August 27, 2011
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have reviewed the
proposed statutory initiative related to the generation of nuclear power
in California (A.G. File No. 13‑0009).
Background
The Role of California’s Nuclear Power Generation
California’s electricity supplies are generated by several energy
sources, including natural gas, nuclear fission, wind, solar, and
hydropower. Historically, approximately 16 percent of the state’s
electricity has been generated by nuclear power plants (inside and
outside of the state), three-fourths of which has come from the two
nuclear power plants in the state—the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
(Diablo Canyon) in San Luis Obispo County and San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station (SONGS) in San Diego County. Both of these plants are
owned primarily by investor-owned utilities (IOUs). (Diablo Canyon is
owned by Pacific Gas and Electric [PG&E] and SONGS is owned primarily by
Southern California Edison.) The IOUs, in turn, are subject to
regulation of their electricity rates by the California Public Utilities
Commission.
Unlike some energy sources, such as wind and solar that serve as an
intermittent source of energy, nuclear power provides “base load”
energy, meaning that it generally provides a relatively uninterrupted,
reliable power source. Because nuclear power plants generally produce
power around the clock, large portions of California’s electricity
transmission system have been engineered with the two nuclear power
plants’ production capacity and output in mind. The Diablo Canyon Power
Plant represents a significant generation resource and supports power
flows through some of the state’s major transmission lines. The SONGS
has traditionally been considered by the California Independent System
Operator—the independent, public-benefit corporation that manages a
large part of the state’s electricity grid—to be an integral part of the
Southern California transmission system and, therefore, an important
resource that helps ensure access to reliable electricity for a majority
of Californians.
In February 2012, both units at SONGS were shut down. While one unit
was initially shut down for routine maintenance, the other unit was shut
down after a water leak was detected in one of the reactor’s tubes. In
June 2013, Southern California Edison announced the permanent shut down
of both units at SONGS.
California’s “Moratorium” on New Nuclear Power Plant Development
Since 1976, state law has allowed the permitting of new nuclear power
plants in the state only if the California Energy Resources Conservation
and Development Commission (known as the California Energy Commission or
CEC) determines that the federal government has identified and approved
a demonstrated technology for:
- The construction and operation of nuclear fuel rod reprocessing
plants.
- The permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
In effect, these two conditions have created a moratorium on the
construction of new nuclear power plants in California as neither of
these conditions has been met. Accordingly, no new nuclear plants have
been constructed in California in over 35 years. (State law specifically
exempted Diablo Canyon Power Plant and SONGS from these new
requirements. Because no permanent disposal site for nuclear waste is
now available in the United States, these facilities temporarily store
their nuclear waste on site, either in water or in “dry case” cement
casings.)
Potential Risks Associated With Nuclear Power Generation
Nuclear power plants present potential safety and security risks
generally not associated with other types of energy-generating
facilities. Unlike other types of power plants, each nuclear power plant
contains large quantities of radioactive material which, if
released—through natural disaster, human error, or malicious intent—may
cause widespread public harm. As a result, these plants are subject to
extensive federal and state regulatory requirements pertaining to their
safe operation, security, mitigation of their potential environmental
impacts, and the establishment of emergency response procedures in the
event of any mishap at a nuclear facility.
Proposal
This measure immediately prohibits the generation of nuclear power in
the state until such time as the CEC finds, and the Legislature affirms,
that the federal government has identified and approved a demonstrated
technology for:
- The construction and operation of nuclear fuel rod reprocessing
plants.
- The permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
The measure would result in the immediate shut down of the Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The plant would remain shut down until such
time as the conditions outlined above were met.
Fiscal Effects
Fiscal Effects Dependent on Certain Factors
When the Conditions Might Be Met. As noted
earlier, this measure halts the operation of nuclear power plants in
California until such time as the CEC determines, and the Legislature
affirms, that certain conditions have been met. Thus, the fiscal effects
of this proposed initiative would depend in part upon when a federally
approved technology exists for the construction and operation of nuclear
fuel rod reprocessing plants and for the permanent disposal of
high-level nuclear waste. It is our understanding that it is unlikely
the conditions allowing the resumption of nuclear power generation in
the state would be met for at least many years.
Replacement Power. According to energy
planners, some traditional natural gas plants (inside and outside the
state) likely have sufficient capacity to replace the electricity
currently provided by Diablo Canyon at least in the near term. However,
upgrades to the transmission and distribution system could be needed in
order to support replacement power. The magnitude of such upgrades
remains uncertain.
Economic Impacts Could Affect State and Local Revenues and Costs
This measure could have significant effects on the California economy
which, in turn, could impact both state and local government revenues
and costs.
Increased Costs for Electricity. This
measure could result in an increase in electricity rates due to an
overall reduction in the state’s supply of electricity. The long-term
impact of the measure on electricity rates would largely depend on
whether new investments in upgrades to the transmission and distribution
system are needed to support replacement power.
The increases in electricity rates under these circumstances could
affect state and local government revenues and costs. First, they could
negatively impact the California economy which, in turn, could translate
into a loss of revenues to the state and local government. Tax revenues
received by governments are affected by business profits, personal
income, and taxable sales—all of which in turn are affected by what
individuals and businesses pay for electricity. Increases in electricity
rates due to the measure would also directly increase state and local
government costs since they are large consumers of electricity.
