Why taxpayers will share the pain of cost of building Sizewell C nuclear power plant
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.
Big Carl, the world’s biggest crane, in action at Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant near Bridgwater in Somerset
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.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson during a visit to EDF’s Sizewell B nuclear power station in Suffolk.
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.
Cash-strapped Thames Water has revealed a further rise in its debt pile while recording a return to profit on the back of inflation-busting hikes to bills.
The UK’s largest supplier said the 31% rise to customer bills since April had allowed it to increase capital investment by 22% to £1.3bn amid demands it improve performance in preventing sewage spills and stopping leaks.
Thames Water said it recorded a 20% drop in pollution incidents over the six months to the end of September, and leakage performance was holding steady despite the “extremely dry summer”.
Money latest: How much is a fair restaurant tip?
While waste complaints dipped by 11%, according to the company, there was a 42% surge in the number of customers complaining about the hike to bills.
Thames Water revenue rose 42% on the same period last year to £1.9bn, helping a return to profit after tax of £328m on the back of a £190m loss during April-September 2024.
The company said profitability was damaged by higher debt serving costs.
Its debt pile was recorded at £17.6bn – a rise of 5%.
The results were released against the backdrop of continuing talks involving the government and regulators over a proposed rescue deal by major Thames Water creditors.
Their consortium is known as London & Valley Water.
It effectively already owns Thames Water under the terms of a financial restructuring agreed early in the summer but regulator Ofwat is yet to give its verdict on whether the consortium can run the company, averting the prospect of it being placed in a special administration regime.
Without a deal the consortium, which includes investment heavyweights Elliott Management and BlackRock, would be wiped out.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
August: Is Thames Water a step closer to nationalisation?
Ofwat, which is to be scrapped under a shake-up of industry oversight, has been leading scrutiny of London & Valley’s operational plan and proposed capital structure.
The prospective deal would write off billions of pounds of the company’s debt and inject billions in fresh equity, in return for an adjustment in the regulator’s approach to future financial penalties.
Thames sees the creditors’ proposal as the only viable solution.
Despite huge hikes to household bills – allowed across England and Wales to bolster aging infrastructure including storm overflows – the company says its financial turnaround has been hampered by record fines for things like sewage leaks and bonuses to retain key staff.
Sky News revealed on Tuesday that its remuneration committee will meet next week to decide whether to proceed with nearly £2.5m in retention payments to 21 senior managers.
Read more from Sky News:
Reeves hit by Labour rebellion
The Bank of England’s take on ‘elevated’ risks
Thames Water chief executive Chris Weston said the company had made good progress on its operational and transformation targets.
“This progress has all been achieved as we also manage the recapitalisation of the business. We continue to work closely with stakeholders to secure a market-led solution that we believe is in the best interests of our customers and the environment.
“This in turn will allow the transformation of Thames to continue, a programme that will take at least a decade to complete and will restore the infrastructure and operations of the company.”
FIFA has backed away from using dynamic pricing for all 2026 World Cup tickets amid concerns about the cost of attending the tournament in North America.
The organisers insisted they always planned to ring-fence tickets at set prices to follow your own team.
But the announcement comes just days ahead of Friday’s tournament draw in Washington DC, which Donald Trump plans to attend.
Fans will have to wait until Saturday to know exactly where and when their teams will be playing in next summer’s tournament.
Scotland will be one of the teams in the tournament, held in North America and Mexico
Variable pricing – fluctuating based on demand – has never been used at a World Cup before, raising concerns about affordability.
England and Scotland fans have been sharing images in recent days of ticket website images highlighting cost worries.
But world football’s governing body said in a statement to Sky News: “FIFA can confirm ringfenced allocations are being set aside for specific fan categories, as has been the case at previous FIFA World Cups. These allocations will be set at a fixed price for the duration of the next ticket sales phase.
“The ringfenced allocations include tickets reserved for supporters of the Participating Member Associations (PMAs), who will be allocated 8% of the tickets for each match in which they take part, including all conditional knockout stage matches.”
FIFA says the cheapest tickets are from $60 (£45) in the group stage. But the most expensive tickets for the final are $6,730 (£5,094).
