CGNP's Advocacy for Diablo Canyon Extended Operations to 2045
Summary of Recent Outreach Since 02 April 2026
Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP) continues to advocate for Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) extended operations to 2045. With the end of the California legislative session about six weeks away, time is getting tight. California legislators need to pass a bill which allows DCPP to run at least until 2045 before the end of the legislative session. CGNP has been collaborating with legislators, members of Governor Newsom’s cabinet, and with organizations that wish to have the plant’s operations extended to 2045 to align with the NRC’s granting of a license extension to 2045 to the plant owner PG&E on 02 April 2026. This article summarizes CGNP’s recent advocacy.
Diablo Canyon overhead. This image appeared in the 25 June 2016 Sacramento Bee.
CGNP traveled to Sacramento to attend a hearing on 21 April 2026. CGNP advocated for amendments to SB 931. Here is our letter to California Senator Laird and California Assembly Member Addis:
I got rained on after the 21 April 2026 SB 931 hearing at the California state capitol.
Here is our 04 May 2026 transmittal letter to the Chair of the California Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee, Cottie Petrie-Norris. This letter summarizes CGNP’s draft legislation to extend DCPP operations to 2045. Please contact CGNP if you would like to review the details of our legislative proposal.
CGNP attended the entire two-day-long meeting of the Diablo Canyon Independent Saftety Committee (DCISC) on 15-17 June 2026 in Avila Beach, California. CGNP has been attending DCISC meetings as an advocate for DCPP extended operations since 2007. There was a public engagement meeting on the evening of the 17th at the County Government Center in downtown San Luis Obsispo after the meeting in Avila Beach concluded. Jane Swanson of the DCPP opposition group SLO Mothers for Peace and I were the two members of the public who attended.
This was my attempt at a selfie during the 17 June 2026 DCISC meeting in downtown San Luis Obispo. Pictured from the left are DCISC committee members Najm Meshkati, Ph.D. and Raluca Scarlatt, Ph.D. Jane Swanson and myself are the two public attendees.
CGNP was back in Sacramento on 29 June 2026 to make a presentation to Christine Hironaka, California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Senior Advisor on Energy and her deputy Brady Borcherding. Fellow CGNP Board member Marty Marinak, Ph.D. assisted me with the presentation. The supporting materials are available on request to CGNP.
On 01 July 2026, the local paper of record, The San Luis Obispo Tribune published an editorial that was not supportive of Diablo Canyon extended operations. This editorial continued the paper’s over 4 decade-long pattern of opposition to Diablo Canyon.
There are twenty results when the search query of both phrases “Gene Nelson” and “Diablo Canyon” is conducted at the SLO Tribune’s website. The oldest entry is from 04 September 2015 and the newest entry is today, 19 July 2026. I’ve been able to have only one OpEd published in the paper dated 19 August 2021.
On 02 July 2026, I submitted this OpEd to the SLO Tribune in response to their editorial from 01 July 2026.
The editors chose to shorten the OpEd . It appeared as the first letter to the editor (LTE) in today’s print edition on page 14B. A Diablo Canyon photograph by Joe Johnston with the caption, “PG&E’s Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant could continue operating until 2045 if the state Legislature agrees. My LTE was given the headline of “Proud Member of Diablo 2045.”
CGNP became a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) intervenor in 2015. We have been a persistent advocate for Diablo Canyon extended operations. Our experience is summarized by the sentence, “The CPUC is no friend of DCPP.” Under the guidance of CGNP’s Lead Counsel Mike Gatto, I’ve written thousands of pages of written testimony in over 20 Proceedings. This testimony requires deep technical understanding and specialized legal knowledge. Our newest filing in the current Diablo Canyon Proceeding was filed and served to the other Parties on Friday, 17 July 2026. This 23-page filing makes arguments for including Diablo Canyon’s provision of the largest amount of synchronous grid inertia (SGI) of any California power plant within the scope of this proceeding. CGNP raised this issue during the 22 May 2026 prehearing conference.
Based on the CPUC being responsible for assuring California electric grid reliability, should DCPP’s abundant SGI be included within the scope of this Proceeding?
For almost a decade as a component of CGNP’s public outreach, we have operated a booth at the Thursday night Downtown San Luis Obispo Farmer’s Market. We operate a booth to answer questions from the public regarding Diablo Canyon.
During 2026, California Assembly candidate Susannah Brown has been helping at the CGNP booth. She made extending Diablo Canyon operations a key plank in her platform. She was not backed by the local Democrat party and was eliminated in the 02 June 2026 primary.
In order to keep this article from being too lengthy, not all of CGNP’s activities have been included. To do all that CGNP does requires significant funding. CGNP does not receive financial support from Diablo Canyon’s owner, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E.) Your financial support is what powers CGNP. Please contact us via email at government [at] CGNP [dot] org to learn the most efficient way for you to help us to keep Diablo Canyon running.
As an employee of Westinghouse Rotating Equipment Services, I am proud to support Diablo Canyon's maintenance program, supplying quality craftsmanship on their safety related motors.
Their position to stay open until 2045 is highly regarded and lauded.
I appreciate all the work you do Gene.
The value of extending DCPP until at least 2045 would seem to be a "non-brainer" for California electric customers given the extremely high cost of electricity and dependence on non-dispatchable generation resources.
I lead the economic analysis of Palo Verde's 2nd license extension over the past 3 years. The economics, from a lower cost Arizona perspective, were tremendously compelling. The incremental capacity cost (overnight capital cost), were roughly 10% of a combined cycle. The average incremental LCOE over the 1st life extension (PV1 commencing in 2025) and proposed 2nd life extension (~2045 - 2065 for PV1) was in the high $50's/MWH. From a production cost perspective, it was very attractive for our Arizona customers. We always wondered how much more attractive it looked for Palo Verde's California participant owners.
Incremental DCPP energy costs of ~$33/MWH indicate to me a very cost-effective plant. If similar to Arizona, California electric customers are facing substantial electric rate increases for 3 to 5 years just based upon already approved generation investments. Maintaining DCPP as a low cost, reliable resource will assist in mitigating these future rate increases.