We received 104 responses from organisations.
Responses from industry were generally supportive of the proposed high-level design principles of the RAB model, with many seeing its potential to substantially increase private investment in nuclear as a tried and tested model in other major infrastructure projects.
Responses from members of the public who were not in principle opposed to nuclear were also supportive, highlighting potential for RAB to lower costs of financing, and in turn lower costs to consumers. They also welcomed the jobs that could be created as a result of facilitating new nuclear projects.
Responses from environmental groups and NGOs suggested that that new nuclear was unlikely to be value for money given the falling price of renewables and also cited RAB for nuclear as potentially providing preferential treatment to nuclear over renewables. Most of these groups were opposed to nuclear in principle, citing security concerns, risk of proliferation and waste management. However, these issues were outside the scope of the consultation.
We received over 9,000 responses from individuals. The majority of these individual responses contained very little substantive information, with many of them sharing the same content, often citing in principle opposition to nuclear and did not directly address the consultation questions or issues.
A small number of responses from individuals who focused on the consultation questions were negative, expressing concerns with construction phase consumer charging.
We also received a separate online petition with over 36,000 signatures requesting that RAB is not used to finance new nuclear projects.