San Luis Obispo community leaders are turning to Sacramento for solutions after the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Jan. 11 rejected an $85 million settlement between PG&E and SLO County agencies that would’ve cushioned the economic blow of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant’s looming closure.
In its final vote on the matter, the CPUC approved plans to close the state’s last nuclear power plant in 2024-25 but denied ratepayer funding for the community settlement, which a CPUC administrative law judge ruled was outside the legal purview of the agency.
Anticipating a net $1 billion annual loss in economic benefits to SLO County, state representatives Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel) and Assemblymember Jordan Cunningham (R-San Luis Obispo) told New Times they are “reviewing all options” for possible legislation that could keep the impact mitigation funds alive.
Monning said preserving the settlement is “a No. 1 priority” and added that he’d “work closely” with Cunningham to “investigate options” and build political support for the issue in Sacramento.
“We’ll be studying and analyzing the CPUC’s decision and then engaging with people here with expertise in the capital,” Monning said. “One of my objectives is to pick a path that has the highest likelihood of winning not just the support of the people of SLO who I represent, but the support of at least a majority of both houses of the Legislature and the governor.”
The state deadline for introducing bills in the upcoming legislative session is Feb. 16, and one apparent legislative route is to direct the CPUC to approve PG&E ratepayer funding for the settlement. Neither Monning nor Cunningham commented on the specifics of that option or other possible solutions.
Cunningham called the CPUC’s decision “disappointing” in a written statement and said a legislative fix “may be necessary.”
As part of the broader shutdown plan, the CPUC approved $211 million in ratepayer funds for an employee retention program—$141 million less than what the company asked for—to offer Diablo workers 15 percent bonuses to stay at the plant while it shutters.
The commission denied PG&E’s request for additional funding to invest in replacement energy procurement, which it said would be done through a statewide planning process to meet renewable energy goals. Commissioners pledged that the process would prevent spikes in greenhouse gas emissions once Diablo Canyon goes out of operation.
This article appears in Jan 18-28, 2018.
No problem. The haters like New Times, SLO Tribune, Mothers for Peace, Santa Lucia Sierra Club, and Cal Poly Staff can pony up the $85M. After all, it was their activism that forced the political closure.
Steven Zawalick , the accusatory letter writer, seems to have missed an important fact: PG&E initiated the closing procedure because they deemed the plant a financial liability not worthy of investing more money in. Nobody forced PG&E to make that monumental business decision.
Ignorance about facts is not a crime, but when ignorance is the foundation of mean-spirited, emotional attacks on others it does border on criminal.
Wanting to safeguard our community and share relevant facts does not make one a hater. Sorry, dude. You now owe a lot of fine, good-hearted and caring people an apology Steven.
Current news on the closure of Diablo Canyon has focused on the financial impacts of dollar loss to the community, and the shut down costs to ratepayers. What is not mentioned are the enormous costs yet to come with the ultimate decommissioning and storage of nuclear waste.
Decommissioning of the tiny 63MW reactor at Humboldt Bay is very close to completion. Shut down in 1976, tens of millions of dollars were spent each year maintaining the fuel and facility until 2008, when actual dismantlement began. The original $95 million cost estimate jumped to over $1 billion. This money created more than 500 high-paying skilled jobs, which benefited the local community. An estimated $10+ million of rate-payer money will continue to be spent each year maintaining the spent fuel stored in casks on site.
Diablos decommissioning costs estimates are currently around $4 billionthis from an industry with a dismal track record of estimates. Ratepayers have, and will continue to pay into a fund over the next 10, 20, 40? years to cover the dismantlement of those twin reactors. After that, the generations to come will continue to pay the unknown costs of long-term nuclear waste storage and management.
A two-year old Diablo Canyon nuclear waste stainless steel canister has all the conditions for cracking and PG&E has no plan in place to deal with cracking or leaking canisters. The NRC said once cracks start, they will grow through the wall in about 16 years. PG&E continues to use these thin-wall (1/2″ thick) canisters, each filled with about a Chernobyl disaster’s worth of lethal radionuclides (Cesium-137).
The rest of the world uses proven thick wall metal casks (10″ to 19.75″ thick) that don’t crack and can be inspected (inside and out), that can be maintained,repaired and monitored to PREVENT leaks. The NRC refuses to require those basic safety requirements that we expect in a car.
The legislature at both the state and federal level should consider these issues before allowing any more ratepayer money to be spent on thin-wall dry storage containers.
The CPUC, CEC, Coastal Commission, and NRC are aware of these problems, but refuse to address them. PG&E and Southern California Edison cannot be trusted to protect our safety or financial future. The state legislature should call an emergency session to address this. They should base decisions on evidence and not unsubstantiated statements from nuclear industry supporters or even independent “experts”. See evidence at SanOnofreSafety.org
Time is of the essence. California Chernobyl cans have been loading since 2001 at Rancho Seco, since 2003 at San Onofre, and 2006 at Diablo Canyon. See DOE inventory report of U.S. spent nuclear fuel dry storage, with dates first loaded, at SanOnofreSafety.org.