Thursday, April 27, 2017     Volume: 31, Issue: 40

Weekly Poll
Should oil companies be allowed to drill off the coast in SLO County?

Who are we to stand in the way of a company's profits? Drill away!
Yes but we should be sensitive to environmental concerns and only allow a few drilling operations.
No. It's environmentally destructive and the costs of a spill would be disastrous for SLO County.
No. I'd hate to see the view from our beaches spoiled by ugly oil platforms.

Vote! | Poll Results

RSS Feeds

Latest News RSS
Current Issue RSS

Special Features
Search or post SLO County food and wine establishments

New Times / News

The following article was posted on April 11th, 2013, in the New Times - Volume 27, Issue 37 [ Submit a Story ]
The following articles were printed from New Times [] - Volume 27, Issue 37

Nuclear bill focuses on money


State Democrats recently proposed legislation requiring the operators of coastal nuclear reactors to disclose all projected costs before passing relicensing costs on to ratepayers.

Senate Bill 418, if passed, would require the state’s two coastal nuclear operators to assess and publish all projected costs that may flow from a decision to relicense the aging reactors. The bill is sponsored by the ratepayer advocacy group Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.

Sources of possible unforeseen costs that sponsors specifically addressed include equipment failures and shutdowns, possible expansion of local emergency planning zones, implementation of environmentally friendly cooling systems that federal law may require, long-term storage for spent nuclear fuels, and the need for seismic studies and retrofits.

Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) introduced SB 418 to committee on Feb. 28. The proposed legislation took a step toward clearing committee on April 8 and is scheduled for a senate hearing on April 16.

“The public deserves to know the full story and to have these questions asked and answered,” Jackson wrote in a statement. “We need some way to judge whether going forward with a nuclear power plant is the best and most cost-effective route to supplying our energy needs.”

Sponsors explained that the proposed law would only go into effect if one of the two coastal operators applies to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license renewal, and also asks the California Public Utilities Commission for permission to adopt a rate increase to cover those licensing costs. Consequently, the bill would impose no requirements on current plant operations.

The operation licenses for Pacific Gas & Electric’s Diablo Canyon and Southern California Edison’s San Onofre are set to expire in 2025 and 2022, respectively.

PG&E plans to oppose the bill. Legislative spokesperson Lynsey Paulo called some of the bill’s requirements unnecessary since the utility already provides cost projections to the various state licensing agencies.

 “Our concern is about redundant reporting not being a good use of our customers’ money,” Paulo said.