The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) intends to gamble your money on a utility study that will have little, if any, relevance to energy supplies, rates and reliability 15 years from now.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. ratepayers will be charged $16.8 million for the study, which will examine the feasibility of renewing its operating permit for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. Though Diablo’s license does not expire until 2025, the utility is determined to start the process now.

It should be clear to all that a license renewal study completed in 2009 will be irrelevant to circumstances in 2025 and is a waste of ratepayers’ money. The staff of the California Energy Commission (CEC), TURN, Sierra Club and the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility all asserted that a license renewal study was premature. Senate and Assembly Committee Chairs and Assemblyman Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, have asked the CPUC not to permit funding of PG&E’s study until the CEC has completed its own analysis of the economic impacts on replacement of or continued reliance on nuclear plants. This study, mandated by the Legislature, is a full cost/benefit and risk analysis of the economic impacts to our state from continued reliance on aging nuclear plants. It will begin in July.

The Energy Commission’s analysis includes future cost and availability of uranium fuel, impacts on coastal marine life from the millions of gallons of heated water flushing from Diablo and San Onofre every day, the cost of replacing aging components and storing increasing stockpiles of high-level radioactive waste, and — if it ever leaves — how it will safely be transported on California’s road and rail systems.

When the analysis is complete, California will be prepared to plan and implement an energy policy that will ensure that our state will have adequate, safe, cost-effective, independent electricity generation. It is not in ratepayers’ interest to be forced to pay $16.8 million for a study of a nuclear plant’s license renewal until the state’s analysis is complete.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission "rubber-stamps" renewal applications in under 18 months and is expediting this process. The NRC looks at equipment and operations — not increased risks, aging workforces, or increasing stockpiles of radioactive waste accumulating on seismically active coasts. Once an application for renewal is filed, states have virtually no input, and cannot question economic ramifications or participate at a meaningful level.

PG&E’s ads stress a commitment to a renewable energy future. Yet PG&E will spend public dollars to keep old nuclear reactors running, resulting in 20 more years of production and storage of high-level radioactive waste. The state, not the utility, can say if this is in the best interest of ratepayers, consumers and California’s economy.

If you agree, print this Viewpoint and send to the CPUC, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102, or call 415-703-2782. If you don’t agree, print this Viewpoint and disagree. It is your money and you should have a say in the process that has been set up to protect California ratepayers.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispotribune/news/editorial/letters/16875022.htm

Rochelle Becker is executive director of Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.