APS 2015 Annual Report Download - page 12

Table of Contents
costs incurred by Palo Verde during the period January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. APS’s share of this amount is $16.7 million.
APS’s first claim made pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement, which was for the period July 1,
2011 through June 30, 2014, was for $42.0 million (APS’s share of this amount was $12.2 million), and payment was received on June
1, 2015. APS’s second claim made pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014, settlement agreement, which was for the period July
1, 2014 through June 30, 2015, and was for $12.0 million (APS's share of this amount is $3.6 million), was submitted to the DOE on
November 2, 2015. The second claim is presently being reviewed by DOE.
Amounts recovered in the lawsuit and settlement were recorded as adjustments to regulatory liability and had no impact on
current income.
The One-Mill Fee — In 2011, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Nuclear Energy Institute
challenged DOE’s 2010 determination of the adequacy of the one tenth of a cent per kWh fee (the “one-mill fee”) paid by the nation’s
commercial nuclear power plant owners pursuant to their individual obligations under the Standard Contract. This fee is recovered by
APS in its retail rates. In June 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “D.C. Circuit”) held that DOE
failed to conduct a sufficient fee analysis in making the 2010 determination. The D.C. Circuit remanded the 2010 determination to the
Secretary of the DOE (“Secretary”) with instructions to conduct a new fee adequacy determination within six months. In
February 2013, upon completion of DOE’s revised one-mill fee adequacy determination, the D.C. Circuit reopened the proceedings.
On November 19, 2013, the D.C. Circuit found that the DOE did not conduct a legally adequate fee assessment and ordered the
Secretary to notify Congress of his intent to suspend collecting annual fees for nuclear waste disposal from nuclear power plant
operators, as he is required to do pursuant to the NWPA and the D.C. Circuit’s order. On January 3, 2014, the Secretary notified
Congress of his intention to suspend collection of the one-mill fee, subject to Congress’ disapproval. On May 16, 2014, the DOE
notified all commercial nuclear power plant operators who are party to a Standard Contract that it reduced the one-mill fee to zero, thus
effectively terminating the one-mill fee.
DOE’s Construction Authorization Application for Yucca Mountain — The DOE had planned to meet its NWPA and Standard
Contract disposal obligations by designing, licensing, constructing, and operating a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. In June 2008, the DOE submitted its Yucca Mountain construction authorization application to the NRC, but in March 2010,
the DOE filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. Several interested parties
have also intervened in the NRC proceeding. Additionally, a number of interested parties filed a variety of lawsuits in different
jurisdictions around the country challenging the DOE’s authority to withdraw the Yucca Mountain construction authorization
application and NRC’s cessation of its review of the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. The cases have been
consolidated into one matter at the D.C. Circuit. In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit ordered the NRC to resume its review of the
application with available appropriated funds.
On October 16, 2014, the NRC issued Volume 3 of the safety evaluation report developed as part of the Yucca Mountain
construction authorization application. This volume addresses repository safety after permanent closure, and its issuance is a key
milestone in the Yucca Mountain licensing process. Volume 3 contains the staff’s finding that the DOE’s repository design meets the
requirements that apply after the repository is permanently closed, including but not limited to the post-closure performance objectives
in NRC’s regulations.
On December 18, 2014, the NRC issued Volume 4 of the safety evaluation report developed as part of the Yucca Mountain
construction authorization application. This volume covers administrative and programmatic requirements for the repository. It
documents the staff’s evaluation of whether the DOE’s
9