

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
“The commission shrugged off California's climate goals, put rooftop solar's benefits further out of reach of working-class families, and gave another gift to corporate utilities," said one climate advocate.
Climate advocates on Monday asked the California Supreme Court to reverse a new rooftop solar panel policy in the state that the groups say has proven "irony is alive and well," as the policy is impeding the expansion of renewable energy in California just as regulators are calling for a solution to the state's energy crisis.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a new solar policy last year at the urging of the state's three investor-owned utilities, led by Pacific Gas & Electric. The new rules slashed a solar power incentive for homeowners by about 75%, sharply reducing the amount utilities pay people with solar panels when they sell surplus power to the grid.
The "disastrous decision," made with the approval of three companies whose "only real competition" is customer-owned solar, said the Environmental Working Group (EWG), has reduced solar industry jobs by 17,000 in less than a year, and the group reported that "75% of California's once-thriving rooftop solar installation companies face a 'high risk' of bankruptcy."
A state appeals court upheld CPUC's new policy last month, leading EWG, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Protect Our Communities Foundation (POCF) to bring the case to the state Supreme Court.
"California utility regulators shouldn't be untouchable and I'm hopeful the state's highest court will agree," said Roger Lin, a senior attorney at CBD. "The commission shrugged off California's climate goals, put rooftop solar's benefits further out of reach of working-class families, and gave another gift to corporate utilities."
Last month, Lin said, "the appeals court wrongly deferred to these state regulators. This sets a dangerous precedent of endorsing utility talking points and torpedoing an essential tool to fight the climate emergency and environmental injustice."
CBD noted that the California Court of Appeals ignored a state law that "requires the court to review the commission's decisions as it would those of any state agency."
The three-judge panel claimed there was "no basis for faulting the commission's work."
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11) said the state is "shooting itself in the foot" by following the guidance of utilities which have a financial interest in reducing solar energy even as the state promotes its ambitious climate goals.
As CalMatters reported last week, California's aim of transitioning to 90% carbon-free electricity by 2035 and 100% by 2045 requires a significant shift to solar power.
"The market is in the gutter," Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the California Solar & Storage Association, told CalMatters. "It should be no surprise to anybody. If you are a business and your market took a 80% nosedive, with great pain, you have to lay off. Some companies shut their doors."
"We are talking about the largest solar market in the country," Del Chiaro added. "This was the most impactful energy decision, easily, for this century so far."
EWG accused California regulators of holding a "confused position" on energy sources, as the group is also challenging a separate decision by the state in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In that case, EWG is joining Friends of the Earth and Mothers for Peace in arguing against extending operations for "the dangerous, outdated Diablo Canyon nuclear plant," which opponents say runs a safety risk as the plant as its reactors are on several earthquake fault lines.
In the Diablo Canyon case, said EWG, "California is arguing—apparently with zero self-awareness—that the state is in the midst of an energy crisis and needs to generate more electricity... Solar is one of the energy leading solutions, but California can't even seem to agree with itself on the right path forward."
In its state Supreme Court case launched on Monday, EWG said it was asking the court to review the CPUC's "failure to assess the far-reaching benefits of widespread customer-owned rooftop solar."
"Instead, in approving the utility's plan, the commission looked at a narrow set of economic factors only," said EWG. "We'll argue this violates the CPUC's duty under state law to look at a broader range of benefits."
The commission impeded the expansion of rooftop solar power in the state as climate scientists and energy experts have made clear that extreme weather events including wildfires—which have increasingly plagued California in recent years—are intensifying and growing more destructive as a result of continued fossil fuel extraction and planetary heating.
CalMatters reported that the loss of solar power jobs has also devastated communities that would have benefited from employment in the growing industry, which pays solar panel installers an average of $70,000 per year.
"These jobs have been a foot in the door for people who have been in the justice system; their lives have changed," said Adewale OgunBadejo, vice president of workforce development for the non-profit Grid Alternatives, told CalMatters. "This is 100% a job killer."
Caroline Leary, general counsel and chief operating officer at EWG, said it was "absurd" to leave "the destiny of California's clean energy aspirations and the battle against the climate crisis" up to the CPUC's five unelected members.
