucestershire and Moorside in Cumbria.

So key to unlocking the project has been coming up with a new way of financing it.

The solution

The government’s solution is the funding model known as Regulated Asset Base (RAB) – the means by which other major infrastructure projects, such as the £4.3bn Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport, have been financed.

Under this arrangement, rather than guarantee whoever builds Sizewell C a set price for the electricity it generates, taxpayers will be taking risk alongside other investors.

This is why the government is investing an initial £700m in the construction of the plant although, with the total cost likely to come in at between £20-£30bn, that will only go so far.

The other elements in the RAB model include electricity consumers – households and businesses – paying for the plant while it is still under construction through their bills.

This is how, for example, the £4.13bn Thames Tideway tunnel now under construction is being financed. A share of the cost of the project, which is aimed at preventing sewage spills into the Thames estuary as well as future-proofing London’s sewerage system for expected population growth, is being met by customers of Thames Water on their bills.

The arrangement means taxpayers share in the pain of any cost-overruns. Other crucial aspects of the RAB model include an ‘economic regulatory regime’ (ERR), overseen by an independent regulator, who determines the extent to which investors and taxpayers will share the risks by setting the amount of revenue that EDF will be allowed as it builds Sizewell C.

Unknown sums but less risk

The government has yet to make clear the sum that billpayers will have to contribute towards the new power station but newspaper reports have suggested it will be in the region of an additional £1 per month per customer.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said today that the lower cost of financing a large-scale nuclear project through this scheme was “expected to lead to savings for consumers of at least £30bn on each project throughout its lifetime” compared with the existing arrangements governing the financing of Hinkley Point C.

So in theory, while there is a risk attached to building Sizewell C, the funding model proposed appears to be less risky than the way in which Hinkley Point C has been financed. The ultimate cost to electricity consumers in the latter case was dictated simply by a decision made a decade ago on the price that EDF would be promised for its power. It currently looks good value but, for much of the last decade, it has not.

Yet the RAB model does have its critics.

Less incentive to control costs

Steve Thomas, emeritus professor of energy at the University of Greenwich, has argued that, by removing construction risk from EDF, the company has less of an incentive to control construction costs. With Hinkley Point C, EDF has had to bear the cost of any over-runs. With Sizewell C, taxpayers would be on the hook.

Professor Thomas argues that this is particularly worrying because he believes EDF’s cost estimates are too optimistic. He has also argued that the £1-a-month levy on household bills, should it come to pass, is also potentially flawed because of assumptions it is making about borrowing costs.

Less risky, for now, appears to be the ownership of Sizewell C. Objections to the involvement of the Chinese state-owned company China General Nuclear, originally raised by the May government, have resulted in the company now being bought out of its interest in Sizewell C. The project will instead be jointly owned by EDF and the UK government – although there has been speculation that new investment could also be brought in from the sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates.

There are, though, some other objections. The idea of building small modular reactors by companies like Rolls-Royce has won support on the basis that the technology could be cheaper and more scalable than big projects like Sizewell C. They would also, in theory, involve less cost in adapting the national grid.

The EDF question

Another risk concerns EDF itself. The company recently had to be bailed out and fully nationalised by the French government following the spike in wholesale prices.

But this means EDF is now effectively run at the behest of the French government. France is also anxious to build new nuclear power plants. Should EDF become cost-constrained it is perfectly plausible that the French state would direct it to focus on its domestic projects rather than its ones overseas.

There have already been hints of this.

EDF’s former chairman and chief executive Jean-Bernard Levy, who was effectively fired by President Macron after opposing nationalisation, was a strong supporter of Sizewell C but was hampered by the French government’s constant demands for more information on the project.

One final risk is that electricity demand does not increase in the way that the government is assuming and that Sizewell C’s output may not be needed.

However, with electricity demand projected to double as the UK decarbonises, that feels less worrisome than some other factors – and particularly now Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine has highlighted the importance of the UK having more indigenous sources of energy.

Business

Poundland to stop paying rent at hundreds of stores in rescue deal

Published

5 hours ago

June 16, 2025

admin

Poundland to stop paying rent at hundreds of stores in rescue deal

Poundland will halt rent payments at hundreds of its shops if a restructuring of the ailing discount retailer is approved by creditors later this summer.

