Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
PG&E's Love Affair with Nuclear Absent from PR Campaign
This speech was read as public comment at the March 15, 2007 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) hearing regarding PG&E's $1.6 billion rate hike proposal. It criticized the fact that it pours millions into nuclear energy and not a dollar towards wind or solar energy, and further highlighted green alternatives to PG&E.
When PG&E raises our rates we are being asked not only to pay for our current energy needs, but to invest in the energy needs of the future. In an age of global climate crisis, where the systems which deliver us energy are increasingly also the systems which shape our politics, transform our planet and take us to war, it seems worthwhile to ask what sort of energy future our these increased rates will be building.
Community Choice Energy is a program well on it's way to implementation in City Hall. With Community Choice, green energy providers would be given the chance to meet or beat PG&E's prices, providing a real, immediate alternative to PG&E's vision of a nuclear and fossil fueled energy future. Under Community Choice, the city of San Francisco would start a rapid shift to 50% renewable energy.
With these rate hikes, the people of San Francisco are paying to make that shift more expensive and more difficult. PG&E is working to prevent communities from choosing to aggregate – and this GRC forces us to pay for this shady practice that opposed our own public interest. We call on the CPUC to reverse its Opinion authorizing PG&E to:
Don't get too excited.
Our money will not be invested in green energy. That's right, not a cent or this rate increase will go towards solar or wind. Despite a future of volatile fossil fuel markets and increasingly severe environmental consequences, renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar remain conspicuously absent from PG&Es agenda. Instead, we're getting served a nice heaping pile of fossil fuels. Our money will go towards establishing long term contracts for Liquid Natural Gas. These contracts lock us in to an energy future which cannot be sustained, making the real, green alternatives that exist today more expensive by forcing us to pay for fossil fuels that we don't want and don't need.
But fossil fuels are only part of the picture. If this rate hike is anything, it is a long, drawn out love letter to nuclear energy. To many of us here in San Francisco this may be surprising, PG&E's recent citywide ad campaign has mentioned nothing about the passionate love affair with nuclear energy that we are about to bankroll. That's probably because 55% of Californians think that nuclear energy is too dangerous, and because we still have the pesky problem of making nuclear waste one of the first artifacts in human history to remain undisturbed for 10,000 years. Don't be fooled, PG&E's love for nuclear is still going strong:
· Let's start with the $134.4 million going to nuclear power generation- by far the largest chunk of the generation pieThankfully, we have an alternative.
· That doesn't include the $35 million going to refuel the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, or
· The $16.8 million to investigate keeping the reactor going after its license expires in 2025.
· And last but not least: three quarters of a million to join the Nuclear Energy Institute in lobbying for nuclear power.
Community Choice Energy is a program well on it's way to implementation in City Hall. With Community Choice, green energy providers would be given the chance to meet or beat PG&E's prices, providing a real, immediate alternative to PG&E's vision of a nuclear and fossil fueled energy future. Under Community Choice, the city of San Francisco would start a rapid shift to 50% renewable energy.
With these rate hikes, the people of San Francisco are paying to make that shift more expensive and more difficult. PG&E is working to prevent communities from choosing to aggregate – and this GRC forces us to pay for this shady practice that opposed our own public interest. We call on the CPUC to reverse its Opinion authorizing PG&E to:
1) charge ratepayers to pay ($4.35 million) for its Customer Retention & Economic Development program;
2) to reconsider all funding related to long-term investments in nuclear and gas infrastructure in relation to the state-wide movement towards Community Choice;
3) and to revoke and audit all money given to PG&E's lobbying-related activities.
For more information:
http://www.letsGREENWASHthiscity.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility and Sierra Club find the Proposed Decision as it relates to $16.8 million for a feasibility study of license renewal researched solely by PG&E and its contractors to be short-sighted and unacceptable. Furthermore any funding for dry cask storage should be held in abeyance until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has re-evaluated its EIS and final decisions have been made on the adequacy of security for onsite storage of high-level radioactive waste.
PG&E’s License Renewal Feasibility Study is Premature
Diablo Canyon operates pursuant to two licenses issued by the NRC that expire in 2024 (Unit 1) and 2025 (Unit 2). As the Commission is aware the California Energy Commission (CEC) will begin its analysis on the economic impacts of the state’s reliance on the costs, benefits and risks of reliance on aging nuclear plants beyond their current license terms. The analysis is set to begin in July of 2007 and take approximately one year.
Though a Settling Party the Division of Ratepayer Advocates continues to believe, like TURN and ANR/SC that PG&E’s request is premature. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is approving license renewals in less than 18 months and continues to expedite this process.
The Energy Commission’s analysis includes future cost and availability of uranium fuel sources, impacts on coastal marine life from the billions of gallons of heated water flushed from the reactors each day and if aging components designed to last the full original 40 year license (currently being replaced after 20 years of operation) that may need to be replaced again. The CEC analysis also considers the cost of storing increasing stockpiles of high-level radioactive waste produced at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, how long the additional 20 years of lethal material will be stored onsite and - if it ever leaves for a permanent safe site – and how it will safely be transported on California’s aging road and rail infrastructure 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 and independent electric generation. ANR/SC believe it is not in ratepayers interest to be forced to simultaneously pay $16.8 million for a utility study of license renewal until the state’s analysis is complete and implemented.