"The tens of billions it will cost to keep Diablo Canyon operating will ultimately be borne by PG&E's ratepayers, who already pay some of the highest electricity bills in the country," said one campaigner.
Keeping California's last nuclear power plant running could cost customers of the state's largest utility as much as $45 billion through 2045, according to an analysis published Tuesday.
Pacific Gas & Electric's (PG&E) Diablo Canyon Power Plant—located near Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County—was slated to be closed in 2025. However, last September, California state lawmakers overwhelmingly approved legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom to keep the nearly 37-year-old facility online until 2030, a decision Environmental Working Group (EWG) president Ken Cook called a "dangerous and dumb" impediment to "California's drive to make solar and wind the prevailing sources of electricity in the state."
"The power this problematic plant generates could easily be replaced by new clean energy investments."
In a move EWG blasted as a "cave to PG&E," the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March subsequently approved the utility giant's continued operation of Diablo Canyon without a renewed license or safety review while the company seeks a 20-year extension.
The following month, the environmental advocacy group Friends of the Earth sued PG&E, arguing that the company breached its contract to close the plant.
If Diablo Canyon remains operational through 2045, EWG estimates PG&E customers would be on the hook for between $20 billion and $45 billion or more.
"And that's just the expense of prolonging the troubled facility's life," the green group said. "It doesn't account for the enormous extra costs that would be incurred following a major disaster like a reactor leak or an earthquake that damages the plant."
In a statement Tuesday, Cook said that "keeping Diablo Canyon open past its closure date is a terrible idea for many reasons, including the staggering price tag that unwitting ratepayers will face for keeping the dilapidated and dangerous nuclear plant operating."
"Let's be clear," he added, "the tens of billions it will cost to keep Diablo Canyon operating will ultimately be borne by PG&E's ratepayers, who already pay some of the highest electricity bills in the country, while the monopoly's shareholders will reap additional profits."
However, Grant Smith, EWG's energy adviser and a co-author of the new analysis, argued that "the power this problematic plant generates could easily be replaced by new clean energy investments."
California has committed to slashing planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions by 85% and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 amid a worsening climate emergency.
"We hope our litigation can push PG&E to reconsider its potential breach and uphold its obligations, including preparing for the agreed-upon retirement," FOE's legal director explained.
The environmental group Friends of the Earth on Tuesday sued Pacific Gas and Electric in a bid to block the California utility giant from breaching its contract to shutter the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant when the operating licenses for its two reactors expire in 2024 and 2025.
Friends of the Earth (FOE) explained the reason for its lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, in a statement Tuesday:
In 2016, Friends of the Earth entered into a contract with PG&E to retire Diablo Canyon. This was in exchange for Friends of the Earth dropping a separate legal challenge over environmental and public safety concerns associated with the power plant's continued operations. Diablo Canyon—California's last remaining nuclear plant—is located in San Luis Obispo near at least three seismic fault lines, which puts the entire state at risk of a devastating accident. It also operates on an outdated cooling system that puts marine life and water quality at significant risk of harm.
Friends of the Earth's new lawsuit follows recent actions by PG&E that indicate an intent to breach the 2016 contract. These include applying to the U.S. Department of Energy for funding to aid Diablo's extended operations and securing approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue operating Diablo Canyon beyond the expiration of current operating licenses while NRC considers PG&E's forthcoming license renewal applications.
"Contracts simply don't vanish into thin air," FOE legal director Hallie Templeton said in a statement. "Yet ever since California passed legislation supporting Diablo Canyon's extension, PG&E has been acting as if our contract has disappeared."
"Setting aside the agreement to retire Diablo, there are myriad legal prerequisites for extending operations of a nuclear power plant, including federal decisions that states cannot dictate," Templeton added. "We hope our litigation can push PG&E to reconsider its potential breach and uphold its obligations, including preparing for the agreed-upon retirement."
"Contracts simply don't vanish into thin air."
PG&E said last month that it would seek permission to keep Diablo Canyon operating for up to 20 more years. However, state officials have not said whether they will allow the plant to continue running after 2030. A law passed last year by the California Legislature allows the facility to remain operational for the remainder of this decade, while the Biden administration last November announced a billion-dollar bailout for PG&E to keep the plant running.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Democrat-controlled state Legislature, and even some environmentalists favor keeping Diablo Canyon operational.