IX. Waste Storage Facilities and Cost

PG&E forecast its decommissioning costs for low level radioactive waste disposal and storage relying on facilities currently in use, but which may be closed to it when PG&E requires actual storage service. Fielder proposes that costs are likely to be much higher for any new storage facility. For low level radioactive waste, PG&E projected the cost of burial disposal at $248 per cubic foot (c.f.) but Fielder argued it should be set at $509 per c.f. as previously approved by the Commission (D.00-02-046 at p. 379, and cited in Fielder's Opening Brief, p. 1). Fielder estimates this would increase overall decommissioning cost for each plant by approximately $50,000,000 to $1,000,000,000. (Opening Brief, p. 1, and pp. 5-7.)

A. Discussion

There is little certainty about low level waste disposal, except we know in July 2008 the Barnwell facility will no longer accept waste from Non-Atlantic Compact states, which excludes the California utilities. (Ex. 11, pp. 24-27; and Ex. 21, pp. 14-18.) PG&E proposes $248 per c.f., escalated based on prior triennial reviews. Fielder argues that it is much more likely in the future the waste storage rates will be higher than Barnwell's cost, rather than lower, therefore the allowance should at least be set at $509 per c.f. Fielder believes that a potential Southwestern Compact facility would have costs even higher than $509 per c.f. (Opening Brief, p. 5.)

The settling parties, PG&E, DRA, and TURN, offer no compelling counter-argument in their joint reply brief, except to point out firstly that DRA proposed a composite rate of $140 per c.f., which we find, the settlement notwithstanding, to be without merit considering the closure of Barnwell and the uncertainty of the future. The settling parties' second reason to oppose Fielder's recommendation is the uncertainty of his estimate. This argument is two-edged and the perhaps sharper edge cuts against PG&E's proposed use of the unavailable but lower Barnwell costs: PG&E's proposal is lower than previous Southwestern Compact facility estimates for a now more uncertain future.

We know DRA's rate is too low. We know PG&E's rate is for a service that will not be available. Fielder's proposed rates are also speculative. Our obligation is to equitably collect sufficient money over the plants' service lives to adequately fund competently managed trust funds for reasonably managed and a well-planned decommissioning of nuclear generating plants when they are retired from service.

One option would be to split the difference: modify the settlement and substitute a mid-point of $378.50 between PG&E's estimate of $248 and Fielder's $509 proposal. A second more conservative approach would be to adopt Fielder's estimate for the most assurance that we do not under-fund the trusts. The ratepayers are ill served by any expedient but inaccurate estimate. We cannot isolate a storage cost component within the settlement-and if we try, we would thereby abrogate the parties' other trade-offs within the settlement. We can, however, accept the settlement for now, and look to the future to impress on PG&E, DRA, and all parties, including Edison and SDG&E, that no one's forecast was very persuasive. We have the benefit of some time before we need the trusts' proceeds for most of the plants and therefore we can rely on the current settlements until the next triennial review. For the next proceeding, we direct all parties to conduct a thorough and complete research and analysis, and then err on the conservative (high estimate) side, when forecasting waste storage costs. This finding is applicable to all three utilities. If there is no more certainty regarding western utilities' storage options during the next triennial review, then we expect parties to conservatively estimate low level waste storage costs. The parties may also make any additional recommendations on the appropriate allowance for waste storage costs.