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.
Business
Donald Trump’s tariffs will have consequences for globalisation, the US economy and geopolitics
For decades, trade and trade policy has been an economic and political backwater – decidedly boring, seemingly uncontroversial.
Trade was mostly free and getting freer, tariffs were getting lower and lower, and the world was becoming more, not less, globalised.
But alongside those long-term trends, there were some serious consequences.
Trump latest: US president announces sweeping global trade tariffs
Mature, developed economies like the UK and US became ever more reliant on cheap imports from China and, in the process, saw their manufacturing sectors shrink.
Large swathes of the rust belt in the US – and much of the Midlands and North of England – were hollowed out.
And to some extent that’s where the story of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” really began – with the notion that free trade and globalisation had a darker side, a side he wants to remedy via tariffs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump’s tariffs: Ed Conway analysis
He imposed a set of tariffs in his first term, some on China, some on specific materials like steel and aluminium. But the height and the breadth of those tariffs were as nothing compared with the ones we have just heard about.
Not since the 1930s has the US so radically increased the level of tariffs on all nations across the world. Back then, those tariffs exacerbated the Great Depression.
It’s anyone’s guess as to what the consequences of these ones will be. But there will be consequences.
Consequences for the nature of globalisation, consequences for the US economy (tariffs are exceptionally inflationary), consequences for geopolitics.
Imports from the UK will face a 10% tariff, while EU goods will see 20% rates. Pic: Reuters
And to some extent, merely knowing that little bit more about the White House’s plans will deliver a bit of relief to financial markets, which have fretted for months about the imposition of tariffs. That uncertainty recently reached unprecedented levels.
But don’t for a moment assume that this saga is over. Nothing of the sort. In the coming days, we will learn more – more about the nuts and bolts of these policies, more about the retaliatory measures coming from other countries.
We will, possibly, get more of a sense about whether some countries – including the UK – will enjoy reprieves from the tariffs.
To paraphrase Churchill, this isn’t the end of the trade war, or even the beginning of the end – perhaps just the end of the beginning.
Donald Trump has announced a 10% trade tariff on all imports from the UK – as he unleashed sweeping tariffs across the globe.
Speaking at a White House event entitled “Make America Wealthy Again”, the president held up a chart detailing the worst offenders – which also showed the new tariffs the US would be imposing.
“This is Liberation Day,” he told a cheering audience of supporters, while hitting out at foreign “cheaters”.
Follow live: Trump tariffs latest
He claimed “trillions” of dollars from the “reciprocal” levies he was imposing on others’ trade barriers would provide relief for the US taxpayer and restore US jobs and factories.
Mr Trump said the US has been “looted, pillaged, raped, plundered” by other nations.
Pic: AP
His first tariff announcement was a 25% duty on all car imports from midnight – 5am on Thursday, UK time.
Mr Trump confirmed the European Union would face a 20% reciprocal tariff on all other imports. China’s rate was set at 34%.
The UK’s rate of 10% was perhaps a shot across the bows over the country’s 20% VAT rate, though the president’s board suggested a 10% tariff imbalance between the two nations.
It was also confirmed that further US tariffs were planned on some individual sectors including semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical mineral imports.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump’s tariffs explained
The ramping up of duties promises to be painful for the global economy. Tariffs on steel and aluminium are already in effect.
The UK government signalled there would be no immediate retaliation.
Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: “We will always act in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. That’s why, throughout the last few weeks, the government has been fully focused on negotiating an economic deal with the United States that strengthens our existing fair and balanced trading relationship.
“The US is our closest ally, so our approach is to remain calm and committed to doing this deal, which we hope will mitigate the impact of what has been announced today.
“We have a range of tools at our disposal and we will not hesitate to act. We will continue to engage with UK businesses including on their assessment of the impact of any further steps we take.
“Nobody wants a trade war and our intention remains to secure a deal. But nothing is off the table and the government will do everything necessary to defend the UK’s national interest.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Who showed up for Trump’s tariff address?
The EU has pledged to retaliate, which is a problem for Northern Ireland.
Should that scenario play out, the region faces the prospect of rising prices because all its imports are tied to EU rules under post-Brexit trading arrangements.
It means US goods shipped to Northern Ireland would be subject to the EU’s reprisals.
The impact of a trade war would be expected to be widely negative, with tit-for-tat tariffs risking job losses, a ramping up of prices and cooling of global trade.
Research for the Institute for Public Policy Research has suggested more than 25,000 direct jobs in the UK car manufacturing industry alone could be at risk from the tariffs on car exports to the US.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) had said the tariff costs could not be absorbed by manufacturers and may lead to a review of output.
The tariffs now on UK exports pose a big risk to growth and the so-called headroom Chancellor Rachel Reeves was forced to restore to the public finances at the spring statement, risking further spending cuts or tax rises ahead to meet her fiscal rules.
Read more:
What do Trump’s tariffs mean for the UK?
The rewards and risks for US as trade war intensifies
A member of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), David Miles, told MPs on Tuesday that US tariffs at 20% or 25% maintained on the UK for five years would “knock out all the headroom the government currently has”.
But he added that a “very limited tariff war” that the UK stays out of could be “mildly positive”.
He said: “There’s a bit of trade that will get diverted to the UK, and some of the exports from China, for example, that would have gone to the US, they’ll be looking for a home for them in the rest of the world.
“And stuff would be available in the UK a bit cheaper than otherwise would have been. So there is one, not central scenario at all, which is very, very mildly potentially positive to the UK. All the other ones which involve the UK facing tariffs are negative, and they’re negative to very different extents.”
Business
Donald Trump’s tariffs will have consequences for globalisation, the US economy and geopolitics
For decades, trade and trade policy has been an economic and political backwater – decidedly boring, seemingly uncontroversial.
Trade was mostly free and getting freer, tariffs were getting lower and lower, and the world was becoming more, not less, globalised.
But alongside those long-term trends, there were some serious consequences.
Trump latest: US president announces sweeping global trade tariffs
Mature, developed economies like the UK and US became ever more reliant on cheap imports from China and, in the process, saw their manufacturing sectors shrink.
Large swathes of the rust belt in the US – and much of the Midlands and North of England – were hollowed out.
And to some extent that’s where the story of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” really began – with the notion that free trade and globalisation had a darker side, a side he wants to remedy via tariffs.
He imposed a set of tariffs in his first term, some on China, some on specific materials like steel and aluminium. But the height and the breadth of those tariffs were as nothing compared with the ones we have just heard about.
Not since the 1930s has the US so radically increased the level of tariffs on all nations across the world. Back then, those tariffs exacerbated the Great Depression.
It’s anyone’s guess as to what the consequences of these ones will be. But there will be consequences.
Consequences for the nature of globalisation, consequences for the US economy (tariffs are exceptionally inflationary), consequences for geopolitics.
Imports from the UK will face a 10% tariff, while EU goods will see 20% rates. Pic: Reuters
And to some extent, merely knowing that little bit more about the White House’s plans will deliver a bit of relief to financial markets, which have fretted for months about the imposition of tariffs. That uncertainty recently reached unprecedented levels.
But don’t for a moment assume that this saga is over. Nothing of the sort. In the coming days, we will learn more – more about the nuts and bolts of these policies, more about the retaliatory measures coming from other countries.
We will, possibly, get more of a sense about whether some countries – including the UK – will enjoy reprieves from the tariffs.
To paraphrase Churchill, this isn’t the end of the trade war, or even the beginning of the end – perhaps just the end of the beginning.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway