Latest news with #JonCunliffe
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Anglian Water agrees to £62.8m redress package after Ofwat wastewater probe
Anglian Water has agreed to a pay £62.8m funded by shareholders after an Ofwat wastewater investigation. The water watchdog has announced the redress package - now subject to consultation - which will fund environmental and community initiatives across the East of England. The package was proposed by Anglian Water in response to Ofwat's industry-wide investigation into wastewater treatment works and networks. SIGN UP HERE FOR YOUR DAILY BUSINESS BULLETIN Last week, a report by Sir Jon Cunliffe set out how water companies should be regulated following public outrage at the state of the industry and multiple sewage spill issues. The sum proposed by Anglian Water will be entirely funded by its shareholders rather than customers, it said. More: Major new £55m business development by A14 'will bring jobs and growth' It includes a new £5.8m Community Fund to support local environmental and social courses. It will be ringfenced for causes in the Anglian region. Local communities and organisations will be able to apply for grants with priority given to environmental causes and those near Anglian Water storm overflows and capital investment works. The larger sum - £57m - will be used to tackle more complex issues in eight-plus "high priority" catchments with specific challenges. More: New £78m nature charity plans to make Suffolk 'most ecologically diverse' area This will include installing sustainable drainage solutions (SuDS) to combat drainage and flooding issues, upgrading community-owned assets that contribute to flooding, and other local initiatives. The company also said it would accelerate planned investment to reduce spills at high-risk sites with new storage, removing surface water and misconnections and optimising the existing network. A longer term action plan will also be implemented to ensure spills from storm overflows are minimised and assets are compliant with legal requirements. The work will be in addition to its £11bn business plan for the next five years, in which £1bn will be targeted at driving storm overflows to low levels, and £1.7bn to improve maintenance and performance of water recycling systems. "The scale of the redress package is chiefly reflective of Anglian Water's turnover rather than an indicator of severity of issues and seeks to achieve a better outcome for customers and the environment," the company said. More: Suffolk Building Society 'sorry' to see joint agency with insurance broker close Anglian Water chief executive Mark Thurston said:'We understand the need to rebuild trust with customers and that aspects of our performance need to improve to do that. "Reducing pollutions and spills is our number one operational focus, and we have both the investment and the partners in place to deliver on those promises as part of our £11bn business plan over the next five years. "In the meantime, we have proposed this redress package, recognising the need to invest in the communities and environments most impacted. 'It will take time and investment to achieve a significant reduction in spills, but we are making good progress. "By 2030 we have allocated a dedicated £1bn for measures such as storm tanks, upgraded monitoring, nature-based solutions like wetlands, and sustainable drainage solutions to halve the number of spills." But he added that it would "take time" to upgrade the vast network of assets it manages. "We have hundreds of treatment works, more than 100,000 kilometres of pipes and sewers underground, many hundreds of water storage points and storm tanks – all of these need to be part of a significant capital programme to maintain and renew what is there. "This is what will be set out in our plans - to ensure we can make the improvements that are best for the environment and delivers on our promises to customers.' The enforcement package is subject to consultation which will be open for the public and key stakeholders to offer any final comments before Ofwat's final decision.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Could a smart meter help you save hundreds in water bills?
The Independent Water Commission called for compulsory smart water meters to reduce household consumption. But do they save money? The government has promised a "root and branch reform" of the water industry. It follows the long-awaited publication of an independent review by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which made 88 recommendations to tackle problems in the sector – amid public fury over pollution in rivers, soaring bills and the bonuses of water company bosses. One of those recommendations was for the government to "accelerate efforts to reduce household water consumption by introducing compulsory smart metering". So, what are smart water meters and can they save money? Yahoo News UK explains. What are smart water meters and how do they work? Smart water meters, just like smart gas and electricity meters, are devices that automatically track water usage. As per the Consumer Council for Water (CCW), which represents consumers in England and Wales, the type of meters expected to be rolled out in future are advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) meters. These "send automatic readings directly to the water company throughout the day using a secure connection. With AMI meters, customers can check their water use through an app or online on the water company's website, helping to spot leaks and manage usage better". According to government documents from December last year, 12% of households in England have a smart water meter. How much money could I save? Water bills have been rising. The typical UK bill-payer saw their payments increase by an average of £86 in April, with one company – Southern Water – hiking bills by more than £200. So, how much of a difference could a smart water meter make? The CCW says they "can help people understand and reduce their water use, which could save money". It told Yahoo News UK water meters, whether smart or traditional, tend to result in cheaper bills: "During the winter and early spring, CCW saw a huge surge in people using our water meter calculator to see if they could combat the large April water bill rises by switching to a water meter. Among those that identified they could save by switching, the average saving was around £150 a year. "So, there are significant savings to be made for some households just by having a meter