Connect with us

Published

on

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

More on Energy

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.

Handout photo dated 15/11/21 issued by EDF/CGN of Big Carl, the world's biggest crane, in action at Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant near Bridgwater in Somerset on Monday evening, as it placed the first huge steel ring section onto the second reactor building, just 11 months after the same operation on the first reactor. Issue date: Tuesday November 16, 2021.
Image:
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. Picture date: Thursday September 1, 2022.
Image:
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.

Continue Reading

Business

Horizon scandal: More than £1m claimed as Post Office ‘profit’ may have come from sub-postmasters

Published

on

By

Horizon scandal: More than £1m claimed as Post Office 'profit' may have come from sub-postmasters

More than £1m of unexplained transactions were transferred in to Post Office profit at the height of the Horizon scandal, leaked documents have showed.

The papers seen by Sky News show a snapshot of transfers from a Post Office “miscellaneous client” suspense account over a four year period, up to 2014.

A suspense account is where unexplained, or disputed, transactions remain until they are able to be “reconciled”.

Unaccounted-for transactions were transferred out of the Post Office suspense account and into their Profit and Loss account after three years.

Money latest: Further fall in energy bills expected in summer

Ian Henderson, director of Second Sight – the forensic accountants hired years ago by Post Office – said: “The Post Office was not printing money. It was accumulating funds in its suspense account.

“Those funds belong to somebody, either to third party clients or to sub-postmasters, and part of the work we were doing in 2015 was drilling into that.”

Mr Henderson said they were sacked not long after asking questions about whether Post Office profited from shortfalls paid for by sub-postmasters.

Image:
Mr Henderson told Sky News that the money could potentially have come from sub-postmasters’ pockets

More than 900 sub-postmasters were wrongly prosecuted due to faults with Horizon accounting software.

A letter from Alisdair Cameron, the Post Office’s chief financial officer, to Second Sight in February 2015 states some “postings cannot be traced” to “underlying transactions”.

He added: “We are not always able to drill back from the combined totals to itemise all the underlying transactions.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Compensation paid by summer’

Mr Henderson said the letter shows that “the Post Office was benefiting from this uncertainty due to, frankly, bad record keeping, but taking it to the benefit of their Profit and Loss account.”

He maintains that it’s impossible to prove for sure that sub-postmasters’ money went into Post Office profit because of a “lack of granularity”.

He says therefore that it is of “sufficient public interest” that a further independent review into the use of suspense accounts should happen.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Post Office redress delay overshadowed by executive drama

Mr Henderson added: “It didn’t come from thin air, where did the money come from? That’s a fundamental question Post Office have not answered.”

Meanwhile, separately, a secret recording obtained by Sky News indicates that Post Office was trying to gag the independent forensic accountants.

The recording is of a meeting in January 2014 between Second Sight, a lawyer and a Post Office representative.

It took place over a year before the accountants were sacked.

In the conference call there are signs the relationship between Post Office and Second Sight was beginning to weaken.

There is discussion about a contractual confidentiality agreement, a “Letter of Engagement” between the parties.

In the recording Ian Henderson says: “Either, you know, we have unfettered discretion and authorisation to just talk to MPs or we haven’t.

“At the moment, the way the document is drafted, we are prevented from doing that. That’s the issue.”

His colleague at Second Sight, Ron Warmington is heard agreeing.

In another part of the recording there are more concerns raised that the investigators are being blocked from talking to MPs.

Mr Henderson says: “My point is we should not be gagging either the applicant or Second Sight in being able to respond, you know, fully and frankly to MPs who frankly sort of set this whole process in motion.”

The Post Office representative replies saying they’re not trying to gag anybody.

Mr Henderson describes “a point of principle”: “In exactly the same way that when we were doing spot reviews, we disclosed to MPs, when they asked us a specific question, the information provided to us by Fujitsu and by Post Office.

Read more on Post Office scandal:
Post Office ‘agrees’ to submit report on CEO’s behaviour to MPs
Sunak declines to back under fire Post Office boss Read
A Post Office TV drama sequel without the need for actors

“And that’s why it’s so important to establish this principle that there should be no gagging of Second Sight in relation to being able to discuss our investigative work with MPs.”

In the same meeting his colleague Ron Warmington said that if it later emerges that Second Sight have been “effectively gagged” in its dealing with MPs, “it’s not going to be Second Sight they are particularly annoyed with, it’s going to be Post Office.”

The representative responds directly with: “I think that’s something that the Post Office will have to deal with if – if it arises.”

Adding that “some of the terminology in terms of gagging is probably an exaggeration of what it is that is trying to be done here, and at the moment you haven’t signed anything.”

Post Office released a statement in response to the findings: “The statutory public inquiry, chaired by a judge with the power to question witnesses under oath, is the best forum to examine the issues raised by this evidence.

“We continue to remain fully focused on supporting the inquiry get to the truth of what happened and accountability for that.”

