Maryland couple basks in savings from a solar system

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SaskPower 10% Electricity Rebate promises one-year bill relief for households, farms, businesses, hospitals, schools, and universities in Saskatchewan, boosting affordability amid COVID-19, offsetting rate hikes, and countering carbon tax impacts under Scott Moe's plan.

Key Points

One-year 10% SaskPower rebate lowering bills for residents, farms, and institutions, funded by general revenue.

✅ Applies automatically to all customers for 12 months from Dec 2020.

✅ Average savings: $215 residential; $845 farm; broad sector coverage.

✅ Cost $261.6M, paid from the general revenue fund; separate from carbon tax.

Saskatchewan Party leader Scott Moe says SaskPower customers can expect a one-year, 10 per cent rebate on electricity if they are elected government.

Moe said the pledge aims to make life more affordable for people, including through lower electricity rates initiatives seen in other provinces. The rate would apply to everyone, including residential customers, farmers, businesses, hospitals, schools and universities.

The plan, which would cost government $261.6 million, expects to save the average residential customer $215 over the course of the year and the average farm customer $845.  

“This is a very equitable way to ensure that we are not only providing that opportunity for those dollars to go back into our economy and foster the economic recovery that we are working towards here, in Saskatchewan, across Canada and around the globe, but it also speaks to the affordability for our Saskatchewan families, reducing the dollars a day off to pay for their for their power bill,” Moe said.

The rebate would be applied automatically to all SaskPower bills for 12 months, starting in December 2020. 

Moe said residential customers who are net metering and generating their own power, such as solar power, would receive a $215 rebate over the 12-month period, which is the equivalent of the average residential rebate.

The $261.6 million in costs would be covered by the government’s general revenue fund.   

The Saskatchewan NDP said the proposed reduction is "a big change in direction from the Sask. Party’s long history of making life more expensive for Saskatchewan families." and recently took aim at a SaskPower rate hike approval as part of that critique.

Trent Wotherspoon, NDP candidate for Regina Rosemont and former finance critic, called the pledge criticized the one year time frame and said Saskatchewan people need long term, reliable affordability, noting that the Ontario-Quebec hydro deal has not reduced hydro bills for consumers. Something, he said, is reflected in the NDP plan.

“We've already brought about announcements that bring about affordability, such as the break on SGI auto insurance that'll happen, year after year after year, affordable childcare which has been already announced and committed to things like a decent minimum wage instead of having the lowest minimum wage in Canada,” Wotherspoon said.

The NDP pointed out SaskPower bills have increased by 57 per cent since 2007 for families with an average household income of $75,000, while Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike was recently approved by its regulator.

It said the average bill for such household was $901 in 2007-08 and is now $1,418 in 2019-20, while in neighbouring provinces Manitoba rate increases of 2.5 per cent annually have also been proposed for three years.

"This is on top of the PST increases that the Sask. Party put on everyday families – costing them more than $700 a year," the NDP said.

Moe took aim at the federal Liberal government’s carbon tax, citing concerns that electricity prices could soar under national policies.

He said if the Saskatchewan government wins its court fight against Ottawa, all SaskPower customers can expect to save an additional $150 million per year, and he questioned the federal 2035 net-zero electricity grid target in that context.

“As it stands right now, the Trudeau government plans to raise the carbon tax from $30 to $40 a tonne on Jan. 1,” Moe said. “Trudeau plans to raise taxes and your SaskPower bill, in the middle of a pandemic.  The Saskatchewan Party will give you a break by cutting your power bill.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

IRENA Climate Investment Platform accelerates renewable energy financing through de-risking, bankable projects, and public-private partnerships, advancing Paris Agreement goals via grid integration, microgrids, and decarbonization while expanding access, jobs, and sustainable economic growth.

Key Points

A global platform linking bankable renewable projects with finance, derisking and partners to scale decarbonization.

