Power company reassesses plan
Nuke plant renewal uncertain
LOS ANGELES — Six years ago, the company that owns California’s last operating nuclear power plant announced it would seek an extended lifespan for its aging reactors. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. envisioned Diablo Canyon as a linchpin in the state’s green-energy future, with its low-carbon electricity illuminating homes to nearly midcentury.
Now, with a changed nuclear power landscape, the company is evaluating whether to meet a tangle of potentially costly state environmental requirements needed to obtain renewed operating licenses.
If it doesn’t move forward, California’s nuclear power age will end.
That prospect is considered remarkable because it was once predicted that meeting California’s growing energy needs would require a nuclear power plant every 50 miles along its coast. But vast fields of solar panels and wind turbines and developments in power storage speak to changed times.
“We are not talking about either go dark or go nuclear. There are clearly now so many alternatives,” said former California Environmental Secretary Terry Tamminen, a green-energy advocate who served under Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The issues in play at Diablo Canyon include a long-running debate over the ability of structures to withstand earthquakes — one fault runs 650 yards from the reactors — and the possibility Pacific Gas might be ordered by state regulators to spend billions to modify or replace the plant’s cooling system, which sucks up 2.5 billion gallons of ocean water a day and has been blamed for killing fish and other marine life.
“We continue to evaluate feedback on the seismic research and steps needed to obtain state approvals,” Pacific Gas spokesman Blair Jones said.
When Pacific Gas announced its intention to keep the plant running an additional 20 years, to 2044 for the Unit 1 reactor and 2045 for Unit 2, company officials said it would help slash greenhouse gas emissions while contributing to the economic health of California, which has been setting ever-higher ambitions for using solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.
Without new operating licenses, the plant can’t run past 2025. Renewing a nuclear power license is a lengthy proposition, so even with years to go, it’s fast becoming a late hour.
The uncertainty around Pacific Gas’ 3-decade-old plant comes at a challenging time for the company and the U.S. nuclear industry, once thought on the verge of a renaissance.
In April, Pacific Gas was hit with a record $1.6 billion penalty for a 2010 gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people and destroyed about three dozen homes near San Francisco. The explosion led to state and federal investigations into alleged back-channel dealings between Pacific Gas executives and a top state regulator and to suggestions that the state’s largest utility should be broken up to improve safety.
Meanwhile, the construction of new nuclear plants in the South has come with costly delays, while proposals for others around the U.S. have been scratched.
An abundance of inexpensive natural gas has owners of older nuclear plants wondering if the money needed to keep them on line will pay off. Those plants — typically decades old — can make cheap power but face expensive repairs and maintenance from age. That can turn the balance sheet upside-down.
For years, environmentalists have pressed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to close Diablo, given its proximity to faults in a seismically active state. If the plant shut down, it would be a blow to the local economy — it’s a major employer in its home county — but state energy experts said it would not pose long-term problems for California’s power supply, though they’ve recommended more study.
California banned nuclear plant construction until the nation finds a permanent disposal site for the plants’ radioactive waste.
For Pacific Gas to receive extended licenses from the federal government, California regulators must determine a renewal is consistent with state environmental laws. A key player in that review is the California Coastal Commission, which said the company’s 2009 application is incomplete.