Conflicted Redwood Coast Energy Authority board refuses to accept ‘free’ nuclear energy from Diablo Canyon | Lost Coast Outpost

###

At a meeting held Thursday evening at Eureka’s Wharfinger Building, the Redwood Coast Energy Authority (RCEA) board decided not to accept the allocation of nuclear energy to the basket of energy sources purchased on behalf of local ratepayers.

Through PG&E’s Community Choice Aggregation program, RCEA serves as the default electricity provider for the vast majority of consumers in Humboldt County. Since 2017, the agency has purchased electricity from a variety of mostly green, renewable sources and then resold that power to about 63,000 local customers at rates slightly lower than PG&E customers would otherwise pay.

The dilemma facing the board last night was whether RCEA should accept a short-term allocation of power generated by the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant – power for which all California electricity users are already paying – or whether it should refuse on principle, given the issues environmental issues, such as the problem of safe storage of nuclear waste?

At last month’s RCEA meeting, the board heard from Jaclyn Harr, chief account officer at nonprofit portfolio management firm The Energy Authority. She reminded board members that two nuclear reactors at the Diablo Canyon plant, owned and operated by PG&E, are scheduled to be retired by the end of 2025. However, the 2022 regulations will allow the reactors to operate until at least October 2030.

While California is working to transition to renewable energy, it has had trouble finding clean alternatives to carbon-emitting sources online as quickly as expected. So in 2022, at the urging of Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state Legislature approved a $1.4 billion loan to PG&E to help maintain the reliability of California’s power grid by keeping Diablo Canyon operating. It currently supplies 10 percent. energy in the state network.

As part of the agreement to maintain the nuclear plant, all entities under the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) cover a portion of the costs and all have the opportunity to receive an allocation of the energy generated by Diablo Canyon. This power would be “free” in the sense that all taxpayers across the state, including us in Humboldt County, are already paying for it whether we like it or not.

However, RCEA has a long-standing provision in its risk policy prohibiting the inclusion of nuclear energy in its portfolio except for short-term purposes. RCEA board members, including Eureka City Council member Scott Bauer, expressed serious concerns last month about the long-term consequences of storing nuclear waste, including isotopes such as uranium-235, which remains radioactive for hundreds of millions of years.

At the same time, however, RCEA is working to achieve a 100% carbon-free energy supply in the coming years, and Diablo Canyon’s nuclear power technically meets these criteria.

In addition, there are financial problems. The cost of carbon-free energy resources is rising, especially for long-term offerings, and while RCEA has some financial headroom, is it fiscally prudent to give up “free” electricity? Adopting the allocation would save the agency approximately half a million dollars, representing approximately 5.4 percent of RCEA’s 2025 net losses.

Specific allocation amounts have not yet been released, but the RCEA allocation is likely to be only about 2% of the 2025 capacity portfolio, according to a staff report.

“So it’s a modest saving, either of money or a modest saving of (greenhouse gas) emissions,” RCEA Energy Resources Director Richard Engel told the board. He said staff knows of two other community choice aggregators in California that have accepted the allocation.

During the public comment period, many people urged the board to reject the funding allocation.

“I think it would be reprehensible for the RCEA to include nuclear energy in the clean energy mix that we accept,” she said, adding that building a nuclear power plant or mining uranium is not carbon neutral. She also expressed concerns about a potential disaster if an earthquake were to strike near Diablo Canyon or here in Humboldt, where spent fuel rods are stored along Humboldt Bay.

Another Arcata resident, Dave Ryan, called nuclear power “a really dirty energy source,” and as a result, more and more solar projects are coming online, including a recently approved 2.8-megawatt installation along the highway. On December 36, Ryan urged the board to “show some honesty” and “send the message that you are not going to be the agency that supports this.”

Cal Poly Humboldt graduate Alexander Brown spoke about the long-term consequences of storing spent nuclear fuel, saying, “I don’t think we as a nation know what we’re doing with it.”

Michael Welch, reading a statement on behalf of the environmental group Redwood Alliance, also urged RCEA to reject the allocation, arguing that accepting it would send the wrong signal.

“Any ‘yes’ to nuclear energy only strengthens the efforts of the nuclear industry,” he said.

When the matter returned to the board, Bauer repeated concerns he expressed at last month’s meeting.

“We are always thinking about how to operate efficiently,” he said. But he also argued that RCEA has a responsibility to communities, the world and “at least 800 generations” that may be forced to coexist with radioactive waste. “It should be our responsibility not to accept this,” he said.

But fellow director Skip Jorgensen, who represents the city of Ferndale on the board, expressed concern about RCEA’s dwindling financial reserves and said he favored the one-year assignment agreement “with a pinch of salt.”

Director Elise Scafani, representing the City of Blue Lake, asked whether it would be more acceptable to accept the allocation if RCEA allocated the half-million dollars in savings to the development of local renewable energy.

“We know this energy is being produced… whether we accept it or not,” she said. “What can we do about this reality to improve our overall picture of the future?”

Humboldt County Supervisor Mike Wilson, an alternate board member sitting on behalf of fellow Supervisor Natalie Arroyo, spoke at length about the various dimensions of this dilemma, touching on issues such as the importance of fiscal responsibility and the scientific reality that, despite the creative approach of social choice aggregation dynamics, the vast majority of electricity actually used in Humboldt County comes from fracked natural gas that powers PG&E’s Humboldt Bay power plant south of Eureka.

Therefore, Wilson said, choosing an RCEA really comes down to the importance and effectiveness of the message being sent. “I don’t know if we’ll lead the charge or just stand out” if the agency takes a stand and defunds, he said.

He also noted that Arroyo was leaning toward receiving the assignment, although he himself had stated that he wanted to give up nuclear power generation.

Director Jason Ramos, representing Rancheria Blue Lake, said he agreed with Bauer and believed that adopting nuclear power would weaken RCEA’s mission. “I don’t think it’s worth it,” he said. (DISCLOSURE: Blue Lake Rancheria is a minority owner Institution parent company, Lost Coast Communications, Inc.)

Bauer filed a motion not to accept the assignment. Associate Director Michelle Fuller, who was standing in for board chair Sheri Woo, offered to support the motion, but was reminded that as a representative of the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, she did not have a vote.

Bauer’s motion never got a second.

Scafani then submitted an application to accept the allocation for the 2025 calendar year and allocate the savings to the development of local renewable energy. Jorgensen supported the motion after asking for the inclusion of a provision to reconsider the decision early next year. He also joked, “Dressing for cleanliness is a dirty business.”

Several board members were absent, and when it came time to make a decision, the proposal received only two “yes” votes – Scafani and Jorgensen. Absent board members are counted as “no” votes in the RCEA proceedings and therefore the application failed.

A letter will be sent to the CPUC explaining the agency’s decision, and staff will return at the next meeting to ask the board if it would like to revise its current nuclear policy.