“Energy policy is not within our purview.”
This was the response from the California Coastal Commission when presented with information about the critical role that Diablo Canyon Power Plant plays in the state’s clean, baseload energy supply. This statement, while perhaps a narrow interpretation of the Coastal Act, is the perfect encapsulation of a profound flaw in California’s governance structure: a lack of “connective tissue” between its regulatory bodies.
California’s body politic suffers from a form of policy myopia, where vital agencies operate in rigid silos. This results in decisions that may satisfy a single, specific mandate but inadvertently undermine the state’s broader, legally enshrined goals on climate, economy, and energy security. The ongoing debate over the future of Diablo Canyon, and the public access to its surrounding lands, is not just a local land-use issue; it is a statewide example of a system in desperate need of a wider perspective.
The issue is not that environmental mitigation is unimportant—it is a vital component of responsible governance. The state has an interest in ensuring access to the 12 miles of pristine coastline that PG&E has preserved for decades. PG&E wants to get out of the trail business as well. The local community would love all-access trail loops, breathtaking panoramic views from Point Sal to San Simeon, and new opportunities for the Central Coast fishing community around the plant’s operational thermal outfall area.
The proposed plan by PG&E and the Coastal Commission staff was for “permanent, forever access,” a clear win for conservation and public enjoyment.
But that is only half the story.
The “missing connective tissue” becomes apparent when the commission and certain legislators’ and staffers’ limited purview clashed with the multifaceted reality of California’s energy needs. When presented with the fact that Diablo Canyon Power Plant’s continued operation is crucial for grid reliability and meeting clean energy goals, the response should not be to look away. It should be to acknowledge that the environmental impact of prematurely closing the plant—and potentially replacing its massive carbon-free output with fossil fuels—is very much within the purview of state-level environmental policy.
We see a disconnect between the pragmatic, holistic approach taken by local leaders and the siloed approach in some state regulatory corners. And more concerning, the local state legislators used their influence to suggest to the Coastal Commission that local control does not matter. In the meantime, four members of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors represented support for the plan and expressed how our county coexists happily with the plant and overwhelmingly wants it to stay open. In 2024, we passed a resolution recognizing Diablo as a “key climate solution.” We rightly see the plant and its transmission infrastructure as an irreplaceable economic and strategic asset that any county would protect. This is a pragmatic approach, with today’s realities in mind.
As a current board member of the California Air Resources Board and vice chair of 3CE, a five-county community energy provider, I can attest to the immense challenges of meeting our climate goals while facing rising costs for every potential renewable energy project. The demand for energy is rising; it is negligent not to discuss the extension of Diablo. Anyone who contests this reality is risking our collective security and safety.
The cost of this regulatory myopia is staggering. Recent proceedings at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) transmission planning process noted that keeping Diablo open till 2030 will save $3.2 billion. When you calculate till 2045, it’s multiples of billions. That is real money. As one observer noted, “Diablo Canyon isn’t just a power source; it’s a ratepayer shield, a clean energy anchor, and a symbol of smart policy meeting economic sense.”
To me, this decision has impacts on the people who are not in the inner circle: the family struggling to make ends meet, the small business owners, and senior citizens on a fixed income. Is this not what real equity, diversity, and inclusion in policy looks like?
The solution is clear. For California’s body politic to function effectively, the missing “connective tissue” must be established. This requires a legislative or executive fix that mandates cross-agency consultation and forces all regulatory bodies to produce a “whole-of-state-policy impact statement” for major projects.
We can have breathtaking vistas from all-access trails and clean energy, economic opportunities and unitary taxes and stable utility rates.
While the proposed plan offered a viable approach, its ultimate success hinges on capable leaders who can acknowledge that in a complex world, a comprehensive and inclusive purview of all issues is required when the well-being of the entire state is at stake. ∆
Dawn Ortiz-Legg is SLO County’s 3rd District supervisor. Respond to her opinion piece with one of your own by emailing it to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Nov 13-23, 2025.
Diablo Canyon Nuclear power plant is very old AND built on an earthquake fault.
As a member of the Central Coast fishing community Ms.Legg speaks of, and not by choice, I never realized, even as a lifelong surfer, how important a healthy ocean is. Thanks to the debasement of the dollar through endless bank bailouts, I’ve had to resort to fishing to extend my family’s food budget. I have been able to nab Cabezon and Ling Cod from shore and thank God every time I do. The last thing we need is for Diablo Canyon, like the reactor in the movie “The China Syndrome,” to melt down during an earthquake. We need a clean ocean and more marine reserves. As much as I appreciate cheap, abundant energy, the likes of which Diablo has provided for decades, it needs to be shut down and rebuilt somewhere safer and when rebuilt, not done do so through more public subsidies. It’s time for corporations to stand on their own two feet or simply die. Isn’t that what real capitalism is all about anyway?
To her credit, Supervisor Legg does note the hypocrisy of DEI initiatives towards the end of her article. Like most politicians though, she tries to please everyone so much, it’s impossible to tell where she stands.
I question Ms. Ortiz-Legg’s objection to agencies like the Coastal Commission “staying in their lane” and operating in specific “silos”.
In fact, the Coastal Commission is a good example of “mission creep” and operating beyond their mandate. The commission was created to protect our coast from overdevelopment, but at times has strayed beyond that objective in using its substantial powers to pursue other agendas. For example, in an early suit they had forced an existing seasisde inn to provide below-market rate rooms as a condition for a remodeling permit, something which had no relation to protecting the coast, but just serves the ideological agenda of the commissioners. Recently, when considering an application by SpaceX for more launches at Vandenberg, they spent their time discussing how awful Elon Musk is, and what they see as his corrosive impact on politics, instead of any environmental impact of the launches.
Agencies like the Coastal Commission were not granted their immense powers to advance the world views of their members, just to adress specific concerns. So, yes, they should stay in their “silos”.