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.
Jeremy Hunt is convening a summit aimed at enticing more companies to London’s stock market amid an accelerating exodus of businesses being picked off by overseas and financial predators.
Sky News has learnt that the Treasury has invited the bosses of some of Britain’s most prominent private companies to attend a meeting next month at Dorneywood, the chancellor’s weekend country residence.
Sources said the day-long event on 16 May would target entrepreneurs behind potential flotation candidates from the fintech and biotech sectors.
Bim Afolami, the City minister, and Lord Petitgas, the prime minister’s chief business adviser, will also be present, alongside key government officials and executives from the London Stock Exchange, the sources added.
In the invitation, a copy of which has been seen by Sky News, the Treasury said attendees and the chancellor would “discuss the UK’s capital markets and how they can support innovative, high-growth companies such as yours to achieve your growth ambitions”.
“The UK’s capital markets play a key role in our economy: driving growth, creating jobs and facilitating investment.
“The government is committed to ensuring that the UK remains the best place for companies to grow, and is already taking forward an ambitious programme of reforms to improve the competitiveness of the UK.”
Dozens of companies, including the likes of digital banks Monzo and Starling Bank, are understood to have been on the invitation list.
The Dorneywood summit has been planned for several months, according to officials, who denied that it was being staged in response to a glut of companies which have announced in recent weeks that they are in receipt of takeover bids or that they would unilaterally delist from the London market.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt. Pic: PA
Approaches this week for Anglo American, the £30bn mining giant, and Darktrace, the cybersecurity company, have exacerbated the impression of a growing ‘de-equitisation’ of the UK stock market.
Although neither of those deals have yet to be formally agreed, a string of others have, including International Paper’s bid for DS Smith, the FTSE-100 paper and packaging group, which was revealed by Sky News last month.
Other companies which have agreed deals with suitors include Virgin Money, which is set to be bought by Nationwide in a £3bn deal.
Yet more, such as the Royal Mail parent International Distributions Services and the music royalties company Hipgnosis Songs Fund, are in receipt of serious takeover approaches.
While frenetic periods of mergers and acquisitions are far from uncommon, bankers and investors point to a dearth of attractive new opportunities to deploy capital because the flow of initial public offerings has been so slow.
Many of the companies that London would have hoped to attract, including the private equity firm CVC Capital Partners and the chip designer ARM Holdings, opted to list in Amsterdam and New York respectively.
The perception of London’s decline is being heightened by the decisions of boards to move their existing UK listings to other international exchanges, with TUI Travel and Flutter Entertainment, the gambling group behind Paddy Power, among those to relegate their London market presence.
Bosses of companies as large as Shell, the oil behemoth, have also begun to acknowledge publicly their frustration at what they perceive to be a gulf between their intrinsic valuation and that which the public markets are attaching to them.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Earlier this month, the boss of E-Therapeutics, a fast-growing but loss-making biotech company, described the London stock market as “broken and closed” as he announced plans to delist it and pursue a New York flotation at a future date.
This weekend, one government insider said the Dorneywood meeting would be important because it would highlight to fast-growing British companies that listing overseas “is not all milk and honey”.
A number of the UK-based businesses – such as Arrival, Cazoo and Benevolent AI – which went public in Europe and the US during the now-faded boom for special purpose acquisition companies – have seen their valuations crash, with some subsequently cancelling their listings.
“We need to explain to companies why London’s capital markets are the right place for these businesses to go public,” said one government source.
A Treasury spokesperson said: “The chancellor is meeting with a number of firms to hear their reflections on UK markets and what more the government and regulators can do to support their growth.”
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Environment11 months agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports6 months agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Technology3 years ago
Game consoles were once banned in China. Now Chinese developers want a slice of the $49 billion pie
-
Politics2 years ago
Have the last few wobbly weeks seen a turning point for Johnson as PM?