Latest news with #privatisation
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
La Caisse acquires Innergex and invests in Sizewell C nuclear project
Canadian investment fund La Caisse has concluded the privatisation of Innergex Renewable Energy - a milestone in the expansion of one of Canada's foremost renewable energy platforms. The syndication process initiated at the early announcement of this transaction has also been finalised, aligning with its previously declared goal to distribute up to 20% of its invested capital to Innergex investors who are aligned with its perspective on the company's future expansion. The initiative drew notable Québec institutions such as Investissement Québec, Desjardins Global Asset Management and Fondaction, alongside 14 Swiss institutional investors. La Caisse infrastructure head executive vice-president Emmanuel Jaclot stated: "Innergex is a Canadian renewable energy leader and plays a key role in the energy transition. To shift into a higher gear, the company needed shareholders aligned with its long-term potential, protected from stock market cycles. That's why we brought together a syndicate of Québec and international investors who share this vision. 'This privatisation immediately provides Innergex with increased financial agility to accelerate the development of large-scale projects. It reflects Innergex's potential and Québec's leadership in the energy transition.' As principal shareholder, La Caisse will continue its support for Innergex's strategic growth endeavours across various geographies. In addition to its commitment towards renewables through Innergex, La Caisse has partnered with Amber Infrastructure from Britain to become a major private investor in Britain's Sizewell C nuclear project, as reported by Reuters citing French newspaper Les Echos. A decision on the investment is anticipated on Tuesday, 22 July 2025 if proceedings remain favourable. These private investors are projected to contribute between 25% and 30% of capital requirements for Sizewell C — a project whose costs have surged since initial estimates. Britain's government remains actively involved with a pledge of £17.8bn towards Sizewell C, but continues seeking additional investors for financial reinforcement. In recent developments, US-listed Brookfield is poised to acquire a more-than-20% stake in exchange for funding plant development, while British utility Centrica may also participate. French nuclear giant EDF plans an investment of £1.1bn ($1.48bn), which would secure it a 12.5% shareholding stake within Sizewell C's framework. Amber Infrastructure and Brookfield did not offer immediate comments upon enquiry, while La Caisse, alongside EDF and UK government representatives, chose not to comment on ongoing proceedings. "La Caisse acquires Innergex and invests in Sizewell C nuclear project" was originally created and published by Power Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Free Malaysia Today
17 hours ago
- Automotive
- Free Malaysia Today
PH MPs demand review of Selangor parking scheme
The new parking scheme is set to be launched on Aug 1. (File pic) PETALING JAYA : The Pakatan Harapan parliamentarians representing the four constituencies involved in a proposed public car park privatisation scheme have urged the Selangor government to form an independent bipartisan committee to review the proposal. In a statement, Petaling Jaya MP Lee Chean Chung, Subang MP Wong Chen, Shah Alam MP Azli Yusof and Selayang MP William Leong said the committee should comprise elected representatives from Petaling Jaya, Selayang, Shah Alam and Subang, as well as relevant experts and civil society organisations. They also said the review should prioritise the needs of the communities they represent and the local councils involved, stressing that they were 'especially troubled' by the apparent prioritisation of private interests over the rights and welfare of their constituents and the local councils. The lawmakers also called for the scheme's Aug 1 launch to be postponed and for its commercial terms to be disclosed, including the projected profitability for the private company involved, state government investment arm Menteri Besar Incorporated, and the four local councils. They said that based on the limited information disclosed so far, the proposed privatisation of the Smart Intelligent Parking (SIP) system raised legal, commercial, and operational concerns. They also said the current revenue-sharing arrangement appeared 'unbalanced' and required further detailed disclosure. 'This call is made to ensure that PH's commitment to transparency and accountability is upheld in all matters of government contracts, including privatisation schemes – especially within our own PH-led state governments,' they said. They also said the state government's approach to privatise public parking lots in pursuit of higher revenue was not in line with the primary objective and function of local councils, which is to deliver 'democratic governance' and essential services to their communities. 'In this context, the role of local councils in managing public parking is to optimise parking use for the benefit of residents, businesses, and visitors by making parking accessible, easing congestion, and improving traffic flow. 'Residents and businesses already pay assessments and local taxes. The councils are therefore obligated to support local commerce and community vibrancy through convenient and affordable parking. 'The goal should not be profit maximisation but service to the public.' The parliamentarians also asked the state government and local councils to clarify whether the scheme received ministerial approval. They said this was because public parking lots fell under the jurisdiction of the transport ministry through the Road Transport Act 1987, which empowered local councils to manage and collect parking fees with the minister's approval. They said that the Act, and the relevant gazette orders, did not permit the privatisation of parking management or fee collection by local councils without ministerial approval. According to state executive councillor Ng Suee Lim, the concession for a 'smart parking system' covering collections of parking fees and enforcement would involve local councils, state-owned Rantaian Mesra Sdn Bhd and a private company. Ng said enforcement would be carried out by local council officers, with Rantaian Mesra to act as a system coordinator. The private company, which has yet to be appointed, will handle the four local councils' daily parking operations. He said Rantaian Mesra and the other company are expected to invest around RM200 million to develop the infrastructure for the smart parking system.
