FERC on Thursday threw out on technical grounds a complaint by the activist group Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) against multiple agencies, closing another door on the nonprofit’s attempt to stop the closure of Pacific Gas and Electric’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant (EL21-13).

In denying the complaint against CAISO, the commission said CGNP had “not met its burden under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act.” The remaining complaints against NERC, WECC, the California Public Utilities Commission, the California State Water Resources Control Board and the California State Lands Commission were dismissed on the grounds that they “are not proper respondents.”

CGNP describes itself as a group of scientists “dedicated to promoting the peaceful use of safe, carbon-free nuclear power.” Its complaint, filed in October, argued that the respondents failed to anticipate or counter potential “adverse bulk electric system and … bulk natural gas system consequences” from closing the plant.

Diablo Canyon comprises two nuclear reactors with a nameplate capacity of 2.3 GW and has operated since 1985. In 2019, it produced nearly 16.2 TWh of electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, accounting for about 10% of in-state generation.

Group Sees Trouble in Plant Closure

The closure of Diablo Canyon has been in the works since 2016, when PG&E asked the CPUC to approve a plan, created in partnership with environmental, labor and anti-nuclear advocacy groups, to begin shutting down the plant in phases between 2024 and 2025. The utility intends to replace the nuclear plant with “a portfolio of [greenhouse gas]-free resources” as a means of meeting renewable energy goals set by California’s legislature in 2015.

CGNP has been a vocal critic of the shutdown plan, arguing before the CPUC that Diablo Canyon is the most cost-effective option for supplying the state’s power needs. The group says that nuclear power is more dependable than wind and solar, making it an essential provider of baseload capacity. Replacing Diablo Canyon with unstable renewable resources will increase California’s reliance on natural gas, which must be imported over aging pipelines that are vulnerable to disruption from the region’s geological fault lines.

In its FERC filings the group claimed that NERC and WECC had disregarded their responsibilities under the regional reliability standard BAL-002-WECC-2a, which took effect in January 2017 and mandates the minimum contingency reserves that must be maintained by each balancing authority and reserve sharing group in order to “ensure reliability under normal and abnormal conditions.” (See CGNP Fleshes out Diablo Canyon FERC Complaint.) CGNP asked for several actions from FERC:

• halt the respondents’ alleged violations through its “plenary jurisdiction”;
• issue the appropriate orders to ensure the region maintains a reliable supply of natural gas in the event of Diablo Canyon’s retirement;
• review CAISO’s implementation of California’s loading order, which gives preference to renewable energy and distributed generation over nuclear and other resources for meeting demand, as “unduly preferential and discriminatory”; and
• disallow the cost recovery granted PG&E for the infrastructure needed to transmit Diablo Canyon’s power and investigate the effects of the facility’s closure on California electric rates.

No Role for FERC

CGNP’s arguments have garnered some support from other activist groups, including the American Nuclear Society and the Thorium Energy Alliance. However, it has also received strong criticism from NERC and the other respondents. (See NERC Blasts Calif. Nuclear Group’s Complaint.)

In its order to dismiss the complaint, FERC observed a number of technical challenges with CGNP’s proposals. With regard to NERC, WECC and the California agencies, the commission noted that “these entities do not have rates … on file with the commission that are subject to [its] jurisdiction,” making it unclear what action the commission can take to address the alleged infractions. Furthermore, in citing BAL-002-WECC-2a, the complainant fails to identify specific requirements that have been violated or are at risk of violation.

In denying the CAISO claim, FERC said that under FPA Section 206, CGNP bears “the burden of proof to show that any rate, charge, classification, rule, regulation, practice, or contract is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential.” This requirement has not been met, according to the commission, because “much of the complaint focuses on pipeline safety issues or matters regulated by the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] … and alleged procedural defects in CPUC proceedings,” none of which are relevant to CAISO as a grid operator.

FERC further said that CGNP is factually incorrect in its claims about California’s loading order, which its complaint describes as a CAISO policy but is a “state policy” that neither “binds [nor] guides CAISO.” The commission also called the rate argument “unpersuasive,” pointing out that the only specific rates discussed in CGNP’s complaint are from PG&E, which is not a named respondent. It described CGNP’s prediction of higher rates due to the retirement of Diablo Canyon as a “speculative allegation [that is] insufficient to satisfy a complainant’s burden.”

Eyes on California

Despite their unanimous agreement to dismiss CGNP’s complaint, commissioners indicated that they remain worried about the ability of utilities in the Western Interconnection to meet demand for power.

“I share [CGNP’s] concerns about the reliability consequences of [Diablo Canyon’s] planned retirement, but [the] complainant must do more than list a handful of entities with reliability oversight and baldly assert potential reliability violations for its pleading to be viable,” Commissioner James Danly said in a concurrence.

Danly reminded the other commissioners that he had called for an investigation into CAISO’s markets following the rolling blackouts of August 2020 and said he still supports such an inquiry. He suggested the investigation should specifically look into “whether and why CAISO’s markets cannot sustain a resource like Diablo Canyon.” (See FERC Won’t Meddle in CAISO Resource Adequacy, Yet.)

Commissioner Allison Clements also indicated that the commission will continue to seek avenues for addressing resource adequacy in the West, while taking care not to overstep its boundaries.

“All of the commission officers and FERC staff are watching the situation in California closely. But that concern does not compel the commission to support actions that would usurp the state of California’s right to make its own resource decisions,” Clements said. “That’s not to say the commission lacks a role — quite the opposite. As I’ve said before, I believe the commission should be ready and available to provide any analysis or tools that California needs to address its reliability or resource adequacy challenges.”

In an emailed statement, Gene Nelson of CGNP acknowledged that FERC appeared to have “carefully reviewed our complaint” and said that a recent projection of resource adequacy by CPUC indicated a growing need for energy imports in the near future. Without providing specific indication of the group’s next steps, he said that Danly’s statement “offers clarification of our path forward.”

“Clearly, CGNP has its work cut out for it in its second amended complaint,” Nelson said. “I think we can meet this challenge.”