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

At least 13 people may have taken their own lives linked to Post Office scandal, public inquiry finds

Published

7 hours ago

July 8, 2025

admin

At least 13 people may have taken their own lives linked to Post Office scandal, public inquiry finds

At least 13 people may have taken their own lives after being accused of wrongdoing based on evidence from the Horizon IT system that the Post Office and developers Fujitsu knew could be false, the public inquiry has found.

A further 59 people told the inquiry they considered ending their lives, 10 of whom tried on at least one occasion, while other postmasters and family members recount suffering from alcoholism and mental health disorders including anorexia and depression, family breakup, divorce, bankruptcy and personal abuse.

Follow latest on public inquiry into Post Office scandal

Writing in the first volume of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry report, chairman Sir Wyn Williams concludes that this enormous personal toll came despite senior employees at the Post Office knowing the Horizon IT system could produce accounts “which were illusory rather than real” even before it was rolled out to branches.

Sir Wyn said: “I am satisfied from the evidence that I have heard that a number of senior, and not so senior, employees of the Post Office knew or, at the very least, should have known that Legacy Horizon was capable of error… Yet, for all practical purposes, throughout the lifetime of Legacy Horizon, the Post Office maintained the fiction that its data was always accurate.”

Referring to the updated version of Horizon, known as Horizon Online, which also had “bugs errors and defects” that could create illusory accounts, he said: “I am satisfied that a number of employees of Fujitsu and the Post Office knew that this was so.”

The first volume of the report focuses on what Sir Wyn calls the “disastrous” impact of false accusations made against at least 1,000 postmasters, and the various redress schemes the Post Office and government has established since miscarriages of justice were identified and proven.

Recommendations regarding the conduct of senior management of the Post Office, Fujitsu and ministers will come in a subsequent report, but Sir Wyn is clear that unjust and flawed prosecutions were knowingly pursued.

“All of these people are properly to be regarded as victims of wholly unacceptable behaviour perpetrated by a number of individuals employed by and/or associated with the Post Office and Fujitsu from time to time and by the Post Office and Fujitsu as institutions,” he says.

What are the inquiry’s recommendations?

Calling for urgent action from government and the Post Office to ensure “full and fair compensation”, he makes 19 recommendations including:

• Government and the Post Office to agree a definition of “full and fair” compensation to be used when agreeing payouts
• Ending “unnecessarily adversarial attitude” to initial offers that have depressed the value of payouts, ⁠and ensuring consistency across all four compensation schemes
• The creation of a standing body to administer financial redress to people wronged by public bodies
• Compensation to be extended to close family members of those affected who have suffered “serious negative consequences”
• The Post Office, Fujitsu and government agreeing a programme for “restorative justice”, a process that brings together those that have suffered harm with those that have caused it

Regarding the human impact of the Post Office’s pursuit of postmasters, including its use of unique powers of prosecution, Sir Wyn writes: “I do not think it is easy to exaggerate the trauma which persons are likely to suffer when they are the subject of criminal investigation, prosecution, conviction and sentence.”

He says that even the process of being interviewed under caution by Post Office investigators “will have been troubling at best and harrowing at worst”.

‘Hostile and abusive behaviour’

The report finds that those wrongfully convicted were “subject to hostile and abusive behaviour” in their local communities, felt shame and embarrassment, with some feeling forced to move.

Detailing the impact on close family members of those prosecuted, Sir Wyn writes: “Wives, husbands, children and parents endured very significant suffering in the form of distress, worry and disruption to home life, in employment and education.

“In a number of cases, relationships with spouses broke down and ended in divorce or separation.

“In the most egregious cases, family members themselves suffered psychiatric illnesses or psychological problems and very significant financial losses… their suffering has been acute.”

The report includes 17 case studies of those affected by the scandal including some who have never spoken publicly before. They include Millie Castleton, daughter of Lee Castleton, one of the first postmasters prosecuted.

She told the inquiry how her family being “branded thieves and liars” affected her mental health, and contributed to a diagnosis of anorexia that forced her to drop out of university.

Her account concludes: “Even now as I go into my career, I still find it so incredibly hard to trust anyone, even subconsciously. I sabotage myself by not asking for help with anything.

“I’m trying hard to break this cycle but I’m 26 and am very conscious that I may never be able to fully commit to natural trust. But my family is still fighting. I’m still fighting, as are many hundreds involved in the Post Office trial.”

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the inquiry’s report “marks an important milestone for sub-postmasters and their families”.

He added that he was “committed to ensuring wronged sub-postmasters are given full, fair, and prompt redress”.

“The recommendations contained in Sir Wyn’s report require careful reflection, including on further action to complete the redress schemes,” Mr Reynolds said.

“Government will promptly respond to the recommendations in full in parliament.”