✅ Connects developers with banks, funds, and insurers

✅ Promotes de-risking via policy, PPAs, and legal frameworks

✅ Targets Paris goals with grid, microgrids, and off-grid access

The heads-of-state and energy ministers from more than 120 nations just met in Abu Dhabi and they had one thing in common: a passion to increase the use of renewable energy to reduce the threat from global warming — one that will also boost economic output and spread prosperity. Access to finance, though, is critical to this goal. 

Indeed, the central message to emerge from the conference hosted by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) this week in the United Arab Emirates is that a global energy transition is underway that has the potential to revitalize economies and to lift people out of poverty. But such a conversion requires international cooperation and a common desire to address the climate cause. 

“The renewable energy sector created jobs employing 11 million people in 2019 and provided off-grid solutions, having helped bring the number of people with no access to electricity to under 1 billion,” the current president of the UN General Assembly Tiijani Muhammad-Bande of Nigeria told the audience. 

Today In: Business
While renewables are improving energy access and reducing inequities, they also have the potential to curb CO2 emissions globally. The goal is to shrink them by 45% by 2030 and 90% by 2050, with Canada's net-zero race highlighting the role of renewable energy in achieving those targets. Getting there, though, requires progressive government policies that will help to attract financing. 

According to IRENA, investment in the clean energy sector is now at $330 billion a year. But if the 2050 goals are to be reached, those levels must nearly double to $750 billion annually. The green energy sector does not want to compete with the oil and gas sectors but rather, it is seeking to diversify fuel sources — a strategy that could help make electricity systems more resilient to climate risks. To hit the Paris agreement’s targets, it says that renewable energy deployment must increase by a factor of six.  

To that end, IRENA is forming a “climate investment platform” that will bring ideas to the table and then introduce prospective parties. It will focus on those projects that it believes are “bankable.”

It’s about helping project developers find banks, private companies and pension funds to finance their worthy projects, IRENA Director General Francesco La Camera said in response to this reporter’s question. Moreover, he said that the platform would work to ensure there is a sound legal structure and that there is legislative support to “de-risk” the investments. 

“Overcoming investment needs for energy transformation infrastructure is one of the most notable barriers to the achievement of national goals,” La Camera says. “Therefore, the provision of capital to support the adoption of renewable energy is key to low-carbon sustainable economic development and plays a central role in bringing about positive social outcomes.”

If the monies are to flow into new projects, governments have to create an environment where innovation is to be rewarded: tax incentives for renewables along with the design and implementation of transition plans. The aim is to scale up which in turn, leads to new jobs and greater economic productivity — a payback of three-to-seven times the initial investment.  

The path of least resistance, for now, is off-grid green energy solutions, or providing electricity to rural areas by installing solar panels that may connect to localized microgrids. Africa, which has a half-billion people without reliable electricity, would benefit. However, “If you want to go to scale and have bankable projects, you have to be connected to the grid,” Moira Wahba, with the UN Development Program, told this writer. “That requires large capital and private enterprise.”

Public policy must thus work to create the knowledge base and the advocacy to help de-risk the investments. Government’s role is to reassure investors that they will not be subject to arbitrary laws or the crony allocation of contracts. Risk takers know there are no guarantees. But they want to compete on a level playing. 

Analyzing Risk Profiles

He is speaking during the World Energy Future Summit. 
Sultan Al Jabber, chief executive of Abu Dhabi’s national oil company, Adnoc, who is also the former ... [+]ABU DHABI SUSTAINABILITY WEEK
How do foreign investors square the role of utilities that are considered safe and sound with their potential expansion into new fields such as investing in carbon-free electricity and in new places? The elimination of risk is not possible, says Mohamed Jameel Al Ramahi, chief executive officer of UAE-based Masdar. But the need to decarbonize is paramount. The head of the renewable energy company says that every jurisdiction has its own risk profile but that each one must be fully transparent while also properly structuring their policies and regulations. And there needs to be insurance for political risks. 

