California’s last nuclear power plant faces renewed scrutiny as it gains latest permit

California’s last nuclear power plant overcame a regulatory hurdle on Thursday when the California Coastal Commission voted to approve keeping the plant open for at least five years.

It was one of the final obstacles the controversial Diablo Canyon Power Plant had to clear to continue operating amid renewed opposition. The decision was conditioned on a plan that would require Pacific Gas & Electric, which owns the plant, to conserve about 4,000 acres of land on its property. That would prevent it from ever being developed for commercial or residential use.

The plant, located along the San Luis Obispo shoreline, now awaits federal approval for a 20-year relicensing permit.

“I don’t think, unfortunately, that anything will be happening to Diablo Canyon soon,” due to the growing energy demands of artificial intelligence, Commissioner Jaime Lee said before voting to approve the permit. Nine of the 12 voting members approved the plan.

Keep up with LAist.

If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.

Subscribe

The deliberations reignited decades-old concerns about the dangers of nuclear power and its place in the state’s portfolio of renewable energy sources. Diablo Canyon is the state’s single-largest energy source, providing nearly 10% of all California electricity.

Defeated in their earlier attempts to shut the plant, critics of Diablo Canyon used months of Coastal Commission hearings as one of their last opportunities to vocalize their disdain for the facility. Some Democratic lawmakers supported the plant but pushed for PG&E to find more ways to protect the environment.

Sen. John Laird, Democrat of San Luis Obispo County and former secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, said on Thursday he approved of the new plan but pushed the commission to require the utility to conserve even more of its total 12,000 surrounding acres.

“If what comes out of this is the path for preservation for 8,000 acres of land, that is a remarkable victory,” Laird said.

Democratic Assemblymember Dawn Addis, whose district encompasses the plant, had also urged the commission in a letter to approve a permit “once it contains strong mitigation measures that reflect the values and needs of the surrounding tribal and local communities who depend on our coastal regions for environmental health, biodiversity and economic vitality.”

A long history of controversy

Founded in 1985, the plant’s striking concrete domes sit along the Pacific coast 200 miles north of Los Angeles. The facility draws in 2 million gallons of water from the ocean every day to cool its systems

And it has remained shrouded in controversy since its construction 40 years ago. Environmentalists point to the damage it causes to marine life, killing what the Coastal Commission estimates are 2 billion larval fish a year.

The commissioners on Thursday were not deciding whether to allow the plant to stay open but were weighing how best to lessen the environmental impacts of its operation. A 2022 state law forced the plant to stay open for five more years past its planned 2025 closure date, which could have led to significant political blowback against the Coastal Commission if it had rejected the permit.

Gov. Gavin Newsom reversed a 2016 agreement made between environmental groups and worker unions to close the plant after the state faced a series of climate disasters that spurred energy blackouts. Popular sentiment toward nuclear energy has also continued to grow more supportive as states across the country consider revitalizing dormant and aging nuclear plants to fulfill ever-increasing energy demand needs.

The 2022 law authorized a $1.4 billion loan to be paid back with federal loans or profits.

Groups such as the Environmental Defense Center and Mothers for Peace opposed the permit outright, citing concerns about radioactive waste, which can persist for centuries, and its cost to taxpayers.

“We maintain that any extension of Diablo is unnecessary,” and that its continued operations could slow the development of solar and wind energy, Jeremy Frankel, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Center told the commission Thursday.

The California Public Utilities Commission last year approved $723 million in ratepayer funds toward Diablo Canyon’s operating costs this year. It was the first time rate hikes were spread to ratepayers of other utilities such as Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric and was authorized by lawmakers because the plant provides energy to the entire state.

How the plant will be funded has also garnered scrutiny in the years since Newsom worked to keep it open. Last year, the Legislature nearly canceled a $400 million loan to help finance it.

As much as $588 million is unlikely to come back due to insufficient federal funding and projected profits, CalMatters has reported.

Proponents of the plant pointed to its reliability, carbon-free pollution and the thousands of jobs it has created.

Business advocacy groups emphasized their support for the plant as boosting the economy.

“It is an economic lifeline that helps keep our communities strong and competitive,” Dora Westerlund, president of the Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation, said at a November meeting.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.