Conflict between government and nuclear power plants over millionaire’s bill on closure of nuclear power plants

While the industry’s employers’ association, the Nuclear Forum, criticized the cost increase in the PGRR draft, it was underlined that the Government and the electricity companies agreed three years ago on the operation time of the power plants, some increase in total costs and the rates to be complied with. “We will not pay more than agreed with the government.. The costs predicted in PGRR have increased a lot and we don’t know why. It is unacceptable that they want to pay us more now,” he convicted a few weeks ago. Ignatius AraluceThe chairman of the Nuclear Forum, which brings together large power companies that own nuclear power plants and dozens of companies affiliated with the atomic industry, Dr.

The government agreed with major electricity companies in 2019 (Endesa, Iberdrola, Naturgy and EDP) Gradual closure of all nuclear power plants between 2027 and 2023 and implementation of a maximum 20% increase in the rate paid by companies based on the electricity produced and the cost of dismantling the power plants to finance waste management. In 2020, the Government increased these rates by 19.2%. and currently set at 7.98 euros for each megawatt hour produced. And now there are fears from the nuclear sector that these additional costs will mean approval of a new rate hike.

Enresa, the publicly traded company responsible for radioactive waste management, later estimated that this increase would serve to cover the costs of dismantling facilities and storing radioactive waste, which it had calculated in the first draft of the PGRR; 2100. In the new Waste Plan proposal prepared by the Ministry of Ecological Transition, the cost estimate is increased from 24,435 million (if a single central nuclear waste cemetery is built) to 26,560 million euros (if seven warehouses distributed in each region are preferred). Spain, one in each nuclear power plant).

The law allows more uploads

Enresa, which is state-owned through SEPI (affiliated to the Treasury) and Ciemat (Ministry of Science and Innovation), and with top officials from up to four ministries on its board, has faced criticism against nuclear power plants. Current legislation allows the Government to review the rate paid by facilities if a significant increase in costs is expected. dismantling and waste management.

“If there is an unpredictable increase in costs in the future, there is a possibility of increasing the rate. There is a legal mechanism that ensures that the rate can be updated if there is an update in costs,” Enresa president José Luis Navarro said at a briefing on Monday. “The patrimonial aids paid by the power plant owners have no financial, no tax character, but are purely operational, a service provision. Without Enresa, these costs would have to be borne directly by the companies”.

The Electricity Sector Act provides that the Government can revise the nuclear rate by royal decree. It is based on an economic-financial report that updates the expected costs to cover the work of the General Radioactive Waste Plan. “This authority of the government cannot be limited by the protocol on the orderly shutdown of nuclear power plants signed in 2019 by Enresa and the companies that own the plants,” Enresa sources told El Periódico de España, a newspaper belonging to the same group. .Iberian Press, this newspaper. In other words, a maximum 20% increase was envisaged in the agreement in the factory closure calendar, but according to Enresa, this agreement was exhausted with the 19.2% increase implemented from 2020.

“In the future, decisions may be made regarding energy policy, radioactive waste management or the dismantling of nuclear facilities, or unforeseen circumstances may arise that change the cost or revenue estimate that served as the basis for the ratification of 750/Royal Decree. It became clear from 2019” Enresa, where an increase of 19.2% was detected. “If this happens, the fixed unit rate could both increase and decrease,” the publicly traded company concludes.

Here is the comment made by companies in the nuclear industry: The extra cost considered in the PGRR draft is due to the lack of a solution for storage yet. Waste due to major delay in the project to build a temporary storage facility, which cannot be attributed to the nuclear power plants’ own operations. For years, nuclear power plant owners have complained about the tax burden that their activities support, and even condemn that they are doing it to their own loss.