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.
Thank you. You are understating the grim reality well. Based on CGNP's unsuccessful appeal of a 2018 CPUC decision, we believe that such a battle would require multiple millions of dollars. Our legal team has the "horsepower" to mount such a challenge. Please direct any generous donors you know our way.
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!
Sorry Gene. While I definitely support your efforts to keep Diablo Canyon in operation, I agree with the Chief ALJ that you didn't demonstrate bias. Without more, ruling against you on late-filed pleadings doesn't seem like bias. I sympathize with where you are, and have certain been before judges who frequently ruled against me, but you have to deal with that, keep going, and remember that an ALJ's ruling is only the first step of the process
Dear Matt: Thank you for reading the pair of documents - and thank you for your observations. The problem was that one of the factors causing CGNP's late filings (1 business day in each case) was the CPUC requiring us to invest a large amount of time complying with a poorly-documented CPUC processes. Only CGNP had to comply with those requirements. We're a small nonprofit. I hope you caught the detail that the ALJ was one day late in filing his Proposed Decision. CGNP has been impoverished by prior CPUC decisions. (Some are described in this Substack.) The ALJ completely discounted our reasoning. As I noted in the article summary, CPUC Decisions lack a guaranteed appellate pathway. This reminds me of the saying attributed to Lord Acton: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
CGNP continues to develop novel approaches to fight against the corrupt CPUC bureaucracy. Watch this Substack for details.
Thanks, Al. To see the Chief ALJ Ruling, please click the blue "download" button to the right of the second file. I just confirmed that the download was successful. Are others able to download the pair of files?
By chance did PG&E record the tour that you and the CPUC representatives were part of earlier this year? If yes, you might want to have an HR person take a look at the film and/or recordings.
The commissioners seem to have been advised that the technical details of the states de-canonicalization plans can be meet. The cost of meeting the goals on the other hand...
Stanford Energy Seminar | Is Affordability Possible When Costs are Rising? | Matthew Baker, California Public Utilities Commission
Thank you. $382 million to provide about 18 terawatt-hours of high-quality, high-reliability power is an incredible bargain. As CGNP noted in a recent filing in the CPUC 2026 cost proceeding, that works out to $21.28 / MWh or 2.128 cents per kWh. (Typical CA retail rates are in the 30 to 40 cents / kWh range.) This is at the high end of costs for a hydroelectric plant with only a 25% capacity factor versus over 90% for Diablo Canyon.
Unfortunately, to my knowledge, the interchange aboard a PG&E tour bus was not recorded. If ALJ Chang had a judicial temperament, he would have been far more tactful than he was. One of the other witnesses was another CPUC employee.
Reviewing the abstract of Matthew Baker's talk, he avoids mentioning the biggest utilities cost driver, which is the states aggressive buildout of solar and wind since 2010. California has the greatest amount of solar generation of any state. Only Texas has more wind than California. The total costs of solar and wind include the significant taxpayer-funded subsidies AND the cost of grid integration AND the cost of sending excess generation to adjoining states when there is too much solar power. at mid-day AND the costs of self-curtailment directed by CAISO. Instead, Matthew blames other factors.
…..”As a backdrop, the study estimates that the average retail rate in California
could increase from 14.4 ¢/kWh in 2012 to 21.1 ¢/kWh in 2030 (in 2012 dollars),
a 47% increase, before higher levels of RPS beyond the current 33% statute are
taken into consideration. 14”
Other analysis has estimated that compliance with the current
33% RPS is expected to raise investor owned utility rates by 6-8% between 2011
and 2030; the approximately 40% remaining rate impact expected over this
period would be attributable to other factors.15
Former Commissioner Florio felt a 25 year PPA was inappropriate-
“Retorted Florio: “I think we would be better off if we paid the developer the $70 million they invested rather than paying these extraordinary costs over 25 years.”
There is a strong connection between the high solar and wind penetration in California and the high retail electric rate. The main reason is that natural gas fired generation must be dispatched intermittently and inefficiently to compensate for the intermittent solar and wind generation. There must be a large natural gas fired generation fleet which is dedicated to integrating solar and wind. The Lazard LCOE+ metric,. which includes the substantial solar and wind grid integration costs shows the elevated costs.
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.
Thank you. You are understating the grim reality well. Based on CGNP's unsuccessful appeal of a 2018 CPUC decision, we believe that such a battle would require multiple millions of dollars. Our legal team has the "horsepower" to mount such a challenge. Please direct any generous donors you know our way.
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!
I agree that inertia is the key. We intend to persistently press the point.
