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. Energy Systems Catapult has found that new nuclear beyond Hinkley Point C "is both unnecessary to reach net zero and would be difficult to manage alongside such a large fleet of renewables". Imperial College's analysis met system security standards without Sizewell C and also noted that including new nuclear at plausible prices led to increased consumer bills. The future energy scenarios published by both the Climate Change Committee and National Grid with the highest energy output did not include Sizewell C, indeed National Grid’s "Leading the Way'' scenario is net negative for CO2 emissions by 2032, at least two years before Sizewell C would be on line.

+ 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.

+ Ownership of Sizewell C is unclear. With EDF likely to be reduced to a very small stake or build-only contract, future governance is very murky. The government must decide what, if any, role EDF’s controversial development partner – China General Nuclear – would be allowed to play.

+ 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.

+ There is considerable local opposition. Communities would have to bear the brunt of impacts including an extra 12,000 vehicles a day and an influx of 6,000 temporary workers into the area.

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 and we urge you to join them.

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.

Yours faithfully,

Ask your pension provider or fund manager about Sizewell C

Ask your pension provider or fund manager about Sizewell C