In 2022, Governor Newsom and the California legislature pulled a 180-degree turn in state policy. The legislature nullified legislative approval of the agreement signed six years previously to shut down the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant by 2025, instead extending its life to 2030.
The relicensing of the plant, previously abandoned, was resurrected in a dash through a truncated version of the normal process for the licensing of a nuclear power plant. Conditions built into the 2030 extension bill – including a full accounting of costs, proof of necessity, assurance of repayment of a large state loan, and an apples-to-apples comparison of the cost of operating Diablo vs. energy from renewable sources, energy efficiency and conservation – have languished. Instead, PG&E, nuclear advocates, and state resource agencies have been swirling walnut shells around on a card table and inviting legislators to guess which one the pea is under.
Almost from the moment Governor Newsom did an about-face on the plan to close Diablo Canyon, there has been a growing drumbeat to extend the life of the plant further -- along with its rising costs, devastating impacts on the marine environment, and ever-growing coastal nuclear waste dump -- out to 2045.
On June 16, a majority of the SLO County Board of Supervisors, as dissenting Supervisor Bruce Gibson put it, “enthusiastically and uncritically” endorsed the longer extension, voting 4-1 to join the “Diablo Canyon 2045 Coalition” of local city councils and chambers of commerce.
On July 30, a Diablo 2045 “information panel” at the SLO County Government center featured a dais stacked with nuclear advocates. As Supervisor Gibson accurately observed when the event was announced, it was “outlined to deliver two purely supportive studies of the economic benefits of continued Diablo Canyon Power Plant operation. That is followed by safety reports from PG&E itself regarding findings on seismic hazard and reactor embrittlement (neither yet peer-reviewed). The final panel comprises stakeholders from the labor, economic development and education communities, whose interests align with continued operations.”
The Diablo 2045 folks were counting on a bill making a speed run through the state legislature at the end of August, just before legislators adjourned for the year. They hoped it would be rammed through with the same inadequate analysis and debate that accompanied the Diablo 2030 extension bill that was passed in the dead of night at the end of the 2022 legislative session.
But an analysis of the embrittlement of one of Diablo’s reactor domes is not expected to be completed until October. And recent data has shown that the most hazardous of the earthquake faults surrounding the plant is capable of producing a more powerful earthquake than previously thought. PG&E somehow has never found the time to respond to an independent peer review panel that would like to know why the utility’s most recent seismic safety update did not mention the most recent data and incorporate it into its analysis. The peer-review panel has been asking for that explanation since February.
Now PG&E will have plenty of time. On August 7, Governor Newsom halted the nuclear giddy-up. There will be no last-minute bill flying through the legislature this year, and Diablo’s fate will be up to the governor who replaces him next year.
PG&E and Diablo Canyon’s cheerleaders have shown a marked preference for brief discussions (or no discussions), vague statements, selective omissions, and tightly controlled information.
Why were nuclear advocates hell-bent on a last-minute policy change to extend Diablo’s life to 2030 with minimal review, and then trying to rush through another one to extend it to 2045? As former Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner and energy policy advisor Peter Bradford has observed, California usually makes decisions about energy generation resources “on the basis of full information and equitable allocation of risks and rewards.” But when it comes to those who are pushing for endless extensions of the life of California’s last nuclear plant:
“If they really believed what they tell the legislature and the public about the benefits of Diablo Canyon extension, they would be at the head of the line of those demanding a prudent, transparent and thorough evaluative process. Instead, they’ve repeatedly discouraged and failed to perform such an ongoing evaluation of Diablo Canyon and the alternatives. This silence, even in the face of the legislature’s clear 2022 mandate speaks volumes as to what they expect the outcome to be…. Now’s the time to establish a genuinely prudent process that will spare the legislature and others from having to make hugely consequential decisions on a crisis basis with severely limited information. That’s the path that legislators should insist on.”
That expert testimony and much more was delivered to two dozen staff from the offices of California legislators who attended an August 14 briefing, “Diablo Canyon Through 2045? What California Lawmakers Need to Know About Regulatory Prudence, Cost and Reliability,” moderated by Kim Delfino, President and Founder of Earth Advocacy, and co-hosted by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Sierra Club California, California Alliance for Community Energy and California Environmental Justice Coalition.
The expert speakers focused on four central questions:
- What would continued operation cost California ratepayers and taxpayers?
- Will Diablo Canyon still be needed for energy reliability beyond 2030?
- How should changes in federal nuclear regulation and safety oversight factor into the state’s decision?
- What standard of prudence and accountability should lawmakers require before approving another extension?
John Geesman, an attorney at Dickson Geesman LLP and former California Energy Commission member, California Power Exchange chair and California ISO board member, spoke on cost, ratepayer and regulatory analysis. Geesman focused on the financial implications of continued operation. He said PG&E forecasts a $595 million deficit for 2027, bringing the cumulative shortfall since extended operations began in November 2024 to $1.7 billion.
“Diablo Canyon is what the financial world calls a ‘stranded asset,’ meaning that the plant persistently falls short of covering its costs with the market revenues it receives for producing electricity,” he said. As a result, it’s clear who will be left covering those costs: “PG&E now admits that its grant payments will fall short by at least $659 million, and its CEO says taxpayers should absorb that loss.” he said.
Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering, spoke on energy reliability, renewables and storage, examining Diablo Canyon’s role as California expands solar, wind and battery storage. Jacobson presented data showing that the plant’s inflexible generation is contributing to increased curtailment of renewable energy.
“Diablo Canyon is forcing wind and solar off the grid,” Jacobson said, “so you’re just paying for wasted electricity.” He summed up the data this way: “The direction is clear that renewables decrease electricity prices; fossil fuels and nuclear increase prices on grids.”
Edwin Lyman, the Director of Nuclear Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, spoke on nuclear safety, security and NRC oversight and what changes at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under Trump could mean for federal oversight of Diablo Canyon. He noted a pattern of reduced inspections, unresolved seismic risks and potential changes to safety and security requirements.
“Every state, California included, that has operating nuclear power plants needs to understand that they can no longer rely on the federal agency, the NRC, to protect public health, safety and the environment,” he said.
Peter Bradford, a former NRC commissioner and former chair of the Maine and New York utility commissions, spoke on prudence, licensing and regulatory accountability. Bradford criticized the California Public Utilities Commission for failing to adequately assess the costs, risks, benefits and alternatives to continued operation for the five-year extended term through 2030 and cautioned that a thorough analysis was essential before considering another extension.
“Prudence has been a crucial customer protection term in utility regulation for the last 100 years,” he said. “The requirement that customers not pay for imprudently incurred costs is the ultimate safeguard against imposition of costs that have not been adequately evaluated or controlled.”
Watch the full Aug. 14 briefing here.