There will also be a sales window after the draw from 11 December to 13 January when ticket applications will be based on a fixed price for those buying in the random selection draw.
It is the biggest World Cup with 104 matches after the event was expanded from 32 to 48 teams. There are also three host nations for the first time – with Canada and Mexico the junior partners.
The tournament mascots as seen in Mexico in October. Pic: Reuters
Read more from Sky News:
Pope urges Trump not to oust Venezuelan president by force
Government delays Chinese ‘super embassy’ decision
FIFA defended using fluctuating pricing.
“The pricing model adopted for FIFA World Cup 26 reflects the existing market practice for major entertainment and sporting events within our hosts on a daily basis, soccer included,” FIFA’s statement continued.
“This is also a reflection of the treatment of the secondary market for tickets, which has a distinct legal treatment than in many other parts of the world. We are focused on ensuring fair access to our game for existing but also prospective fans.”
The statement addressed the concerns being raised about fans being priced out of attending.
FIFA said: “Stadium category maps do not reflect the number of tickets available in a given category but rather present default seating locations.
“FIFA resale fees are aligned with North American industry trends across various sports and entertainment sectors.”
Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales could also still qualify.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has suffered another budget blow with a rebellion by rural Labour MPs over inheritance tax on farmers.
Speaking during the final day of the Commons debate on the budget, Labour backbenchers demanded a U-turn on the controversial proposals.
Plans to introduce a 20% tax on farm estates worth more than £1m from April have drawn protesters to London in their tens of thousands, with many fearing huge tax bills that would force small farms to sell up for good.
Farmers have staged numerous protests against the tax in Westminster. Pic: PA
MPs voted on the so-called “family farms tax” just after 8pm on Tuesday, with dozens of Labour MPs appearing to have abstained, and one backbencher – borders MP Markus Campbell-Savours – voting against, alongside Conservative members.
In the vote, the fifth out of seven at the end of the budget debate, Labour’s vote slumped from 371 in the first vote on tax changes, down by 44 votes to 327.
‘Time to stand up for farmers’
The mini-mutiny followed a plea to Labour MPs from the National Farmers Union to abstain.
“To Labour MPs: We ask you to abstain on Budget Resolution 50,” the NFU urged.
“With your help, we can show the government there is still time to get it right on the family farm tax. A policy with such cruel human costs demands change. Now is the time to stand up for the farmers you represent.”
After the vote, NFU president Tom Bradshaw said: “The MPs who have shown their support are the rural representatives of the Labour Party. They represent the working people of the countryside and have spoken up on behalf of their constituents.
“It is vital that the chancellor and prime minister listen to the clear message they have delivered this evening. The next step in the fight against the family farm tax is removing the impact of this unjust and unfair policy on the most vulnerable members of our community.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Farmers defy police ban in budget day protest in Westminster.
The government comfortably won the vote by 327-182, a majority of 145. But the mini-mutiny served notice to the chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer that newly elected Labour MPs from the shires are prepared to rebel.
Speaking in the debate earlier, Mr Campbell-Savours said: “There remain deep concerns about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief (APR).
“Changes which leave many, not least elderly farmers, yet to make arrangements to transfer assets, devastated at the impact on their family farms.”
Samantha Niblett, Labour MP for South Derbyshire abstained after telling MPs: “I do plead with the government to look again at APR inheritance tax.
“Most farmers are not wealthy land barons, they live hand to mouth on tiny, sometimes non-existent profit margins. Many were explicitly advised not to hand over their farm to children, (but) now face enormous, unexpected tax bills.
“We must acknowledge a difficult truth: we have lost the trust of our farmers, and they deserve our utmost respect, our honesty and our unwavering support.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
UK ‘criminally’ unprepared to feed itself in crisis, says farmers’ union.
Labour MPs from rural constituencies who did not vote included Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower), Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury), Torquil Crichton (Western Isles), Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire), Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley), and Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall), Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk), Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby), Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk), Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth), Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay), Perran Moon, (Camborne and Redruth), Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire), Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal), Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire), John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) and Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr).
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024