I am writing to seek your assurance that your company will not invest in Sizewell C.

The government is exploring a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model for the proposed Sizewell C twin reactor nuclear power station, through which a nuclear “tax” would be imposed on the bills of British consumers from the start of construction, years before a single kilowatt of electricity was generated. Any investment in Sizewell C would be highly controversial, risking reputational damage. I believe it would compromise your ESG policies in the following ways:

* Sizewell C is not needed. The Climate Change Committee included just 5GW in
   three out of five energy scenarios in its 6th carbon budget, achievable by
   completing Hinkley Point C and extending the life of Sizewell B. The Good
   Energy/Energy Systems Catapult report published in June 2021 found that
   “beyond the existing Hinkley Point C plant, new nuclear is both unnecessary
   to reach net zero and would be difficult to manage alongside such a large
   fleet of renewables.” National Infrastructure Commission Chair Sir John
   Armitt says “Hopefully by 2025, we will be able to rely on much smarter
   systems and won’t have to rely on nuclear”. CCC Chair Lord Deben says the
   need for nuclear reduces as grid balancing improves.

* Sizewell C cannot help the UK reach 78% reduction in emissions by 2035.
   Construction would emit 6.2Mt CO2(e), which EDF estimates would take 6 years
   to offset assuming the equivalent energy was generated by the expected energy
   mix of the 2030s. With an estimated start date of at least 2034, Sizewell C
   would not contribute to net zero until 2040. Moreover, the EPR is so slow to
   build and prone to delays - with the few reactors under construction well
   over budget and overrun - that the UK will likely have completed the energy
   transition by the time Sizewell C is finished.

* Nuclear energy is not green. It was explicitly excluded from the Treasury’s
   Green Financing Framework published in July 2021. There is still no long-term
   solution to the storage of toxic nuclear waste. The spent fuel from the EPR
   high burn-up reactor is hotter than other reactors and would need to stay on
   the eroding Suffolk coastline for a century.

* Sizewell C’s 3.2GW of power would cost at least £20 billion, even on EDF’s
   optimistic forecasts, compared to an estimated £50bn for 30GW - nearly ten
   times this capacity - in offshore wind. Investment in Sizewell C would suck
   vital resources from renewables, energy efficiency or technologies such as
   green hydrogen storage.

* The RAB model would transfer construction risk to consumers and contribute to
   fuel poverty, with consumers paying up front for a decade before any energy
   is generated. It’s unclear whether or how they would be compensated if
   Sizewell C was abandoned before completion, as US nuclear projects have been.
   A report just published shows that consumers already struggling with energy
   bills would pay between £330 and £585 over the expected ten-year build before
   any energy is generated, in order to deliver a 6% return to investors for a
   £20 billion capital investment. The same report finds that the initial cost
   of power would be little if any cheaper than Hinkley Point C, and take
   decades to come down to the £40-£60/MWhr range that EDF is currently
   claiming.

* The Sizewell C site is surrounded by protected wildlife habitats. It is
   wholly within the Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
   which would be cut in half for the decade of construction. The site adjoins
   internationally famous RSPB Minsmere reserve, and part of Sizewell Marshes
   Site of Scientific Interest with its rare fen habitat would be lost forever.

At a recent World Nuclear Association webinar, Stephen Vaughan of EDF’s financial advisers Rothschild & Co said: "[Funds] are worried about what their ultimate investors think, what their pensioners think (if it's a pension fund) or their savers. They're worried about what their employees and their customers think… These are going to be big, high-profile investments that investors do not want to be controversial."

Major UK pension funds have already indicated considerable caution:

Legal & General: “..In the case of nuclear power, cost and nuclear waste disposal considerations must be fully addressed against the benefits...” L&G investors customer services subsequently wrote to a pension holder: “I have had it confirmed that Legal and General will not be investing in the Sizewell C.”

Prudential: “Sizewell is highly unlikely to be the sort of project we will directly invest in.”

I hope the above information illustrates how Sizewell C would be controversial and represent a significant reputational risk for your fund. As someone whose retirement savings are managed by you, I am very interested in how my money is being invested. Thus I am requesting that you write back to me to confirm whether or not you will invest in Sizewell C.

Ask your pension provider or fund manager about investing in Sizewell C

Ask your pension provider or fund manager about investing in Sizewell C