installed, whether it's a smart or traditional meter." It added that an advantage of smart meters is their real-time data showing any unusual spikes in water use, "helping to identify excessive usage or leaks more quickly than a manual reading would, and potentially leading to bigger savings". Do I have to switch to a smart water meter? Not at this stage. Compulsory smart water meters are only a recommendation, with the review simply calling for the government to "accelerate efforts" towards this goal. It stated: "Options within the water sector could involve looking at expanding criteria for compulsory water metering to be beyond 'areas of serious water stress' and the other limited existing circumstances in which compulsory metering can apply currently. Watch: 'Water companies acted against public interest' "In considering options for taking forward reform in this area, the government should consider the experience of rolling out smart meters in other sectors. Within the energy sector, unless there is good reason not to, suppliers must install a smart meter if they are replacing a meter or installing a meter for the first time." However, even smart gas and electricity meters – which have been rolled out across two-thirds of Great Britain – are still not compulsory. Read more What 'once-in-a-generation' water reform report will mean for your bills (Yahoo News UK) Key questions answered on water reforms to protect consumers and environment (PA Media) Water chiefs' pay rises to average of £1.1m despite ban on bonuses and outrage over pollution (The Guardian)
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Call to make wet wipe producers pay for polluting England's waterways
Wet wipe producers should be charged to remove their pollution from England's waterways, the author of a government review into reforming the sector has said. Sewage has been a critical factor in the devastating pollution of our waterways, but other sources of pollution include microplastics, consumer products such as wet wipes, and the byproducts of modern manufacturing, such asPfas ('forever chemicals'), as well as fertiliser and pesticides from farming. Many of these have been linked to harmful effects on human health and the natural environment. The fairest way to deal with this, Sir Jon Cunliffe, a former Bank of England deputy governor, said, could be to apply the 'polluter pays' principle, whereby the company behind the pollution contributes towards its removal. 'The alternative is for everyone to pay for it through their bills, and the question is, should we spread that among everybody, or should we go through a polluter pays route? So I think, really, we should look at those routes,' he said. It has been a landmark week for the water sector, after Cunliffe published a major review containing recommendations on how to clean up England's filthy rivers and seas. The regulator Ofwat is to be abolished, the government has pledged, and a new, powerful, super-regulator created to better hold water companies to account. Campaigners welcomed many of the recommendations, in particular ending the self-monitoring of water companies, which currently voluntarily publish information on how much sewage they dump. Citizen scientists have argued for years that this system is open to under-counting, and have tried to shed light on the true amount of human waste in waterways: under new proposals sewage spills will be automatically published online. But there are those who felt this was a missed opportunity. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, took nationalisation out of the scope of the review from the outset, and also told Cunliffe not to consider more radical approaches such as turning companies into not-for-profits. This despite the fact that it is the mismanagement of water companies as much as the dumping of sewage that has enraged the public. So what of the idea that polluters – the upstream companies that generate some of the worst pollutants in our waterways such as wet wipes and Pfas – should pay? 'One of the best ways to deal with stuff not going into our rivers is not to let it into the sewers in the first place,' Cunliffe said, 'Why do we need wet wipes?' 'I have some sympathy for the water companies,' he said, 'because the drinking water system is closed and no one can touch it unless authorised to do so. The wastewater system is open. Anybody can put anything down the loo, and then at the treatment works, I've seen literally huge machines taking wet wipe mountains out of the sewage system.' Water companies claim that wet wipes, which shed microplastic particles and also build up into major blockages, are the main cause of sewage pollution. John Penicud, Southern Water's managing director for wastewater, said recently that 'the majority of wastewater pollutions are caused by wet wipes, fats, oils and grease being flushed down toilets and sinks', and called for wet wipes to be banned. The EU is introducing quaternary treatment, a more advanced method than that used in the UK. This has powerful filters that remove these trace chemicals from the water supply, but is expensive, so the bloc is looking at making the producers of these chemicals pay a levy that would then be used to create these treatment plants. Producers would be required to cover at least 80% of the costs associated with the sewage treatment upgrades necessary for removing these substances from wastewater. Cunliffe thinks the UK could look at adopting a similar approach for wet wipes; as a side-effect this would make plastic wet wipes more expensive, which would discourage their use. His report has recommended looking at adopting the EU laws in the UK, and investigating the prevalence and impact of these micropollutants in the environment and on human health. This way, he says, 'it's not the water bill payer who pays to take it out, but the people who make and buy the products … Pfas and so on will require quaternary treatment, and there are currently three levels of sewage treatment. To build another would be expensive.' The question, he said, was whether the user or the polluter paid. A Water UK spokesperson said: 'Removing Pfas 'forever chemicals' and other micropollutants from the water environment is a huge challenge because current sewage technology was never designed to deal with them. We need a national plan from government for upgrading sewage treatment that is paid for by chemical manufacturers instead of water bill payers, as well as a ban on Pfas products that will otherwise keep making the problem worse.'
