The European Commission (EC) has delivered what can only be called a scathing initial verdict on the UK Government’s deal with French state owned EDF to build the first new nuclear reactors in the UK for a generation, according to a blog post from Greenpeace UK.
The Commission announced on 18 December that it would investigate the proposed deal. It has now published a 70-page initial analysis on its website, which suggests that, as Greenpeace puts it, “that the deal may not be proportionate and risks substantially overpaying EDF”.
The Commission says additional support to EDF (on top of market prices) could end up costing anywhere between £5bn and £17.6bn.
The analysis makes the following points, notes Greenpeace:
- Support to build new reactors may be unnecessary. Private investment is expected to invest in nuclear by 2030, without the need for government sweeteners.
- The deal is expensive. It “could hardly be argued to contribute to affordability – at least at current prices, when it will instead and most likely contribute to an increase in retail prices.”
- The UK may be paying too much for the new reactors because EDF can borrow money more cheaply thanks to the Contract for Difference and loan guarantees. This means EDF would be able to build the reactors for less than the UK government is paying. UK taxpayers will be protecting EDF and its investors.
- If the price of electricity falls below the fixed price guaranteed to EDF, the company stands to make a fortune while consumers are forced to pay artificially higher bills.
- There wasn’t a tender for Hinkley C. Low-carbon electricity sources don’t seem to have been considered instead of new nuclear reactors which could put the project in violation of EC directives.
- The Commission doesn’t believe the UK government when it says the reactors are needed to keep the lights on. They won’t be ready until 2023 at the earliest.
- The Commission also said that all these favours being done for the nuclear industry “might crowd out alternative investments in technologies or combinations of technologies, including renewable energy sources.”
- The fixed electricity price offered to EDF shields the company from risks that its competitors can’t avoid. The Commission concludes the package, especially Contracts for Difference, could severely distort the market. The combination of Contract for Difference, a credit guarantee, and compensation for political risk means the project “is not far from being risk-free at the level of operations.”
The bottom line, says Greenpeace, is that the Commission isn’t sure nuclear power deserves state aid. Why does a mature technology like nuclear need assistance in this way? Two nuclear reactors being built in Finland and France didn’t need state aid and the Commission can’t see why Hinkley C is “fundamentally different”.
The Greenpeace blog concludes that the Commission “is now launching a full investigation into the package of measures supporting Hinkley C, including a contract providing a fixed price for power (known as a Contract for Difference), guarantees for loans to the project and political guarantees.”
Glenn Ensor says
Thanks for the overview, Karel. Might I be the rare Brit who concurs with the European Commission on this one, whilst acknowledging the axiom that nuclear power should form part of a lower carbon power future for the UK, making common ground with Greenpeace more difficult to find?
In the context of the countless billions that are being spent underwriting wind and solar development, the irony underpinning Greenpeace’s criticism of the subsidy in this instance surely cannot be lost on your readers.
No, the deal struck here stinks from the perspective of a UK taxpayer and energy bill payer. After years of successive governments muddling by in the absence of anything resembling a coherent energy strategy – beyond the oft repeated platitudes about “doing something” to combat man-made climate change- it is hardly surprising that the current UK government negotiated this deal from a very weak position.
Caught in a perfect storm of commitments to carbon reduction targets, a looming critical energy pinch from late 2015 on and an inability to reach into depleted public coffers to finance construction on this scale up-front, what alternative was there other than the begging bowl? One can hardly blame EDF for playing its hand to the full, why would it not?
One must hope the commission can scupper this deal on behalf of the British people and, in the interests of fairness and consistency, take the same scalpel to the ludicrous strike-price negotiated for UK off-shore wind. If private enterprise cannot work out a way to make a new nuclear facility profitable over its projected life-span, government has no business climbing into the financial hole on our behalf. Recent news of Rosatom’s deal in Finland suggests there are better nuclear models.
Combined cycle gas fired generation can, especially when it is replacing aged coal units, do more to reduce carbon emissions without the need for subsidy than any other technology available, in a relatively quick time and without the ruinous variability of wind or solar. In the medium to long term, exploitation of the UK’s shale gas reserves would also reduce fuel supply risk. The government should have the courage to confront the population with some genuine economic home truths and signal this intention. What we have now is a muddled mess and the Hinkley C deal is just another symptom.