Malay Mail
17 hours ago
- Business
- Malay Mail
Pakatan MPs slam Selangor parking privatisation as ‘lopsided', demand full disclosure
KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 — Four Pakatan Harapan MPs have called on the Selangor state government to delay the privatisation of public car parking lots under the Selangor Intelligent Parking (SIP) scheme. They also urged for an independent committee to review the proposal and for full disclosure of the scheme's terms and conditions, including its commercial aspects. 'The proposed SIP privatisation scheme raises legal, commercial and operational concerns,' The Star quoted Petaling Jaya MP Lee Chean Chung, speaking on behalf of the group. 'Overall, from the disclosed but limited information of the scheme, we are concerned that the scheme appears to be in favour of private interests over the rights and benefits of our local authorities (PBT) and constituents.' Lee — along with Selayang MP William Leong, Shah Alam MP Azli Yusof, and Subang MP Wong Chen — said the scheme affects their constituencies and that ministerial approval must be confirmed since public parking lots fall under the Transport Ministry. The scheme's first phase involves the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ), Subang Jaya City Council (MBSJ), Shah Alam City Council (MBSA), and Selayang Municipal Council (MPS). Under the concession terms, PBTs will handle enforcement while the concessionaire will manage salaries and emoluments of enforcement personnel. Lee claimed that PBTs were sidelined in the decision-making process and noted concerns over a proposed revenue-sharing model under which the private company would receive 50 per cent, MBI 10 per cent, and the PBTs only 40 per cent. 'On the surface, this revenue sharing scheme seems lopsided and needs further detailed disclosures,' Lee said. He added that public parking lots should be seen as a public service and not merely as a revenue-generating venture. 'We call for a revision of the entire scheme and urge the state government and PBTs to prioritise the Klang Valley's broader mobility needs, such as the strategic allocation of parking bays, integration with public transport, and city walkability,' Lee added. State local government and tourism committee chairman Datuk Ng Suee Lim previously said the SIP agreement is not final and its August 1 rollout may be postponed pending further refinement.
The Guardian
a day ago
- Business
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the water industry: a return to public ownership should still be on the table
Labour could have chosen the public interest over the profit motive, as it set about its promised reorganisation of the water industry in England and Wales. Polling last year showed a higher level of support for publicly owned water companies than railways. Yet while train companies are being renationalised as contracts expire, ministers ruled out a reversal of 1989's water privatisation before they commissioned Sir Jon Cunliffe, a former central banker, to report on how they could improve this failing industry through tougher regulation. This newspaper regrets that the question of ownership was taken off the table. Water is among the most precious of all natural resources and the pro‑market logic for the sell-off was bogus. In the absence of competition, regional monopolies were created and, in the decades since, businesses have enriched themselves while failing to fulfil their responsibilities. No other European government has followed suit in offloading vital infrastructure including pipes and reservoirs, and enabling investors to extract wealth by loading up balance sheets with debt. Asking Sir Jon's commission to reconsider public ownership, alongside regulatory reform, would have offered more options. Growing pressure on the water supply, and increasing instability of hydrological cycles due to global heating, mean proper stewardship centred on human needs is more essential now than ever. It remains likely that Thames Water will end up in special administration due to its vast debt – despite this scenario having been left out of the commission's scope. The Common Wealth thinktank has proposed this as a stepping stone to long-term public control. Within the terms offered, Sir Jon has done a thorough piece of work. If they are accepted by ministers and work in the way he intends – and these are big ifs – his 88 recommendations ought to bring a shocking period of mismanagement to an end. But they probably won't prevent another from beginning. Not all of England and Wales's 11 regional water companies have the disgraceful records of Thames and Southern. The approach to pollution of these two businesses, combined with their aggressive financing structures, have undermined public confidence more deeply than all the rest. But tougher regulation is clearly overdue. The supervisory approach proposed, modelled on financial regulation, would be a significant improvement provided that the right people, including engineers, are put in charge. Rather than conduct statistical tick-box exercises, this new regulator should aim for an overview. Bringing under one new roof the various regulatory functions – including those carried out in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and by the little-known Drinking Water Inspectorate, as well as Ofwat – makes obvious sense. The rollout of smart meters is also a good proposal, provided that a social tariff is created for low-income households. An ombudsman ought to make it easier to seek redress when local services fail. It is right to highlight the need for a longer-term approach to water policy too. It remains to be seen which of these ideas will be taken forward. Businesses in multiple sectors are experts at running rings around regulators. Making water companies value the public interest more highly, relative to private profit, will be an ongoing struggle. Without structural reform, the cycle of regulatory failure and corporate evasion remains all too likely.