None of the CEC issues is required to be considered by the NRC before it allows nuclear reactors to continue to operate an additional 20 years. Though the PD states that all Settling Parties “agree that the funding for the study is subsumed in the Settlement outcome for Generation O&M expenses”, ANR/SC believe virtually all of these parties with the exception of PG&E (and perhaps SCE) have little if any interest in whether this in-house study goes forward during this rate case
ANR/SC continues to recommend that the Commission modify the Settlement Agreement and remove $16.8 million for the Diablo Canyon license renewal feasibility study. At a minimum funding for the PG&E study should be withheld until the CEC analysis is complete, adopted and implemented. As the Commission is aware San Luis Obispo’s Assemblyman, Sam Blakeslee, who has expertise in seismic, energy and economic agrees with the position of ANR/SC.
PG&E’s stated in its Feb 5, 2007, Ex-Parte letter responding to Assembly member Blakeslee’s opposition to funding of PG&E’s license renewal request during the 2007 GRC that “it will review and consider the results of the California Energy Commission’s Integrated Energy Policy Report prior to making its final determination regarding license renewal for Diablo Canyon”. However, PG&E did not state and/or promise to incorporate the CEC’s recommendation(s) and this is most troubling to those who question the independence of the utility’s study and live in the shadow of a precariously sited nuclear plant.
Even though the NRC licensed an onsite dry cask storage facility for high-level radioactive waste, the Code of Federal Regulations states “Sites that lie within the range of strong near-field ground motion from historical earthquakes on large capable faults should be avoided.” Increasing stockpiles of radioactive waste are a concern for all Californians, but are not addressed in the NRC’s review of license renewal. The issue of radioactive waste and long term storage 2.5 miles from a major active earthquake fault will be analyzed in the CEC analysis, yet PG&E has not committed to incorporating any of the CEC’s recommendations on seismicity and onsite storage.
PG&E response that it is prudent to perform the license renewal feasibility study at this time in order to develop the factual and regulatory information needed to decide whether to apply for license renewal is disingenuous. When asked to assume that PG&E was not going to renew its license for Diablo Canyon, PG&E planner, Ray Williams stated it would need to begin planning in 2014. PG&E is required to (1) screening Diablo Canyon’s structures, systems, and ; (2) perform aging analysis of the in-scope systems and components to determine the need for additional monitoring programs as a condition of daily operation now. Therefore the only item PG&E is not already required to prepare for current operations is the preparation of a draft environmental impact report for license renewal. And once this EIR is prepared all that will be missing is a signature, envelope and stamp to begin its license application process.
PG&E has stated it is working with other reactor utilities under the guise of STARS consortium. There are six nuclear utilities that appear to be part of STARS and one of those utilities has chosen not to file for a license renewal. The NRC’s website lists prospective license renewal application filing dates and there are five reactor facilities in queue. The last date for a STARS application is July to September 2013, twelve years before the expiration of Diablo Canyon’s current license.
The PD states “The time frame for making that decision would be around the end of this general rate case…or roughly 15 years before the licenses expire…If we were not -- when that time came and we were to make that very important decision not to proceed with license renewal after considering all the issues, the costs, et cetera, then we need and the state of California needs time to plan for replacement power for Diablo Canyon. (Tr. 2767:8-24, PG&E/Becker.)” This is exactly why the CEC recommended and the legislature mandated the state’s analysis.
Finally, PG&E states that “performing the study now will enable PG&E to address any needed changes to plant structures, systems, and equipment to enable an additional 20 years of operations. PG&E testified: “The sooner we know that, the sooner we can make the changes, and the sooner the benefit would occur. And that benefit would show up in plant reliability, in safety margins, et cetera. (Tr. 2768:8-20, PG&E/Becker.)” Again it is important to remember that no utility, including PG&E can predict the future and costs overruns in the nuclear industry are legendary.
Taxpayers will assume the $800,000 in costs of the CEC’s analysis. PG&E ratepayers should not be charged an additional $16.8 million for a utility study that reviews only a portion of the issues that will be incorporated in the CEC analysis.
For the above reasons, ANR/SC request that the PD be amended to withhold the $16.8 million for a feasibility study of license renewal until the CEC analysis is complete, adopted and implemented.
Respectfully submitted,
Rochelle Becker, Executive Director
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
http://www.a4nr.org
PO 1328
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406
(858) 337 2703
PG&E’s License Renewal Feasibility Study is Premature
Diablo Canyon operates pursuant to two licenses issued by the NRC that expire in 2024 (Unit 1) and 2025 (Unit 2). As the Commission is aware the California Energy Commission (CEC) will begin its analysis on the economic impacts of the state’s reliance on the costs, benefits and risks of reliance on aging nuclear plants beyond their current license terms. The analysis is set to begin in July of 2007 and take approximately one year.
Though a Settling Party the Division of Ratepayer Advocates continues to believe, like TURN and ANR/SC that PG&E’s request is premature. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is approving license renewals in less than 18 months and continues to expedite this process.
