As I have mentioned to you before, I strongly support your views on nuclear power in general and Diablo Canyon in general. But your fears that regionalization of CAISO could cause California’s support of Diablo Canyon to be invalidated are misplaced. I was the Senior Legal Advisor to FERC’s Chairman a few years ago and also defended FERC’s orders in the Courts of Appeals so I know what I am talking about. Let me make two brief points: First, CAISO HAS ALAWYS been a single state RTO from the day it was formed to today and it always has been subject to FERC’s regulatory jurisdiction. I worked on multiple CAISO cases when I was at FERC. Whatever the effect of the proposed legislation, it does not put California’s support for Diablo Canyon at ant more risk than exists today. Second, the Supreme Court’s Hughes decision prohibits only a very limited for of state support for generation. There are all kinds of state subsidies for different types of generation, including nuclear, that have passed Constitutional muster in the courts.
Thank you for your comments, Matt. Given that Warren Buffett employed a sneaky, indirect plan to attempt to shut down Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) in 2016, I do not share your sanguine perspective.
Warren's technique in 2016, was to use a nonprofit proxy for Berkshire Hathaway Energy / PacifiCorp named the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology (CEERT.) The Chair of CEERT's Board during this interval was Attorney Jonathan Weisgall, who is currently a Director of CEERT. Jonathan Weisgall was then the Vice President for Legislative and Regulatory Affairs at Berkshire Hathaway Energy - a clear conflict of interest. CEERT worked with Friends of the Earth, a nonprofit set up for the express purpose of shutting down DCPP. In 2017, CEERT, FoE, and V. John White issued a 2025 cost projection for DCPP's power in 2025 showing a DCPP cost per MWh in the vicinity of $100.00 per MWh that was relied on both by the CPUC and PG&E as the rationale for shutting down DCPP in 2025. This CEERT opening prepared testimony in CPUC Proceeding A.16-08-006 is found at
Friends of the Earth received intervenor compensation totaling $243,398.61 on December 18, 2018 per this CPUC Decision D.18-12-011 in A.16-08-006. Friends of the Earth's intervenor compensation included $60.000.00 for preparation of this CEERT report., which is identified as a key document in the Proceeding. https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M251/K782/251782630.docx
Friends of the Earth's DCPP "Plan B" report was soundly debunked by this 2022 report, "The Faulty Diablo Canyon Study that Started it All - How Friends of the Earth and a Prominent Renewable Energy Lobbyist Hoodwinked California Policy-Makers," Jonah Messinger, Seaver Wang, and Adam Stein, August 30, 2022, The Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, California.
The economic inventive for Warren Buffett's PacifiCorp to shut down DCPP is likely billions of dollars per year in PacifiCorp replacement electricity sales to California, as the firm will have pricing power. DCPP's replacement power must have sufficient synchronous grid inertia, another attribute that would be supplied by PacifiCorp's roughly 6,000 MW of coal-fired generation.
CGNP is not privy to PacifiCorp's litigation plans. However, as DCPP advocates aware of PacifiCorp's previous tactics to attempt to shut down DCPP (and likely profit from the unnecessary closure of San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station at the end of January, 2012,) we believe the risks associated with the possible passage of SB 540 far outweigh any benefits to DCPP extended operations. Further insights are provided in the letters of endorsement for PacifiCorp's "Pathways" proposal at the WIEB-CREPC website. Many of the endorsers are opponents to DCPP extended operations.
Finally, FERC did not establish itself as a friend on DCPP in CGNP's Complaint before FERC, EL21-13-000. FERC rejected CGNP's complaint regarding the important role of DCPP in maintaining the reliability of California's bulk power system.
Thanks Gene. As I said before, I support the continued operation of Diablo Canyon. I am not familiar enough with SB 540 to know why PacifiCorp might be supporting it, but I am confident that it is not to enable an argument that California’s support for Diablo Canyon is barred by the Constitution. They could make that argument today if they wanted. I will try to familiarize myself with the proposed legislation to see if I have any helpful insights.
Thank you, Matt. Please note that PacifiCorp finally shows they advocated for SB 540 in their first quarter 2025 Form 635 mandatory lobbying disclosure with the California Secretary of State. Previous PacifiCorp lobbying disclosures are not transparent in this regard.
