The Public Bill Committee is examining legislation that will enable the government to force you to pay for EDF’s new nuclear reactor via a surcharge on your energy bill. We’ll all have to pay, no matter who we buy electricity from.
They need to receive your views before 25th November so they’ll be included in their report given to MPs before they vote again on the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill. So send your email today!
You can use as much or as little of the suggested text below to explain why it’s important to you. If you live near the site of a proposed new nuclear reactor, and/or have chosen your energy supplier on the basis that it excludes nuclear energy it’s helpful to include these details. Using your own words makes your email all the more powerful -- nobody expects you to be an expert, but do remember to be polite.
Here are some additional talking points:
- It’s clear that the purpose of this legislation is to enable EDF to build Sizewell C on the Suffolk coast.
- If you live near the sites of proposed new nuclear power stations, such as Sizewell C in Suffolk or Wylfa in Anglesey and object to the risk and disruption that they would cause, you would still be forced to subsidise the cost of building them.
- For more information about what damage Sizewell C will do to the local communities and environment in Suffolk -- and won’t help provide the low-cost, low-carbon electricity we need quickly, read more at the Stop Sizewell C website.
- If you have chosen a renewable tariff or an electricity supplier that rejects nuclear energy you will still be forced to subsidise the building of new nuclear power stations. If this applies to you, please talk about it.
- This legislation provides a framework for the use of RAB for nuclear projects, but nothing about how the details on individual projects will be decided and scrutinised. This means that the government could strike deals with corporations behind closed doors and the details of the exact cost on bills, how the costs of the power stack up etc revealed too late to be challenged -- leaving ordinary bill payers stitched up.
- The Bill seems to let investors off the hook for the cost of decommissioning new nuclear power plants. Given the high cost and major implications of decommissioning, it seems totally inappropriate for investors to profit without the responsibility of clearing up the mess. We don’t have a long term solution for the nuclear waste we already have, and are moving to generate more.
- Nuclear power stations are inherently risky to build and predisposed to cost and time overruns, and the Bill gives no indication of how much of the risk consumers are to take.
- EDF’s reactors at Flamanville (France), Olkiluoto (Finland) & Hinkley Point C are all late and over budget.
- There are legitimate concerns whether EDF’s “EPR” technology works, as one of the only two operating reactors, in China, has been shut with fuel failure.
- A RAB-type model in the United States for a cancelled nuclear plant in South Carolina is costing ratepayers $2.3bn.
- The developers of another plant, near Atlanta Georgia, whose costs ballooned, are being allowed to pass an extra $2.1 billion in overspend on to consumers.
To get started, simply make sure your name and email address are in the fields below, then:
- Add your own subject line
- Edit or rewrite the email - the more you personalise it the more the committee will take notice
- Choose which email program you use (if you don't know - click 'Manual')
- You'll be redirected to your email client, and your email will appear as a draft
- Hit send!
- Please forward any responses you get to email@example.com