1. 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.

    1. @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.

      1. 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.

        1. @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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.”

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts