Government’s new nuclear plan
The government proposes a rate increase tied to a newly updated General Plan for Radioactive Waste, approved recently by the Cabinet. This plan outlines a multidecade road map for closing and dismantling plants and sets the stage for determining the cost and the way it will be financed.
The final version of the plan confirms a phased out approach for all Spanish nuclear power plants between 2027 and 2035, a schedule agreed with the electricity sector and Enresa in 2019. It envisions seven radioactive waste repositories, one at each plant for temporary storage of up to fifty years, and a future large facility planned for 2073. The forecast places the total bill at more than €3.7 billion in extra costs compared to prior versions. [Citation: Ministry of Ecological Transition] The Nuclear Forum, a major employers’ group, challenges this plan and questions who should shoulder these additional costs, arguing that they should not be borne solely by the power plants. [Citation: Nuclear Forum]
The association argues for delaying the proposed closures and rethinking the timetable, asking the government to reconsider the formal deadline and allow more time to study alternatives that could ease the impact on operating costs. The sector notes the need for a comprehensive review before any final decisions, aiming to avoid imposing a heavy burden on nuclear operators. [Citation: Foro Nuclear]
Existing arrangements require the nuclear plants to contribute to a non-tax capital allowance administered by Enresa, based on the electricity produced. In practice, several major owners share the responsibility, and total annual payments into the fund run into the hundreds of millions of euros, supporting the current plan to manage and store radioactive waste. The fund has built up substantial reserves over time. The government’s proposed increase would lift annual contributions toward roughly €630 million, about €180 million more than today. This rise is seen as potentially triggering friction with utilities that argue higher costs threaten their financial viability. [Citation: Foro Nuclear]
Ignacio Araluce, president of Nuclear Forum, highlighted that recent electricity price gains have improved plant profitability and cautioned that the Enresa scheme could tighten this balance further. A long-standing PwC study cited by the industry suggests profitability begins around €60 per megawatt-hour, with recent market activity often yielding prices around that level or higher. Industry sources indicate that last year the sector sometimes sold production around €65 per MWh. [Citation: PwC Report]
Critics argue that the sector has faced profitability pressures from taxes and other charges that raise costs per MWh of output. They point to the Enresa levy and other burdens as a persistent drain on earnings. Proponents of nuclear energy counter that tax relief for other energy technologies could improve competitiveness and that the sector still supplies a significant portion of national power. They emphasize the stability of nuclear generation, which last year accounted for about a fifth of national output. [Citation: Foro Nuclear]
Polluter pays
The general principle guiding the plan is that the polluter pays. The envisioned investments for waste management and plant dismantling are to be financed by fees charged to the nuclear plants themselves. In practice, the capital levy is treated as an operational cost rather than a tax, referred to as Enresa. [Citation: Enresa]
Internationally, energy firms fund similar arrangements directly, but Spain opts for a state-backed approach that relocates the dismantling and waste management work to a public entity. The model also includes risk management aspects tied to these activities. [Citation: International practice]
Since 2019, the government and major utilities have agreed to phase out nuclear power between 2027 and 2035, with specific timelines for seven reactors. The plan notes that extending the operating life by a few years could moderate the Enresa rate, while others in the sector argue that a longer operation period would help prevent price hikes and push the overall shutdown timeline into 2037. [Citation: 2019 Protocol]
Industry estimates suggest that the total investments programmed through the current plan could approach €20 billion by the end of the century, when adjusted for inflation and other cost changes. Proposals have circulated to treat these extra costs as a system-wide expense rather than a plant-specific burden, potentially spreading them across electricity bills. [Citation: Sector Analysis]
The evolving plan continues to be debated among policymakers, industry leaders, and regulators. Supporters say it lays out a coherent path for safe waste handling and eventual decommissioning, while critics insist that the financial framework must better reflect market realities and ensure a fair transition for consumers and workers alike. [Citation: Policy Debate]
Overall, the plan underscores the challenge of balancing energy security with the high costs of managing long-lived radioactive waste, and it keeps the spotlight on how best to finance the nation’s nuclear legacy in a transparent and sustainable manner. [Citation: Energy Policy Review]
The ongoing discussions will shape the timetable for plant closures, repository development, and the financing mix, with close attention to how costs are allocated among producers, consumers, and the state. [Citation: Energy Policy Review]