TURN explained that PG&E failed to provide a accounting for the Utility and DOC staff increase in its testimony. Moreover, TURN provided comprehensive critiques of attempt to PG&E’s justify these increases based on experiences at HBPP and other nuclear facilities. The Commission agreed with arguments and found TURN’s D.17-05-020, pages 38-41. that PG&E failed to meet its burden of proof for $505 million in costs relating to both categories. In rejecting the case presented by PG&E, the Commission notes that the cost estimate comparisons provided by TURN for other nuclear facilities “are more the convincing” than justifications provided by PG&E. 4. DCPP DCE / RIP AND SHIP Verified TURN criticized PG&E’s Testimony of Bruce Lacy (Ex. 33), assumed use of a and page 25. “rip ship” approach to demolishing all TURN opening brief, pages 36-37. structures on the Diablo TURN opening comments on Canyon site. TURN argued Proposed Decision, page 1. that the expanded use of “rip and in the current ship” estimate should not be endorsed by the Commission. The Commission noted that concerns regarding TURN’s D.17-05-020, page 68. the and assumption “rip ship” were endorsed in the 2012 NDCTP and affirmed that “The Commission continues to share these The concerns.”
TURN explained that PG&E failed to provide a accounting for the Utility and DOC staff increase in its testimony. Moreover, TURN provided comprehensive critiques of PG&E’s attempt to justify these increases based on experiences at HBPP and other nuclear facilities. The Commission agreed with TURN’s arguments and found that PG&E failed to meet its burden of proof for $505 million in costs relating to both categories. In rejecting the case presented by PG&E, the Commission notes that the cost estimate comparisons provided by TURN for other nuclear facilities “are more convincing” than the justifications provided by PG&E. D.17-05-020, pages 38-41. 4. DCPP DCE / RIP AND SHIP TURN criticized PG&E’s assumed use of a “rip and ship” approach to demolishing all structures on the Diablo Canyon site. TURN argued that the expanded use of “rip and ship” in the current estimate should not be endorsed by the Commission. The Commission noted that TURN’s concerns regarding the “rip and ship” assumption were endorsed in the 2012 NDCTP and affirmed that “The Commission continues to share these concerns.” The Testimony of Bruce Lacy (Ex. 33), page 25. TURN opening brief, pages 36-37. TURN opening comments on Proposed Decision, page 1. D.17-05-020, page 68. Verified
237382952.docx