Revised Path for Spain’s Nuclear Waste Management and Rate Impacts

The government has finally approved the General Radioactive Waste Plan (PGRR), a roadmap outlining the decades ahead for closing and dismantling Spain’s nuclear reactors, handling the resulting waste, and estimating the costs involved. The plan, long overdue, replaces a framework that is now 17 years old and no longer reflects current realities after delays caused by early elections and political stasis.

The issued version of the updated PGRR confirms a phased shutdown of all Spanish nuclear plants between 2027 and 2035, with complete decommissioning by the mid-2030s. It envisions the construction of seven temporary waste repositories, one near each plant, each serving as a temporary storage site for about fifty years. It also anticipates a future deep geological repository (AGP) for highly radioactive waste, which has not yet been designed or located and is projected to come online around 2073 to house the waste long term.

In recent years, the government has kept two main options alive for managing highly radioactive waste over the coming half-century: transporting all waste to a single central temporary facility (ATC) for several decades, a model previously pursued in Villar de Cañas in Cuenca, or building seven decentralized temporary warehouses (ATDs) across the country. The lack of broad political and social consensus, plus the reluctance of any autonomous community to host a national nuclear cemetery, has pushed the government toward the seven-warehouse solution. If a single central facility were chosen, it would require substantially higher investment, estimated to increase total costs by around 3.72 billion euros compared to plans last year.

According to the latest investment table in the newly updated seventh PGRR, the full radioactive waste management program for 1985–2100, including the seven repositories, totals nearly 28.156 billion euros. A provisional version released last year projected 24.436 billion for a single ATC, and 26.560 billion for seven ATDs. Inflation and cost revisions add more than a year to these figures.

Government prepares for multimillion-dollar increases in nuclear rates

New projections show that costs to be paid through the end of the century will approach 20.22 billion euros. An earlier version estimated investments at 19.244 billion, but that was a shorter-term forecast and not strictly comparable.

A 25 percent increase?

Under the polluter-pays principle, these investments are funded through fees charged to nuclear plants to finance waste management and decommissioning. Given the added costs, the government is poised to approve a substantial increase in this non-tax charge paid by plant owners Endesa, Iberdrola, Naturgy and EDP.

Currently, Enresa, the public company managing Spain’s radioactive waste, receives 7.98 euros per MWh from each plant. Collectively, owners contribute roughly 450 million euros annually into the fund, which backs the waste-management plan that began with a base of about 7.5 billion euros.

Industry sources indicate the future PGRR may raise the rate to about 10 euros per MWh, potentially lifting annual payments to around 570 million euros—an increase of roughly 120 million euros. The Ministry of Ecological Transition, which must approve any rate hike, has not commented on future changes.

Increasing rate forecast

Back in 2019, the government reached a framework with major electricity firms to phase out all reactors between 2027 and 2035, with a protocol enabling a rise in electricity prices by up to 20 percent. This set the current rate at 7.98 euros per MWh produced, a level later judged sufficient to cover waste-management costs and the central temporary facility.

Enresa prepared the initial draft of a new general plan in 2020, which only considered a single ATC and retained the 7.98-euro rate. The following version proposed two options: a single ATC or seven ATDs, at 9.6 euros per MWh, respectively.

Nuclear companies calculate that keeping each plant operating a little longer could blunt rate increases

In another version of the PGRR, which planned only seven warehouses, the required capital benefit was set at 9.7 euros per MWh. Enresa regularly updates its long-term waste-management forecasts, and in its latest report, the rate forecast rose to about 10.15 euros per MWh. Industry insiders expect the government to adjust modestly, with payments edging toward 10 euros per MWh.

Maintain facilities to prevent rates from rising

From the sector’s view, extending each plant’s operating life by two years could delay the rate increase and push the national nuclear-outage date to 2037. Projections assume more electricity generation and thus more contributions to the Enresa fund, which currently sits near 7.5 billion euros. A small discount on financing needs is applied based on the fund’s earnings.

With these variables, the extra costs foreseen in the future plan could be covered if plants operate for an additional two years, or if some plants extend their lifetimes beyond that period. Industry analyses suggest the longer the extension, the slower the overall cost escalation.

In 2019, a formal agreement mapped out the phased closure of seven Spanish reactors, with Almaraz I (2027), Almaraz II (2028), Ascó I (2030), Cofrentes (2030), Ascó II (2032), Vandellós II, and Trillo (2035). Any shift in these dates would require a revised schedule and new negotiations.

Reflect the extra cost on the electricity bill

Major electricity firms deny shouldering the higher costs of the PGRR and argue the additional charges should be seen as part of the electricity system and reflected in consumer tariffs. The ownership group behind the reactors—Endesa, Iberdrola, Naturgy and EDP—submitted comments to the Ministry of Ecological Transition through the Nuclear Energy Committee, noting concerns about the financial burden. The delay in the Villar de Cañas project is cited as a key reason for cost increases, leading to calls for the extra amounts to be treated as a system expense rather than a plant-specific charge. In all cases, the Enresa fund remains the mechanism for financing long-term waste-management obligations.

Industry voices also mention profitability pressures from tax regimes and ownership-structure costs, roughly 25 euros per MWh, and they argue for stabilizing measures such as long-term contracts that guarantee reasonable profitability while ensuring stable electricity prices and dependable capacity payments.