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.
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.
160090034.docx