• Canada
  • USA
  • Fossil Fuels
  • About
  • Contact
  • Eco-Anxiety
  • Climate Glossary
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Cities & Communities
  • Electric Vehicles
  • Heat & Power
  • Community Climate Finance
Subscribe
The Energy Mix
  • Cities & Communities
  • Electric Vehicles
  • Heat & Power
  • Community Climate Finance
Subscribe
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result

Nuclear Utilities Face Higher, More Realistic Insurance Costs Under New Treaty

August 28, 2022
Reading time: 4 minutes
Primary Author: Paul Brown @pbrown4348

Reading Tom/flickr

Reading Tom/flickr

Nuclear utilities are being forced to buy realistic insurance coverage for the first time ever for the catastrophic accidents the power plants could produce, under a new international treaty that has landed the industry with an enormous and increasing bill for annual premiums.

Up to now, the industry was only liable for £140 million/€165 million in damages for any individual  accident, with the government in the country where the disaster occurred paying any excess. But under the new agreement, which took effect January 1, their liability has increased to €700 million this year and will increase by €100 million a year until it reaches €1.2 billion per accident in five years.

The decision adopted December 17 by all OECD countries ended a deep disparity that dates back decades. Other electricity producers and anti-nuclear campaigners have been pointing out that this amounted to a massive subsidy for the industry, and unfair competition for electricity producers which had to pay all their own insurance costs.

As a result, a new deal was negotiated in 2004 under the 1960 Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy. The result is a dramatic rise in the compensation demands the nuclear industry could face in the case of any single accident, hence the larger premiums.

The industry will itself have cover up to €1.2 billion for each accident, with governments underwriting another €300 million if necessary.

For a company like utility giant Électricité de France (EDF), already deeply in debt and struggling with cash flow, rising insurance premiums will add another headache. An insurance bill of €240 million in 2020 will increase dramatically, since the total liability in case of an accident increases almost 10-fold. This will probably leave the company paying more than €1 billion annually to secure coverage. EDF would not disclose how much the premiums had risen.

Even the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which deals with waste rather than operating stations and is therefore less likely to face a catastrophic accident, has seen its insurance costs double this year, from £11 to £23 million—and the Authority acknowledges that premiums will rise substantially every year until 2027.

Low-risk sites operated by the NDA which once faced a maximum insurance liability of £10 million now have a maximum of €70 million. The new totals are €160 million for facilities deemed at “intermediate risk”, and €80 million for transportation of nuclear material like flasks containing spent fuel rods from nuclear power stations which are sent to Sellafield, in Cumbria, for storage.

But despite almost two decades of negotiation between countries, the insurance industry, and nuclear companies, the UK government disclosed this month that it still cannot get the private insurance market to take all the risks. So the government has been forced to underwrite the potential damages for increased personal injury liability over the 10- to 30-year period. For each individual site, the increase is between €70 and €160 million.

Although this is still a considerable subsidy for the industry, it is a large reduction on previous years, when almost all insurance costs were borne by nuclear states.

Until this year, countries had been prepared to give open-ended insurance to the industry, without asking companies to pay. But they eventually accepted this long-standing practice was giving nuclear operators an unfair commercial advantage over both fossil fuels and renewables.

The new system was forced on governments because the insurance industry was not prepared to take the risk of a Chernobyl- or Fukushima-type accident. Instead, governments that wanted a nuclear industry had to agree that taxpayers would foot the bill for the costs of any catastrophe and compensate the victims.

While this is still well below the potential costs that would be incurred by a single major nuclear accident on the scale of Fukushima in 2011 it still leaves the industry to foot the bill for a very large increase in premiums.

The main reason the new provisions have taken so long to implement is that insurance industry was still reluctant to take on the risk. Another factor was a provision that extended the time over which victims of nuclear accidents could ask for compensation from 10 to 30 years.

The London-based Nuclear Risk Insurers (NRI), with a membership of 29 UK insurance companies, has been negotiating with the nuclear industry and the UK government for 10 years. As well as increasing the amount of compensation, the agreement also had to factor in compensation for damage to the environment, and widen claims to a potentially larger number of victims including inhabitants of neighbouring states—for example non-nuclear Ireland.

“Nuclear insurance ensures the statutory liability limits set by international conventions and national laws can be met, thus providing the social licence that allows nuclear sites to operate,” NRI Managing Director Mark Popplewell said last fall. But the NRI declined to comment on how much it was charging the industry for the new coverage, asserting that those terms were “commercial in confidence.”



in Climate News Network, Finance & Investment, Insurance & Liability, International Agencies & Studies, Nuclear, Subsidies, UK & Europe

Trending Stories

Ian Muttoo/flickr
United States

Ontario Slaps 25% Surcharge on Power Exports as U.S. Commerce Secretary Vows More Tariffs

March 12, 2025
320
Doug Kerr/flickr
Power Grids

New NB-NS Transmission Line Would ‘Take Care of Home’ Through Trump’s Trade War

March 7, 2025
287
LoggaWiggler / Pixabay
Energy Politics

Tariffs Likely to Crater Canadian Crude Exports to U.S., Marathon Tells Investors

March 11, 2025
247

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Get the climate news you need, delivered direct to your inbox. Sign up for our free e-digest.

Subscribe Today

View our latest digests

Related Articles

Canada Pours Nearly $450M Into New Nuclear Subsidies

Canada Pours Nearly $450M Into New Nuclear Subsidies

March 12, 2025
UK’s Sizewell C Nuclear Developers Contest £40B Cost Estimate

UK’s Sizewell C Nuclear Developers Contest £40B Cost Estimate

January 24, 2025
‘No Sensible Way’ to Restart Shuttered Nuclear Plants, German Utilities Say, Amid Calls for Review

‘No Sensible Way’ to Restart Shuttered Nuclear Plants, German Utilities Say, Amid Calls for Review

December 5, 2024

Quicker, Smaller, Better: A Fork in the Road That Delivers a Clean Energy Future

by Mitchell Beer
March 9, 2025

…

Follow Us

Copyright 2025 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_logo
Climate-and-Capital

No Result
View All Result
  • Cities & Communities
  • Electric Vehicles
  • Heat & Power
  • Community Climate Finance

Copyright 2025 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
No Result
View All Result
  • Cities & Communities
  • Electric Vehicles
  • Heat & Power
  • Community Climate Finance

Copyright 2025 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.