An administrative law judge for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Wednesday recommended approval of Pacific Gas & Electric’s application to close the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant by 2025.
The utility last year announced a joint proposal with labor and environmental organizations to shut down Diablo Canyon reactor Unit 1 in 2024 and Unit 2 in 2025. It would replace the San Luis Obispo County facility, the last operating nuclear power plant in California, with other forms of greenhouse gas-free energy.
In a 53-page proposed decision, CPUC Administrative Law Judge Peter Allen said the PG&E plan “is reasonable, and should be approved.” The full commission would rule on the recommendation, no earlier than its Dec. 14 business meeting.
Allen recommended against approval of much of PG&E’s request for recovery from ratepayers of more than $1.76 billion in plant closure costs, including $1.3 billion for energy efficient acquisitions to replace Diablo Canyon’s power output, $363.4 million for worker retention and retraining, and $85 million for a community impacts mitigation program.
PG&E had proposed three “tranches” of replacement energy production, but withdrew two during the review process in the face of opposition from parties ranging from Shell to the Sierra Club. That left Tranche 1: 2,000 gross gigawatt hours of energy efficiency.
The California Office of Ratepayer Advocates and other parties remained critical of Tranche 1, questioning its cost effectiveness and necessity. “There is no reason to approve a $1.3 billion rate increase for a proposal that will most likely either fail to achieve its goal or will achieve a goal not worth reaching,” Allen wrote. “Accordingly, PG&E’s Tranche 1 proposal is not adopted.”
The administrative law judge also rejected the $85 million for community impacts mitigation and recommended cutting the amount for worker retention and retraining from $363.4 million to $171.8 million.
“While the proposed decision preserves several elements of the joint proposal, it differs in regards to certain key areas, including the employee, community and energy replacement programs,” PG&E said in a prepared statement. “PG&E strongly disagrees with these proposed adjustments. All of these programs support the key focus of the joint proposal, which is having DCPP serve as a reliable and affordable clean energy bridge to 2025 while other greenhouse gas-free replacement resources are developed to replace the output we need to meet customer demand.”
