Here’s what PG&E wants you to pay to keep Diablo Canyon open. Is it worth it? | Opinion
PG&E has filed for yet another rate increase, this time to pay for the continued operation of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo.
Starting in 2025, the average PG&E customer will pay an additional $2.07 per month if the California Public Utilities Commission grants the request.
That may sound like a drop in the bucket — after all, the average PG&E bill for electricity is over $200 per month — but many Californians have already reached their spending limit, so much so that Gov. Gavin Newsom is working on a plan to lower utility bills.
It’s not just PG&E ratepayers who will be stuck with higher bills on account of Diablo Canyon.
Under state legislation that extended plant operations for five years — until 2030 — customers of other utility companies also are on the hook. For Southern California Edison ratepayers, that works out to an additional $1.25 per month, and for San Diego Gas and Electric customers, it’s 87 cents.
And that’s just for 2025.
Escalating estimates
PG&E hasn’t said what rate increases may be needed in later years, but consumer watchdog organizations warn that it could be even more, based on estimates of what it will cost to keep the plant running five more years.
PG&E’s estimate started at $5.2 billion in May 2023, then jumped to $8.1 billion just a couple of months later. The company’s most recent estimate is $8.3 billion.
That’s too low, according to organizations that worked out their own calculations.
The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, a nonprofit founded in San Luis Obispo County where the plant is located, estimates it will cost $9.8 billion. (It revised an earlier estimate of $11.8 billion.)
In a rate protest sent to the CPUC, the Alliance accused PG&E of “gross negligence or recklessness, if not willful misrepresentation” for underestimating costs.
PG&E denies that. In a written response to the CPUC, it says its earliest estimate excluded several costs, which it made clear at the time the figures were provided.
Organizations protesting the rate increase also object to the timing of a decision.
PG&E wants the CPUC to make a decision by Dec. 5, so that rate increases can take effect in early 2025.
Opponents say that’s not enough time, given the lengthy process that includes testimony, rebuttal testimony, the possibility of evidentiary hearings, prepared testimony and responses, a proposed decision, comments on the proposed decision, replies to the comments and, at last, a final decision.
Does California need nuclear power?
The bigger issue, though, is whether Diablo Canyon’s 2,200 megawatts of nuclear energy are still needed.
The five-year extension, which was supported by both the governor and the Legislature, was intended to be a bridge that would keep the lights on until clean energy sources ramped up.
Some anti-nuclear activists and consumer groups say that’s already happened; over the past few years, several new wind, solar and battery storage projects have come online.
Battery storage, for instance, has increased from 500 megawatts in 2018 to more than 10,300 megawatts, with an additional 3,800 megawatts expected to come online by the end of 2024, according to the California Energy Commission.
Gov. Newsom celebrated that achievement in April at a battery storage facility in Yolo County.
“This is our biggest power source in California — significantly bigger than the last remaining nuclear plant in the state of California,” Newsom said, according to an April 25 article in The Hill.
The governor went on to warn that blackouts are not “part of our past,” however, and some energy experts point out that there will be more pressure on the grid as Californians transition to electric vehicles and all-electric buildings.
Ratepayers deserve answers
Still, some consumer advocacy groups are calling on legislators like state Sen. John Laird, who represents the Central Coast, to reexamine whether there really is a need to keep Diablo Canyon open past 2025.
Laird, a Democrat, was closely involved in the effort to extend the plant’s operating life.
“The question of whether Diablo Canyon Power Plant should continue to operate until 2030 is a momentous question, which leads to two additional momentous questions: First, is Diablo’s energy really necessary to ensure California’s grid reliability, in light of all the new renewable energy projects online? Second, is this a wise move for ratepayers?” he said in a Wednesday email to McClatchy editorial boards.
“In answer to the first question, I have to defer to the experts: the California Energy Commission (CEC). Right now, CEC is telling us that Diablo’s energy is needed until 2030 — but if that position changes, so will mine.
“In answer to the second question, I request that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) consider this very carefully. CPUC is charged with ensuring reliable utility services at ‘reasonable rates.’ Can Diablo’s energy be delivered at reasonable cost to the already stressed California ratepayers? If not, we need to rethink the plant’s immediate future.”
Are you listening, CPUC?
Ratepayers deserve to know what it will cost to keep Diablo Canyon operating — and how much their rates are likely to increase over the extended life of the plant — as well as whether there is already enough replacement energy online to make up for the loss of nuclear power.
Paying to keep Diablo Canyon running will be less painful if ratepayers are convinced that the lights won’t stay on without it.
If that’s not the case, then it is, as Sen. Laird says, time to rethink the plant’s immediate future.
This editorial represents the views of the editorial boards at The Sacramento Bee, Fresno Bee, Modesto Bee, Merced Sun-Star and The Tribune in San Luis Obispo.
This story was originally published August 7, 2024 at 1:37 PM with the headline "Here’s what PG&E wants you to pay to keep Diablo Canyon open. Is it worth it? | Opinion."