The United States and China, for example, are already “de-risked,” because they are deploying “gigawatts of renewables,” he told this writer. “When we talk about doubling the amount of needed investment, we have to take into account the risk profile of the whole world. If it is a high-risk jurisdiction, it will be difficult to bring in foreign capital.” 

The most compelling factor that will drive investment is whether the global community can comply with the Paris agreement, says Dr. Thani Ahmed Al Zeyoudi, Minister of the Ministry of Climate Change and the Environment for the United Arab Emirates. The goal is to limit increases to 2 degrees Celsius by mid-century, with the understanding that the UN’s latest climate report emphasizes that positive results are urgently needed. 

One of the most effective mechanisms is the public-private model. Governments, for example, are signing long-term power purchase agreements, giving project developers the necessary income they need to operate, and in the EU plans to double electricity use by 2050 are reinforcing these commitments. They can also provide grants and bring in international partners such as the World Bank. 

“We are seeing the impact of climate change with the various extreme events: the Australian fires, the cyclones and the droughts,” the minister told reporters. “We can no longer pass this to future generations to deal with.” 

The United Arab Emirates is not just talking about it, adds Sultan Al Jabber, chief executive of Abu Dhabi’s national oil company, Adnoc, who is also the former head of subsidiary Masdar. It is acting now, and across Europe Big Oil is turning electric as traditional players pivot too. His comments came during Abu Dhabi’s Sustainability Week at the World Future Energy Summit. The country is “walking the walk” by investing in renewable projects around the globe and it is growing its own green energy portfolio. Addressing climate change is “right” while it is also making “perfect economic sense.” 

The green energy transition has taken root in advanced economies while it is making inroads in the developing world — a movement that has the twin effect of addressing climate change and creating economic opportunities, and one that aligns with calls to transform into a sustainable electric planet for long-term prosperity. But private investment must double, which requires proactive governments to limit unnecessary risks and to craft the incentives to attract risk-takers. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Rooftop Solar Battery Backup helps Californians keep lights on during PG&E blackouts, combining home energy storage with grid-tied systems for wildfire prevention, outage resilience, and backup power when solar panels cannot supply nighttime demand.

Key Points

A home battery paired with rooftop solar, providing backup power and blackout resilience when the grid is down.

✅ Works when grid is down; panels alone stop for safety.

✅ Requires home battery storage; market adoption is growing.

✅ Supports wildfire mitigation and PG&E outage preparedness.

Californians have embraced rooftop solar panels more than anyone in the U.S., but amid California's solar boom many are learning the hard way the systems won’t keep the lights on during blackouts.

That’s because most panels are designed to supply power to the grid -- not directly to houses, though emerging peer-to-peer energy models may change how neighbors share power in coming years. During the heat of the day, solar systems can crank out more juice than a home can handle, a challenge also seen in excess solar risks in Australia today. Conversely, they don’t produce power at all at night. So systems are tied into the grid, and the vast majority aren’t working this week as PG&E Corp. cuts power to much of Northern California to prevent wildfires, even as wildfire smoke can dampen solar output during such events.

The only way for most solar panels to work during a blackout is pairing them with solar batteries that store excess energy. That market is just starting to take off. Sunrun Inc., the largest U.S. rooftop solar company, said some of its customers are making it through the blackouts with batteries, but it’s a tiny group -- countable in the hundreds.

“It’s the perfect combination for getting through these shutdowns,” Sunrun Chairman Ed Fenster said in an interview. He expects battery sales to boom in the wake of the outages, as the state has at times reached a near-100% renewables mark that heightens the need for storage.

And no, trying to run appliances off the power in a Tesla Inc. electric car won’t work, at least without special equipment, and widespread U.S. power-outage risks are a reminder to plan for home backup.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Hinkley Point C dome lift marks a nuclear reactor milestone in Somerset, as EDF used Big Carl crane to place a 245-tonne steel roof, enabling 2027 startup amid costs, delays, and precision indoor welding.