State Could Be Held Liable to Compensate Utilities for
Investment Losses. Under current state law, IOUs are
generally allowed to recover costs associated with their capital
investments through the ratemaking process. If this measure were enacted
and resulted in the shutdown of Diablo Canyon, it is possible that
ratepayers might have to compensate PG&E for some portion of its
investment loss, which would increase electricity rates. It is also
possible that either a federal or state court could find that the
measure’s required shutdown amounts to a “taking” of private property
and as such would require “just compensation for any uncompensated
capital costs,” which could total more than $2 billion. However, the
state’s potential liability in this area is uncertain.
Reduced State and Local Financial Exposure
From Potential Nuclear Emergencies
Under this measure, state and local governments could avoid potential
future costs and loss of revenues that they might otherwise incur in the
event of a major release of radioactivity into the surrounding
environment from the nuclear power plant. Major releases of
radioactivity into the environment from nuclear plants have rarely
occurred. In part, this is likely due to the regulatory requirements
affecting their security and safe operation as well as building
standards designed to help plants withstand major natural disasters. In
the event that such a release of radioactivity did occur, experts in
this field indicate that it could result in major direct governmental
costs for emergency response and lost governmental revenues due to
widespread economic disruption.
The immediate shutdown of Diablo Canyon under the measure could
therefore reduce some of the exposure of the state and nearby local
governments to the substantial costs and lost revenues that could
otherwise result from a major release of radiation. However, this
measure may not alleviate all of the financial exposure to the state and
local governments because the current lack of permanent storage options
for nuclear waste means that all nuclear waste will remain stored on
site at the plant even if its operations were shut down until the
federal government approves an alternative storage site.
These potential avoidable impacts could collectively amount to
billions of dollars. The financial exposure of state and local
governments to such costs would, however, be offset to some extent by
federally mandated liability insurance requirements on the nuclear
industry as well as potential federal financial assistance in the event
of a major emergency. These state and local fiscal impacts, however,
could still be major.
Summary of Fiscal Effects
We estimate that this measure could have the following major fiscal
effects:
- Potential impacts on state and local finances in the form of
decreased revenues and increased costs due to possible electricity
price increases and state liabilities. The magnitude of these
impacts are uncertain, but could be significant, depending in part
on the need for system upgrades for replacement power and whether
the state is liable for investment losses.
- Potential avoidance of major future state and local government
costs and lost revenues in the rare event of a major nuclear plant
incident.
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have
reviewed the proposed statutory initiative related to the generation
of nuclear power in California (A.G. File No. 13‑0009).
Background
The Role of California’s Nuclear Power Generation
California’s electricity supplies are generated by several energy
sources, including natural gas, nuclear fission, wind, solar, and
hydropower. Historically, approximately 16 percent of the state’s
electricity has been generated by nuclear power plants (inside and
outside of the state), three-fourths of which has come from the two
nuclear power plants in the state—the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
Plant (Diablo Canyon) in San Luis Obispo County and San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in San Diego County. Both of
these plants are owned primarily by investor-owned utilities (IOUs).
(Diablo Canyon is owned by Pacific Gas and Electric [PG&E] and SONGS
is owned primarily by Southern California Edison.) The IOUs, in
turn, are subject to regulation of their electricity rates by the
California Public Utilities Commission.
Unlike some energy sources, such as wind and solar that serve as
an intermittent source of energy, nuclear power provides “base load”
energy, meaning that it generally provides a relatively
uninterrupted, reliable power source. Because nuclear power plants
generally produce power around the clock, large portions of
California’s electricity transmission system have been engineered
with the two nuclear power plants’ production capacity and output in
mind. The Diablo Canyon Power Plant represents a significant
generation resource and supports power flows through some of the
state’s major transmission lines. The SONGS has traditionally been
considered by the California Independent System Operator—the
independent, public-benefit corporation that manages a large part of
the state’s electricity grid—to be an integral part of the Southern
California transmission system and, therefore, an important resource
that helps ensure access to reliable electricity for a majority of
Californians.
In February 2012, both units at SONGS were shut down. While one
unit was initially shut down for routine maintenance, the other unit
was shut down after a water leak was detected in one of the
reactor’s tubes. In June 2013, Southern California Edison announced
the permanent shut down of both units at SONGS.
California’s “Moratorium” on New Nuclear Power Plant Development
Since 1976, state law has allowed the permitting of new nuclear
power plants in the state only if the California Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission (known as the California
Energy Commission or CEC) determines that the federal government has
identified and approved a demonstrated technology for:
- The construction and operation of nuclear fuel rod
reprocessing plants.
- The permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
In effect, these two conditions have created a moratorium on the
construction of new nuclear power plants in California as neither of
these conditions has been met. Accordingly, no new nuclear plants
have been constructed in California in over 35 years. (State law
specifically exempted Diablo Canyon Power Plant and SONGS from these
new requirements. Because no permanent disposal site for nuclear
waste is now available in the United States, these facilities
temporarily store their nuclear waste on site, either in water or in
“dry case” cement casings.)