Sorry Gene. While I definitely support your efforts to keep Diablo Canyon in operation, I agree with the Chief ALJ that you didn't demonstrate bias. Without more, ruling against you on late-filed pleadings doesn't seem like bias. I sympathize with where you are, and have certain been before judges who frequently ruled against me, but you have to deal with that, keep going, and remember that an ALJ's ruling is only the first step of the process
Dear Matt: Thank you for reading the pair of documents - and thank you for your observations. The problem was that one of the factors causing CGNP's late filings (1 business day in each case) was the CPUC requiring us to invest a large amount of time complying with a poorly-documented CPUC processes. Only CGNP had to comply with those requirements. We're a small nonprofit. I hope you caught the detail that the ALJ was one day late in filing his Proposed Decision. CGNP has been impoverished by prior CPUC decisions. (Some are described in this Substack.) The ALJ completely discounted our reasoning. As I noted in the article summary, CPUC Decisions lack a guaranteed appellate pathway. This reminds me of the saying attributed to Lord Acton: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
CGNP continues to develop novel approaches to fight against the corrupt CPUC bureaucracy. Watch this Substack for details.
Thanks, Gene. Sorry to hear of the bad decision. I didn't see a link to the actual document from the CPUC ??
Thanks, Al. To see the Chief ALJ Ruling, please click the blue "download" button to the right of the second file. I just confirmed that the download was successful. Are others able to download the pair of files?
Thanks for the update Gene. It seems the powers that be are willing to ensure Diablo stays operational for a bit longer-
https://www.newsdata.com/california_energy_markets/regulation_status/california-ratepayers-could-provide-382m-to-support-diablo-canyon-2026-operations/article_d4d51e46-bdc7-44f5-a9eb-d4154b371944.html
By chance did PG&E record the tour that you and the CPUC representatives were part of earlier this year? If yes, you might want to have an HR person take a look at the film and/or recordings.
The commissioners seem to have been advised that the technical details of the states de-canonicalization plans can be meet. The cost of meeting the goals on the other hand...
Stanford Energy Seminar | Is Affordability Possible When Costs are Rising? | Matthew Baker, California Public Utilities Commission
https://energy.stanford.edu/events/lecturepresentationtalk/stanford-energy-seminar-affordability-possible-when-costs-are-rising
Thank you. $382 million to provide about 18 terawatt-hours of high-quality, high-reliability power is an incredible bargain. As CGNP noted in a recent filing in the CPUC 2026 cost proceeding, that works out to $21.28 / MWh or 2.128 cents per kWh. (Typical CA retail rates are in the 30 to 40 cents / kWh range.) This is at the high end of costs for a hydroelectric plant with only a 25% capacity factor versus over 90% for Diablo Canyon.
Unfortunately, to my knowledge, the interchange aboard a PG&E tour bus was not recorded. If ALJ Chang had a judicial temperament, he would have been far more tactful than he was. One of the other witnesses was another CPUC employee.
Reviewing the abstract of Matthew Baker's talk, he avoids mentioning the biggest utilities cost driver, which is the states aggressive buildout of solar and wind since 2010. California has the greatest amount of solar generation of any state. Only Texas has more wind than California. The total costs of solar and wind include the significant taxpayer-funded subsidies AND the cost of grid integration AND the cost of sending excess generation to adjoining states when there is too much solar power. at mid-day AND the costs of self-curtailment directed by CAISO. Instead, Matthew blames other factors.
The PPA's signed to meet the states 33% RES sure where pricey-
https://www.ethree.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/E3_Final_RPS_Report_2014_01_06_ExecutiveSummary-1.pdf
…..”As a backdrop, the study estimates that the average retail rate in California
could increase from 14.4 ¢/kWh in 2012 to 21.1 ¢/kWh in 2030 (in 2012 dollars),
a 47% increase, before higher levels of RPS beyond the current 33% statute are
taken into consideration. 14”
Other analysis has estimated that compliance with the current
33% RPS is expected to raise investor owned utility rates by 6-8% between 2011
and 2030; the approximately 40% remaining rate impact expected over this
period would be attributable to other factors.15
Former Commissioner Florio felt a 25 year PPA was inappropriate-
“Retorted Florio: “I think we would be better off if we paid the developer the $70 million they invested rather than paying these extraordinary costs over 25 years.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2011/11/10/california-approves-high-priced-mojave-solar-project-over-objections/
There is a strong connection between the high solar and wind penetration in California and the high retail electric rate. The main reason is that natural gas fired generation must be dispatched intermittently and inefficiently to compensate for the intermittent solar and wind generation. There must be a large natural gas fired generation fleet which is dedicated to integrating solar and wind. The Lazard LCOE+ metric,. which includes the substantial solar and wind grid integration costs shows the elevated costs.
https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2025-_vf.pdf.
Solar and wind yield very expensive electricity. There are other technical problems that are discussed in the March 4, 2024 article regarding synchronous grid inertia. https://greennuke.substack.com/p/why-is-grid-inertia-important
Study KiloVAR's substack to learn more.
Thank you Robert. I already collaborate with him. See: "Power Systems - Inertia- Big Iron Rolling," Brad Panike, October 30, 2024, KiloVAR 1959 Substack. https://kilovar1959.substack.com/p/power-systems-inertia-big-iron-rolling