Continue Reading

Business

Millions urged to read energy meters this weekend to avoid overpaying as price cap falls again

Published

on

By

Millions urged to read energy meters this weekend to avoid overpaying as price cap falls again

Millions of people are being urged to send meter readings to their energy supplier this weekend to ensure they don’t overpay.

The regulator’s price cap drops 12.3% on Monday 1 April, from a typical £1,928 per year for a dual-fuel household to £1,690 – an average saving of about £20 per month.

Money blog – latest updates

People without a smart meter who are on a standard variable tariff (SVT) should send readings so their company has an up-to-date record when the prices change.

“If you delay submitting your readings, some of your energy usage could end up being charged under the higher rates we’re currently facing,” said Ben Gallizzi, energy spokesman for comparison site Uswitch.

This could happen as firms will estimate usage if they don’t have recent readings.

However, if you have a smart meter you shouldn’t have to worry as it’s set up to automatically ensure you are billed correctly.

More on Energy Price Cap

Uswitch says a week of energy at the current rates is £4.65 more expensive for the average household than the incoming rates.

About 10 million customers are thought to be on a SVT without a smart meter.

The combination of the cheaper rates and warmer weather is estimated to mean the average household will spend £127 on gas and electricity in April, compared with £205 in March.

Nearly a fifth of people without a smart meter have not submitted a reading in the last three months and 4% haven’t done it for a year, according to a Uswitch survey of 2,000 people.

Read more:
What is the price cap and how does it work?

Twelve percent of these customers said they didn’t know where their meter was, while 14% didn’t know how to take a reading.

People without a smart meter are advised to read their meter every month to improve the accuracy of their bills.

The price cap is set by energy regulator Ofgem and is being cut again from the extreme highs of recent years – when it reached over £4,000 – thanks to a drop in wholesale prices,

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

Ofgem also launched a consultation on the energy price cap this week, floating options such as a cap based on vulnerability and when energy is used.

The cap, which affects England, Scotland and Wales, was introduced in January 2019 to prevent people on variable tariffs being ripped off.

Initially it was changed a couple of times a year but since 2022 it has been updated every three months.

Continue Reading

Business

‘Modest’ £63 rise in statutory sick pay is overdue, MPs say

Published

on

By

'Modest' £63 rise in statutory sick pay is overdue, MPs say

A “modest” increase in statutory sick pay (SSP) is overdue, according to a committee of MPs who say it must strike a balance between workers’ needs and what employers can afford.

The Work and Pensions Committee recommended a rate in line with the flat rate of Statutory Maternity Pay.

That would see SSP rise from the current weekly level of £109.40 to £172.48 per week.

The MPs also wanted to see SSP paid in combination with usual wages, in order to encourage phased returns to work.

The cross-party committee argued too that all workers should be eligible for SSP, not just those earning above the lower earnings limit of £123.

The government responded to the report by saying that a 6.7% increase would take effect next month.

In making their case, the MPs said they understood that the COVID pandemic and its immediate aftermath were not the right times to be placing additional financial burdens on employers.

More from Business

But they noted that a record 185.6 million working days had been lost to sickness or injury in 2022 – a time when the cost of living crisis was gathering pace.

Committee chair Sir Stephen Timms said it was clear the time had come to significantly bolster the support that many people depended on when they were unable to work.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Parents take on debt to pay childcare

“Statutory sick pay is failing in its primary purpose to act as a safety net for workers who most need financial help during illness,” he wrote.

“With the country continuing to face high rates of sickness absence, the government can no longer afford to keep kicking the can down the road on reform.

“The committee’s proposals strike the right balance between widening and strengthening support and not placing excessive burdens on business.

“A growing number of workers are now classified as self-employed and a new contributory sick pay scheme for self-employed people would be a welcome step towards ensuring they are they are no worse off financially during periods of sickness than employees on SSP.”

Companies, while sympathising with staff generally over sickness, have long complained about rising costs including for business rates and minimum pay rules.

Lobby groups have warned that the burden already risks being passed on in the form of higher prices, placing the rate of inflation under strain.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said of the report: “Statutory Sick Pay will increase by 6.7% from April.

“Our £2.5bn Back to Work Plan is tackling sickness absence and getting people back working, while we are expanding access to mental health services and supporting those at risk of long-term unemployment.”

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak responded: “The COVID-19 pandemic showed that our sick pay system is in desperate need of reform.

Read more:
Campaigners call for reforms to prevent workers from being pushed into poverty
Call for more help to get millions of long-term sick back into employment

“It beggars belief that ministers have done nothing to fix sick pay since.

“It’s a disgrace that so many low-paid and insecure workers up and down the country – most of them women – have to go without financial support when sick.

“The committee is right that ministers urgently need to remove the lower earnings limit and raise the rate of sick pay.

“Wider reform is also needed to remove the three days people must wait before they get any sick pay at all.”

Continue Reading

Trending