“Ratepayers have an interest in avoiding nuclear accidents” stated Rochelle Becker of the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. “PG&E cannot guarantee that a larger earthquake won’t result in a leak or some other disaster. Nor has PG&E addressed the costs that could arise from a 6.5 magnitude earthquake in December 2003. Its time to start planning for safer and more cost effective electric generation than Diablo can provide.” Becker noted that the danger goes far beyond the community of San Luis Obispo. “It is important to remember that the radioactive cloud from Chernobyl traveled over 6000 miles. No one is exempt from this nuclear nightmare,” she said.

PG&E claims that the $706 million project (over $100 million more that original utility estimates for design and construction of its nuclear facility) is reasonable and fair. However, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace joined by Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Environment California, and Greenpeace contend the costs of replacement of expensive aging components will boost the price tag considerably. The costs of security enhancements in a post 9/11/01 world will raise the tab still higher. Becker noted that ratepayers have already borne the burden of over $ 4 billion in cost overruns, and that as the plant ages it will only become more expensive to keep it running.”

“As people get older, their spending on health care increases, PG&E is attempting to convince the CPUC that it can operate an aging nuclear plant for many more years at today’s spending levels” stated David Lochbaum, a renowned expert of nuclear operations for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“Diablo Canyon and other nuclear plants are strategic targets in a worsening threat environment. As their vulnerability is recognized, costly security enhancements will be required,” stated Gordon Thompson. Mr. Thompson’s security recommendations have been adopted by world governments and United States agencies.

Consumer advocacy organization TURN, The Utility Reform Network, contends that PG&E is wrong to expect consumers to pay for expensive replacements. “PG&E has been lax and irresponsible in refusing to demand that Westinghouse, the manufacture of the failing steam generators, pay for their replacement,” advised Matt Freedman. The Utility Reform Network contends that PG&E is wrong to expect consumers to pay for the expensive replacements. "PG&E has been lax and irresponsible in refusing to demand that Westinghouse, the manufacturer of the failing steam generators, pay for their replacement," advised staff attorney Matt Freedman. "When Southern California Edison's steam generators at San Onofre began to fail, the CPUC directed them to sue Westinghouse. PG&E failed to take any action against Westinghouse. They owe it to customers to pursue every possible alternative to raising rates."

Quotation: "By refusing to consider seismic issues or alternatives to Diablo, the PUC is insisting we throw good money after bad and extend the life of this antiquated money-sink. A huge opportunity to both save money and advance the cause of renewable energy supplies for California is being missed," said Carl Zichella, Regional Staff Director for the Sierra Club.