The Independent
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
The Cunliffe report into our failing water industry will make a splash
We live in a deeply polarised, politicised world, where anything from changing rooms to the Motability scheme can be subjected to the most extreme invective and propagandised argument. One exception to this is the state of the water industry. This is something that can unite the nation. We can all now agree – Tim Farron, Nigel Farage, Surfers Against Sewage … – that the model introduced when the sector was privatised in 1989 has failed, and that it needs some radical restructuring. Something better needs to be put in place, and it should not actually make matters even worse by costing the taxpayer billions to bail out the shareholders and bondholders invested in companies such as Thames Water, which has all but gone bust. Step forward, then, Sir Jon Cunliffe, career civil servant and practical economist, who has produced an excellent report on reforming the industry at minimal cost to the state and maximum cost to those who got us into this mess. This is a fundamental review that should, in truth, have been undertaken decades ago. We should be grateful to environment secretary Steve Reed for commissioning him to do the work, and for completing it so speedily. Reed has today responded to the report with a bold move of his own, announcing plans to abolish water regulator Ofwat in its current form. However, he has not recommended immediate nationalisation of the industry, which has disappointed some, such as the redoubtable Feargal Sharkey, former Undertones frontman turned clean rivers campaigner who has done more than anyone – sadly, including the politicians – to bring the water companies to account. Sharkey is so apoplectic about what he sees as the failures of the report – essentially, another missed opportunity – that he has already called for Reed to resign. Meanwhile, the aforementioned Surfers Against Sewage say of Cunliffe's report and his 88 recommendations for the government to transform the water industry that 'this is putting lipstick on a pig'. The Labour left, as ever, want water brought back into public ownership immediately. Such critics need to hose themselves down a bit. There's nothing in Cunliffe's report that would prevent any water company that is going bust from being rescued by the taxpayer or the water bill payer, and thus nothing to stop such companies going into a transitional regime that would almost certainly mean nationalisation anyway. This is, in fact, the current situation, and it is probably what will happen to Thames Water – deeply in the debt doo-doo itself – before much longer. It is vastly superior to Rachel Reeves nationalising the firm now and taking on its £15bn in debt. Apart from anything else, there's no room in the public finances for such a move. And that's just one company – there are many more in varying states of financial peril. Of course, Parliament could just pass a bill that takes control of the assets without compensation, but that Bolshevik approach wouldn't encourage private investment in the UK, and would in any case violate human rights – the right not to have property arbitrarily confiscated by the state. Not even the great post-war Attlee administration did that when it took over our run-down utilities. Cunliffe's report therefore leaves the door wide open for nationalisation of the individual companies in the future, but in an orderly manner that doesn't take money off, say, the schools or the welfare budget. That seems eminently sensible and un-ideological. It's a clever approach, but what I like best about Cunliffe's work is that he is telling the nation the hard truth: that someone, somewhere, has to pay for water and to repair the huge underinvestment over decades in what is still basically a Victorian system. Indeed, it is only fair to point out that one of the attractions for the Thatcher government in privatising water all those years ago was that it would avoid the need for the Treasury to pay for the wholesale rebuilding of the pipework and treatment plants that was becoming necessary and increasingly urgent. As with the soon-to-be-privatised railways, the magic of free-market forces would renew the industry, reduce costs and charges, and lead to a lovely sparkling Panglossian future pouring out of every tap and toilet cistern in our kingdom. Now, four decades on, the investment is still needed, and if the private sector can't do it in an acceptable fashion, then taxpayers and bill payers will have to do so. Someone will have to finance all the new reservoirs we haven't built since 1992. Someone will have to find the money to stop the sewage dumps and plug the leaks. They're the same people, of course, and there's a political decision to be made about how the burden is distributed – through a progressive tax system or, more regressively, by hiking water bills. It's unavoidable, whoever owns the networks. On that point, Cunliffe also makes the startling observation that only 12 per cent of households have smart meters, so it's difficult to follow the usual rule that those who consume the most water should pay for it. He's also right to suggest that the water companies should receive some payment from the housebuilders for connecting the planned 1.5 million new homes to the already overstressed water and sewage networks. In the end, it may well be that the supply of such a basic public service as delivering clean running water and removing sewage is incompatible with market forces – especially where this is the only economic activity where a company is not allowed to withhold its product or service. By law, no water company can cut a household off – unlike gas and electricity, or anything else out there. Rightly so, I should hastily add – and nationalisation may well be inevitable, financially and politically. A system where, as in water and the railways, the state sets the standards and dictates what's delivered, regulates the charges and monitors the pay of the directors in a monopoly framework isn't really free enterprise at all – and, as we've seen, works rather unsatisfactorily for all concerned. Strengthening regulation – and, crucially, including financial viability as we do with our banks – is vital, even if it pushes these companies closer to insolvency. Sir Jon, and the government, understand that there's more than one way to skin a water company, and it would be an even greater outrage if the water companies and their owners were to be rewarded for abject failure with a handsome payout from hard-pressed taxpayers. With patience, it will resolve itself.
