California, once a pioneer in environmental policy, now finds itself in an energy quagmire of its own making. Skyrocketing electricity prices, frequent blackouts, and a heavy reliance on imported power have become hallmarks of the Golden State’s energy landscape. At the heart of this crisis lies a nearly 50-year-old moratorium on new nuclear power plants, enacted in 1976 amid fears over radioactive waste disposal. While the intent was precautionary, the policy has ossified into a barrier against reliable, carbon-free energy. As the state grapples with ambitious climate goals, surging demand from AI data centers, and a pattern of regulatory overreach stifling traditional energy sectors like oil and gas, it’s time to ask: Can California afford to keep nuclear off the table? And more critically, will it?
The History of California’s Nuclear Moratorium
The roots of California’s nuclear freeze trace back to the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s, fueled by public anxiety over safety and waste following incidents like the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. In 1976, Proposition 15—a ballot initiative seeking to ban new nuclear plants—failed at the polls, largely due to heavy opposition funding from the nuclear industry.
However, the California legislature responded to the growing sentiment by passing laws under the Warren-Alquist Act, effectively imposing a moratorium on new nuclear fission reactors until the federal government establishes a permanent solution for high-level radioactive waste disposal.
This policy led to immediate consequences. Plans for the Sundesert Nuclear Power Plant were scrapped in 1978, and by the 1980s, several proposed reactors were canceled amid economic and environmental pushback.
The moratorium was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983, affirming states’ rights to regulate nuclear development for economic reasons, even if safety was a federal domain.
Over the decades, this has left California with only one operating nuclear facility: the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, which provides about 9% of the state’s electricity and 17% of its low-carbon power.
Other plants, like Rancho Seco (closed in 1989 after a public vote) and San Onofre (decommissioned in 2013 due to equipment failures), have faded into history.
The moratorium was never intended to be permanent; it was a pause pending federal waste solutions. Yet, half a century later, with no national repository in sight (despite sites like Yucca Mountain being debated and stalled), the ban persists.
This has effectively sidelined nuclear as a viable option, even as technology has advanced with safer small modular reactors (SMRs) and better waste management techniques.
California’s Energy Policy Failures: A Recipe for Instability
Compounding the nuclear drought are California’s aggressive renewable mandates, which have driven up costs without delivering reliability. The state boasts the second-highest electricity prices in the continental U.S., behind only Hawaii, with rates surging due to policies prioritizing intermittent sources like solar and wind.
Early adoption of renewables in the 2000s locked in high costs—solar panels were ten times more expensive then than now—leading to a “renewable energy paradox” where clean power goals clash with affordability.
The results? Blackouts in 2020 and 2022, forcing the state to beg residents to conserve power and even avoid charging electric vehicles during peaks.
California now imports up to 30% of its electricity, often from fossil fuels in neighboring states, undermining its climate leadership.
Policies like the 50% renewable mandate by 2030 (excluding nuclear) have layered mandates without market incentives, contrasting with Texas’s more cost-effective approach.
Biomass subsidies, for instance, cost four times the average and pollute heavily, yet persist as a “money pit.”
These failures stem from a top-down regulatory approach that discourages investment in baseload power, leaving the grid vulnerable as demand soars—projected to rise 76% by 2045 from electrification and AI.
Critics argue this is “Green Jim Crow,” disproportionately burdening low-income communities with higher bills.
Why California Must Re-Examine Nuclear Power
Nuclear offers a lifeline: reliable, zero-emission baseload energy that complements renewables. Lifting the moratorium could unlock SMRs, which are cheaper, safer, and faster to build than traditional reactors.
Pros include slashing emissions—extending Diablo Canyon alone could cut 10% from 2017 levels—and creating jobs, with potential $12 billion in unrealized investments by 2040.
It supports desalination for water-scarce California and meets AI-driven demand without fossil backups.
Globally, bodies like the World Bank now endorse nuclear for equitable decarbonization.
Cons? Waste remains unresolved, though dry cask storage is safe indefinitely.
Safety fears persist, but modern designs are less risky, and no U.S. plant has caused widespread harm.
Costs are high upfront, but operational savings accrue over decades. SMRs may not fully solve waste or proliferation risks, but they’re no worse than current tech.
Balanced views suggest nuclear isn’t essential but wise for reliability.
Without it, California can’t hit net-zero by 2045 independently.
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, California’s last operating nuclear facility, highlights the potential for reliable clean energy amid growing demands.
Regulatory Overreach: A Pattern Extending to Nuclear?
California’s heavy hand on oil and gas foreshadows challenges for nuclear revival. Senate Bill 1137 (2022) bans drilling within 3,200 feet of sensitive sites, affecting a third of federal leases and drawing federal lawsuits for overreach.
The Trump administration challenged it under executive orders protecting “American energy dominance,” arguing it violates federal land laws.
Similar suits target local natural gas bans in buildings, citing federal preemption.
This regulatory zeal—suing oil companies for climate damages while rescinding federal climate findings—creates uncertainty.
For nuclear, it means navigating stringent oversight from the California Coastal Commission and Public Utilities Commission, even for extensions like Diablo Canyon’s.
Environmental groups, influential in Democratic politics, oppose lifting the ban, stalling bills like AB 2092 (2024) for SMR studies.
Will They? Is There Hope?
Recent shifts offer glimmers. In 2022, Gov. Newsom extended Diablo Canyon to 2030 to avert blackouts, tapping federal funds.
Bills to exempt SMRs or repeal the moratorium have surfaced, with allies like Assemblyman Alex Lee co-sponsoring reforms.
At COP30 in 2025, Newsom praised nuclear’s role in low-carbon strategies.
Nine states still have moratoriums, but calls to revisit them grow, with California potentially leading if politics align.
Yet, opposition from groups like the Sierra Club and UCS persists, citing unresolved waste and safety.
A 2025 panel urged an “all-of-the-above” approach, but governance failures—prioritizing ideology over pragmatism—could delay action.
Hope lies in public pressure, federal incentives, and economic realities forcing a rethink.Conclusion: Time to Power UpCalifornia’s survival—economically, environmentally, and energetically—depends on ditching outdated dogma. Ending the nuclear moratorium isn’t just about survival; it’s about thriving in a high-demand, low-carbon future. With substantiated benefits outweighing mitigated risks, the state must act boldly. If not, it risks importing not just power, but leadership too. The question isn’t if nuclear is needed—it’s whether California has the will to embrace it.
Stu Turley will interview Katy Grimes, Editor-in-Chief of the California Globe, this week to discuss the energy crisis, regulatory overreach, and corruption under Gavin Newsom’s leadership.
Sources: voiceofoc.org, anthropoceneinstitute.com, pillsburylaw.com. sfchronicle.com, whitehouse.gov, washingtonexaminer.com
Get your CEO on the #1 Energy Podcast in the United States: https://sandstoneassetmgmt.com/media/
Is oil and gas right for your portfolio? https://sandstoneassetmgmt.com/invest-in-oil-and-gas/
Be the first to comment