Buffet ruins communities, people, and states through his lobbying selfishness. But this is not the worst of the stories. Your elected officials actually bow to the money. You know this, yet you elect them back to office. So, who is really doing the damage? Our system of government relies on moral people sticking up for what is right for society, yet we still bow to the oligarchs that take the Buffet (and others') money to do their bidding. Clearly, nuclear power surpasses all other power supplies in all categories. Why else would there be such an attack on one industry. Answer? Lobbying money predicated on monopolizing fossil fuel power (Buffet). I am glad California is leading the nation in power rates and black/brown outs. Maybe other states can learn from their example. Just a note: Buffet lobbies in DC as well, so we all are culpable in the demise of our quality of life.
I hope the legislation finalizes the definition of clean energy to include nuclear, pumped storage and large hydro.
CASIO's expanded regional role seems to be a done deal as it's soaking up all the PV being added in the region. Who is going to pick up all the costs of the current approach in CA is going to reduce the value of the PV system we included in the sale of our place in the state back in 2021.
As the April 28, 2025 Iberian Peninsula blackout confirmed, solar and wind power are parasitic power. The laws of physics predict that a grid with solar and wind generators will have *more* emissions than a grid without solar and wind. Grids with large amounts of solar and wind are also significantly more costly than grids without those energy inputs. Clear examples include Germany and California.
While I live in California, I refuse to put solar on my residence. It is just a "reverse Robin Hood" scheme where residences without solar subsidize the power costs of residences with solar. Even the CPUC is finally admitting that bitter economic reality. Previously, I was a solar advocate. I worked at NASA-JPL on solar cell solid state physics. Solar makes sense for missions orbiting Earth. There are niche applications for solar, but not as a grid-scale energy source.
Gene:
As I have mentioned to you before, I strongly support your views on nuclear power in general and Diablo Canyon in general. But your fears that regionalization of CAISO could cause California’s support of Diablo Canyon to be invalidated are misplaced. I was the Senior Legal Advisor to FERC’s Chairman a few years ago and also defended FERC’s orders in the Courts of Appeals so I know what I am talking about. Let me make two brief points: First, CAISO HAS ALAWYS been a single state RTO from the day it was formed to today and it always has been subject to FERC’s regulatory jurisdiction. I worked on multiple CAISO cases when I was at FERC. Whatever the effect of the proposed legislation, it does not put California’s support for Diablo Canyon at ant more risk than exists today. Second, the Supreme Court’s Hughes decision prohibits only a very limited for of state support for generation. There are all kinds of state subsidies for different types of generation, including nuclear, that have passed Constitutional muster in the courts.
Matt Estes
Thank you for your comments, Matt. Given that Warren Buffett employed a sneaky, indirect plan to attempt to shut down Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) in 2016, I do not share your sanguine perspective.
Warren's technique in 2016, was to use a nonprofit proxy for Berkshire Hathaway Energy / PacifiCorp named the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology (CEERT.) The Chair of CEERT's Board during this interval was Attorney Jonathan Weisgall, who is currently a Director of CEERT. Jonathan Weisgall was then the Vice President for Legislative and Regulatory Affairs at Berkshire Hathaway Energy - a clear conflict of interest. CEERT worked with Friends of the Earth, a nonprofit set up for the express purpose of shutting down DCPP. In 2017, CEERT, FoE, and V. John White issued a 2025 cost projection for DCPP's power in 2025 showing a DCPP cost per MWh in the vicinity of $100.00 per MWh that was relied on both by the CPUC and PG&E as the rationale for shutting down DCPP in 2025. This CEERT opening prepared testimony in CPUC Proceeding A.16-08-006 is found at
https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/uploads.thebreakthrough.org/2017-01-27-CEERT-Opening-Testimony-w-Plan-B-Study-Report-Appended-1-27-17.pdf
Friends of the Earth received intervenor compensation totaling $243,398.61 on December 18, 2018 per this CPUC Decision D.18-12-011 in A.16-08-006. Friends of the Earth's intervenor compensation included $60.000.00 for preparation of this CEERT report., which is identified as a key document in the Proceeding. https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M251/K782/251782630.docx
Friends of the Earth's DCPP "Plan B" report was soundly debunked by this 2022 report, "The Faulty Diablo Canyon Study that Started it All - How Friends of the Earth and a Prominent Renewable Energy Lobbyist Hoodwinked California Policy-Makers," Jonah Messinger, Seaver Wang, and Adam Stein, August 30, 2022, The Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, California.
