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.
An independent review of the water industry is to recommend sweeping changes to the way the sector is managed, including the potential replacement of Ofwat with a strengthened body combining economic and environmental regulation.
Former Bank of England governor Sir Jon Cunliffe will publish the findings of the Independent Water Commission on Monday, with stakeholders across the industry expecting significant changes to regulation to be at its heart.
The existing regulator Ofwat has been under fire from all sides in recent years amid rising public anger at levels of pollution and the financial management of water companies.
Read more:
Serious water pollution incidents in England up 60% last year
Why has there been a surge in water pollution?
Campaigners and politicians have accused Ofwat of failing to hold water operators to account, while the companies complain that its focus on keeping bills down has prevented appropriate investment in infrastructure.
In an interim report, published in June, Sir Jon identified the presence of multiple regulators with overlapping responsibilities as a key issue facing the industry.
While Ofwat is the economic regulator, the Environment Agency has responsibility for setting pollution standards, alongside the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
Sir Jon’s final report is expected to include a recommendation that the government consider a new regulator that combines Ofwat’s economic regulatory powers with the water-facing responsibilities currently managed by the EA.
In his interim report, Sir Jon said options for reform ranged from “rationalising” existing regulation to “fundamental, structural options for integrating regulatory remits and functions”.
He is understood to have discussed the implications of fundamental reform with senior figures in industry and government in the last week as he finalised his report.
Environment Secretary Steve Reed is expected to launch a consultation on the proposals following publication of the commission report.
The commission is also expected to recommend a “major shift” in the model of economic regulation, which currently relies on econometric modelling, to a supervisory approach that takes more account of individual company circumstances.
Read more from Sky News:
Police taking no further action over Kneecap’s Glastonbury show
New fee for Britons travelling to EU will cost more than expected
How water can teach Labour a much-needed lesson
On Monday, the government’s long-awaited review into the UK’s water industry will finally report.
The expectation is that it will recommend sweeping changes – including the abolition of the regulator, Ofwat.
But frustrated customers of the water companies could rightly complain that the process of taking on this failing sector and its regulator has been slow and ineffective.
They may be forgiven for going further and suggesting that how Labour has dealt with water is symbolic of their inability to make an impact across many areas of public life, leaving many of their voters disappointed.
This is an industry that has been visibly and rapidly declining for decades, with the illegal sewage dumping and rotting pipes in stark contrast with the vast salaries and bonuses paid out to their executives.
It doesn’t take a review to see what’s gone wrong. Most informed members of the public could explain what has happened in a matter of minutes.
And yet, despite 14 years in opposition with plenty of time to put together a radical plan, a review is exactly what the government decided on before taking on Ofwat.
Month after month, they were asked if they believed the water industry regulator was fit for purpose despite the obvious disintegration on their watch. Every time the answer was ‘yes’.
As in so many areas of government, Labour, instead of acting, needed someone else to make the decision for them, meaning that it has taken over a year to come to the simple conclusion that the regulator is in fact, not fit for purpose.
As they enter their second year in office, maybe this can provide a lesson they desperately need to learn if they want to turn around their fortunes.
That bold decisions do not require months of review, endless consultations, or outside experts to endlessly analyse the problem.
They just need to get on with it. Voters will thank them.
Sir Jon has said the water industry requires long-term strategic planning and stability in order to make it attractive to “low-risk, low-return investors”.
The water industry has long complained that the current model, in which companies are benchmarked against a notional model operator, and penalised for failing to hit financial and environmental standards, risks a “doom loop”.
Thames Water, currently battling to complete an equity process to avoid falling into special administration, has said the imposition of huge fines for failing to meet pollution standards is one of the reasons it is in financial distress.
Publication of the Independent Commission report comes after the Environment Agency published figures showing that serious pollution incidents increased by 60% in 2024, and as Thames Water imposes a hosepipe ban on 15m customers.
Ofwat, Water UK and the Department for the Environment all declined to comment.
The first Post Office Capture conviction is to be sent to the Court of Appeal, Sky News understands, in a “breakthrough” moment in the IT scandal.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has decided to refer the case of sub-postmistress Patricia Owen, who was convicted in 1998 of theft.
Mrs Owen was found guilty by a jury based on evidence from the faulty IT software Capture, which was used in 2,500 branches between 1992 and 1999, before the Horizon Post Office scandal.
Pat Owen, pictured here with her husband David, always maintained her innocence but died in 2003 with a criminal record
It comes after Sky News revealed that a damning report into Capture, which could help overturn criminal convictions, had been unearthed after nearly 30 years.
The decision to refer the first-ever Capture case to the Court of Appeal has been made on the grounds that Mrs Owen’s prosecution was an “abuse of process”.
The development has been described by victims’ lawyer Neil Hudgell as “hugely pivotal”.
“The Court of Appeal don’t receive that many referrals that start at the CCRC, and most get turned away, so it’s a very high bar to even get cases from the CCRC to the Court of Appeal…”
“I think it will be a real shot in the arm to all the other Capture victims who are waiting for their cases to be determined by the CCRC.”
Mr Hudgell described the report found earlier this year – written by computer experts in 1998 and highly critical of Capture – as “significantly tipping the balance”.
Lawyer Neil Hudgell says development is ‘hugely pivotal’
Sky News found that the Post Office knew about the report at the time and continued to prosecute sub-postmasters based on Capture evidence.
Pat Owen always maintained her innocence but died in 2003 with a criminal record before the wider Post Office scandal came to light.
Her daughter Juliet Shardlow said she cried when she heard the news that her mother’s case would be referred to the Court of Appeal.
“I feel angry that she is not here because she died before her time… we will be there – we will be sitting there in that front row.
“I can’t put it into words because it’s still all a shock that we are where we are and that later this year, or next year, we might have what we set out to get… justice for her.”
Juliet Shardlow is seeking justice for her mother
Read more from Sky News:
Child dies after coach crashes on way back from school trip
Woman handed criminal conviction despite ‘unlawful’ strip search by police
The CCRC is currently investigating 30 cases potentially related to the Capture software system.
Twenty-seven of those cases are now assigned to case review managers and under “active review”, with a further three cases in the preparatory stages.
The CCRC has described a “challenge” over determining “whether cases involved the use of Capture at the time of the alleged offences”.
In a letter written to Liam Byrne, chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and seen by Sky News, it said that information the Post Office has provided “does not, in most cases, show whether it was installed and in operation at the time of the alleged offending”.
It also mentioned that the Post Office is reviewing “a significant amount of data which may contain further information”.
A Post Office spokesperson said: “While it is not appropriate for us to comment on specific cases, we have been very concerned about the reported problems relating to the use of the Capture software, and we are sincerely sorry for past failings that have caused suffering to postmasters.
“We are determined that past wrongs are put right and continue to support the government’s work in this area as well as fully co-operate with the Criminal Cases Review Commission.”
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years 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
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
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