Business

Public finances in ‘relatively vulnerable position.’, OBR warns

Published

7 hours ago

July 8, 2025

admin

Public finances in 'relatively vulnerable position.', OBR warns

The UK’s public finances are in a “relatively vulnerable position”, the government’s official forecaster has warned.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) cited a drag from successive economic shocks, recent U-turns on spending cuts and higher-than-expected policy commitments.

It sounded alarm over the projected path for debt as a result, in its annual fiscal risks and sustainability report.

It saw total debt above 270% of gross domestic product (GDP) by the early 2070s – up from a current level of 96.5% – declaring that rising debts have led to “a substantial erosion of the UK’s capacity to respond to future shocks”.

Money latest: Amazon launches 24/7 grocery deliveries

The OBR’s report highlighted damage from the COVID pandemic and cost of living crisis that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

But it raised fears that past and current government policies were further harming the sustainability of the public finances.

The report said that the pension triple lock, for example, was now estimated to cost £15.5bn annually by 2029-30.

That was “around three times higher than initial expectations”, it said.

The lock, which rises each year in line with inflation, wage growth or 2.5% – whichever is higher – had risen by more than the 2.5% base in eight of the 13 years of operation to date, the report stated.

The watchdog said it reflected more volatile inflation than expected.

It also picked up on the latest government U-turns over planned welfare and winter fuel payment cuts in the face of rebellions by Labour MPs.

The decisions are expected to leave Chancellor Rachel Reeves facing a black hole of £6.75bn while weaker-than-expected economic growth could add a further £9bn to that sum in the run-up to the autumn budget, according to Sky News projections that see a void of around £20bn.

The OBR highlighted future risks from rising defence spending and the impact of climate change.

Public sector pay demands could also prove a drag, with resident doctors voting in favour of strikes over pay.

While ministers acknowledge damage to the public purse from the U-turns, Ms Reeves has repeatedly ruled out a new wave of borrowing to fund a spending spree.

As such, the government has not ruled out the prospect of some form of wealth tax to help meet its commitments despite the top 1% of earners contributing almost a third of all income tax already – on top of other targeted taxes such as capital gains.

The report said: “Efforts to put the UK’s public finances on a more sustainable footing have met with only limited and temporary success in recent years in the aftermath of the shocks, debt has also continued to rise and borrowing remained elevated because governments have reversed plans to consolidate the public finances.

“Planned tax rises have been reversed, and, more significantly, planned spending reductions have been abandoned.”

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said of the report: “The OBR’s report lays bare the damage: Britain now has the third-highest deficit and the fourth-highest debt burden in Europe, with borrowing costs among the highest in the developed world.

“Under Rachel Reeves’ economic mismanagement and Keir Starmer’s weak leadership, our public finances have become dangerously exposed – vulnerable to future shocks, welfare spending rising unsustainably, taxes rising to record highs and crippling levels of debt interest.

“Labour’s recklessness risks it all – your pension, your job, your home, your savings.”

A Number 10 spokesman said: “We recognise the realities set out in the OBR’s report and we’re taking the decisions needed to provide stability to the public finances.”

Business

UK to miss deadline to agree steel and aluminium tariffs

Published

10 hours ago

July 8, 2025

admin

UK to miss deadline to agree steel and aluminium tariffs

The UK will miss the White House-imposed deadline to agree a trade deal on steel and aluminium this week, according to insiders from government and industry.

Donald Trump had insisted that unless Britain could finalise the details of its metals trade deal with the US by 9 July, he would raise the tariffs faced by steel and aluminium imports from the 25% the UK currently pays to the 50% paid by other countries. If it could seal the deal, those tariffs could drop to zero.

Money blog: 10 happiest and unhappiest professions for shift workers

However, despite weeks of negotiations and promises that the deal would be completed by the end of June, talks have foundered on two key issues. First, the US is insisting that only steel “melted and poured” in the UK (in other words, forged in blast furnaces or electric arc furnaces) can be included in the deal. However, one of Britain’s biggest steel exporters to the US, Tata Steel, is not melting and pouring its UK steel because of the closure of its blast furnaces.

Second, the US is wary of the fact that while the government has taken control of British Steel, which operates Britain’s last remaining blast furnaces in Scunthorpe, the company itself still legally has Chinese owners.

Government insiders have told businesses they still expect to have a deal done by the end of this month, and that they are confident the White House will not impose the 50% tariffs for the time being. They say one of the chief challenges they face is that the administration is so overwhelmed by attempts to negotiate with other countries that they lack the bandwidth to deal with the small print on Britain’s deal.

“As far as the Americans are concerned, the UK is already a done deal,” said one person close to the negotiations. The problem is that while a deal has been done on car and aerospace exports to the US, the metals element of the trade agreement is still some way from being signed. In the meantime, steel exports continue to incur tariffs – albeit lower than those imposed on other countries around the world.