Key Points

A 245-tonne dome lifted onto Hinkley Point C's first reactor, finishing the roof and enabling fit-out for a 2027 startup.

✅ 245-tonne steel dome lifted by Big Carl onto 44m-high reactor

✅ Indoor welding avoided weather defects seen at Flamanville

✅ Cost now £33bn; first power targeted by end of 2027

Engineers have lifted a steel roof onto a building which will house the first of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Hundreds of people helped with the delicate operation to get the 245-tonne steel dome into position.

It means the first reactor can be installed next year, ready to be switched on in June 2027.

Engineers at EDF said the "challenging job" was completed in just over an hour.

They first broke the ground on the new nuclear station in March 2017. Now, some 10,000 people work on what is Europe's largest building site.

Yet many analysts note that Europe is losing nuclear power even as demand for reliable energy grows.

They have faced delays from Covid restrictions and other recent setbacks, and the budget has doubled to £33bn, so getting the roof on the first of the two reactor buildings is a big deal.

EDF's nuclear island director Simon Parsons said it was a "fantastic night".

"Lifting the dome into place is a celebration of all the work done by a fantastic team. The smiles on people's faces this morning were something else.

"Now we can get on with the fitting of equipment, pipes and cables, including the first reactor which is on site and ready to be installed next year."

Nuclear minister Andrew Bowie hailed the "major milestone" in the building project, citing its role in the UK's green industrial revolution ambitions.

He said: "This is a key part of the UK Government's plans to revitalise nuclear."

But many still question whether Hinkley Point C will be worth all the money, especially after Hitachi's project freeze in Britain, with Roy Pumfrey of the Stop Hinkley campaign describing the project as "shockingly bad value".

Why lift the roof on?

The steel dome is bigger than the one on St Paul's Cathedral in London.

To lift it onto the 44-metre-high reactor building, they needed the world's largest land-based crane, dubbed Big Carl by engineers.

So why not just build the roof on top of the building?

The answer lies in a remote corner of Normandy in France, near a village called Flamanville.

EDF has been building a nuclear reactor there since 2007, ten years before they started in west Somerset.

The project is now a decade behind schedule and has still not been approved by French regulators.

Why? Because of cracks found in the precision welding on the roof of the reactor building.

In nuclear-powered France, they built the roof in situ, out in the open. 

Engineers have decided welding outside, exposed to wind and rain, compromised the high standards needed for a nuclear reactor.

So in Somerset they built a temporary workshop, which looks like a fair sized building itself. All the welding has been done inside, and then the completed roof was lifted into place.

Is it on time or on budget?

No, neither. When Hinkley C was first approved a decade ago, EDF said it would cost £14bn.

Four years later, in 2017, they finally started construction. By now the cost had risen to £19.5bn, and EDF said the plant would be finished by the end of 2025.

Today, the cost has risen to £33bn, and it is now hoped Hinkley C will produce electricity by the end of 2027.

"Nobody believes it will be done by 2027," said campaigner Roy Pumfrey.

"The costs keep rising, and the price of Hinkley's electricity will only get dearer," they added.

On the other hand, the increase in costs is not a problem for British energy bill payers, or the UK government.

EDF agreed to pay the full cost of construction, including any increases.

When I met Grant Shapps, then the UK Energy Secretary, at the site in April, he shrugged off the cost increases.

He said: "I think we should all be rather pleased it is not the British tax payer - it is France and EDF who are paying."

In return, the UK government agreed a set rate for Hinkley's power, called the Strike Price, back in 2013. The idea was this would guarantee the income from Hinkley Point for 35 years, allowing investors to get their money back.

Will it be worth the money?

Back in 2013, the Strike Price was set at £92.50 for each megawatt hour of power. At the time, the wholesale price of electricity was around £50/MWh, so Hinkley C looked expensive.

But since then, global shocks like the war in Ukraine have increased the cost of power substantially, and advocates argue next-gen nuclear could deliver smaller, cheaper, safer designs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News