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Make wet wipe producers pay for polluting England's waterways, says report
Wet wipe producers should be charged to remove their pollution from England's waterways, the author of a government review into reforming the sector says. Sewage has been a critical factor in the devastating pollution of our waterways, but other sources of pollution include microplastics, consumer products such as wet wipes, and the byproducts of modern manufacturing, such asPfas ('forever chemicals'), as well as fertiliser and pesticides from farming. Many of these have been linked to harmful effects on human health and the natural environment. The fairest way to deal with this, Sir Jon Cunliffe, a former Bank of England deputy governor, said, could be to apply the 'polluter pays' principle, whereby the company behind the pollution contributes towards its removal. 'The alternative is for everyone to pay for it through their bills, and the question is, should we spread that among everybody, or should we go through a polluter pays route? So I think, really, we should look at those routes,' he said. It has been a landmark week for the water sector, after Cunliffe published a major review containing recommendations on how to clean up England's filthy rivers and seas. The regulator Ofwat is to be abolished, the government has pledged, and a new, powerful, super-regulator created to better hold water companies to account. Campaigners welcomed many of the recommendations, in particular ending the self-monitoring of water companies, which currently voluntarily publish information on how much sewage they dump. Citizen scientists have argued for years that this system is open to under-counting, and have tried to shed light on the true amount of human waste in waterways: under new proposals sewage spills will be automatically published online. But there are those who felt this was a missed opportunity. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, took nationalisation out of the scope of the review from the outset, and also told Cunliffe not to consider more radical approaches such as turning companies into not-for-profits. This despite the fact that it is the mismanagement of water companies as much as the dumping of sewage that has enraged the public. So what of the idea that polluters – the upstream companies that generate some of the worst pollutants in our waterways such as wet wipes and Pfas – should pay? 'One of the best ways to deal with stuff not going into our rivers is not to let it into the sewers in the first place,' Cunliffe said, 'Why do we need wet wipes?' 'I have some sympathy for the water companies,' he said, 'because the drinking water system is closed and no one can touch it unless authorised to do so. The wastewater system is open. Anybody can put anything down the loo, and then at the treatment works, I've seen literally huge machines taking wet wipe mountains out of the sewage system.' Water companies claim that wet wipes, which shed microplastic particles and also build up into major blockages, are the main cause of sewage pollution. John Penicud, Southern Water's managing director for wastewater, said recently that 'the majority of wastewater pollutions are caused by wet wipes, fats, oils and grease being flushed down toilets and sinks', and called for wet wipes to be banned. The EU is introducing quaternary treatment, a more advanced method than that used in the UK. This has powerful filters that remove these trace chemicals from the water supply, but is expensive, so the bloc is looking at making the producers of these chemicals pay a levy that would then be used to create these treatment plants. Producers would be required to cover at least 80% of the costs associated with the sewage treatment upgrades necessary for removing these substances from wastewater. Cunliffe thinks the UK could look at adopting a similar approach for wet wipes; as a side-effect this would make plastic wet wipes more expensive, which would discourage their use. His report has recommended looking at adopting the EU laws in the UK, and investigating the prevalence and impact of these micropollutants in the environment and on human health. This way, he says, 'it's not the water bill payer who pays to take it out, but the people who make and buy the products … Pfas and so on will require quaternary treatment, and there are currently three levels of sewage treatment. To build another would be expensive.' The question, he said, was whether the user or the polluter paid. A Water UK spokesperson said: 'Removing Pfas 'forever chemicals' and other micropollutants from the water environment is a huge challenge because current sewage technology was never designed to deal with them. We need a national plan from government for upgrading sewage treatment that is paid for by chemical manufacturers instead of water bill payers, as well as a ban on Pfas products that will otherwise keep making the problem worse.'
Bloomberg
24-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
The UK's Great Water Experiment Has Failed
Investors buying a substantial stake in a UK bank must undergo an assessment of whether they have the reputation, integrity and financial soundness to be an owner. A similar process applies to acquirers of oil and gas producers. Even buyers of football clubs face a 'fit and proper' test of their suitability. No such requirement applies to the owners of water companies. This never made sense. Jon Cunliffe, former deputy governor of the Bank of England, seems to agree. A key recommendation of the Independent Water Commission that he chairs is to give a future combined industry regulator the power to block changes of ownership, set leverage levels and, in some circumstances, to give direction to the ultimate controller of the company. Such powers are 'necessary guardrails' in water, he said this week, presenting the conclusions of the commission's 464-page final report. For some critics, its proposed overhaul doesn't go far enough; all the same, the significance of the shift in regulatory philosophy shouldn't be underestimated.
