What started as a political maneuver by the Popular Party to open the door to prolonging the life of Spanish nuclear power plants ended up becoming one of the tightest and most surprising votes of the legislature. The amendment that sought to suppress the closing dates of Almaraz, Ascó and Cofrentes was rejected by a single vote, a minimal difference that was only possible thanks to the – unexpected – abstention of Junts.
The result was 171 votes in favor – PP, Vox and UPN -, 171 against and seven abstentions from Junts, who shot down the proposal. The Government breathed a sigh of relief, although the underlying debate—what to do with nuclear energy at the height of electricity demand—remains more open than ever.
Congress stops the PP nuclear amendment. The amendment introduced by the PP in the Sustainable Mobility Law It intended to eliminate from the ministerial orders the dates for the definitive cessation of operation of the Almaraz, Ascó and Cofrentes plants. With this, the popular parties sought to open the door to possible extensions, especially at a time when the owners of Almaraz They have already formally requested extend its useful life until 2030.
According to El PaísJunts left the vote in suspense until the last moment, leaving it unclear whether they would vote with the PP and Vox or support the Government. His abstention finally tipped the balance. The movement was even surprising due to the political context: it came just 24 hours after a tough confrontation between Míriam Nogueras and Pedro Sánchez, in which the Junts spokesperson accused the president of being “cynical and hypocritical.” However, in the vote the strategy was different because Catalonia consumes more electricity from nuclear origin than any other community.
What does this rejection really mean? Although politically the vote had a huge impact, technically things remain more or less the same. The amendment would not have automatically extended the life of the plants, but it would have modified ministerial orders without requiring the report of the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN), a mandatory requirement by law.
Besides, They remembered a precedent: In 2012, the PP itself demanded this report when it reopened the discussion on the Garoña plant. The tension was amplified because the debate had no direct relationship with the Mobility Law, a regulation linked to the receipt of 10,000 million euros of European funds, as various media emphasize. The PP amendment thus introduced an energy element in a text on sustainable mobility, which increased unrest among the Government’s partners.
So, is the nuclear shutdown schedule still valid? Yes. With the fall of the amendment, the calendar agreed in 2019 between the Government, Enresa and the electricity companies remains intact. The calendar, as we have already explainedit looks like this:
- Almaraz I: closure in 2027
- Almaraz II: 2028
- Chests: 2030
- Ascó I and II: between 2030 and 2032
- Vandellós II and Trillo: until 2035
However, the fact that the calendar is still standing does not mean that an extension is ruled out. Contrary to what it may seem, the rejection of the amendment does not prevent companies from requesting an extension nor does it block the Government from authorizing it. As the Executive himself recalled —as cited by El País—: “The right to request an extension is not created by a ministerial order, but by current regulations.” In fact, as mentioned above, Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgy have already formally requested that Almaraz remains operational until 2030.
Administrative clash. The real problem is technical and bureaucratic. According to The Independentthe bureaucratic procedure has been crossed unexpectedly: the CSN can take up to a year to issue its report, but the regulations force the plant to request closure in March 2026, if the calendar is not reviewed before. That means Almaraz could be asking to close while the CSN evaluates whether it can continue operating. A scenario that no one thought of in 2019 and that adds more uncertainty to the nuclear transition.
Everything that nuclear encompasses. Added to this is the Government’s position. The Minister for the Ecological Transition, Sara Aagesen, has reiterated on several occasions the three red lines of the Executive, that the expansion does not entail costs for citizens, guarantee of nuclear safety and security of supply.
However, these three conditions clash precisely with the diagnosis that they make the electric ones: operating the plants beyond 2027 with the current tax burden is economically unviable if the market does not exceed €65-70/MWh. The expected prices are around 55, so Iberdrola and Endesa insist that keeping the nuclear park open requires alleviating taxes that, according to the Ministry, would end up having an impact on consumers’ bills.
The economic debate does not end there. Enresa’s fund for the dismantling of the plants only covers 43% of the real cost. According to figures that we have had access to in Xatakathere is a hole of 11.6 billion euros not yet financed, a fact that overrides any discussion about deadlines and extensions
Can Spain do without nuclear power? The underlying issue is no longer political, but technical. Spain wants to build a 100% renewable system, but it has yet to be demonstrated that the network can sustain that model without the stability that nuclear energy provides.
The new digital systems that must replace inertia of the reactors are still in the testing phase, and the CNMC has detected inconsistencies in the frequency and voltage control procedures. In parallel, regions with strong industrial and digital growth—such as Aragon, which is experiencing a data center boom—warn that the network is practically at the limit.
Simply put: companies ask for time; The territories ask for certainties; The Government asks for guarantees.
An official closure, but an open debate. Congress has closed the door to the PP’s fast track, but it has not closed the nuclear debate. On paper, the calendar remains intact; In practice, the transition coexists with technical tensions, industrial interests and territories that fear what will come next.
The question is no longer whether the life of the plants can be extended, but rather whether the underlying problem can be prolonged —the waste, the increasing costs and a network that is not yet ready— is really a solution. Nuclear offers time, but it also costs. And a country that aspires to a clean and stable system cannot afford to perpetuate uncertainty.
Therefore, beyond the vote, the real discussion remains open in the field where voting is not done: in engineering, in economics and in planning. There it will be decided if the calendar is fulfilled or if it is rewritten.
Image | NuclearForum
Xataka | How a nuclear power plant works inside: from uranium to the plug, step by step
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings