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

Resident doctor strikes: I don’t want people to suffer but we have to walk out again, says BMA chief

Published

2 hours ago

November 13, 2025

admin

Resident doctor strikes: I don't want people to suffer but we have to walk out again, says BMA chief

The British Medical Association (BMA) has defended a new round of resident doctor walkouts starting on Friday, insisting medics’ pay is still “way down” compared with 2008 and that the government has failed to finish “a journey” towards restoring it.

BMA chair Dr Tom Dolphin told Sky News the dispute remains rooted in years of pay erosion that have left resident doctors far behind other public sector workers.

“When we started the dispute, […] the lowest level of the resident doctors were being paid £14 an hour,” he said.

“There were some pay rises over the last couple of years that brought that partly back to the value it should be at, but not all the way.

“The secretary of state (Wes Streeting) himself called it a journey, implying there were further steps to come, but we haven’t seen that.”

When asked if the row ultimately “comes down to money”, he replied: “In the sense that the secretary of state doesn’t want to or isn’t able to fund the pay increases to match the value that we had in 2008.”

Dr Dolphin argued that while “the general worker in the economy as a whole” has seen pay catch up since the 2008 financial crash, “doctors are still way down”.

The government points out that its 29% settlement last year was one of the largest in the public sector and was intended to draw a line under two years of walkouts.

How much do resident doctors earn?

After the most recent pay awards, in 2025/26 a medic just out of university receives a basic salary of £38,831 and has estimated average earnings of £45,900 after factors like extra pay for unsociable hours are taken into account, according to medical think tank the Nuffield Trust.

That average figure rises to £54,400 by the second year and a more senior speciality registrar earns an average of £80,500.

The BMA says that when the dispute started, the most junior doctors were making around £14 per hour. That works out at £29,120 per year for a 40-hour week.

That’s very close to the earnings of a doctor fresh out of medical school in 2022/23 – £29,384, according to Full Fact.

But that’s over a 52-week year without taking into account paid holiday or unsociable hours.

But Dr Dolphin said the deal still fell short: “The gap was biggest for doctors and needed the biggest amount of restoration, and that’s what we got.”

He defended the BMA’s use of the Retail Price Index (RPI), a metric rejected by the Office for National Statistics, saying it “better reflects the costs people face”.

Should resident doctors get a pay rise? Have your say in the poll at the bottom of this story.

‘Who do you think is treating the patients?’

With Chancellor Rachel Reeves preparing her budget amid warnings of deep cuts, Dr Dolphin said the BMA is not demanding an immediate cash injection.

“We’re quite happy for that money to be deferred with some kind of multi-year pay deal so that we can end the dispute and avoid having further industrial action about pay for several years to come,” he said.

“Money spent in the NHS is returned to the economy. For every pound you spend, you get several pounds back.”

When pressed on whether the £1.7bn cost of previous strike action could have been better spent on treatment and technology for NHS cancer patients, he hit back: “Who do you think is treating the cancer patients? It’s the doctors.”

Strikes will cause disruption, union boss admits

Dr Dolphin rejected suggestions that the dispute could destabilise the government, calling the idea “implausible”.

He admitted prolonged strikes have tested public patience, but said the government had left doctors with no choice.

“A prolonged industrial dispute makes people annoyed with both sides,” he said. “It is vexing to us that we are still in this dispute.”

“I don’t want patients to suffer,” he added. “I accept that the strikes cause disruption… of course that’s upsetting for them. I completely get that. And I’m sorry that it’s happening.”

Business

Anglesey chosen as site for UK’s first small nuclear power station

Published

2 hours ago

November 13, 2025

admin

Anglesey chosen as site for UK's first small nuclear power station

Wylfa, on Anglesey, also known as Ynys Mon, has been chosen as the site for the UK’s first small modular reactor nuclear power station, the UK government has confirmed.

Officials estimate the site in north Wales will support hundreds of full-time jobs, as well as 3,000 jobs in the local economy at the height of construction.

Work on the site is due to commence in 2026 with an initial programme involving three reactors. The location has the capacity to accommodate as many as eight small modular power stations in the longer term.

Politics latest: Starmer denies authorising attack on Streeting

Sky News understands ministers weighed up Oldbury in Gloucestershire as a possible site before ultimately deciding on Anglesey.

The project will be run by the publicly owned company Great British Energy-Nuclear and is supported by a UK government investment of £2.5bn.

Rolls-Royce SMR is set to design the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), pending final contracts, which are expected to be signed later this year.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said: “Britain was once a world-leader in nuclear power, but years of neglect and inertia has meant places like Anglesey have been let down and left behind.”

He added: “We’re using all the tools in our armoury – cutting red tape, changing planning laws, and backing growth – to deliver the country’s first SMR in North Wales.”

The site is projected to supply electricity for three million homes – more than twice the number of homes in Wales. It is hoped the Wylfa reactors will start supplying power to the grid from the mid-2030s.

