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
Related Topics:
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.
Advertisement
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 Mayimmediately 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.
Making Britain better off will be “at the forefront of the chancellor’s mind” during her visit to China, the Treasury has said amid controversy over the trip.
Rachel Reeves flew out on Friday after ignoring calls from opposition parties to cancel the long-planned venture because of market turmoil at home.
The past week has seen a drop in the pound and an increase in government borrowing costs, which has fuelled speculation of more spending cuts or tax rises.
The Tories have accused the chancellor of having “fled to China” rather than explain how she will fix the UK’s flatlining economy, while the Liberal Democrats say she should stay in Britain and announce a “plan B” to address market volatility.
However, Ms Reeves has rejected calls to cancel the visit, writing in The Times on Friday night that choosing not to engage with China is “no choice at all”.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
On Friday, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy defended the trip, telling Sky News that the climbing cost of government borrowing was a “global trend” that had affected many countries, “most notably the United States”.
“We are still on track to be the fastest growing economy, according to the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] in Europe,” she told Anna Jones on Sky News Breakfast.
“China is the second-largest economy, and what China does has the biggest impact on people from Stockton to Sunderland, right across the UK, and it’s absolutely essential that we have a relationship with them.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:32
Nandy defends Reeves’ trip to China
However, former prime minister Boris Johnson said Ms Reeves had “been rumbled” and said she should “make her way to HR and collect her P45 – or stay in China”.
While in the country’s capital, Ms Reeves will also visit British bike brand Brompton’s flagship store, which relies heavily on exports to China, before heading to Shanghai for talks with representatives across British and Chinese businesses.
It is the first UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue (EFD) since 2019, building on the Labour government’s plan for a “pragmatic” policy with the world’s second-largest economy.
Sir Keir Starmer was the first British prime minister to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping in six years at the G20 summit in Brazil last autumn.
Relations between the UK and China have become strained over the last decade as the Conservative government spoke out against human rights abuses and concerns grew over national security risks.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:45
How much do we trade with China?
Navigating this has proved tricky given China is the UK’s fourth largest single trading partner, with a trade relationship worth almost £113bn and exports to China supporting over 455,000 jobs in the UK in 2020, according to the government.
During the Tories’ 14 years in office, the approach varied dramatically from the “golden era” under David Cameron to hawkish aggression under Liz Truss, while Rishi Sunak vowed to be “robust” but resisted pressure from his own party to brand China a threat.
The Treasury said a stable relationship with China would support economic growth and that “making working people across Britain secure and better off is at the forefront of the chancellor’s mind”.
Ahead of her visit, Ms Reeves said: “By finding common ground on trade and investment, while being candid about our differences and upholding national security as the first duty of this government, we can build a long-term economic relationship with China that works in the national interest.”
As the dust settles on a tumultuous week for gilts (UK government bonds) and sterling – a week that has raised serious questions about chancellor Rachel Reeves’s stewardship of the economy – the big question many people will be asking is why investor sentiment has shifted so much against the UK in the past week.
Following on from that is what Ms Reeves should try to do about it.
The first point to make – and indeed it is one the government has been making – is that there has been a broad sell-off in government bonds around the world this week. Yields, which go up as the price of a bond falls, have been rising not only in the case of gilts but also on bonds issued by the likes of the US, Japan, France and Germany.
That reflects the fact that investors are changing their assumptions about the path of inflation this year and, in turn, how central banks like the US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England respond.
Inflation is now expected to be stickier around the world due to a combination of factors, of which by far the biggest is the tariffs the incoming Trump administration is expected to introduce. Those tariffs will push up the price of goods bought by American consumers and, if America’s trading partners respond with tariffs of their own, for consumers elsewhere. US Treasuries have also been under pressure due to expectations that Mr Trump will raise US borrowing sharply.
That said, gilt yields have been rising by more than yields on their international counterparts, reflecting the fact that investors think the UK has specific issues with inflation. The increase in employer’s national insurance contributions (NICs) announced by Ms Reeves in her Halloween budget will be highly inflationary because they will push up the cost of employing people.
The chief executives of some of the UK’s biggest retailers – Lord Wolfson at Next, Ken Murphy at Tesco, Stuart Machin at Marks & Spencer and Simon Roberts at Sainsbury’s – this week repeated their warnings that these higher costs will feed through to higher prices.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:18
Treasury tries to calm market nerves
Another reason why gilt yields have risen more than those of their international counterparts is the UK’s particular fiscal position and its poor growth prospects.
Yes, other countries have as poor prospects for growth as the UK or as bad a debt situation. The US national debt, for example, is 123% of US GDP while Japan has a debt to GDP ratio of 250%. The UK, with a debt to GDP ratio of just under 99%, doesn’t look so bad by comparison. However, as the market in US Treasuries is the biggest and most liquid in the world and the US dollar is the global reserve currency, investors seldom have hesitation about lending to the US government. Similarly, in the case of Japan, most of its government debt is owned by Japanese savers – encapsulated by the mythical figure of ‘Mrs Watanabe’.
The UK does not have that luxury and, accordingly, has to rely on what Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England, memorably described in a 2017 speech as “the kindness of strangers” to fund its borrowing (he was talking on that occasion about the UK’s current account deficit rather than its fiscal deficit, but the point holds).
