Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
cashinmattress

Hinkley Point Deal Under Threat From Eu Ruling

Recommended Posts

link

The European Commission is close to concluding that Britain’s nuclear programme at Hinkley Point breaches EU state aid rules and may have to be revised, a move that could lead to long delays and even cause the complex deal to unravel.

The EU competition police are examining a string of subsidies tied to the Government’s £16bn agreement with French groups EDF and Areva as well as China’s General Nuclear Power to build two new generation EPR reactors. These would be the first reactors to be built in Britain since 1995, providing 7pc of the UK’s electricity.

Sources in Brussels say the chief concern is a £10bn loan guarantee for the construction of the plants, insurance against a meltdown, help with decommissioning costs and the inflation-linked “strike price” of £92.50 per megawatt hour for 35 years.

The investigation is being conducted by officials at the competition direct-orate under Joaquin Almunia. They are expected to issue an initial verdict in January, paving the way for a broader inquiry. Any decision requires backing by the “College” of EU commissioners.

The team is looking at the broader shape of the Hinkley deal and whether state support on this scale is needed for the project to go ahead. “There was no state aid for Finland’s new reactor,” said one official, pointedly.

Günther Oettinger, the EU’s energy commissioner, warned last month that “35-year feed-in tariffs may be a problem”, adding that the EU might do better to invest more in wind and gas. He earlier described the UK nuclear deal as a throw-back to the “Soviet” era.

The Hinkley Point deal sets a precedent for new reactors in other countries. Le Monde said Paris is tracking the dispute closely, worried that any delay could threaten the future of France’s nuclear industry. The newspaper quoted an expert claiming Brussels has already reached a conclusion.

“The outcome of the probe is known,” said the source. “What is not known are the conditions that the Commission will impose.”

Any move to delay or unpick the deal could lead to a serious political showdown between London and Brussels, adding to the tense mood as Britain’s referendum on EU membership approaches. The Government is relying on the two reactors to avert a power crunch in the early 2020s.

Giles Chichester, MEP, the Tory energy spokesman in Brussels, said powerful lobbies were trying block the deal but insisted that the Government is on firm legal ground.

“We expect the Commission to be fair,” he said. “We have done our due diligence and are convinced that there is no public finance going into the project. It is essential that we build these two new power stations. Sadly, we have to rely on foreign expertise because of the shameful neglect of our nuclear industry over the last 30 years.”

The Government can appeal any decision at the European Court but this would drag on for years and leave the project in limbo. EDF laid off jobs at the site earlier this year after complaining it was losing £1m for each day the project was delayed.

Britain suffered a blow in October when the Commission killed proposals that might have permitted EU governments to subsidise the nuclear industry as a “low carbon” source of energy in much the same way they can help wind and solar power. Twelve EU states have called for a “level playing field” between nuclear and renewables. Germany and Austria strongly oppose such a move.

The result is that Mr Almunia’s team has to make a judgment based on ordinary EU competition case law, whether they wish to or not. This raises the bar. The Department of Energy and Climate Change said it is working closely with Brussels to ensure that the deal does not breach state aid rules. “It would not be appropriate for the UK Government to comment on an ongoing process or on the timescales for approval,” said a spokesman.

The EU’s oversight powers in the energy field are ambiguous. It is largely up to the member states to choose their own energy mix but Article 176 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU a number of new but vague powers, to be decided under qualified majority vote. This means Britain does not have a veto.

Any use of Article 176 to stop Britain building nuclear reactors would set off a political storm. The EU is on safer ground evaluating the deal on state aid principles. The UK has always been a strong supporter of the EU’s competition directorate, seen as the spearhead of free-market reform in Europe.

And of course Camoron's latest trip to China to suckle at the soy milk nipple will be a wasted venture if this goes foul.

How embarrassing for any citizen of the UK that we need to kneel to foreigners and private corporations, begging for licence and expertise to build what should be our own energy infrastruture.

Fvck you very much Mrs Thatcher and your still living crony's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How embarrassing for any citizen of the UK that we need to kneel to foreigners and private corporations, begging for licence and expertise to build what should be our own energy infrastruture.

Que?

The only bowing and scraping I'm seeing in there is how we have to ask permission from the Germans to build power stations of a type they do not approve of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Que?

The only bowing and scraping I'm seeing in there is how we have to ask permission from the Germans to build power stations of a type they do not approve of.

There was no state aid for Finland’s new reactor

So why do we need to give so much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange how a 10 billion subsidy for a few power stations is a big deal whereas an 83 billion bailout of RBS is OK?

The EU obviously doesn't like the idea of energy self sufficiency in the UK and would prefer it if these islands are dependent of Russian oil and French nuclear power. Still, it's hardly surprising given their track record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange how a 10 billion subsidy for a few power stations is a big deal whereas an 83 billion bailout of RBS is OK?

The EU obviously doesn't like the idea of energy self sufficiency in the UK and would prefer it if these islands are dependent of Russian oil and French nuclear power. Still, it's hardly surprising given their track record.

The bailout was against the rules too, but the EU technocrats burnt the midnight oil to push it through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't help but think there are a lot of bureaucrats out there. when they hear of figures like 10 billion they try and work out a way of getting their cut.

Perhaps they could call a meeting in a ski resort on expenses that would be a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   222 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.