Eluned Morgan, the first minister of Wales, said: “This is the moment Ynys Mon and the whole of Wales has been waiting for.”

She added: “New nuclear is a step into the future, with secure jobs and secure energy guaranteed for the next generation. We have been pressing the case at every opportunity for Wylfa’s incredible benefits as a site, and I warmly welcome this major decision to invest in northwest Wales. Wales is once again leading the way.”

Small modular reactors are compact nuclear power stations, built as prefabricated units for on‑site installation, with the aim of being constructed more quickly than sites like Hinkley Point C.

Nuclear power is not new to the Welsh island. A station was first constructed in the 1960s and began generating electricity in 1971. The two reactors operated for decades before being shut down. Reactor 2 was decommissioned in 2012, followed by Reactor 1 in 2015.

Efforts to revive nuclear generation at the site have also been made before. In 2021, proposals to build a new plant were abandoned under the previous UK government.

Rhun ap Iorwerth, Plaid Cymru leader and MS for Ynys Mon, welcomed the investment, but aired caution over previous false hope.

He said: “Today’s announcement is significant for people on Ynys Mon and across Wales. It reflects years of hard work by both the Plaid Cymru-led Anglesey County Council and Llinos Medi – both as the current MP and former council leader.

“Since I was elected over 12 years ago, the future of the Wylfa site has remained a live issue on Ynys Mon. Whilst we’ve learnt from past experience that we need assurances now that this plan will actually be delivered, there’s no doubt that there’s a real opportunity here that we have to take advantage of.”

He added that his priority is “to ensure that the voices and interests of communities on Ynys Mon are represented at every step”, and that he has “always taken the view that we must make the most of the economic growth and job opportunities for young people that come with a new development at Wylfa”, while mitigating “the challenges” that such projects bring.

“The Welsh government also has a crucial role to play in these discussions. I want to make sure that Welsh government has real input, with Welsh interests placed at the heart of the development,” he concluded.

Business

Dua Lipa and Coldplay call on government to keep its promise on ticket resales

Published

2 hours ago

November 13, 2025

admin

Dua Lipa and Coldplay call on government to keep its promise on ticket resales

Some of the biggest names in music – including Coldplay, Dua Lipa and Radiohead – have urged the government to honour a pledge to cap ticket resale prices and shutout touts.

They have joined artists including The Cure’s Robert Smith, New Order, Mark Knopfler, Iron Maiden, PJ Harvey and this year’s Mercury Prize winner Sam Fender to sign a statement calling for a cap to “restore faith in the ticketing system” and “help democratise public access to the arts”.

Other signatories include the watchdog Which?, FanFair Alliance, O2, the Football Supporters’ Association and organisations representing the music and theatre industries, venues, managers, and ticket retailers.

In the statement, the coalition says new protections are needed to “help fix elements of the extortionate and pernicious secondary ticketing market that serve the interests of touts, whose exploitative practices are preventing genuine fans from accessing the music, theatre, and sports they love”.

Labour had promised in its manifesto to put a stop to concert-goers being scammed or priced out of events by touts using bots to buy tickets in bulk the moment they go on sale, which they can then sell on for huge mark-ups on secondary ticketing websites.

In government, the party again made that promise – but more than a year after it vowed action, and seven months since its consultation on the issue closed, there has been no clear indication of when new laws will be introduced.

The campaign comes as a new investigation from Which? found prolific sellers in locations including Brazil, Dubai, Singapore, Spain, and the US hoovering up tickets for popular events in the UK before relisting them at vastly inflated prices on StubHub and Viagogo.

How much?!

Which? found Oasis tickets for Wembley shows listed for £3,498.85 on StubHub and £4,442 on Viagogo.

A seat for the Minnesota Vikings vs Cleveland Browns NFL clash at Tottenham Hotspur was listed for £3,568.39 on StubHub, while a Coldplay ticket, also for Wembley, was £814.52 on StubHub.

And a ticket for the All Points East festival in London’s Victoria Park, headlined by Raye, for £114,666 on Viagogo.

The watchdog found it was often difficult for buyers to establish the seller’s identity or to contact them – despite the Competition and Markets Authority securing a court order in 2018 requiring Viagogo to outline the identity of traders.

And there’s more…

Which? also found evidence of speculative selling – when tickets are listed on secondary sites even though the seller has not bought them yet.

Tickets for a Busted vs McFly show in Glasgow, which were available through Ticketmaster – the original seller – were simultaneously being listed on StubHub and Viagogo at double the price.

Government to set out plans ‘shortly’

Which? consumer law expert Lisa Webb urged Prime Minster Sir Keir Starmer to commit to legislation.

A government spokeswoman said it is “fully committed to clamping down on touts,” had listened to comments in response to the consultation earlier this year, and would set out its plans “shortly”.