No sitcom or soap opera has ever maintained such a long-running will they/won’t they? drama as EDF and the UK government have over Hinkley Point C.
For years, the now notorious new nuclear project has been the cause of speculative headlines, bailouts, deals, counter-deals and criticism. Then, just when EDF announces its final investment decision in favour wof the project – secured by a precarious margin of three board votes – seemingly bringing the saga to a finale, government responds with an almost churlish statement saying it needs to review the “component parts” of the deal to support Hinkley Point C’s construction.
Hinkley’s opponents – and there are many – welcomed news of a fresh delay as a last-minute reprieve, variously interpreting it as a sign that government is now questioning the cost of the deal, the extent to which new nuclear power should play a role in a decentralised, electricity storage-enabled energy future or the environmental hazards associated with nuclear waste.
Hinkley Point C advocates, including unions, trade bodies and business groups, are mortified by the unexpected delay. They have slammed the move as barmy, and fear for business confidence, lost jobs should the Somerset’s nuclear leviathan be aborted, and UK energy security.
One union, Prospect, says that it is “incomprehensible that ministers and officials are not familiar with the deal hammered out with EDF over a number of years”. Many political commentators agree. Rather than being about energy policy or the expensive Hinkley strike price, they have framed the delay as a symptom of Theresa May’s apparent dislike of foreign ownership of UK assets and, in particular, her perceived concerns about the level of Chinese financing behind the scheme.
In truth, though, most of what has been written about government’s motivations for delay is pure speculation. Greg Clark’s anodyne four-line statement gave hardly anything away.
What can be said with confidence, whether you approve of the decision or not, is that government handled its announcement poorly. Waiting until after the final investment decision to suggest that the existing Hinkley deal needs revisiting sends a message about the UK government’s ability or desire to make important strategic decisions on critical infrastructure. There are better and more mature ways to issue measured messages to businesses as they seek to make difficult investment decisions.