Is California Going to Shut Down this $16+ Billion Nuclear Plant in 2030?
Unfortunately, the signs are pointing to, 'Yes'
Independent nonprofit Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) has been working since its founding in 2013 to support extended operations of Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) located on the California coast near San Luis Obispo.
DCPP in springtime. Photo Credit: Pacific Gas & Electric, 2016.
Hispanics in Energy
During the past month, I’ve participated in three meetings regarding DCPP. The first was a Hispanics in Energy California Energy Summit in Sacramento on January 14, 2026. I was a panelist in the session regarding the future of nuclear power in California.
The author (center) with Tom Jones of PG&E (Left) and John Kotek of the Nuclear Energy Institute (Right) at the Hispanics in Energy California Energy Summit. Not shown was the moderator Professor Catherine Sandoval. Photo Credit: Hispanics in Energy
Despite the efforts of Professor Caroline Sandoval (a former CPUC Commissioner) to dominate the session, the panelists were able to communicate the importance of nuclear power for California’s future to the audience of about 100 people which included Sacramento decision-makers. Tom Jones of DCPP owner Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) strongly made the case for DCPP extended operations beyond 2030 during the panel discussion. Speakers in other panels also endorsed DCPP extended operations at least until 2045.
City of San Luis Obispo
The next meeting was the City of San Luis Obispo (SLO) California City Council meeting on February 3, 2026. DCPP was on the agenda because the City avoided endorsement of the letter to the California legislature from The County of San Luis Obispo and the six other cities in San Luis Obispo County. The SLO County letter coupled the need to restore the DCPP unitary taxation to the levels circa 2017 with a endorsement of DCPP extended operations beyond 2030. (Unitary taxation is determined by the State of California Board of Equalization [BoE.] The BoE first totals the value of a public utility’s entire system within the state of California. Then the BoE apportions the property within each of California’s 58 counties using a combination of statute and procedure. Since 1985, a significant portion of the value of PG&E’s property was associated with DCPP.)
“San Luis Obispo holds back signature to extend Diablo Canyon operation,” Karson Wells, Updated 11:11 PM, Jan 28, 2026, KSBY TV-6. https://www.ksby.com/san-luis-obispo/san-luis-obispo-holds-back-signature-to-extend-diablo-canyon-operation
Given SLO City Council Member Jan Marx’s longstanding opposition to DCPP extended operations, she likely opposed endorsement of the County letter.
Here is the text of my prepared comments which I delivered during the public comment period on this agenda item:
“My name is Gene Nelson, Ph.D. I live in SLO. I was an engineering professor at Cal Poly and a physics professor at Cuesta College.
I’m the president and senior legal researcher at the independent nonprofit Californians for Green Nuclear Power. I’m available for questions from the public every alternate week at the SLO Downtown Farmer’s Market. CGNP’s booth is near Feral Kitchen.
I strive to base my decisions regarding Diablo Canyon on factual approaches instead of emotional appeals to fear. The record spanning more than 60 years shows that nuclear power is as safe as solar or wind on a deaths per kilowatt-hour basis.
The City of San Luis Obispo seems to want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in their lack of support of Diablo Canyon Extended Operations to 2045. The County made a very reasonable request to sign on to the County’s letter to the legislature. The other cities in the County agreed. SLO did not. When I examined the relevant correspondence, I noted that the discredited arguments of organizations doctrinally opposed to nuclear power were raised.
CGNP has submitted draft legislation to legislative counsel to extend DCPP operations to 2045. We propose an innovative method to restore funding to the County and Cities that was severely cut by the loss in Unitary Tax paid by PG&E starting in 2017. We also have a meeting scheduled with key staffers in the Board of Equalization on Thursday.
We respectfully request the City sign on to the County’s letter so there is a united front of support for DCPP extended operations.”
Council member Jan Marx complained about hearing from nuclear power advocates in connection with this agenda item when it was under consideration. Instead of endorsing the SLO County letter, the SLO City Council voted 5-0 to send a letter to the California legislature that did not mention the possibility of DCPP extended operations beyond 2030.
