Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) is hosting its 3rd annual rally in support of the continued safe operation of PG&E’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) a week from today on Friday, March 17, 2017 (St. Patrick’s Day).
The event starts at 11:00 AM and is schedule to conclude at 1:00 PM.
Participants are asked to gather at the plaza in front of the San Luis Obispo County Building at 1055 Monterey.
Please come to support GREEN nuclear power wearing your green!
DCPP produces 5 times the yearly output of Hoover Dam. Its traditional product is about 17-18 billion kilowatt-hours of affordable, reliable, emission-free electrical power for California residents. It has the ability to also produce a reliable supply of fresh water that can help mitigate drought conditions when they exist.
There are no smokestacks at DCPP!
CGNP maintains an informative web site at CGNP.org.
CGNP is an independent 501(c)(3) intervenor supporting the continued safe operation of DCPP in CPUC Proceeding A.16-08-006. CGNP continues to make history in our pro-nuclear power advocacy, which began in 2013.
Please spread the word about this important demonstration of support for the continued operation of Diablo Canyon.
Why is Diablo Canyon at risk of being shutdown by its owner?
There is a short-sighted, financially-driven plan by the plant owner and assorted self-appointed action groups to close DCPP as soon as it is fully paid off. As any homeowner know’s, the day of a mortgage payoff should be a day of celebration. It marks a time when the owner can look forward to a long period of lower cost living, especially when the house has been lovingly maintained and improved.
In the case of a power plant owned by a rate-regulated utility, the payoff date should mark the period of biggest rewards for captive customers. That’s when their 40 year long enforced investment in paying off Pacific Gas and Electric’s facility financing (mortgage) should result in rates that reflect ongoing operations and maintenance costs without significant capital repayment charges.
For the company that owns such a facility, however, benefits for the customers come with a loss of income. Since the paid-off facility is also a fully depreciated facility that is carried on the books as having no remaining capital value, the 10% premium allowed in the rate structure as a return on invested capital gets multiplied by a number that is very close to zero.
There is a very real financial incentive for the regulated utility to close the depreciated facility to establish a “need” to invest more capital in new infrastructure that will be eligible for a fresh 30-50 years worth of a guaranteed return on capital.
Of course, the utility company will never explain the situation this way or even admit that this interpretation is even close to correct. Instead, they will portray themselves as being reluctant participants in a move forced upon them by “citizen” groups that have expressed their fear of continued plant operation and their support of building new “renewable” energy facilities to try to replace part of the massive amount of power that DCPP supplies.
PG&E isn’t lying when it says that it is closing the plant for financial reasons. It is shading the truth, though, when it implies that the cost of operating the plant isn’t competitive with the proposed alternatives.
The income generated for the company is lower if DCPP continues to operate, but the cost of electricity will be higher, the average emissions per unit of power will be higher and the vulnerability of the California electric grid to power or gas shortages will increase.