Revised Plan for Spain’s Nuclear Waste Management and Rate Implications

The government is moving toward approving the new General Plan for Radioactive Waste (PGRR), a blueprint outlining how nuclear waste will be managed and how dismantling costs will be handled over this century. The finalized PGRR envisions seven separate warehouses across Spain to store radioactive materials, with each nuclear facility retaining waste on-site for decades after its shutdown. The plan anticipates plant closures between 2027 and 2035.

In recent years, officials have weighed two options for handling highly radioactive waste: concentrating it in a single central temporary repository (ATC) or spreading storage across seven temporary decentralized facilities (ATDs). The government ultimately chose the latter, a choice that requires significantly higher investment. Building seven storage sites means an additional investment of approximately 2,000 million euros, a figure that climbs to 19,244 million by 2100 when projected over the long term.

The expected rise in costs would translate into higher rates charged by nuclear plants to the National Radioactive Waste Company (Enresa) to fund waste management and plant dismantling. Industry sources indicate that, with the larger planned investments, the government would implement an increase of roughly 25 percent in this non-tax capital grant, elevating the rate from 7.98 euros per MWh to around 10 euros per MWh, a shift corroborated by multiple industry reports. The impact of these changes is projected to affect nearly 10 euros per person in annual household costs. (Source: ENRESA and industry briefings.)

Overall, depending on the annual electricity output, owners of the nuclear power plants—Endesa, Iberdrola, Naturgy, and EDP, with other small contributors—currently contribute about 450 million euros annually to the fund that finances the long-term radioactive waste plan, which totals around 7.5 billion euros. With the rate increases anticipated under the new plan, annual contributions from the plants could rise to about 570 million euros, a rise of roughly 120 million euros each year. (Source: ENRESA financial outlooks.)

Government prepares for multimillion-dollar increase in nuclear rates

The largest electricity companies, which own Spain’s nuclear plants, have expressed resistance to higher costs beyond what was envisioned in earlier versions of the PGRR. They argue that these extra costs stem from political decisions and the extensive delays tied to previous investments, including the Villar de Cañas ATC project, which stalled due to a lack of institutional consensus. Industry projections estimate that extending the operating life of each plant by two years could help offset some increases, while delaying the country’s total nuclear shutdown beyond 2037 presents its own challenges. (Source: industry analyses and company statements.)

More years go by

The figures used by the sector assume annual payments tied to power generation; the longer plants operate, the more electricity they produce and the larger the fund contributions. The Enresa fund currently sits at about 7.5 billion euros, with the financing tools offering a modest 1.5 percent discount on projected financing needs based on fund profitability. As variables evolve, the extra cost foreseen in the updated PGRR would be absorbed if plants continue operating for two additional years or slightly longer, depending on how many facilities extend their lifespans. (Source: internal industry forecasts and Enresa projections.)

2019 marked a government agreement with major electricity companies to phase out all nuclear plants between 2027 and 2035. Iberdrola, Endesa, Naturgy, EDP, and Enresa have been considering a staged shutdown for seven reactors: Almaraz I in 2027, Almaraz II in 2028, Ascó I in 2030, Cofrentes in 2030, Ascó II in 2032, Vandellós II in the mid-2030s, with Trillo projected to close in 2035. Agreement on a new protocol will be required to outline the path forward for disruption and deadlines. (Source: industry outlooks and government briefings.)

Estimated increase in rates

The 2019 agreement anticipated up to a 20 percent rise in the rate paid for electricity, which led the executive to set the current level at 7.98 euros per MWh. That fee was intended to cover the costs of waste management and the potential development of a central temporary repository. ENRESA’s initial 2020 draft of the PGRR contemplated a single ATC and a financing memory reflecting 7.98 euros per MWh. The subsequent plan introduced two options: a single ATC or seven nationwide warehouses, estimating 9.6 euros per MWh under the new framework. (Source: ENRESA planning documents and industry coverage.)

Government completely rules out extending the life of nuclear power plants in new green ‘mega-plan’

In the latest version of the PGRR, seven storage depots were already contemplated, with the capital requirement forecast at 9.7 euros per MWh. ENRESA’s ongoing reports project the rate to rise to about 10.15 euros per MWh, a figure that some industry insiders expect to adjust slightly downward due to inflation trends since the forecast. Nuclear companies anticipate a final adjustment bringing payments to around 10 euros per MWh. ENRESA notes that while technical and cost discussions involve facility owners, the ultimate decision on the fee lies with the Ministry of Ecological Transition, which has not publicly committed to a timeline for approving the new PGRR or any future rate adjustments. (Source: ENRESA communications and ministry briefings.)

The same discussions emphasize that the exact amount of the benefit tied to the nuclear plants remains non-binding and is subject to official approval. The committee on Nuclear Energy, which includes major owners Endesa, Iberdrola, Naturgy and EDP, has presented observations on the PGRR that reflect concerns about cost allocation and the impact on the electricity system. The newspaper notes the need to consider these costs as part of the broader energy system, not as a pure tax, with ENRESA serving as the administering body for the fund. (Source: committee statements and industry coverage.)

Extra costs on the electricity bill?

Company observers blame the cost overruns on the Villar de Cañas project and the lack of political consensus, arguing that further investments should be reflected in the price of electricity. The CEN has submitted notes to the Ministry of Ecological Transition, arguing that the additional costs should be treated as part of the system’s operating costs and recovered through the same rate paid by all consumers. They emphasize that the capital benefit is not a tax but a direct expense of running facilities and managing the nuclear waste they produce. (Source: CEN notes and industry reports.)

New life for Spain’s massive nuclear cemetery

Proponents in the sector argue that profitability has suffered due to tax burdens and ownership benefits tied to the plants, which currently cost about 25 euros per MWh of electricity produced. Their main points target reductions in tax liabilities and the introduction of long-term contracts or capacity payments that guarantee stable return for the facilities, ensuring reliable availability and stability in electricity production. (Source: sector analyses and company filings.)

Overall, the path forward blends the need to manage radioactive waste safely with the realities of financing, plant lifespans, and the political dynamics of Spain’s energy transition. The government continues to calibrate the plan in dialogue with plant owners, ENRESA, and broader energy stakeholders, aiming to stabilize costs while securing a long-term waste management strategy that minimizes disruption to consumers and maintains grid reliability. (Source: ongoing official updates and industry commentary.)