Our Atomic Dominoes are Falling

[PamW]

21. WRONG AGAIN!!

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:02 AM - Edit history (2)

kristopher,

In connection with my job; I've been briefed on this subject extensively by Lab lawyers.

I've even read the original US Supreme Court holding in PG&E v. State Energy Conservation and Development Commission.

In this case, the US Supreme Court reiterated its finding in Baltimore Electric v. NRDC, that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 preempts nearly ALL State regulation of nuclear power.

However, the US Supreme Court "carved out" an exception to that preemption in this case. The US Supreme Court's logic was that if a federal repository were not forthcoming, the State-regulated utility Pacific Gas and Electric could face economic hardships. Since the utility is State-regulated and, in essence, guaranteed a profit because it is a utility; the hardship would thereby fall on the citizens of California to bail-out the utility in case a default by the US Government on the repository.

THAT is the legal rationale for giving California a "veto" over new power plants in the State.

However, look what has happened since deregulation. The guaranteed profit utility Pacific Gas & Electric no longer owns Diablo Canyon. Pacific Gas and Electric doesn't own any nuclear power plants; and hence is not on the hook for any costs if a repository is delayed.

The owner of Diablo Canyon is now an ordinary corporation called PGECorp. PGECorp owns Diablo Canyon and PGECorp and its shareholders are responsible for any cost overruns at Diablo Canyon.

In essence, the State of California in its deregulation legislation of a decade ago, absolved the ratepayers of California of any responsibility for the financial health of Diablo Canyon. However, it was that responsibility, and that responsibility alone; that was the rationale for the US Supreme Court to give the State a say in the nuclear power operations of the electric utility.

Since the State absolved itself and its citizens of financial responsibility for nuclear power; it also absolved itself of any rationale for State control over nuclear power.

If this initiative were to go forward, get challenged in the Courts, and make it to the US Supreme Court, the legal experts in nuclear power law that advised me say that; given the change in ownership and responsibilities; that the US Supreme Court would in all probability REVERSE the holding in the above case.

I WELCOME that initiative; because I see in it a way for the present California law to be OVERTURNED.

Be careful what you wish for with this initiative; you just might get it.

As always, kris; you missed the whole point. It's not about investors being able to sue if the State closes the plant. The main issue is whether the State of California has ANY power over nuclear power plants in the State. The ONLY reason the State of California was not TOTALLY PREEMPTED by Federal law was the US Supreme Court carved out this narrow rationale. That rationale is now gone. So my legal experts tell me that if the present situation were reviewed by the US Supreme Court, in light of the current situation, California would LOSE that power and be TOTALLY PREEMPTED by Federal law.

PamW