While PG&E’s Eric Daniels was in the audience, he chose not to make a public comment in support of DCPP extended operations. I was pleased to hear other members of the public making comments in support of DCPP, particularly California State Assembly District 30 Democrat Party candidate Susannah Brown. After this agenda item was decided, I went to the Council Chambers lobby with Senator John Laird’s District Director and Senior Policy Advisor Attorney Kara Woodruff. While neither of us raised our voices, we had a heated discussion regarding DCPP. Employing a variety of tactics, California Senator Laird has not supported DCPP extended operations.
California Board of Equalization
CGNP has been working on its draft legislation to extend DCPP operations to 2045 for some time. CGNP’s lead counsel Mike Gatto reviewed our draft legislation and wrote this summary for legislators:
“Extend Diablo Canyon to 2045:
The Clean Energy Decision California Cannot Afford to Get Wrong
Extending the operating life of Diablo Canyon Power Plant to 2045 is one of the most important climate, reliability, and affordability decisions before the California Legislature. The facts are clear: keeping Diablo Canyon online protects the environment, stabilizes the grid, and saves Californians money—without slowing the clean-energy transition.
CALIFORNIA’S LARGEST SOURCE OF ZERO-CARBON POWER
Diablo Canyon provides clean, emission-free electricity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It generates roughly 18 terawatt-hours annually—the equivalent of five Hoover Dams every year—without air pollution, carbon emissions, or reliance on weather. Retiring it early would almost certainly require replacement with fossil fuel generation, increasing emissions precisely when California is trying to reduce them.
ONE OF THE LOWEST-COST POWER SOURCES IN THE STATE
Because Diablo Canyon has already been fully depreciated, its electricity is now exceptionally affordable. From 2024–2030, power costs are projected at approximately 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, competitive with or cheaper than natural gas. In some years, ratepayers may even receive rebates under existing law—welcome relief in a state with among the highest electricity prices in the nation.
INCOMPARABLE GRID RELIABILITY
Solar, wind, and batteries are essential—but they cannot independently provide grid stability. Diablo Canyon supplies synchronous grid inertia and reactive power—the “muscle” that keeps the grid stable and prevents cascading failures. Recent mid-day blackouts in Europe illustrate what happens when grids rely too heavily on intermittent renewables without enough nuclear or hydro support. California faces the same risk if Diablo Canyon is retired.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEPENDS ON THIS POWER
California’s water system relies on enormous electric motors to pump water nearly 2,000 feet uphill. These motors cannot operate reliably on solar or wind alone. Diablo Canyon provides the steady, high-quality power that keeps water delivery—and the economy—functioning.
A STRATEGIC ASSET—EVEN UNDER NEW OWNERSHIP
Diablo Canyon’s replacement value exceeds $16 billion. Selling the plant could significantly strengthen PG&E’s balance sheet while preserving clean power production under experienced ownership—benefiting ratepayers, reliability, and long-term climate goals.
Reduced GHG. Prevent blackouts. Protect ratepayers. Preserve CA climate leadership.
Keep Diablo running.”
I bolded the above paragraph for emphasis.
Here’s a copy of CGNP’s January 23, 2026 draft legislation:
Since CGNP’s draft legislation involves the BoE, we had a remote meeting with a pair of BoE staffers on February 5, 2026. SLO County Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg (who strongly supports DCPP extended operations) attended. SLO County Staffer Bill Lucia also attended. (PG&E was invited to attend the meeting but declined.) The statement, “CGNP received a frosty reception” would be an understatement.
Here’s the letter CGNP sent to the BoE staffers in advance of the meeting:
Legislative Counsel previously advised CGNP that the proposed legislation would likely constitute a (small) tax, it would likely need to pass with a 2/3 majority in both the California Assembly and California Senate.
About three decades ago in 1997, the City of San Luis Obispo strongly supported a California legislative remedy when PG&E implemented its first round of accelerated depreciation for DCPP. This remedy was applied after PG&E’s first bankruptcy was filed in 2001.
