The City of SLO has joined up with five other incorporated cities on the Central Coast to make sure they all get a fair deal in the closure of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Aside from SLO are the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, and Pismo Beach. However with 30-some council members, six mayors and city managers and their staff, in the loop, SLO City Manager Katie Lichtig and City Attorney Christine Dietrick are speaking for the group.
“The Coalition of Cities took this strong and historic action to protect the health and safety of our residents, support the economic vitality of our communities in the aftermath of the plant’s closure and defend the quality of life in our communities.” said Lichtig in an initial press statement. “This collective action is particularly important given that spent nuclear waste will be in our backyards for the foreseeable future…”
Dietrick added that the Coalition of Cities came together with the Sept. 16 response deadline in mind at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) after PG&E filed a Joint Proposal to close the plant in conjunction with other stakeholders in June.
In forming the Coalition the six cities signed an agreement to work together towards the mutual interests of their residents. That was an interesting and unusual step, in a way borrowing from PG&E’s decision to partner with many other groups in their own CPUC filing.
However the Coalition is not opposing the proposed closure, merely advocating around a list of concerns not necessarily addressed in the Joint Proposal.
In addition to asking for PG&E to be, “a model corporate citizen to support the orderly transition and regional economic stability for the surrounding region,” they’d like the CPUC to address: “…solutions to lessen the negative impacts associated with the long-term storage of nuclear waste at the site; investigate and support implementation of job creation and economic diversification strategies; … and explore options for the future use of existing facilities, protection of land and marine resources, cultural resources, historic sites and desalinated water.”
Another, concrete and verifiable action listed in their announcement is a request for, “a third-party economic and fiscal impact analysis of the closure so it can be better prepared – with verifiable data – to discuss the aftermath of the plant’s closure, including economic impact and recovery efforts.”
Current estimates of the Power Plant’s economic impact on the Central Coast hover around $1 billion.
According to the schedule proposed by PG&E, responses to the filings are due Sept. 26.
