This is the submission done by Global 2000 ,which they say you are welcome to copy and paste - Just add your name, email address and the date at the end. Send to stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu
You don't have to send it all and if there are any other points you want to raise, the scruffily put together facts in my last blog might be useful. There are some good links there too.
To: EU
Commission - Directorate-General
for Competition
E-mail: stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu
E-mail: stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu
Subject:
Hinkley Point C
I am very
concerned about the current plans of the UK government to make a new nuclear
power plant possible by granting enormous support for it.
We would like
to encourage the EU Commission to stick to its clear analysis, because we as CITIZENS/ NGOS/ BUSINESS in the UK do not want to be forced into paying a
fixed high electricity price to EDF for several decades, with no chance of the possibly
of making use of lower electricity prices.
It does not
seem fair to me, that one type of energy receives this amount of support in
addition to the fact that EDF would get this size of contract without even
having had to win a tender, because EDF simply received this deal
competition-free.
The supplier
AREVA became known in the past years for having severe problems with the
construction of its “flagship reactor” EPR on time: The ongoing cost increases!
Delay of completion is ongoing both at Olkiluoto and Flamanville, so it cannot
be expected that EDF would complete the EPR reactors at Hinkley according to
schedule. The delay at the Finnish site Olkiluoto is already 5 years, Areva was
reported as having left the construction site a month ago, so no new reliable
date is known.
There are many
more possibilities to secure the electricity supply for the UK. It does not
enhance energy diversity and independent supply if the enormous amount of up to
£17 billion in public subsidies is spent on two units of EPR.
We are
convinced that the state aid for Hinkley Point C would be at the expense of
other energy forms in the UK, because the money set aside for the support of
low-carbon projects up to 2020 (counterparty body) will be spent mostly on the
new NPP.
The Carbon Connect report[1] shows that the investors can expect bigger returns on
the Hinkley project than with comparable projects thus proving that the Hinkley
Point C project would not only receive state-aid, but to such a high level,
that it is over-compensation.
Furthermore the EU Commission made clear that the existence of market
failure need be doubted, because in Finland and in France the reactors were
ordered without granting state aid as is now planned for Hinkley. The UK government’s plan for the next NPP,
is utterly incomprehensible to us, because the EU Commission characterized the
chosen financing model (CfD – Contracts for Difference) with the following
words:
”…the CfD is conceived to entirely eliminate
market risks from the commercial activity of electricity generation, for a
period of time, the initial 35 years of operations of the plant.”
This is an extreme preference for one type of
electricity generation, one specific project of one specific investor, which we
believe the EU Commission will not see as compatible with the rules of the
Common market.
From.
Email:
First name:
Last name:
Date:
