Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant owned by PG&E discharges about 2.5 billion gallons of cooling water a day into the 40-acre cove along the Pacific Ocean. The ecology of the cove has shifted toward warmer-water species since it began operating in 1985 but is expected to return to previous conditions within a few years of shutdown of its two units, scheduled for 2024 and 2025.
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant owned by PG&E discharges about 2.5 billion gallons of cooling water a day into the 40-acre cove along the Pacific Ocean. The ecology of the cove has shifted toward warmer-water species since it began operating in 1985 but is expected to return to previous conditions within a few years of shutdown of its two units, scheduled for 2024 and 2025. Credit: David Middlecamp / San Luis Obispo Tribune photo

Pacific Gas & Electric is one step closer to keeping the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant open until 2030.

On Thursday, the California Coastal Commission voted 9-3 to give PG&E a coastal development permit that will extend the power plant’s life. The permit requires PG&E to dedicate thousands of acres of surrounding land to conservation to offset the negative environmental impacts of plant’s seawater once-through cooling system.

The nuclear power plant still needs two more approvals to continue operating.

PG&E presented a smaller mitigation package to the commission in November, which was rejected. After pushback from state legislators and the public, the commission told PG&E to go back to the drawing board and return with a more expansive land conservation plan.

On Thursday, the majority of the commissioners accepted PG&E’s proposal.

“The increased mitigations will be of significant benefit for the state of California for years to come,” Commissioner Meagan Harmon said.

The commission also took a vote that’s a step toward extending the plant’s life an additional 15 years, to 2045.

Why does PG&E need to offer a land conservation package?

The power pant’s cooling system sucks in about 2.5 billion gallons of seawater per day, which could fill almost 3,800 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The system also inhales small marine organisms, which are often killed by the change in water pressure and temperature, the staff report said.

Operating the plant for another five years would kill billions of those marine organisms, which would negatively impact about 14 square miles of nearshore waters, the staff report said. Such a significant environmental impact does not comply with the California Coastal Management Program or the California Coastal Act.

Green grass and a sunlit hillside near Wild Cherry Canyon by Port San Luis.
Green grass and a sunlit hillside near Wild Cherry Canyon by Port San Luis. Credit: John Lindsey photo

However, the commission can approve permits for coastal-dependent industrial facilities like the power plant if it can prove that the project won’t harm the public and the environmental impacts are mitigated to the “maximum extent feasible,” the staff report said.

Commission staff determined that building replacement marine habitat, like an artificial reef, was not a feasible option, because such projects have inconsistent success rates. Instead, PG&E offered a land conservation package.

A more expansive mitigation package

After the November meeting, PG&E and commission staff revised the mitigation package. “This collaboration has led to the chance to preserve these 14 miles of coastline,” PG&E representative Tom Jones said at the meeting.

The updated mitigation package includes the following:

  • A 4,500-acre conservation easement to be placed on the North Ranch property, which is 3,400 acres larger than the conservation easement PG&E originally proposed. PG&E will also attempt to dedicate the fee title of the North Ranch to a public agency, a nonprofit land conservation organization or a Native American tribe.
  • Conservation easements for 25 miles of trails on the property, including a trail that connects Montaña de Oro State Park to Port San Luis. Previously, PG&E only offered 10 miles of new trails in the mitigation package.
  • A $10 million endowment for the design, planning, construction and maintenance of those trails. This is $4.4 million larger than the original proposal.
  • The option to sell the fee title for the 2,400-acre Wild Cherry Canyon property to a state agency, a nonprofit conservation organization or a Native American tribe that also obtains an agreement to purchase the lease from HomeFed Corp. at fair market value.
  • A prohibition on the sale of the South Ranch property for purposes other than conservation until 2040. Originally, PG&E offered only a first right of refusal for the property’s purchase to state agencies and nonprofit conservation organizations.

“These six elements would provide a pathway to the permanent conservation of nearly all of the 12,000 acres of the Diablo Canyon lands in order to offset the project’s effects on marine life,” commission Deputy Director Cassidy Teufel said.

PG&E offered additional mitigations if the state Legislature extends the plant’s operating life beyond 2030, which include:

  • A deed restriction on almost 2,500 acres of the South Ranch, which would require a conservation easement as part of the purchase of the property.
  • An 18-month first right of refusal for government agencies, nonprofit conservation organizations and Native American tribes for the South Ranch property.
  • An 18-month first right of refusal for government agencies, nonprofit conservation organizations and Native American tribes for the underlying fee title of Wild Cherry Canyon. Starting on Oct. 31, 2030, the buyer of the fee title would not need to have an agreement to purchase the lease from HomeFed.

