amount in the Decommissioning Cost Estimate and Edison provides required documentation. Other than Edison and SDG&E, all other parties opposed this request. SONGS Balancing Account Edison proposed that the Commission authorize Edison to record in a balancing account all unanticipated associated with SONGS Units 2 and 3 that are not related to decommissioning. Other than Edison and SDG&E, all other parties opposed this request. Reasonableness Reviews Edison requested authorization to file annual applications for the Commission to review its Units 2 and 3 decommissioning expenditures for reasonableness. SDG&E SDG&E supported Edison’s presentation of the $4.411 billion Decommissioning Cost Estimate. SDG&E also requested authorization for its own decommissioning costs of $16.549 million, which no party opposed. ORA ORA recommended against the Commission approving the Decommissioning Cost Estimate. ORA argued that, as presented by Edison, the current estimate of decommissioning costs is a non-engineered estimate, based on uncertain assumptions and which acknowledges that certain project costs remain unknowable at this time, such as the timing and rate of the removal of the spent fuel from the plant sites by the Department of Energy.
of the spent nuclear fuel from the site, (2) renegotiation of the site termination requirements in the lease with the U.S. Navy, and (3) the possibility of relief from the California Coastal Commission. TURN argues that cost savings from these or any other efficiencies should be promptly returned to customers to achieve intergenerational equity between customers who contributed to the trust and those who might receive refunds at some point in the distant future. We that known and quantifiable decommissioning cost reductions should be promptly incorporated into the Decommissioning Cost Estimate. At this time, the potential sources of such reductions offered by TURN are not sufficiently certain to be incorporated into the Estimate. Edison and SDG&E must monitor these and all other potential cost reductions for incorporation into the next Decommissioning Cost Estimate review proceeding. We find, therefore, that the Decommissioning Cost Estimate reasonably relies on the planning assumption that the Department of Energy will begin accepting Spent Nuclear Fuel in 2024 and that this date is uncertain. The yield return forecast is also reasonable because the Nuclear Decommissioning Trusts are managed by professional financial trust fund committee members. The current assets plus forecasted yield returns will adequately fund now-known decommissioning costs. We find that Edison has demonstrated that the Decommissioning Cost Estimate is reasonable. We similarly find that SDG&E’s own decommissioning costs of $16.549 million are also reasonable. We conclude that the respective Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Edison and SDG&E should be approved.
state government regarding nuclear safety, operational issues, and decommissioning a closed nuclear facility. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provided the federal government with exclusive jurisdiction to license the transfer, delivery, receipt, acquisition, possession, and use of nuclear materials. Congress, in passing the 1954 Act and amendments, intended that “the U.S. Government should regulate the radiological safety aspects involved in the construction and operation of a nuclear plant, but that the States retain their traditional responsibility in the field of regulating electrical utilities for determining questions of need, reliability, cost, and other related state concerns.” In a 1983 pre-emption test of state law, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Government maintains complete control of the safety and "nuclear" aspects of energy generation; and that states have “no role” regarding the license, transfer, delivery, receipt, acquisition, possession, and use of nuclear materials. For example, issues regarding the type of nuclear fuel used in operations, the type of casks used for dry storage, the operation of the SNF pool, are federal jurisdictional matters. As an example of this federal authority, to receive an NRC operating license, one must submit a safety analysis report, which includes a radioactive waste handling system. The regulations specify general design criteria and control requirements for fuel storage and handling and radioactive waste to be stored at the reactor site. [10 C.F.R. pt. 50, app. A (1982).] In addition, the NRC has promulgated detailed regulations governing storage and disposal away from the reactor. [10 C.F.R. pt. 72 (1982).] Lastly, The NRC issued its first nuclear decommissioning requirements in 2000. We, therefore, decline to review these issues here. We reiterate, however, that Edison remains responsible for all decommissioning planning and operational actions whether conducted by Edison employees or a contractor, and