The Bottom Line
25% is my present estimate of CGNP’s success in sponsoring DCPP extension to 2045 during the 2026 legislative year. Our headwinds include the inability to identify as of February 9, 2026 a Democrat party sponsor with the California Assembly or California Senate. The Democrat party holds a supermajority of the California legislature. We have some likely Republicans in the Assembly and Senate who would cosponsor our legislation. We have until the legislative calendar deadline of February 20, 2026 to identify a Democrat party sponsor. CGNP also requires about $50,000.00 in additional funding to pay our Sacramento consultant for the remainder of 2026. CGNP’s treasury lacks those funds. The City of SLO and the BoE are examples of bureaucracies with ideological opposition to DCPP extended operations.
CGNP is unaware of any other groups that are planning on introducing DCPP extension legislation during 2026. We are disappointed that PG&E is apparently not planning on introducing such legislation. We appreciate the support of the County of San Luis Obispo. Perhaps the County of SLO will collaborate with CGNP regarding this important legislation. What about a large firm with a healthy balance sheet that is interested in purchasing DCPP from PG&E? Could they provide financial support for CGNP’s initiative? PG&E’s balance sheet has been in terrible shape since it was forced to pay billions in wildfire obligations circa 2020. PG&E showed about $58 billion in debts in 2020 - and has made scant progress towards reducing that debt, which still stands at about $58 billion in January, 2026. (As a consequence of these PG&E balance sheet challenges, I previously liquidated my modest PG&E stock holdings.)
In its previous GreenNUKE Substack articles, CGNP has criticized the conduct of PacifiCorp, a Berkshire Hathaway Energy subsidiary that operates a large fleet of mostly coal-fired generators in and around Wyoming. CGNP remains concerned with what appear to be PacifiCorp’s illegal actions influencing California decision-makers. CGNP possesses circumstantial information supporting the perspective that PacifiCorp is using its highly-polluting generation fleet to supply a large portion of the clean power previously supplied to southern California by the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) until the end of January, 2012. SONGS produced roughly the same amount of pollution-free electric power as DCPP in 2011.
Gratitude
While non-exhaustive, I’m expressing my appreciation to many supportive organizations and individuals. First is Hispanics in Energy. President and CEO José L. Pérez. We appreciate the donors to CGNP who enabled CGNP’s February, 2026 legislative initiative. We appreciate the anonymous donor whose generous gift enabled CGNP’s leadership in enacting SB 846 (Dodd, 2022.) That donor is becoming more public in his support for nuclear power in California. We appreciate fellow nuclear power advocacy organizations such as the American Nuclear Society, Mothers for Nuclear, Save Diablo Canyon, Generation Atomic, Thorium Energy Silicon Valley, Climate Coalition, and Fission Transition. Each organization has played a special role in supporting DCPP extended operations. We appreciate the background work that PG&E has done to support DCPP extended operations. (We still do not understand why PG&E can’t take a more public advocacy role.) We appreciate Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow, David Thielen, Ronald Stein, P.E. and Stu Turley’s work to elevate the public profile of CGNP. We appreciate the professional leadership of the Honorable Mike Gatto, Chris Micheli, and Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg. The behind the scenes work of Matt Wilkinson has been invaluable. Scott Lathrop of the ytt Northern Chumash has been a steadfast supporter. He recently inaugurated Native Nuclear. Finally, I appreciate the patience and love of my wife and fellow CGNP Board member Linda. She has put up with me being upset too many times to count during the past two decades while I advocate for DCPP extended operations. I’m truly blessed to have Linda as my wife.
After you have read this article, I respectfully request you support CGNP in this challenging endeavor. We faced severe headwinds in 2016. Our alliance prevailed with the passage of SB 846 (Dodd, 2022) and subsequent actions. DCPP is now running at least until 2030.
Good news. While I was creating this post, the following story broke: "Board of supervisors requests legislation supporting extended operations at Diablo Canyon,"
Posted: 5:26 am, February 9, 2026 by Paso Robles Daily News Staff
https://pasoroblesdailynews.com/board-of-supervisors-requests-legislation-supporting-extended-operations-at-diablo-canyon/218092/
The County of San Luis Obispo California is advancing California legislation to extend DCPP operations to 2045 and restore lost local government funding.
California has a long history of incredibly stupid moves. So I can see you 25% bet. Hopefully as we have increasing outrages the amazing California voters will wake up to the Democrats and their fraud and violence and corruption and move to a rational government that preforms b