State Sen. John Laird led lobbying efforts to expand the mitigation package. While he would have preferred direct, immediate conservation of the South Ranch, he was pleased with the rest of the proposal, calling it “a monumental victory.”

“This is remarkable progress, and I think generations of people will thank us,” he said at the meeting.

State Assemblywoman Dawn Addis, however, urged the commission to require PG&E to preserve the entirety of the South Ranch immediately.

“I think today is a real opportunity to restore accountability and to restore trust when it comes to potential continued operations of the nuclear power plant,” she said. Still, both legislators celebrated the expansion of the proposal.

Tribal co-management of the land

Multiple leaders from Indigenous tribes urged the commission to include tribal co-management of the land as part of the mitigation package, but they suggested different approaches.

Mona Olivas Tucker, the tribal chair of the yak titʸu titʸu yak tiłhini Northern Chumash Tribe of San Luis Obispo County, said her tribe is the only nation that has been “definitively established as the indigenous people of this territory.”

“We have family stories, archaeological, genealogical and anthropological evidence to substantiate our claim,” she said. She said the mitigation package should offer the first right of refusal for the South Ranch to the ytt Tribe.

“The proposed mitigation fails to prioritize tribal land-back efforts and instead places barriers between ytt and Diablo lands,” she said.

Michael Khus-Zarate, the vice chair of the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, said his tribe also claims lineage to the Diablo lands.

The Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation stayed on-site to protect their ancestors while they were removed from their graves during construction of the power plant, he said.

“Later, over a four-year period, I led solstice ceremonies with our people in the shadow of the nuclear containment structures, praying that there would be no nuclear accidents and that someday the place would be returned to its natural state of peace and beauty once the plant was gone,” he said.

He advised the commission to consult with all tribes associated with the land. “You must be as inclusive and expansive as possible,” he said.

Northern Chumash Tribal Council Chairwoman Violet Sage Walker also said that all tribes affiliated with the land should be consulted and have an opportunity to manage the property.

“While we support the preservation of the lands around Diablo Canyon, we do not support the inclusion of public access without having developed a robust tribal co-management plan, tribal stewardship program, which includes all tribes culturally affiliated with the lands, including North Ranch, South Ranch, Wild Cherry Canyon,” she said.

What is the vision for Wild Cherry Canyon?

Wild Cherry Canyon is about 2,400 acres of idyllic, undeveloped land behind Avila Beach. PG&E’s subsidiary, Eureka Energy, owns the underlying fee title to the property, while the development company HomeFed Corp. owns a 141-year lease on the land. Multiple rounds of litigation determined that HomeFed’s lease is valid.

The mitigation package will give a state agency, nonprofit conservation organization or Native American tribe the chance to purchase the underlying fee title to the property if they can strike a deal to purchase the lease from HomeFed. At the meeting, HomeFed’s attorney Robert Shoecraft said the corporation is willing to sell the lease for fair market value.

An Oct. 26, 2020, appraisal showed that the lease was worth $39 million, though that number could have changed over the past five years, he said.

Meanwhile, the state Legislature allocated $40 million to the purchase of Wild Cherry Canyon. That money just needs to get into the hands of an organization that wishes to manage the property.

During public comment, The Wildlands Conservancy Executive Director Frazier Haney said his organization would be interested in the property. The Wildlands Conservancy is a nonprofit that protects land in California, managing it for conservation, habitat restoration and public access.

“I’m really excited that we can now see a clear path forward,” commissioner Caryl Hart said of Wild Cherry Canyon at the meeting.

What’s next on the Diablo Canyon permit?

On Thursday, the commission also voted 9-3 to certify that extending the power plant’s operating life another 20 years complies with the California Coastal Management Program. This allows the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve PG&E’s application for a 20-year license to operate the power plant.

However, even if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves a 20-year license, PG&E can only run the power plant for five years under current state law. The state Legislature would need to pass another law to allow PG&E to operate the power plant past 2030.

The commission reviewed two timelines because PG&E applied for a five-year permit at the state level and a 20-year license at the federal level. The NRC license would allow Diablo to operate until 2044 and 2045 — but only with the state Legislature’s permission and an amendment to the five-year coastal development permit.

After securing a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission, PG&E must get a permit to operate the once-through cooling system in February from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and a license next year from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If PG&E is successful in all of those steps, Unit 1 can operate until Oct. 31, 2029, and Unit 2 can operate until Oct. 31, 2030.