Study first, react later? California's nuclear maybe

While two states lifted longstanding moratoriums on the construction of nuclear power plants this year, joining a broader national and global trend, California is content to wait.

A bill introduced in February by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon, D-Whittier, would have eliminated the 50-year-old restriction by clarifying that California's law does not apply to "advanced" reactors licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 2005.

That version of the bill, if passed, would not have triggered a wave of nuclear plant construction in California, but it would have opened the door for new designs to be considered in a state with only one operating nuclear plant -- Diablo Canyon -- which provides 9% of California's electricity.

But Calderon's bill ran into trouble before its first hearing before the Assembly, and she amended it so that the proposed law would not eliminate the moratorium but instead ask the California Energy Commission to study the possibility, with a report due in July 2027.

Studies are famous ways for legislative bodies to quietly kill a bill, and nuclear power opponents viewed the April 20 vote as a win - even if they would rather the state Legislature reject the study on the grounds that no extra money should be spent to determine that it's too dangerous.

"The amendment of AB 2647 to no longer propose ending the state's 50-year ban on new nuclear reactor construction is a win for anyone who doesn't want a more radioactive California," said Haakon "Hoken" Williams, executive director of the Committee to Close the Gap, one of several groups opposing a revival of nuclear power.

A major setback - or not?

William E. Fork, a partner with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP who represents electric utility companies on plant regulation, said the Legislature's decision to do a study instead of repealing California's moratorium is a "setback for nuclear power."

But he took an optimistic view because of trends both in states that have recently revoked moratoriums on new nuclear power plants and in countries that are revisiting past opposition in light of the need for reliable baseline power.

New Jersey became the latest state to repeal its moratorium when Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a bill last month removing a permitting hurdle that created a de facto ban on new nuclear plants in her state.

"By lifting outdated barriers and bringing together leaders across government, industry, and labor, we're setting the stage for our state to pursue new advanced nuclear power," the Democrat said in a statement.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signed a similar bill in January, joining four other states - Wisconsin, Kentucky, Montana and West Virginia - that have repealed moratoriums on new nuclear plants or requirements that federal waste disposal sites be established during the past decade.

Only eight states, including California, still have moratoriums on new nuclear power plants.

Brian T. Clegg, a San Francisco partner with Downey Brand LLP who represents clients on energy transactional and regulatory matters, said turning the legislation into a study bill "probably is intended to kick the can down the road. It is delaying a decision, assuming the bill passes."

"The legislators are apparently concluding that the public is not yet ready for an exemption, and the study bill, if it passes, buys time for further developments in the technology," he added. "Other states are going ahead with advanced nuclear technology, and I think California is happy to let them take the lead, to see how things turn out."

Fork said a year's delay is not necessarily significant, given the long period of time - five to 10 years - it takes to build nuclear plants.

"Nuclear power is something that takes a long time to do," he said.

Legislators worry about safety

California's amended bill passed 11-1, with two assemblymembers not voting, although one of them, Al Muratsachi, voiced opposition to the bill, citing a trip he took to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan after a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and tsunami in 2011 prompted meltdowns.

The assemblyman, describing scenes of weeds growing out of abandoned cars and schools during the hearing, said "it was something out of a sci-fi movie."

Muratsuchi acknowledged that Japan, like other countries in Asia and Europe, is reopening nuclear plants that were closed and planning to build more by 2030 in the wake of energy crises following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and U.S. and Israeli military attacks on Iran.

"I understand it's a complicated issue," said Muratsuchi, adding that he could not support even a study bill.

Other legislators backed the amended bill, including in a subsequent vote by the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee.

"The fact that it's a study gives me some sense of comfort," said Assemblymember Ash Kalra, D-San Jose. "This is not a rubber stamp to move forward."

Legislators' main concerns were what to do with the nuclear waste and risks of terrorist attacks, and they wanted the energy commission to address them in the study.

Nuclear revival in Europe, Asia

European countries have realized that they cannot rely on Russia for natural gas, or even Qatar given the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz, and several - including Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands - have made policy shifts to remove limits on nuclear power. Most of France's electricity already comes from nuclear plants.

Even Germany, which closed its commercial nuclear reactors, is having second thoughts. Chancellor Friedrich Merz said in a January speech that the decision was "a serious strategic mistake. We simply don't have enough energy generation capacity."

But for all the optimism about nuclear power, there remains lingering resistance and concern about a source of power that is still defined in the popular imagination by films like "The China Syndrome" and the HBO miniseries, "Chernobyl."

Despite concerns about electricity, the fate of nuclear power in California remains as unclear as ever.

No more gag rule?

The Securities and Exchange Commission is gearing up to get rid of its longstanding rule requiring defendants who reach settlements with the agency not to deny the allegations later. The Office of Management and Budget received a draft of the proposed change last Friday.

The Trump administration's proposed switch is occurring while defendants are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that the 1972 SEC rule is constitutional.

Critics of the "no admit, no deny" rule complain that it is compelled speech and a violation of their First Amendment rights. But 9th Circuit Judge Daniel A. Bress, writing for the panel, said that a speech restriction as part of an overall settlement was in the interest of the SEC and defendants.