The government’s new plan for radioactive waste, or PGRR, faces strong pushback from industry players. The Nuclear Forum, the main employers’ group, accuses the administration’s road map of forcing a long, costly future for shutting down reactors, managing spent fuel, and funding the billions needed for decommissioning. This tension sits at the heart of the debate about Spain’s nuclear future.
The latest PGRR revision, released by the Council of Ministers last month, confirms a phased shutdown of all Spanish nuclear facilities between 2027 and 2035. It envisions seven centralized waste repositories and interim storage spans of up to fifty years for each site, with total projected costs exceeding €3.7 billion more than earlier versions of the plan. This shift has intensified industry criticism about the timetable and the financial assumptions underpinning it.
Industry voices argue that the plan would keep reactors online longer and push back closures despite agreements reached in 2019 by major electricity producers and the government. They contend that the added costs should not be absorbed by the electricity ratepayers and warn that seven dedicated nuclear cemeteries would restrict the reuse of plant sites for future industrial purposes after long-term shutdowns. Critics frame the plan as a cost shift rather than a solution, arguing that the extra charges should be financed differently and not passed wholly to consumers. (Attribution: industry statements and regulatory briefings)
“Solutions adopted in the new plan bring higher costs than originally anticipated because of limited cross-institution agreement,” notes Foro Nuclear. “There should be no automatic billing of these extra costs to the electricity system.” The sector adds that any financing arrangements must reflect the evolving structure of the sector, and that the plan’s cost increases should not tag along as a fixed burden on ratepayers. (Attribution: Foro Nuclear press releases)
In recent years, the government has kept two options alive for handling highly radioactive waste from facilities over the coming decades: transport and storage in a central temporary facility (ATC) for several decades, a path pursued for years with Villar de Cañas in Cuenca now rejected, or seven decentralized temporary storage sites (ATDs) nationwide. The lack of political and social consensus and the reluctance of autonomous communities to host a large national cemetery pushed the government to pursue seven storage sites. Building a single central facility would require much larger investments, with additional costs estimated at around €3.72 billion versus the one-ATC option. (Attribution: government planning documents)
Under the newly updated investment table for the seventh PGRR, the entire waste management program, including the seven repositories, is projected to reach roughly €28.156 billion through 2100. The last provisional version had suggested €24.436 billion for a single ATC and €26.560 billion for seven ATDs, a difference driven by inflation and revised costs. The latest roadmap shows the end-of-century cost near €20.220 billion. (Attribution: official budget tables)
rate increase
Financing remains anchored in the principle that polluters pay. Fees charged to nuclear plants are intended to fund waste management and decommissioning. With the plan adding notable costs, the government is expected to approve a substantial rate increase paid by electricity companies such as Endesa, Iberdrola, Naturgy and EDP. (Attribution: industry forecasts)
Currently, the sector pays €7.98 per MWh to Enresa, the national radioactive waste agency, for every megawatt hour of electricity produced. Depending on annual output, the sector contributes roughly €450 million annually to the Enresa fund, which has accumulated about €7.5 billion. Some sources in the industry anticipate a rise to around €10 per MWh, yielding approximately €570 million annually. The ministry responsible for ecological transition has not commented on future rate adjustments. (Attribution: sector data and ministry briefings)
Nuclear employers describe the anticipated rise as a significant shift from the agreement reached between plant owners and Enresa, which limited rate increases to a maximum of 20% and set a floor for the cost of electricity. Enresa maintains that the agreement does not constrain the government from future adjustments to capital benefits paid by plants. (Attribution: industry and Enresa communications)
Opponents argue that higher rates risk undermining the sustainability of nuclear operations, especially when compared with other energy technologies. They caution that additional levy increases must be carefully balanced with incentives for reliable, affordable power supply. (Attribution: Foro Nuclear commentary)
Companies in the sector have faced profitability pressures from tax regimes and ownership-based charges. The current cost of producing electricity from nuclear plants sits around €25 per MWh, with reductions sought on tax burdens and a fairer return for facility owners. (Attribution: industry analyses)
delayed closing
Many industry voices stress that continuing operation of the Spanish nuclear fleet would help finance the plan and allow the Enresa fund to grow. The association favors postponing closures without committing to exact timelines, arguing that longer operation translates into more funding for the plan. Proposals to extend operating life without rate increases are common themes in discussions about the path forward. (Attribution: industry roundups)
Some reports suggest pushing the total shutdown date to 2037, with operators weighing longer operation periods against the need to control electricity costs. The Enresa fund currently holds about €7.5 billion, and a modest financing discount is expected as rates and inflation shift. If most plants stay online for another two years, or if some extend beyond that, financing the plan becomes more feasible. (Attribution: industry coverage)
In 2019, the government and major electricity groups agreed on a staged shutdown between 2027 and 2035. The protocol with Iberdrola, Endesa, Naturgy, EDP, and Enresa outlined the cascade of reactor closures and proposed dates, with potential for adjustment if the parties sign a new roadmap. The plan anticipates Almaraz I in 2027, Almaraz II in 2028, Ascó I in 2030, Cofrentes in 2030, Ascó II in 2032, and Vandellós II and Trillo in 2035. If dates change, a new protocol would be required to chart a revised path forward. (Attribution: 2019 protocol and industry summaries)