Four years ago, nuclear power enthusiasts were high-fiving each other: They had forced a sudden U-turn in California energy policy by extending the operations of Diablo Canyon Power Plant. The true price of this decision is now rising to the surface.
California’s last nuclear power plant was originally slated to close in 2025. PG&E had crunched the numbers: The continued operation of Diablo Canyon would become an unprofitable hindrance to the state’s renewable energy and climate goals (nuclear energy is not renewable), uncompetitive with increasing local distributed energy generation and community choice aggregation (CCA). Hence, PG&E’s shutdown plan stated:
“PG&E in consultation with the parties has concluded that the most effective and efficient path forward for achieving California’s SB 350 policy goal for deep reductions of [greenhouse gas (GHG)] emissions is to retire Diablo Canyon at the close of its current operating license period and replace it with a portfolio of GHG free resources.”
Then the nuclear lobby swooped in and persuaded Gov. Gavin Newsom that Diablo should stay open to prevent possible power blackouts during heat waves. (It was the large number of battery storage facilities in California that ended up saving us from an actual blackout in the summer of 2024—and battery storage continues to grow. In the meantime, Diablo Canyon’s output now represents less than 6 percent of the energy California produces). Last December, the San Francisco Chronicle published a detailed history of the role of the nuclear lobby in persuading Newsom to keep Diablo open.
Diablo’s extended operations were part of a last-minute bill (SB 846) introduced three days before the end of the 2022 legislative session and passed at the last minute, in the dead of night, with minimal analysis. The Legislature voted to keep the plant open until 2030 and sweetened the deal with a $1.4 billion interest-free loan, essentially subsidizing PG&E to keep the plant running and nuclear waste accumulating on the Central Coast.
Now PG&E is aiming toward an additional 15-year extension—all the way to 2045. This month, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a 20-year license renewal, but that doesn’t mean Diablo can operate for 20 more years. For that to happen, nuclear advocates would have to change current California law, which states that the plant must close in 2030, and regulators must file ongoing reports to determine whether Diablo’s continued operation is prudent, necessary, and affordable.
Diablo’s affordability remains in question for good reason. The Tribune just asked legislators to “show us the math,” outlining the pointed questions that have remained lingering for far too long, like, “How much will it cost us to keep Diablo Canyon open 20 more years, versus relying on other forms of energy? How reliable are demand projections? How much alternative energy—solar, wind, geothermal, battery power, etc.—is scheduled to come online over the next 10 years?”
The continued operation of Diablo Canyon was destined to be unprofitable or would have been if California hadn’t put its residents on the hook for a $658 million shortfall … and for $1.8 billion in PG&E’s dubious fees.
Then, on April 7, the LA Times dropped the mic: “PG&E is overcharging Californians to keep the last nuclear power plant open, report alleges.”
“In the new white paper from UC Santa Barbara’s 2035 Initiative, three climate policy experts analyzed PG&E’s public filings and the Department of Energy’s evaluation of plant costs. They find that PG&E inflated costs when it requested the state loan and is likely to come up $658.6 million short in repaying it, which will be borne by taxpayers unless the Legislature takes action.”
Also, PG&E demanded additional fees that “aren’t necessary for plant operations, and without [the fees] … the authors find, it could save California utility customers an estimated $1.84 billion,” according to the Times. The report hit the press right after many PG&E ratepayers saw their March electric bills skyrocket.
Meanwhile, “PG&E has enjoyed record profits the last three years” equating to several billions of dollars.
So PG&E was right 10 years ago: The continued operation of Diablo Canyon was destined to be unprofitable or would have been if California hadn’t put its residents on the hook for a $658 million shortfall—now part of a gaping state budget deficit—and for $1.8 billion in PG&E’s dubious fees.
It’s worth noting that extended operations are being proposed against the backdrop of a Trumpified Nuclear Regulatory Commission that is busily relaxing nuclear safety regulations and reducing security measures and safety inspections.
The California Legislature could start coming to grips with the fiscal burden of Diablo by taking a cue from state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), chair of the Senate Energy Committee. He recently told KQED, “If there is a need to keep Diablo online, I want to have real frank conversations about what we’re doing to improve clean energy build-out so that we won’t be so reliant on this money pit that requires subsidies by ratepayers statewide, not just PG&E customers.”
Yes, let’s have that conversation—starting with if there really is a need for Diablo, and minus the ongoing evasions, omissions, and erroneous assertions from the industry and its regulators. And this time, let’s not have that conversation at the last minute, in the dead of night. ∆
Gianna Patchen is chapter coordinator for the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club. Andrew Christie served as chapter director from 2004 to 2023. Send a letter for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in April 23-30, 2026.