Sky News has learnt that Poundland’s new owner, the investment firm Gordon Brothers, is proposing to halt all rent payments at so-called Category C shops across the country.

According to a letter sent to creditors in the last few days, roughly 250 shops have been classed as Category C sites, with rent payments “reduced to nil”.

Poundland will have the right to terminate leases with 30 days’ notice at roughly 70 of these loss-making stores – classed as C2 – after the restructuring plan is approved, and with 60 days’ notice at about 180 more C2 sites.

The plan also raises the prospect of landlords activating break clauses in their contracts at the earliest possible opportunity if they can secure alternative retail tenants.

In addition to the zero-rent proposal, hundreds of Poundland’s stores would see rent payments reduced by between 15% and 75% if the restructuring plan is approved.

The document leaves open the question of how many shops will ultimately close under its new owners.

A convening hearing has been scheduled for next month, while a sanction hearing, at which creditors will vote on the plan, is due to occur on or around August 26, according to one source.

The discounter was sold last week for a nominal sum to Gordon Brothers, the former owner of Laura Ashley, amid mounting losses suffered by its Warsaw-listed owner, Pepco Group.

Poundland declined to comment.

Business

Israel-Iran conflict poses new cost of living threat – here’s why

Published

11 hours ago

June 16, 2025

admin

Israel-Iran conflict poses new cost of living threat - here's why

The UK’s cost of living crisis hangover is facing fresh pressure from the Israel-Iran conflict and growing tensions across the Middle East.

Whenever the region, particularly a major oil-producing country, is embroiled in some kind of fracas, the potential consequences are first seen in global oil prices.

The Middle East accounts for a third of world output.

Money latest: ‘Unusual movement’ in house prices

Iran’s share of the total is only about 3%, but it is the second-largest supplier of natural gas.

Add to that its control of the key Strait of Hormuz shipping route, and you can understand why any military action involving Iran has huge implications for the global economy at a time when a US-inspired global trade war is already playing out.

What’s happened to oil prices?

Global oil prices jumped by up to 13% on Friday as the Israel-Iran conflict ramped up.

It was the biggest one-day leap seen since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, which gave birth to the energy-driven cost-of-living crisis.

From lows of $64 (£47) a barrel for Brent crude, the international benchmark, earlier this month, the cost is currently 15% higher.

Iran ships all its oil to China because of Western sanctions, so the world’s second-largest economy would have the most to lose in the event of disruption.

Should that happen, China would need to replace that oil by buying elsewhere on the international market, threatening higher prices.

How are natural gas prices holding up?

UK day-ahead prices are 15% up over the past week alone.

Europe is more dependent on Middle East liquefied natural gas (LNG) these days because of sanctions against Russia.

The UK is particularly exposed due to the fact that we have low storage capacity and rely so much on gas-fired power to keep the lights on and for heating.

Israel-Iran latest: Tehran threatens to leave nuclear treaty

The day-ahead price, measured in pence per therm (I won’t go into that), is at 93p on Monday.

It sounds rather meaningless until you compare it with the price seen less than a week ago – 81p.

The higher sum was last seen over the winter – when demand is at its strongest.

What are the risks to these prices?

Market experts say Brent crude would easily exceed $100 (£74) a barrel in the event of any Iranian threats to supplies through the Strait of Hormuz – the 30-mile wide shipping lane controlled by both Iran and Oman.

While Iran has a history of disrupting trade, analysts believe it will not want to risk its oil and gas income through any blockade.

What do these price increases mean for the UK?

There are implications for the whole economy at a time when the chancellor can least afford it, as she bets big on public sector-led growth for the economy.

We can expect higher oil, gas and fuel costs to be passed on down supply chains – from the refinery and factory – to the end user, consumers. It could affect anything from foodstuffs to even fake tan.

Increases at the pumps are usually the first to appear – probably within the next 10 days. Prices are always quick to rise and slow to reflect easing wholesale costs.

Energy bills will also take in the gas spike, particularly if the wholesale price rises are sustained.

