CPUC: We don't need no Stinkin' Physics or Engineering
Anti-Nuclear Power Ideology trumps physical principles at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
Independent nonprofit intervenor Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP) has long championed the importance of synchronous grid inertia to maintain grid frequency stability for the California electric power grid. See: “Why is Grid Inertia Important? Without sufficient synchronous grid inertia, the grid becomes unstable and a blackout occurs,” By Gene Nelson, Ph.D., March 4, 2024, GreenNUKE Substack. https://greennuke.substack.com/p/why-is-grid-inertia-important
See also: “The Spanish Version of the ‘Duck Curve’ is a real killer. This curve underscores the problem of insufficient synchronous grid inertia in Spain on April 28, 2025,” July 8, 2025, GreenNUKE Substack.
https://greennuke.substack.com/p/the-spanish-version-of-the-duck-curve
When CGNP learned about the “alt-energy” advocacy of the administrative law judge (ALJ) Jack Chang, Ph.D. in the 2025 Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) cost proceeding A.25-03-015, we became concerned. We had already observed a pattern of denying CGNP’s Motions in the proceeding. On July 17, 2025, I bore the brunt of his lack of judicial temperament in front of four other witnesses. We believe that ALJ Chang’s personal beliefs created a bias against CGNP’s pro-DCPP advocacy. On November 3, 2025, we filed a Motion for Disqualification of ALJ Chang.
This motion required an in-depth understanding of the subtleties of the section of CPUC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding disqualification of Administrative Law Judges. These rules appear to be designed to make it difficult to disqualify ALJs. Specifically, there are very short time constraints for a Party to raise objections when they discover problematic facts or conduct.
The CPUC’s Prompt Response
The paraphrase of the line, “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!” came from the 1948 film, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Actor Alfonso Bedoya, pictured above, said the line. (Image courtesy of Wikimedia.)
CGNP’s Lead Counsel advised us that Motions to Disqualify CPUC ALJs are rarely granted. It does not matter what the facts are. In its motion, CGNP referenced the April 28, 2025 Iberian Peninsula blackout that killed at least eleven. This blackout was caused by the Spanish government’s unique tax on reliable nuclear power to partially subsidize the high cost of unreliable solar and wind power. As a consequence of this tax, two perfectly serviceable Spanish nuclear power reactors were offline on the morning of Monday, April 28, 2025. (The principle of lowest-cost dispatch was applied.) At mid-day, when there was an extremely high percentage of solar and wind power dispatched for Spain and Portugal. As a consequence, there was insufficient synchronous grid inertia. The two reactors could not be brought online after grid frequency oscillations were observed mid-morning. As a result, the grid frequency became unstable and the Iberian Peninsula electric power grid collapsed in about 15 seconds.
Here is the CPUC’s Decision denying CGNP’s Motion to Disqualify the ALJ. This Decision was issued on November 10, 2025.
CGNP provided documentation showing the CPUC’s preference for solar and wind generation in California is imperiling California’s grid frequency stability. The CPUC was one of the state agencies pushing for the plans they approved in 2018 to needlessly shut down Diablo Canyon in 2025. CGNP was one of the organizations that tenaciously fought that plan.
There are structural problems with the CPUC that CGNP highlighted in their Motion to Disqualify. Despite the gargantuan size of the CPUC bureaucracy, there is no Inspector General to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse. There is no guaranteed appellate pathway for an aggrieved party to a CPUC Decision.
Please take the time to read CGNP’s Motion and the CPUC rejection. We are interested in your conclusions. Please share them in the comments section.
I understand that dealing with Administrative Law Judges is never going to get a good outcome. I believe you've got to sue them in a regular court on grounds that the ALJ system is basically unconstitutional, which it is. But it takes a lot of money and good lawyering to get an honest outcome.
Gene, I have a feeling that, along with yours and other groups wanting to keep DCNPP operating for another 20 years, that PG&E is investing in that direction as well. A company that size would not dump money into maintenance and capital budgets like I have seen recently without deep knowledge of return on investment. I've been working on DCNPP equipment for over twenty years and saw a large downturn of jobs when they decided to close the plant. That downturn has flipped, and we see a large amount of work from them now. I am personally ecstatic with the general direction that Nuclear Power Generation has taken, and we are hiring in pursuit of making our customers happy and keeping the fleet in tip top shape. Keep up your efforts, as they are much appreciated. Inertia is the key!