regarding the once through cooling technique used by Diablo Canyon, and system overgeneration problems related to Diablo Canyon’s constant operation. [fn. omitted] PG&E showed also that continued operation of Diablo Canyon is a bad fit in the context of California’s goal of reducing GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions in part by increasing use of renewable energy resources. This is because Diablo Canyon is a baseload, relatively inflexible resource that would exacerbate overgeneration and would result in continued curtailment of renewable resources. PG&E also admits that Diablo Canyon is no longer necessary for reliability. [fn. omitted] PG&E also projects that its load will shrink considerably by the time Diablo Canyon closes. Between 2017 and 2025, PG&E forecasts that approximately 20,000 GWh [gigawatt hours] of load will migrate to CCAs . [fn. omitted] This is comparable to the amount of bundled customer load (18,500 GWh) Diablo Canyon currently serves. In PG&E’s own words CCA loads depart somewhat sooner “whether or later than expected does not change the overall conclusion that DCPP is not needed for PG&E’s customers after the expiration of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses in 2024 and 2025.” [fn. omitted] (City and County of San Francisco Opening Brief at 3.) Other parties, while not actively supporting PG&E’s proposal, do not oppose it, including: ORA (ORA Opening Brief at 4), Alliance for Retail Energy Markets, the California Clean DG Coalition, CLECA, the Direct Access Customer Coalition, the Energy Users Forum, Marin Clean Energy, Peninsula Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority, and Sonoma Clean Power Authority (Joint Opponents Opening Brief at 2). Only one active party, CGNP, argues that Diablo Canyon should continue to operate beyond 2025. CGNP makes three substantive arguments for keeping Diablo Canyon operating: Diablo Canyon is more cost effective than the
regarding the once through cooling technique used by Diablo Canyon, and system overgeneration problems related to Diablo Canyon’s constant operation. [fn. omitted] PG&E showed also that continued operation of Diablo Canyon is a bad fit in the context of California’s goal of reducing GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions in part by increasing use of renewable energy resources. This is because Diablo Canyon is a baseload, relatively inflexible resource that would exacerbate overgeneration and would result in continued curtailment of renewable resources. PG&E also admits that Diablo Canyon is no longer necessary for reliability. [fn. omitted] PG&E also projects that its load will shrink considerably by the time Diablo Canyon closes. Between 2017 and 2025, PG&E forecasts that approximately 20,000 GWh [gigawatt hours] of load will migrate to CCAs . [fn. omitted] This is comparable to the amount of bundled customer load (18,500 GWh) Diablo Canyon currently serves. In PG&E’s own words “whether CCA loads depart somewhat sooner or later than expected does not change the overall conclusion that DCPP is not needed for PG&E’s customers after the expiration of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses in 2024 and 2025.” [fn. omitted] (City and County of San Francisco Opening Brief at 3.) Other parties, while not actively supporting PG&E’s proposal, do not oppose it, including: ORA (ORA Opening Brief at 4), Alliance for Retail Energy Markets, the California Clean DG Coalition, CLECA, the Direct Access Customer Coalition, the Energy Users Forum, Marin Clean Energy, Peninsula Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority, and Sonoma Clean Power Authority (Joint Opponents Opening Brief at 2). Only one active party, CGNP, argues that Diablo Canyon should continue to operate beyond 2025. CGNP makes three substantive arguments for keeping Diablo Canyon operating: Diablo Canyon is more cost effective than the
201011453.docx