NIA - The Nuclear Industry Association - Nuclear Policy in the UK

Nuclear Policy in the UK - Where are we now?

Nuclear power policy has changed significantly since Sizewell B, the last of what might be called the first wave of nuclear plants in the UK, was ordered in 1987.

Through the post war period almost electricity in England and Wales had been generated by a single company, the Central Electricity Generating Board (there were similar bodies in Scotland and in Northern Ireland). The CEGB was owned by the government and was responsible for all decisions about new power stations. It had a duty to supply electricity and a geographical monopoly, which meant it could invest in power stations which were expensive to build (though quite cheap to run), like nuclear reactors, knowing the costs could be passed on to customers who could not shop around.

Though never officially part of government policy, Energy Secretary David Howells had suggested in 1981 that around ten Pressurised Water Reactors might be built in the UK over the next decade or so. By 1989 this had been scaled back to four. However, when the electricity supply industry was privatised it proved impossible to persuade the new companies to build nuclear plants when producing electricity using gas was cheaper and less controversial. In November 1989 the government announced that there was to be a moratorium on building new nuclear plants, which in effect remained in place through reviews in 1994 and 2003.

However, by the second half of the first decade of the 2000s the case for nuclear power had strengthened as concerns grew about the availability and security of coal and gas and about UK greenhouse gas emissions. A White Paper in 2003 had confirmed that companies wanting to build nuclear power stations would be prevented from doing so. In 2008 the then (Labour) Government published a nuclear White Paper, Meeting the Energy Challenge, in which Gordon Brown stated:

‘The Government has today concluded that nuclear should have a role to play in the generation of electricity, alongside other low carbon technologies. We have therefore decided that the electricity industry should, from now on be allowed to build and operate new nuclear power stations, subject to meeting the normal planning and regulatory requirements. Nuclear power is a tried and tested technology. It has provided the UK with secure supplies of safe, low-carbon electricity for half a century. New nuclear power stations will be better designed and more efficient than those they will replace. More than ever before, nuclear power has a key role to play as part of the UK’s energy mix. I am confident that nuclear power can and will make a real contribution to meeting our commitments to limit damaging climate change.’

However, it was clear that the government was not proposing a return to the days where, through some public body like the CEGB, it would actually build, own and operate power stations. The decision on new build would be taken by commercial companies operating in the competitive electricity market: Government’s job was to remove unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles (notably in the fields of planning and licensing, which could add years to nuclear construction projects) and create a stable marketplace for those decisions.

In the 2010 General Election the Labour Party’s manifesto reflected on the steps it had already taken to support nuclear investment. The Conservatives said they would ‘clear the way for new nuclear power stations – provided they receive no public subsidy’. However the Liberal Democrats were more negative, saying they would ‘reject a new generation of nuclear power stations; based on the evidence nuclear is a far more expensive way of reducing carbon emissions than promoting energy conservation and renewable energy’.

The General Election did not produce a decisive result, and a coalition was formed between the Conservatives (the largest party in the new parliament) and the Liberal Democrats. A detailed Coalition Agreement was published, which dealt with nuclear power as follows:

‘Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided that they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new National Planning Statement), and also provided that they receive no public subsidy. We will implement a process allowing the Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the Government to bring forward the National Planning Statement for ratification by Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible. This process will involve:

the Government completing the drafting of a national planning statement and putting it before Parliament;

specific agreement that a Liberal Democrat spokesperson will speak against the Planning Statement, but that Liberal Democrat MPs will abstain; and

clarity that this will not be regarded as an issue of confidence.’

Although the Secretary of State, Chris Huhne, came from the Liberal Democrat Party, his statements as Minister made clear that he would support nuclear new build as long as the ‘no subsidy’ condition was met. Further, it became clear ‘no subsidy’ was to mean that nuclear power would receive no specific subsidy that was not available to other energy sources: providing a floor on the carbon price, for example, would be legitimate even though it would improve nuclear economics.

A further major development in policy came with changes to the electricity market announced in December 2010. Key elements included:

Greater long term certainty around the additional cost of running polluting plant through a carbon price floor. Proposals from the Treasury to provide greater support and certainty to the carbon price will increase investment in low carbon generation by providing a clearer long term price for carbon in the power sector.
Long term contracts for low carbon generation to make clean energy investment more attractive still. Through a proposed ‘contract for difference’ Feed In Tariff, the Government will agree clear, long term contracts, resulting in a top up payment to low carbon generators if wholesale prices are low but clawing back money for consumers if prices become higher than the cost of low carbon generation. An alternative ‘premium’ Feed In Tariff.
Additional payments to encourage the construction of reserve plants or demand reduction measures (so-called ‘negawatts’) to ensure the lights stay on. A Capacity Mechanism will ensure there remains an adequate safety cushion of capacity as the amount of intermittent and inflexible low carbon generation increases.
A back-stop to limit how much carbon the most dirty power stations - coal - can emit. An Emissions Performance Standard will reinforce the existing requirement that no new coal is built without carbon capture and storage.

After the nuclear accident at Fukushima following the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 a report on the safety and security of British nuclear power plants was ordered under the leadership of Mike Weightman, the Chief Inspector. The interim report, published in May 2011, concluded that there was no need to stop current operations and that an earthquake on the Japanese scale was extremely unlikely. With regard to regulation, Weightman found, ‘In the course of our examination we have not seen any significant defects in the UK’s approach to nuclear regulation – goal-setting with flexibility and challenge’. The Safety Assessment Principles were still appropriate and there was no need to change siting strategies or the policy towards multi-reactor plants, though a human factors analysis was likely to be fruitful.

Other key developments have included:

The publication of a ‘Justification Decision’ for Areva’s EPR and Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactor designs in October 2010 (after three years of consultation), saying that in each case the benefits of building such reactors would outweigh any disadvantages.
Indication of a positive Generic Design Assessment to Areva’s EPR and Toshiba/Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactor designs, subject to satisfactory resolution of some outstanding issues, meaning that issues about the safety and effectiveness of these designs will not need to be examined on each occasion a new reactor is proposed.
The publication of a National Policy Statement in July 2011, including a clear statement from government that it ‘believes that energy companies should have the option of investing in new nuclear power stations. Any new nuclear power stations consented under the Planning Act 2008 will play a vitally important role in providing reliable electricity supplies and a secure and diverse energy mix as the UK makes the transition to a low carbon economy.’ Eight sites were identified as suitable for nuclear new build and the measure was passed in parliament by 267 votes to 14.
Regulators and the nuclear industry working with government to develop planning and other regulatory approvals processes so as to avoid unnecessary delay and uncertainty, including setting down clear practicable public consultation processes.
The creation of the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR), part of the Health and Safety Executive, bringing together the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security, the UK Safeguards Office and the Department of Transport’s Radioactive Materials Transport Division.
Through the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), setting and moving to implement a national policy on the management of radioactive wastes. Local authorities in Cumbria have expressed an interest in hosting a national waste repository if geological conditions can be met.

In mid-2011 EdF received planning permission to carry out preliminary works at Hinkley Point in Somerset and applied for a Site License and Environment Agency approvals, prior to a full application expected late in 2012.