Tony Cooper, NIA Chairman

In particular it is not necessary to buy the case put in the programme for any Government quotas on fuel sources. Such quotas are incompatible with the efficient working of an electricity market and would destroy many of the benefits of innovation and flexibility the market can deliver.

On the other hand it is quite clear that the electricity market is not simply another commodity market. The market is not designed to reward or incentivise investment in security of supply or zero carbon dioxide emission. On this latter issue, Government has at least made a start with emission permits and trading, but that is absurdly at odds with their "Climate Change Levy", which, whatever its real objective, has little to do with climate change.

The electricity market will eventually be redesigned to ensure that it provides both rewards from and price signals for investment in the provision of the associated and essential public goods, if only because the political market for all our votes will simply not tolerate significant electricity supply risk.

One unpopular consequence of the necessary changes will be a rise in the price of energy, both to incentivise the provision of essential public goods and to curb our profligate over consumption.

Nuclear power can make a real contribution to the key public objectives of CO₂ reduction and supply security. In a redesigned electricity market I am confident it will do so without quotas or special pleading. My real concern is "when?". A small move in the right direction now would be of enormous value intrinsically, and in the signals it gave of Government intention. It would allow us to move towards the first essential step of extending the operating lifetime of the existing AGR's - a win win all round.