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:18
Investors ‘losing confidence in UK’
In summary, then, investors are demanding a higher premium for the added risk of holding gilts. That perceived risk – as the former prime minister Liz Truss has gleefully been pointing out – means that yields on some gilts are now even higher than they spiked following her chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng’s ill-fated mini budget in September 2022.
Investors are also sceptical about the UK economy’s ability to grow its way out of this predicament. While the government’s proposals to invest in infrastructure have been welcomed by investors, they have also noted that much of the extra borrowing being taken on by Ms Reeves in her budget was to fund big pay rises for public sector workers, which – rightly or wrongly – are not perceived to be as good a use of government money as, say, investing in improvements to roads or power grids.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:34
CBI chief’s approach to budget tax shock
So what does Ms Reeves do?
Well, as the old joke about the Irishman guiding a lost tourist puts it, she “wouldn’t start from here”. The chancellor’s big mistake was to box herself in during the general election campaign by ruling out increases in income tax, employees’ national insurance, VAT or corporation tax. She could easily, for example, have promised to unwind her predecessor Jeremy Hunt’s cut in employee’s national insurance – which was rightly recognised by most voters as a pre-election bribe.
Still, she is where she is, so the chancellor’s main job now will be to convince investors that the UK is on a stable fiscal footing. With the recent rise in gilt yields – the implied government borrowing cost – threatening to eliminate the chancellor’s headroom to meet her fiscal rules, that is likely to mean public sector spending cuts or higher taxes. The former option is more likely than the latter and not least because Ms Reeves is committed to just one ‘fiscal event’ – when taxes are raised – per year and that will be her budget this autumn.
The Bank of England is also going to have a big part to play here in reinforcing to markets its determination to bringing inflation down to its target range – which means borrowers should not expect as many interest rate cuts in 2025 as they were, say, six months ago.
The Bank may also slow the pace at which it is selling its own gilt holdings (accumulated largely during the ‘quantitative easing’ on which it embarked after the global financial crisis) which would also ease the downward pressure on gilts.
Also coming to the chancellor’s aid, in all likelihood, will be a weakening in the pound which should, all other things being equal, help make gilts more appetising to international investors.
All of this underlines though, unfortunately, that there is only so much the chancellor can do.
Britain’s gas storage levels are “concerningly low” with less than a week of demand available, the operator of the country’s largest gas storage site has warned.
Plunging temperatures and high demand for gas-fired power are the main factors behind the low levels, Centrica said, adding that the need to replenish stocks could lead to rising prices ahead.
The UK is heavily reliant on gas for its home heating and also uses a significant amount for electricity generation.
National Grid data on Friday showed that natural gas accounted for 53% of power in the UK’s system, with renewables offering just 16% of the country’s needs.
Following the UK’s decision to ditch carbon intensive coal from its energy mix, extra strain is heaped on gas during cold snaps because wind generation can often be lower due to high pressure weather systems.
Earlier this week, the UK’s electricity grid operator issued a rare notice to power firms that sought higher output to prevent a greater risk of blackouts within the network.
As of 9 January, UK gas storage sites “were 26% lower than last year’s inventory at the same time, leaving them around half full,” Centrica said.
“This means the UK has less than a week of gas demand in store.”
The Labour government is investing more heavily in clean energy to bolster the battle against climate change and has shunned pressure to bolster gas supplies through additional North Sea fields.
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said in response to Centrica’s storage alert: “We have no concerns and are confident we will have a sufficient gas supply and electricity capacity to meet demand this winter, due to our diverse and resilient energy system.
“Our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower will maintain the UK’s energy security in the long term – investing in clean homegrown power and protecting billpayers.”
Centrica’s Rough gas storage site in the North Sea, off England’s east coast, makes up around half of the country’s gas storage capacity.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:30
Why your energy bills look set to rise
Centrica has previously said it could invest £2bn to upgrade Rough further, but it would need support from the government through a price cap and floor mechanism to make this viable.
Combined with stubbornly high gas prices, this has meant it has been more difficult to top up storage over Christmas.
Centrica said the “situation is echoed across Europe” – where gas storage was at 69% at the start of this week, down from 84% during the same period the previous year.
Unlike Europe, Britain does not have a mandatory gas storage target.
“We are an outlier from the rest of Europe when it comes to the role of storage in our energy system and we are now seeing the implications of that,” said Centrica chief executive Chris O’Shea.
“If Rough had been operating at full capacity in recent years, it would have saved UK households £100 from both their gas and their electricity bills each winter,” he added.
Gas stores are important as they enable countries to not only guarantee supplies during the transition to renewables but also avoid short term price spikes on wholesale markets.
High storage is also an important tool in moderating price swings.
But the UK has been particularly vulnerable in this space since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, when sanctions meant key taps to Europe were shut off, forcing nations such as the UK and Germany to scramble for supplies.
It has left Europe reliant on the US for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in particular, with Norway a key exporter of natural gas via pipeline to the UK.
The need for Europe as a whole to replenish depleted stocks at the end of winter is among reasons why wholesale prices have remained elevated, leaving households and businesses at the mercy of further hikes to energy bills.