Government plan for seven nuclear waste sites sparks industry debate and rising costs

Spain’s General Plan for Radioactive Waste approves storage and dismantling paths

The government has completed the approval process for the new General Plan for Radioactive Waste, known as the PGRR. It outlines how nuclear waste will be managed, how the dismantling of nuclear power plants will unfold within this century, and how all related costs will be funded. The administration aimed to secure final approval last summer, but early elections and a lengthy stay in office delayed progress. In principle, the Council of Ministers is expected to grant final approval in the near term.

The latest PGRR version plans seven storage facilities for radioactive waste, one at each nuclear power plant in Spain. Waste will remain in these facilities for decades, with phased closures planned between 2027 and 2035. Afterward, material would be moved to a future deep geological repository (AGP) whose location has been chosen. The AGP is still in the design phase and would, in principle, become operational around 2073.

In recent years, the government has kept two main options for handling highly radioactive waste alive. One option is transporting all waste to a central temporary repository (ATC) for several decades. The other is building seven decentralized temporary storage sites (ATDs) across the country. A lack of political and social consensus, and the absence of any autonomous community willing to host a national nuclear cemetery, led to the seven-warehouse plan. This path would incur higher costs, requiring roughly 2 billion euros in additional investment, bringing the total to about 19.244 billion euros by 2100. Such costs would likely raise the rates nuclear plants pay to finance waste management and plant dismantling.

Several major power companies have voiced concerns about the seven-warehouse plan and the resulting higher charges. The plan has sparked debate about the best way to ensure long-term waste management while balancing financial impacts on electricity generation and consumers.

Government plan to build seven nuclear graveyards triggers industry debate

25% increase

Nuclear power plants fund the National Radioactive Waste Company (Enresa) through a non-tax capital contribution of 7.98 euros per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity produced. Plant owners contribute to the fund based on annual output, with major players such as Endesa, Iberdrola, Naturgy, and EDP contributing according to their production. This currently totals around 450 million euros per year and supports roughly 7.5 billion euros in accumulated waste management schemes.

Forecasts indicate that costs could rise under the new PGRR, with a predicted 25% increase bringing the rate to around 10 euros per MWh. This would raise annual payments to about 570 million euros, meaning about 120 million more than currently paid. The Ministry of Ecological Transition, which oversees the rate approval, has not commented on future figures. [Industry reports]”

Increasing rate predictions

In 2019, the government reached an agreement with major electricity companies to phase out all nuclear power plants between 2027 and 2035. The protocol allowed for a maximum price increase of 20% for electricity, and the Manager subsequently raised the rate to 7.98 euros per MWh. A central temporary repository at Villar de Cañas in Cuenca was contemplated but not pursued due to delays from political disagreements.

In 2020, Enresa prepared the first draft of the general plan, which considered only a single ATC and maintained the 7.98 euros per MWh rate. The public hearing version introduced two alternatives, a single ATC or seven distributed depots, with potential increases to 8.1 or 9.6 euros per MWh. The latest PGRR variants focused on seven depots, setting a required capital benefit at 9.7 euros per MWh. Enresa’s forecast updates, last June, projected the rate up to 10.15 euros per MWh, according to industry sources.

Nuclear companies expect a slight adjustment to this amount, potentially bringing it to around 10 euros per MWh, citing inflation trends and financial projections. Official Enresa communications note that while technical issues and overall costs are discussed in meetings with plant owners, the final fee is decided by the Ministry of Ecological Transition and is not binding ahead of that decision. [Industry sources]

Reflect the cost on the electricity bill

The major electricity companies operating Spanish nuclear plants have resisted higher costs than those previously anticipated in the PGRR. They argue that the extra charges should be treated as part of the electricity system’s costs and reflected in consumer tariffs. The Committee on Nuclear Energy (CEN), which includes Endesa, Iberdrola, Naturgy, and EDP, submitted observations on the draft plan to the Ministry of Ecological Transition, noting the financial implications and the need for consensus. [Industry context]

Endesa, Iberdrola, Naturgy, and EDP contend that the extra costs stem from the delay of the Villar de Cañas project, and that these charges should be considered as system costs rather than taxes. They maintain that costs tied to waste management and plant decommissioning should be reflected in consumer electricity tariffs. The sector notes profitability pressures from taxes and ownership burdens, estimated at around 25 euros per MWh, and suggests mechanisms such as long-term contracts with stable pricing and capacity payments to ensure reliable profitability and stable electricity supply.