The Energy Commission’s analysis includes future cost and availability of uranium fuel sources, impacts on coastal marine life from the billions of gallons of heated water flushed from the reactors each day and if aging components designed to last the full original 40 year license (currently being replaced after 20 years of operation) that may need to be replaced again. The CEC analysis also considers the cost of storing increasing stockpiles of high-level radioactive waste produced at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, how long the additional 20 years of lethal material will be stored onsite and - if it ever leaves for a permanent safe site – and how it will safely be transported on California’s aging road and rail infrastructure 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 and independent electric generation. ANR/SC believe it is not in ratepayers interest to be forced to simultaneously pay $16.8 million for a utility study of license renewal until the state’s analysis is complete and implemented.
None of the CEC issues is required to be considered by the NRC before it allows nuclear reactors to continue to operate an additional 20 years. Though the PD states that all Settling Parties “agree that the funding for the study is subsumed in the Settlement outcome for Generation O&M expenses”, ANR/SC believe virtually all of these parties with the exception of PG&E (and perhaps SCE) have little if any interest in whether this in-house study goes forward during this rate case
ANR/SC continues to recommend that the Commission modify the Settlement Agreement and remove $16.8 million for the Diablo Canyon license renewal feasibility study. At a minimum funding for the PG&E study should be withheld until the CEC analysis is complete, adopted and implemented. As the Commission is aware San Luis Obispo’s Assemblyman, Sam Blakeslee, who has expertise in seismic, energy and economic agrees with the position of ANR/SC.
PG&E’s stated in its Feb 5, 2007, Ex-Parte letter responding to Assembly member Blakeslee’s opposition to funding of PG&E’s license renewal request during the 2007 GRC that “it will review and consider the results of the California Energy Commission’s Integrated Energy Policy Report prior to making its final determination regarding license renewal for Diablo Canyon”. However, PG&E did not state and/or promise to incorporate the CEC’s recommendation(s) and this is most troubling to those who question the independence of the utility’s study and live in the shadow of a precariously sited nuclear plant.
Even though the NRC licensed an onsite dry cask storage facility for high-level radioactive waste, the Code of Federal Regulations states “Sites that lie within the range of strong near-field ground motion from historical earthquakes on large capable faults should be avoided.” Increasing stockpiles of radioactive waste are a concern for all Californians, but are not addressed in the NRC’s review of license renewal. The issue of radioactive waste and long term storage 2.5 miles from a major active earthquake fault will be analyzed in the CEC analysis, yet PG&E has not committed to incorporating any of the CEC’s recommendations on seismicity and onsite storage.
PG&E response that it is prudent to perform the license renewal feasibility study at this time in order to develop the factual and regulatory information needed to decide whether to apply for license renewal is disingenuous. When asked to assume that PG&E was not going to renew its license for Diablo Canyon, PG&E planner, Ray Williams stated it would need to begin planning in 2014. PG&E is required to (1) screening Diablo Canyon’s structures, systems, and ; (2) perform aging analysis of the in-scope systems and components to determine the need for additional monitoring programs as a condition of daily operation now. Therefore the only item PG&E is not already required to prepare for current operations is the preparation of a draft environmental impact report for license renewal. And once this EIR is prepared all that will be missing is a signature, envelope and stamp to begin its license application process.
PG&E has stated it is working with other reactor utilities under the guise of STARS consortium. There are six nuclear utilities that appear to be part of STARS and one of those utilities has chosen not to file for a license renewal. The NRC’s website lists prospective license renewal application filing dates and there are five reactor facilities in queue. The last date for a STARS application is July to September 2013, twelve years before the expiration of Diablo Canyon’s current license.
The PD states “The time frame for making that decision would be around the end of this general rate case…or roughly 15 years before the licenses expire…If we were not -- when that time came and we were to make that very important decision not to proceed with license renewal after considering all the issues, the costs, et cetera, then we need and the state of California needs time to plan for replacement power for Diablo Canyon. (Tr. 2767:8-24, PG&E/Becker.)” This is exactly why the CEC recommended and the legislature mandated the state’s analysis.
Finally, PG&E states that “performing the study now will enable PG&E to address any needed changes to plant structures, systems, and equipment to enable an additional 20 years of operations. PG&E testified: “The sooner we know that, the sooner we can make the changes, and the sooner the benefit would occur. And that benefit would show up in plant reliability, in safety margins, et cetera. (Tr. 2768:8-20, PG&E/Becker.)” Again it is important to remember that no utility, including PG&E can predict the future and costs overruns in the nuclear industry are legendary.
Taxpayers will assume the $800,000 in costs of the CEC’s analysis. PG&E ratepayers should not be charged an additional $16.8 million for a utility study that reviews only a portion of the issues that will be incorporated in the CEC analysis.
For the above reasons, ANR/SC request that the PD be amended to withhold the $16.8 million for a feasibility study of license renewal until the CEC analysis is complete, adopted and implemented.
Respectfully submitted,
Rochelle Becker, Executive Director
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
http://www.a4nr.org
PO 1328
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406
(858) 337 2703
For more information:
http://a4nr.org
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$200.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network