The government has begun the approval process for a new General Radioactive Waste Plan. Its goal is to update the long‑term roadmap for managing waste, decommissioning nuclear power plants, and estimating the associated costs. The Ministry of Ecological Transition has put forward a proposal that is open to public discussion and anticipates an added expense of roughly 1.4 to 3.5 billion euros beyond previous estimates. Industry observers note that some of these costs are not fully understood or accepted by nuclear companies.
While the Nuclear Forum, the representatives of the industry’s major employers, criticized the cost increase proposed in the plan, it was highlighted that the government and electricity companies agreed three years prior on plant operating lifespans, a portion of total costs, and the rates to be paid. According to the forum’s chair, the industry will not agree to higher charges than those previously negotiated with the government. He argued that the projected costs in the plan have risen substantially and questioned the reasons behind the increase. He described the situation as unacceptable for the sector, given the changes in the funding framework she or he claims should have remained as agreed. The chairman of the Nuclear Forum represents the major power companies that own reactors and the many firms connected to the nuclear industry.
The government previously reached an understanding with the leading electricity companies in 2019 (Endesa, Iberdrola, Naturgy, and EDP) to gradually close all nuclear plants between 2027 and 2023 and to implement a cap on rate increases tied to electricity production and the costs of dismantling plants to fund waste management. In 2020, the government raised these rates by 19.2 percent, and the current rate stands at 7.98 euros per megawatt hour produced. There is concern within the sector that the new plan could trigger another rate increase.
ENRESA, the state-owned company responsible for radioactive waste management, later estimated that increases would cover the costs of dismantling facilities and storing waste, a calculation outlined in the plan’s first draft. The newer plan proposes a higher figure: from 24,435 million euros if a single central radioactive waste facility is built to 26,560 million euros if seven regional storage facilities are preferred. The proposal envisions one storage site near each nuclear plant in the country.
The law enables further adjustments
ENRESA, which operates under the supervision of SEPI and the Ministry of Science and Innovation, with representation from multiple ministries on its board, has faced criticism regarding nuclear energy projects. The current law permits the Government to adjust the rate paid by facilities if costs are expected to rise significantly for dismantling and waste management.
ENRESA’s president explained that if costs rise unpredictably in the future, there is a mechanism to increase the rate. He stressed that the patrimonial aids paid by plant owners are not financial or tax subsidies but operational charges for a service. Without ENRESA, these costs would be borne directly by the companies themselves.
The Electricity Sector Act allows the Government to revise the nuclear rate by royal decree, based on an economic‑financial report that updates the expected costs to support the General Radioactive Waste Plan. ENRESA sources noted that this authority cannot be limited by the internal shutdown protocol signed in 2019 with the plant owners. The original agreement envisioned a maximum 20 percent rate increase tied to the plant closure schedule, but the 19.2 percent hike implemented since 2020 has already exceeded that limit, according to ENRESA.
Looking ahead, decisions may be made regarding energy policy, radioactive waste management, or dismantling of facilities in response to unforeseen circumstances that affect the cost or revenue estimates that guided the 750/Royal Decree. ENRESA emphasized that the 2019 plan already showed a 19.2 percent increase, and noted that the fixed unit rate could both rise or fall as conditions change.
Industry insiders argue that the extra costs reflected in the plan stem from the absence of a definitive storage solution. Delays in developing a temporary storage facility are cited as the primary reason, and owners have long argued that the tax burden supporting their activities erodes their profitability. They claim that these costs are not borne by the industry alone but affect the broader energy landscape.