Financing schemes for interim storage

US$700/kW for public power utilities and US$850/kW for investor-owned utilities.273 Two recent cases in the US highlight the inherent risks of insufficient financing. Exelon reported shortfalls in the decommissioning fund for three reactors ranging from US$6 million to US$83 million. Although, the NRC granted Exelon a 20-year license extension with the idea of allowing additional time to increase the decommissioning fund.274 In 2017, the German utilities have provisions of around €24.2 billion (US$26.7 billion) for scrapping up the 23 commercial reactors. This amount tops the cost estimate of €19.7 billion (US$22.2 billion). However, set aside provisions and cost estimates vary in scope. The provisions are to cover also costs for casks, conditioning the operational waste and transport, which were excluded from the estimate. So it remains open if the provisions are sufficient to cover the costs. In addition, due to the lack of transparency of the German decommissioning funding systems, the funds might not be invested in decommissioning, and tangible assets may continue to decline in value in the coming years.275

Table 6 compares the funding systems for decommissioning in the Czech Republic, France, and Germany. The table includes the funding system, the accumulation method, a total cost estimate for decommissioning, and the value of the set aside funds.

TABLE 6: Funding systems for decommissioning in the Czech Republic, France, and Germany as of December 2018

FUNDING SYSTEM CZECH REPUBLIC

internal segregated and restricted fund

FRANCE*

internal segregated and restricted fund

GERMANY

internal non-segregated and unrestricted

CONTROLLED BY operators operator operators

ACCUMULATED BY fee on generated electricity levy on electricity price provisions by operators

COST ESTIMATES

Temelín: US$ 847 million Dukovany: US$ 1 billion

US$410/kW to US$530/kW US$ 35.7 billion for entire fleet

US$450/kW for operational; US$1,350/kW for legacy US$ 22.2 billion for 23 commercial reactors**

US$940/kW

SET ASIDE FUNDS, (IN % OF COST ESTIMATE)

Temelín: US$ 129 million (15%) Dukovany: US$ 276 million (28%) US$ 20.8 billion (58%) US$ 26.7 billion*** (n.a.)

Source: Own depiction. Notes: * only applies to EDF ** excluding costs for casks, transport, and conditioning *** including provisions for casks, transport, and conditioning (also of operational waste); in 2017

FINANCING SCHEMES FOR INTERIM STORAGE

The costs and the financing schemes for interim storage of nuclear waste, from both operation and decommissioning, depend heavily on the available waste management infrastructure and the existence of a disposal path for the waste. As there is currently no disposal solution for high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel, all nuclear countries are faced with both technological, organizational, and financial interim storage issues. Countries with no disposal solution for LILW increasingly face financing of storage for LILW with a growing number of reactor shutdowns.

The costs for interim storage of waste can be paid from operational revenues (as at CEZ in the Czech Republic). In Switzerland, the operator has to pay directly for the expenses to handle the nuclear waste arising during the operation of a nuclear power plant and during the post-operational phase. In Germany,

273 Moriarty, J. 2017, “2017 Nuclear Decommissioning Funding Study”, Callan Institute. 274 Schneider et al. 2018. 275 Irrek and Vorfeld 2015.