Can an academic study breathe new life into Diablo Canyon? Don’t count on it

California is racing to meet its clean energy goals — but at the same time a major source of emission-free power is preparing to shut down?

That may seem counter-intuitive — a CNBC journalist described it as a “puzzling decision” — yet it was a business decision made five years ago by PG&E, the owner of California’s last operating nuclear power plant.

Even so, some are unable to give up the idea that closing the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, located in San Luis Obispo County, is a huge mistake and can be reversed.

A team of MIT and Stanford researchers are the latest to question the decision.

In a newly released study, they point out that emission-free nuclear power from Diablo would help California get over the hump while the state develops more renewable energy sources and battery storage capacity.

Who would operate it?

But that study glosses over an important point: No one has offered to run the plant after PG&E bows out.

The 114-page study devotes just one and a half pages to the question of who would operate the plant. PG&E is the “logical candidate,” it says, but the company “faces other daunting challenges that will command management time and attention.”

It suggests other possibilities:

• Sell it to another company, “presumably one with extensive nuclear operating experience.”
• Sell to a nonprofit “authority” that would hire contractors to operate the plant.
• Sell or transfer it to a joint powers authority.
• Sell or transfer it to a nonprofit, customer-owned cooperative.

Locals familiar with the situation are skeptical.

“I’ve been on the Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel for over three years now, and there have been repeated questions about the continued operation of Diablo Canyon,” said Kara Woodruff, a veteran of the San Luis Obispo County environmental movement. “And yet, during that time, not a single utility or other entity has stepped forward with any indications of interest in stepping into PG&E’s shoes and operating Diablo Canyon. Maybe that utility is out there. I’ve just never heard from them.”

Even if there were interested buyers, there are other hurdles — including resistance from members of the public concerned about the plant’s seismic safety and the lack of a permanent site to dispose of spent nuclear fuel.

Also, the successful buyer would have to apply to renew the plant’s operating license and deal with the issue of replacing Diablo’s once-through cooling system — it dumps heated seawater back into the ocean — with something more environmentally benign.

Perhaps those requirements could be relaxed to allow the plant to continue to operate for a limited number of years, but at what risk?

A lost cause?

There was a grassroots effort to keep Diablo open several years ago, prior to the 2016 announcement of PG&E’s decision to shutter the twin-reactor plant. Since then, the campaign dwindled but never died.

The MIT-Stanford report has raised some hopes — some say false hopes — that it’s not over yet.

The effort recently got a boost from San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg, a Democrat who co-authored an op-ed with Republican Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham, also from SLO County.

“The last thing we should do is rush to shut down California’s largest single source of clean energy,” they wrote in a commentary for CalMatters.

Ortiz-Legg took a more nuanced tone with The Tribune Editorial Board.

“I just want to make sure our community considers the report’s new information so they are fully aware of their choices,” she wrote in an email. “It’s difficult for me to believe that in face of climate change, reasonable people won’t be willing to review the report and possibly re-think their previous positions. Time is running out.”

While the op-ed claims there is growing bipartisan support for keeping the plant operating past 2025, Ortiz-Legg was aware of only one other Democratic leader, former Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, who supports the idea.

“We are putting ourselves out there to ask the question of others who may not realize this new potential for the state of California,” she wrote.

Green energy hub

Except, keeping Diablo open is not a new concept.

Nor is operating or even expanding the desalination plant at the site, which is another idea advanced in the MIT-Stanford study. That’s been considered by SLO County leaders, though no concrete proposal has emerged.

There has, however, been talk of developing the Diablo property as a hub for green energy and research. Several organizations, including Cal Poly, have gotten behind that.

The MIT-Stanford study, while well-intentioned, comes way too late. The decision to close the plant has been made, and preparations for the plant’s shut-down and decommissioning — including appointment of a decommissioning panel and development of proposals for reuse of the property — have begun.

Researchers would have been better off looking to the future rather than trying to keep an older plant going against such great odds.

Diablo Canyon is not the answer. In fact, we’re in big trouble if we’re looking to an aging nuclear plant located in an earthquake zone to rescue us.

California has ambitious clean energy goals. If it can’t meet them on time, that won’t be on account of the “premature” closure of Diablo Canyon. Rather, it will be due to a lack of urgency in bringing renewables online and in developing new technologies.

Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant served California well, but it’s time to face reality and look to the future, rather than continuing to debate an issue decided years ago.

Information on the decommissioning process has been added to this editorial.

This story was originally published November 18, 2021 at 5:30 AM with the headline "Can an academic study breathe new life into Diablo Canyon? Don’t count on it."