There’s a new push to keep Diablo Canyon open. Here are 5 things you need to know
Researchers with Stanford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently released a study detailing reasons why California should keep its last remaining nuclear power plant open past its expected closure date in 2025.
But stakeholders said it would be nearly impossible for Diablo Canyon Power Plant to not close at this point.
Meanwhile, two San Luis Obispo County lawmakers wrote a CalMatters opinion piece saying they planned to push to keep the plant open.
So what will happen?
Here are five key takeaways from the study, and responses from San Luis Obispo County leaders.
For a more in-depth look, as well as links to the study itself, check out our story here, which is exclusive to subscribers.
1. Why talk about keeping Diablo Canyon open now?
Though some may wonder about the timing of the Stanford study — we’re just about three years shy of the first of Diablo Canyon’s two nuclear reactors going offline — it comes as California’s energy grid faces serious challenges.
Rolling blackouts plagued the state in 2020, with thousands without power in the middle of a record-breaking heat wave.
State regulators at the time said the problem was due to excessive demand that outpaced power supplies, though some critics claimed it pointed to problems with California’s clean energy resources, notably solar power.
Meanwhile, the wildfires sweeping the state have led to more concerns about electricity and energy sources.
“Things have changed,” said Jacobo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT. Buongiorno was one of several authors of the Diablo Canyon study, which was released Nov. 8.
“We know very well the climate around nuclear in California is highly controversial,” he said. “We want to start a debate.”
2. What are benefits of keeping power plant open?
According to the study, the benefits of keeping Diablo Canyon open even just 10 years past its closure date in 2025 include
- A 10% annual reduction of California’s power sector carbon emission;
- A reduction in the state’s reliance on natural gas;
- The potential for new clean energy sources such as hydrogen fuel production;
- A source of desalinated water in a time of drought, and
- Helping the state avoid more rolling power outages such as the ones that hit in 2020.
Additionally, the power plant would save ratepayers a total of $2.6 billion if kept open another 10 years, and an estimated $21 billion if kept open 20 additional years, researchers said.
3. What does PG&E say?
Despite the report’s findings, PG&E says it has not changed its mind on closing Diablo Canyon.
PG&E spokeswoman Suzanne Hosn told The Tribune the utility company is aware of the study, but that the results “will not cause PG&E to reconsider its position on the future of Diablo Canyon.”
“PG&E is committed to California’s clean energy future, and as a regulated utility, we are required to follow the energy policies of the state,” she said. “The state has made clear its position on nuclear energy, and the plan to retire Diablo Canyon Power Plant has been approved by the California Public Utilities Commission and the state Legislature.”
4. What do other stakeholders say?
Most experts and stakeholders contacted by The Tribune in the wake of the report’s release say such an abrupt about-face this late in the game — the plant is scheduled to be decommissioned beginning in 2024 — is nearly impossible.
“The study appears to be a perfect example of academic pronouncements from an ivory tower, completely divorced from the on-the-ground reality of the situation,” said David Weisman, legislative director for the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
Terrie Prosper, the director of the California Public Utilities Commission’s news and outreach department, said if PG&E were to change its mind about keeping the plant open, it would be a costly about-face.
She said the utility would need to seek a license renewal from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and would like have to make considerable seismic upgrades to the plant, which would likely cost more than $1 billion.
5. SLO County lawmakers are pushing to keep plant open
Though PG&E has said it is not interested in switching course, at least two San Luis Obispo County lawmakers have said they would like to talk more about keeping Diablo Canyon open.
Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham (R-San Luis Obispo) urged state leaders to look more closely at the issue.
In 2019, he pushed for an amendment to California policy that would classify nuclear power as a renewable energy source and could have potentially helped position Diablo Canyon to remain open.
“This study, conducted by environmental and engineering experts at Stanford and MIT, solidifies what we have all been saying: closing Diablo Canyon would be bad for the climate, bad for ratepayers, and bad for 1,200 Central Coast families who rely on the plant for head-of-household jobs,” Cunningham told The Tribune.
San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg, whose district includes Diablo Canyon, said she wanted to have more conversations about keeping the plant open, given the region’s history as an energy-producing county.
“We have to take a real solid look at what this forecasted and what they’re saying about the need to really take a second look at Diablo Canyon and the potential,” she said. “I‘m open to the conversation with the community.”
Ultimately, Ortiz-Legg said that most of this would be out of local hands.
“The California Public Utilities Commission holds the keys to the kingdom, so to speak,” she said. “So we can all review and assess what this report says, but the ultimate authority comes from at a higher level.”
What do you think? Vote in our poll below. Note: If you can’t see the poll, turn off your ad-blocker.
This story was originally published November 16, 2021 at 12:16 PM.
%20Cropped.jpg)