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

Published

2 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

Interest rate cut to 4.25% by Bank of England

Published

20 hours ago

May 8, 2025

admin

Interest rate cut to 4.25% by Bank of England

The Bank of England has cut interest rates from 4.5% to 4.25%, citing Donald Trump’s trade war as one of the key reasons for the reduction in borrowing costs.

In a decision taken shortly before the official confirmation of a trade deal between Britain and the United States, the Bank’s monetary policy committee (MPC) voted to reduce borrowing costs in the UK, saying the economy would be slightly weaker and inflation lower in part as a result of higher tariffs.

However, it stopped short of predicting that the trade war would trigger a recession.

Money latest: What rate cut means for you

Further rate cuts are expected in the coming months, though there remains some uncertainty about how fast and how far the MPC will cut – since it was split three ways on this latest vote.

Two members of the nine-person MPC voted to reduce rates by even more today, taking them down to 4%. But another two on the committee voted not to cut them at all, leaving them instead at 4.5%.

In the event, five members voted for the quarter point cut – enough to tip the balance – with the accompanying minutes saying that while “the current impact of the global trade news should not be overstated, the news was sufficient for those members to judge that a reduction in Bank Rare was warranted.”

Even so, the Bank’s analysis suggests that while higher tariffs were likely to depress global and UK economic growth, and help push down inflation, the impact would be relatively minor, with growth only 0.3% lower and inflation only 0.2% lower.

Governor, Andrew Bailey, said: “Inflationary pressures have continued to ease, so we’ve been able to cut rates again today.

“The past few weeks have shown how unpredictable the global economy can be. That’s why we need to stick to a gradual and careful approach to further rate cuts. Ensuring low and stable inflation is our top priority.”

The Bank raised its forecast for UK economic growth this year from 0.75% to 1%, but said that was primarily because of unexpectedly strong output in the first quarter.

In fact, underlying economic growth remains weak at just 0.1% a quarter.

It said that while inflation was expected to rise further in the coming months, peaking at 3.5% in the third quarter, it would drop down thereafter, settling at just below 2% towards the end of next year.

Business

Trump set to announce US will agree trade deal with UK, Sky News understands

Published

1 day ago

May 8, 2025

admin

Trump set to announce US will agree trade deal with UK, Sky News understands

Donald Trump is set to announce that America will agree a trade deal with the UK, Sky News understands.

A government source has told Sky’s deputy political editor Sam Coates that initial reports about the agreement in The New York Times are correct.

Coates says he understands a “heads of terms” agreement, essentially a preliminary arrangement, has been agreed which is a “substantive” step towards a full deal.

Three sources familiar with the reported plans had earlier told the New York Times that the US president will announce on Thursday that the UK and US will agree a trade deal.

Shortly after the report emerged the value of the British pound rose by 0.4% against the US dollar.

Mr Trump had earlier teased that he would be announcing a major trade deal in the Oval Office at 10am local time (3pm UK time) on Thursday without specifying which country it had been agreed with.

Writing in a post on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, he said the news conference announcing the deal would be held with “representatives of a big, and highly respected, country”.

He did not offer more details but said the announcement would be the “first of many”.

A White House spokesperson has declined to comment on the New York Times report.

Senior Trump officials have been engaging in a flurry of meetings with trading partners since the US president announced his “liberation day” tariffs on both the US’ geopolitical rivals and allies on 2 April.

Mr Trump imposed a 10% tariff on most countries including the UK during the announcement, along with higher “reciprocal” tariff rates for many trading partners.

However those reciprocal tariffs were later suspended for 90 days.

Britain was not among the countries hit with the higher reciprocal tariffs because it imports more from the US than it exports there.

However, the UK was still impacted by a 25% tariff on all cars and all steel and aluminium imports to the US.

A UK official said on Tuesday that the two countries had made good progress on a trade deal that would likely include lower tariff quotas on steel and cars.

Mr Trump said the same day that he and top administration officials would review potential trade deals with other countries over the next two weeks to decide which ones to accept.

Last week he said that he has “potential” trade deals with India, South Korea and Japan.

Asked on Sky News’ Breakfast programme about the UK-EU summit on 19 May and how Mr Starmer would balance relationships with the US and EU, Coates said: “I think it is politically helpful for Keir Starmer to have got the heads of terms, the kind of main points of a US-UK trade deal, nailed down before we see what we have negotiated with the EU — or, more importantly, Donald Trump sees what we have negotiated with the EU.”

Coates said there was “always a danger” that if it happened the other way around, Mr Trump would “take umbrage” at negotiations with the EU and “downgrade, alter or put us further back in the queue” when it came to a UK-US trade deal.

US and Chinese officials to discuss trade war

It comes as the US and China have been engaged in an escalating trade war since Mr Trump took office in January.

The Trump administration has raised tariffs on Chinese goods to 145% while Beijing has responded with levies of 125% in recent weeks.

US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent and US trade representative Jamieson Greer are set to meet their Chinese counterparts in Switzerland this week to discuss the trade war.

China has made the de-escalation of the tariffs a requirement for trade negotiations, which the meetings are supposed to help establish.

Business

UK-India trade deal: Is Farage right to call out ‘big tax exemption’?

Published

2 days ago

May 7, 2025

admin

UK-India trade deal: Is Farage right to call out 'big tax exemption'?

Britain’s trade deal with India has created a pocket of controversy on taxation.

Under the agreement, Indian workers who have been seconded to Britain temporarily will not have to pay National Insurance (NI) contributions in the UK. Instead, they will continue to pay the Indian exchequer.

The same applies to British workers in India. It avoids workers from being taxed twice for a full suite of benefits they will not receive, such as the state pension.

Money latest: How dynamic pricing is coming to UK restaurants

Politicians of all stripes have leapt to judgement.

Nigel Farage has described it as a “big tax exemption” for Indian workers. He said it was “impossible to say how many will come,” with the Reform Party warning of “more mass immigration, more pressure on the NHS, more pressure on housing.”

But, is this deal really undercutting British workers or is it simply creating a level playing field?

Be wary of any hasty conclusions. In the absence of an impact assessment from the government, it is difficult to be precise about any of this. However, at first glance, it is unlikely that some of Reform’s worst fears will play out.

Firstly, avoiding double taxation is not the same thing as a “tax break.’ This type of agreement, known as a double contribution convention, is not new.

Britain has similar arrangements with other countries and blocs, including the US, EU, Canada and Japan.

It’s based on the principle that workers shouldn’t be paying twice for social security taxes that they will not benefit from.

Indian workers and businesses will still have to pay the equivalent tax in India, as well as sponsorship fees and the NHS surcharge.

Crucially, the deal only applies to workers being sent over by Indian companies on a temporary basis.

Those workers are on Indian payroll. It does not apply to Indian workers more generally. That means businesses in the UK can’t (and won’t) suddenly be replacing all their workers with Indians.

The conditions for a company to send over a secondee on a work visa are restrictive. It means it’s unlikely that these workers will be replacing British workers.

However, It does mean that the exchequer will not capture the extra national insurance tax from those who come over on this route.

The government has not shared its impact assessment for how many extra Indians they expect to come over on this route, how much NI they will escape, or how much this will be offset by extra income tax from those Indians. The net financial position is therefore murky.