Thanks for the source. Interesting reading.
Interesting. So my reading from the above is that, in a sense, the shuttering of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility made nuclear power more price competitive, at least to a limited extent, in comparison to other sources of power. On the other hand, as you point out, the utilities are essentially on hook for maintaining on-site storage of the nuclear waste that is not being collected, which of course costs the utilities in terms of expense. I would have thought that the cost of on-site nuclear waste storage will either balance out or outweigh whatever savings results from not collecting to the surcharge on nuclear power.Trump hasn't said much about nuclear power in general, so both are open questions. But the waste issue is very relevant to the cost and long-term prospects of nuclear power.
For example, an unintended consequence of Obama's illegal shuttering of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility was that nuclear power got cheaper. The courts ruled in 2014 that due to the violation of the law, the government could no longer claim justification for collecting a surcharge on nuclear power, which was supposed to be spent on collecting and storing nuclear waste. If the Yucca mountain facility comes back, the surcharge almost certianly will too, but either way the utilities currently have to worry about whether they have sufficienct on-site storage for nuclear waste the government is failing to collect. That uncertainty and cost affects decision-making on new nuclear plants.
We'll also have to see if there is in fact renewed interest from the Trump administration to revive the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility. My reading on this is that the politics don't split so evenly on party lines on this front, although I could be wrong (or outdated) on this point.