The energy price cap from September – and new fixed-term price deals – will first reflect these increases.

How does this all play out in the coming months?

So much depends on events ahead.

But energy price rises are an inflation risk and a potential threat to future interest rate cuts.

While LSEG data shows financial markets continuing to expect a further two interest rate cuts by the Bank of England this year, the rate-setting committee will be reluctant to cut if the pace of price growth is led higher than had been expected.

At a time when employers are grappling with higher taxes and minimum pay thresholds, and consumers a surge in bills following the ‘awful April’ hikes to council tax, water and other essentials, a fresh energy-linked inflation spike is the last thing anyone needs.

Business

Farming: Cost of rural crime in Wales at its highest in more than a decade

Published

17 hours ago

June 16, 2025

admin

Farming: Cost of rural crime in Wales at its highest in more than a decade

The cost of rural crime in Wales is at its highest in more than a decade, a new report has revealed.

Last year, rural crime cost an estimated £2.8m in Wales, according to insurance provider NFU Mutual.

That’s an 18% increase on the previous year, with Wales the only UK nation to have seen a rise.

For farmers like Caryl Davies, that makes their work harder.

The 21-year-old farms on a beef and sheep farm in Pembrokeshire.

She told Sky News that having the quad bike stolen from her family farm last August had made them feel “really unsafe at home”.

The fact it happened in such a rural area was a “really big shock” for Ms Davies and her family.

“We’d rely on the bike day in day out, to look after our cows and sheep, and it’s had a really negative impact on us,” she said.

The cost of replacing a bike exactly like theirs would be “close to £10,000”.

“They’re a really expensive piece of kit, but you can’t be without them, especially in these rural areas where we’ve got the mountain and maybe places that aren’t very accessible,” she added.

“The bike is totally crucial for our day-to-day running of the farm.”

The incident was caught on camera in the calving shed, but the Davies family have since invested in an enhanced CCTV system. That comes at an additional cost.

“For some farmers, this is spare money that we haven’t really got,” Ms Davies added.

“Farming is hard enough as it is, without people stealing your things and having to spend this extra money on making your home farm safe.”

The total cost of rural crime across the UK has fallen since 2023 – down from £52.8m to £44.1m.

Quad bike and All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) remained the top target for thieves during the past year, NFU Mutual’s figures show.

James Bourne farms in Pontypool, Torfaen, and claims to have had over 200 sheep stolen from common land adjoining his farm over a four-year period.

The 32-year-old told Sky News that losing sheep from his herd was a “big hit” on his business as well as the young family he is trying to support.

“The way agriculture is at the moment anyway, we’re struggling to make ends meet, and any profit that is in it is obviously being taken from me,” he said.

“So I really need to try and find out and get to the bottom of where they’re going because obviously it’s an ongoing issue.”

Andrew Chalk, from NFU Mutual, told Sky News that while there had been a “significant drop” across the UK, there were “worrying signs”.

“In Wales, especially, rural crime’s gone up which just shows that organised criminals are looking for ways to target the countryside again and again,” he said.

“What we’ve found increasingly is that organised criminals are targeting certain areas of the countryside, so they’re hitting multiple farms in one night.

“They’re raiding them, they’re moving away to another area and then hitting multiple farms there. So it is hugely concerning.”

Mr Chalk said NFU Mutual had also heard reports of criminals using drones and other equipment to “look at the lay of the land”.

“What it does show is that organised criminals are always going to find new ways to target rural crime and that’s why we need to be on top of it and to work together to actually disrupt them,” he added.

Police forces in Wales say they are aware of the “significant impact” that rural crimes have on those affected.

A Dyfed-Powys Police spokesperson said the force had acquired new technology to help combat rural crime, including “advanced DNA asset-marking kits” and hopes to “empower farmers with effective tools and advice”.

The spokesperson acknowledged the difficulty of patrolling the entire police force area, “given the huge area” it has to cover, and thanked rural communities for their “continuing vigilance and for reporting any suspicious activity”.

Temporary Chief Superintendent Jason White, from Gwent Police, said the force would be “increasing resources” within the rural crime team throughout this financial year and urged anyone in a rural area who believes they have been a victim of crime to get in touch.