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/the-faulty-diablo-canyon-study-that-started-it-all
The economic inventive for Warren Buffett's PacifiCorp to shut down DCPP is likely billions of dollars per year in PacifiCorp replacement electricity sales to California, as the firm will have pricing power. DCPP's replacement power must have sufficient synchronous grid inertia, another attribute that would be supplied by PacifiCorp's roughly 6,000 MW of coal-fired generation.
CGNP is not privy to PacifiCorp's litigation plans. However, as DCPP advocates aware of PacifiCorp's previous tactics to attempt to shut down DCPP (and likely profit from the unnecessary closure of San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station at the end of January, 2012,) we believe the risks associated with the possible passage of SB 540 far outweigh any benefits to DCPP extended operations. Further insights are provided in the letters of endorsement for PacifiCorp's "Pathways" proposal at the WIEB-CREPC website. Many of the endorsers are opponents to DCPP extended operations.
Finally, FERC did not establish itself as a friend on DCPP in CGNP's Complaint before FERC, EL21-13-000. FERC rejected CGNP's complaint regarding the important role of DCPP in maintaining the reliability of California's bulk power system.
Thanks Gene. As I said before, I support the continued operation of Diablo Canyon. I am not familiar enough with SB 540 to know why PacifiCorp might be supporting it, but I am confident that it is not to enable an argument that California’s support for Diablo Canyon is barred by the Constitution. They could make that argument today if they wanted. I will try to familiarize myself with the proposed legislation to see if I have any helpful insights.
Thank you, Matt. Please note that PacifiCorp finally shows they advocated for SB 540 in their first quarter 2025 Form 635 mandatory lobbying disclosure with the California Secretary of State. Previous PacifiCorp lobbying disclosures are not transparent in this regard.
Buffet ruins communities, people, and states through his lobbying selfishness. But this is not the worst of the stories. Your elected officials actually bow to the money. You know this, yet you elect them back to office. So, who is really doing the damage? Our system of government relies on moral people sticking up for what is right for society, yet we still bow to the oligarchs that take the Buffet (and others') money to do their bidding. Clearly, nuclear power surpasses all other power supplies in all categories. Why else would there be such an attack on one industry. Answer? Lobbying money predicated on monopolizing fossil fuel power (Buffet). I am glad California is leading the nation in power rates and black/brown outs. Maybe other states can learn from their example. Just a note: Buffet lobbies in DC as well, so we all are culpable in the demise of our quality of life.
Very good. "No" "More" & "coal;" should all be red.
I hope the legislation finalizes the definition of clean energy to include nuclear, pumped storage and large hydro.
CASIO's expanded regional role seems to be a done deal as it's soaking up all the PV being added in the region. Who is going to pick up all the costs of the current approach in CA is going to reduce the value of the PV system we included in the sale of our place in the state back in 2021.
https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2025/05/19/how-to-fix-the-solar-cost-shift/#comment-92041
https://www.caiso.com/documents/key-statistics-apr-2025.pdf
As the April 28, 2025 Iberian Peninsula blackout confirmed, solar and wind power are parasitic power. The laws of physics predict that a grid with solar and wind generators will have *more* emissions than a grid without solar and wind. Grids with large amounts of solar and wind are also significantly more costly than grids without those energy inputs. Clear examples include Germany and California.
While I live in California, I refuse to put solar on my residence. It is just a "reverse Robin Hood" scheme where residences without solar subsidize the power costs of residences with solar. Even the CPUC is finally admitting that bitter economic reality. Previously, I was a solar advocate. I worked at NASA-JPL on solar cell solid state physics. Solar makes sense for missions orbiting Earth. There are niche applications for solar, but not as a grid-scale energy source.