|
|
| Fig. 1: The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant overlooks the Pacific Ocean off the coast of San Luis Obispo County, California. (Source: Wikimedia Commons) |
California, a state generally proud to consider itself a leader in sustainability and alternative energy, will lose its sole nuclear power generation facility. [1] The Diablo Canyon plant in San Luis Obispo County (Fig. 1) delivers about 18,000 gigawatt-hours of power to some 1.7 million homes each year, supplying about 9% of California's energy budget. State regulators with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) voted January of this year to begin closure of the plant in 2024. [2]
Many environmental groups are hailing the decision. [2] Some residents of San Luis Obispo County are in fact concerned that 2024 might be too far away. In late January of this year, PG&E filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in response to anticipated liabilities for California's 2018 and 2019 wildfires totaling tens of billions of dollars. [3] The communities in and surrounding Diablo Canyon have voiced concerns that with other priorities on its plate, PG&E might not be able to devote sufficient care to the safety of the plant through to its closure. [4]
Proponents of green nuclear energy warn that closing the Diablo Canyon facility would increase California's carbon emissions. The shutdown of Vermont's sole nuclear power plant at the end of 2014 led to an five percent increase in the state's per capita emissions (at the same time that emissions averaged across the United States fell seventeen percent), even as the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ranked Vermont in the top five for efforts to increase sustainable energy usage. [5]
The question remains about the nature of the energy sources which will replace the electricity produced by the plant. Proponents of nuclear power have expressed concerns that California will have to increase its use of fossil fuels. Californians for Green Nuclear Power has been vocal in its assessment that CPUC is neglecting ratepayers and the environment. The commissioner of CPUC has insisted that their greenhouse gas reduction goals remain on target. [2]
Parties including PG&E have also shown concern for the loss in local tax dollars which would come with the facility's closure and advocated for compensation to these communities. CPUC, while acknowledging the plant's economic significance to the local area, has deferred responsibility for any matters involving tax dollars to the State Legislature. [2] Meanwhile, PG&E ratepayers have expressed discontent that the company will have to collect $1.6 billion dollars from its ratepayers in order to pay for the decommissioning process. [4]
© Jenny Vo-Phamhi. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] J. Cart, "California's Energy Grid Is in Crisis. Can the State Keep the Lights On?" The Sacramento Bee, 16 Jan 19.
[2] R. Nikolewski, "Regulators Vote to Shut Down Diablo Canyon, California's Last Nuclear Power Plant," Los Angeles Times, 11 Jan 18.
[3] Z. Wichter, "California's Largest Utility Says It Is Bankrupt. Heres What You Need to Know," New York Times, 29 Jan 19.
[4] B. Monning, "Safety of Diablo Canyon a Top Concern During PG&E Bankruptcy, Says State Sen. Monning," San Luis Obispo Tribune, 31 Jan 19.
[5] M. Shellenberger, "Green New Deal Excludes Nuclear And Would Thus Increase Emissions - Just Like It Did In Vermont," Forbes, 7 Feb 19.