Potential Risks Associated With Nuclear Power Generation
Nuclear power plants present potential safety and security risks
generally not associated with other types of energy-generating
facilities. Unlike other types of power plants, each nuclear power
plant contains large quantities of radioactive material which, if
released—through natural disaster, human error, or malicious
intent—may cause widespread public harm. As a result, these plants
are subject to extensive federal and state regulatory requirements
pertaining to their safe operation, security, mitigation of their
potential environmental impacts, and the establishment of emergency
response procedures in the event of any mishap at a nuclear
facility.
Proposal
This measure immediately prohibits the generation of nuclear
power in the state until such time as the CEC finds, and the
Legislature affirms, that the federal government has identified and
approved a demonstrated technology for:
- The construction and operation of nuclear fuel rod
reprocessing plants.
- The permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
The measure would result in the immediate shut down of the Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The plant would remain shut down until
such time as the conditions outlined above were met.
Fiscal Effects
Fiscal Effects Dependent on Certain Factors
When the Conditions Might Be Met. As
noted earlier, this measure halts the operation of nuclear power
plants in California until such time as the CEC determines, and the
Legislature affirms, that certain conditions have been met. Thus,
the fiscal effects of this proposed initiative would depend in part
upon when a federally approved technology exists for the
construction and operation of nuclear fuel rod reprocessing plants
and for the permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste. It is
our understanding that it is unlikely the conditions allowing the
resumption of nuclear power generation in the state would be met for
at least many years.
Replacement Power. According to energy
planners, some traditional natural gas plants (inside and outside
the state) likely have sufficient capacity to replace the
electricity currently provided by Diablo Canyon at least in the near
term. However, upgrades to the transmission and distribution system
could be needed in order to support replacement power. The magnitude
of such upgrades remains uncertain.
Economic Impacts Could Affect State and Local Revenues and Costs
This measure could have significant effects on the California
economy which, in turn, could impact both state and local government
revenues and costs.
Increased Costs for Electricity. This
measure could result in an increase in electricity rates due to an
overall reduction in the state’s supply of electricity. The
long-term impact of the measure on electricity rates would largely
depend on whether new investments in upgrades to the transmission
and distribution system are needed to support replacement power.
The increases in electricity rates under these circumstances
could affect state and local government revenues and costs. First,
they could negatively impact the California economy which, in turn,
could translate into a loss of revenues to the state and local
government. Tax revenues received by governments are affected by
business profits, personal income, and taxable sales—all of which in
turn are affected by what individuals and businesses pay for
electricity. Increases in electricity rates due to the measure would
also directly increase state and local government costs since they
are large consumers of electricity.
State Could Be Held Liable to Compensate Utilities
for Investment Losses. Under current state law, IOUs
are generally allowed to recover costs associated with their capital
investments through the ratemaking process. If this measure were
enacted and resulted in the shutdown of Diablo Canyon, it is
possible that ratepayers might have to compensate PG&E for some
portion of its investment loss, which would increase electricity
rates. It is also possible that either a federal or state court
could find that the measure’s required shutdown amounts to a
“taking” of private property and as such would require “just
compensation for any uncompensated capital costs,” which could total
more than $2 billion. However, the state’s potential liability in
this area is uncertain.
Reduced State and Local Financial Exposure
From Potential Nuclear Emergencies
Under this measure, state and local governments could avoid
potential future costs and loss of revenues that they might
otherwise incur in the event of a major release of radioactivity
into the surrounding environment from the nuclear power plant. Major
releases of radioactivity into the environment from nuclear plants
have rarely occurred. In part, this is likely due to the regulatory
requirements affecting their security and safe operation as well as
building standards designed to help plants withstand major natural
disasters. In the event that such a release of radioactivity did
occur, experts in this field indicate that it could result in major
direct governmental costs for emergency response and lost
governmental revenues due to widespread economic disruption.
The immediate shutdown of Diablo Canyon under the measure could
therefore reduce some of the exposure of the state and nearby local
governments to the substantial costs and lost revenues that could
otherwise result from a major release of radiation. However, this
measure may not alleviate all of the financial exposure to the state
and local governments because the current lack of permanent storage
options for nuclear waste means that all nuclear waste will remain
stored on site at the plant even if its operations were shut down
until the federal government approves an alternative storage site.
These potential avoidable impacts could collectively amount to
billions of dollars. The financial exposure of state and local
governments to such costs would, however, be offset to some extent
by federally mandated liability insurance requirements on the
nuclear industry as well as potential federal financial assistance
in the event of a major emergency. These state and local fiscal
impacts, however, could still be major.
Summary of Fiscal Effects
We estimate that this measure could have the following major
fiscal effects:
- Potential impacts on state and local finances in the form of
decreased revenues and increased costs due to possible
electricity price increases and state liabilities. The magnitude
of these impacts are uncertain, but could be significant,
depending in part on the need for system upgrades for
replacement power and whether the state is liable for investment
losses.
- Potential avoidance of major future state and local
government costs and lost revenues in the rare event of a major
nuclear plant incident.
Return to Propositions
Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page