Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Milestone: Pro-nuclear group earns intervenor status in Diablo Canyon proceedings

By

A real milestone in pro nuclear advocacy has been reached. For the first time in a long time, perhaps the first time ever, a group of citizens who strong support the continued operation of a nuclear power plant has become an intervenor {with the right to claim compensation for costs] in the legal proceedings that will determine the fate of a particular plant.

Peter Allen, a California Public Utilities Commission Administrative Law Judge, has issued a landmark ruling that grants Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) official status as a public interest intervenor in PUC proceedings related to Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E) effort to close Diable Canyon as soon as it has been fully depreciated.

This ruling declares that CGNP has provided satisfactory evidence to the judge that it is a group organized for the purposes of representing residential and small business commercial electricity customers. It also declares that CGNP has provided evidence that individual members of the group will receive individual benefits that are dwarfed by the costs associated with competently participating in the PUC’s legal proceedings.

The combination of those two rulings make CGNP eligible to file claims for compensation for reasonable costs – lawyer fees, direct travel, etc. – associated with the Diablo Canyon closure rate cases.

IT IS RULED that Californians for Green Nuclear Power has satisfied the eligibility requirements of § 1804(a). Californians for Green Nuclear Power has made a preliminary showing of significant financial hardship subject to providing additional information in a claim filed pursuant to §1804(c). Californians for Green Nuclear Power is preliminarily determined to be eligible for intervenor compensation in this proceeding. However, a finding of significant financial hardship in no way ensures compensation.
Dated April 5, 2017, at San Francisco, California.
Signed: Peter V. Allen, Administrative Law Judge

Gene Nelson, the Central Coast Government Liasion for CGNP provided the following statement upon receipt of the ruling.

Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP) received this emailed notice from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) earlier today. CGNP is pleased that the CPUC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued this affirmative ruling for the benefit of California ratepayers and for the environment. CGNP anticipates active participation in the upcoming CPUC oral evidentiary hearings (Cross-Examination) which starts on 19 April 2017.

CGNP should be congratulated for its tenacity in working through a process that is not particularly friendly. It was created by lawyers, possibly with the intent of making it difficult for inexperienced citizen groups with members who are mostly technical experts, academics and former public servants without much legal training. The initial documents supporting the final decision were filed nine months ago, in August 2016.

As my Navy buddies might say, Bravo Zulu, CGNP. Keep pressing forward!

Reader Interactions

Comments

  2. I remain confused. Anti-nuclear NGOs routinely get intervenor status, in their relentless legal actions to harass and/or close nuclear plants. The argument apparently being that they represent “the people”, and their aim is to protect them from those horrible nuclear risks. They therefore have “standing”.

    Isn’t it equally obvious that the *closure* of a nuclear plant would similarly represent a threat to the public, due to the fact that it will largely be replaced by (fossil) sources that are orders of magnitude more dangerous and harmful? Is this, i.e., the notion that nuclear actually has environmental *benefits* and that its closure might inflict environmental harm, something that judges are now only beginning to understand? Pretty sad.

    • @JamesEHopf

      Why are you confused? Yes, antinuclear NGOs have a long history of obtaining intervenor status and being compensated for expenses. This post celebrates the success of a pro-nuclear group that worked through the hurdles and the traditional legal biases to obtain the same status and the same right to compensation as a group that is opposed to nuclear energy.

      Sure, they had to file paperwork and prove that they met the requirements. Now that they know how and have proven their qualifications, they can continue the good fight to save Diablo Canyon even in the face of concerted opposition.

      • I’m confused (or perhaps, disappointed) that this is our side’s first example, whereas it’s routine for the other side.

        Is it bias in the system against our side, or is it a relative lack of effort on our side. I suspect both.

      • @JamesEHopf

        I can understand disappointment more than confusion, but that reaction is, to me, a little like being disappointed with a toddler’s first steps. After all, so many others are already running.

        We must celebrate advances, especially advances that help show the way for others. Though the intervenor process is slanted and biases, it doesn’t completely exclude us from qualifying.

        CGNP’s experience does illuminate a fundamental flaw in the process – after all, they were able to meet the qualifying hurdles because they are representing a group that is resisting the decisions and plans of a large corporation rather than supporting them.

  3. I am very glad to hear this news. The threatened early closure of Nuclear power plants in the North America and Europe is very disturbing. The science and the economics are clear. Without the use of Nuclear power Humanity can not control the by-products of it’s relentless and ever increasing demand for energy.
    This is a part of the story of the long fight back.

  4. For the sake of completeness, would you please state what, if any, other pro-nuclear groups have in the past sought and received intervenor status in cases similar to these PUC proceedings related to Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E) effort to close Diablo Canyon?
    If the US is anything like Canada, then I would have expected groups such as NEI, WiN, NAYGN and various employee unions, to have done so on numerous occasions.
    Have they?
    If not, why not?

  5. Hopefully, the judge will also rule, as requested by CGNP, that PG&E comply with the Coastal Act, CEQA and adopted Local Coastal Plans, fully disclose all adverse impacts at local public hearings, and secure the mandated Coastal Development Permit from the County, before the CPUC takes an unauthorized action to effectively “change the existing development.”