Diablo Canyon’s License Renewal Is Essential for California’s Clean Energy Future
Diablo Canyon’s Environmental Impact Is Small, But There Is More to the Story

-
-
Share
-
Share via Twitter -
Share via Facebook -
Share via Email
-
Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) is the last remaining nuclear facility in California, providing 9% of the electricity and 17% of the zero-carbon energy for the state. DCPP provides firm, baseload power that is essential for grid stability. As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considers renewing DCPP’s operating licenses, the Breakthrough Institute submitted a comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The SEIS correctly concluded that the environmental impact of DCPP is small and recommended that “preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.” Breakthrough agrees with the overall conclusion and recommendation in the SEIS.
However, BTI believes the SEIS overlooks what would happen if DCPP were to close. In the SEIS, there are proposed alternatives—options for replacing DCPP’s power, and no-action alternatives—not replacing closed DCPP with other energy sources, that are not thoroughly examined, and some are simply not realistic. Shutting down DCPP would incentivize more natural gas or other fossil fuel-powered electricity generation overall, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and undermining the state’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. The SEIS does not fully account for these impacts of closing DCPP.
It is imperative for the NRC to consider the negative environmental impacts of alternative energy resources and the consequence of making DCPP no longer operational. Accurately accounting for the negative impact of shutting down nuclear plants without a clear energy production alternative is not only required by the National Environmental Policy Act, but also a key step to improving how the NRC produces environmental reviews in line with directives in the ADVANCE Act.
You can read the full text of our comment below: