Editorial: 10 more years of nuclear power? Gov. Newsom needs to make the case

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

57% : It's not for lack of time; regulators have known since 2016, when PG&E reached an agreement with environmental groups to close the plant's two reactors, that they would need to replace the carbon-free electricity it provides with renewable energy and storage.
56% : The governor has argued that running the plant's two nuclear reactors for another decade would be a stopgap measure to help California keep the lights on when power demand surges on hot summer evenings and fight climate change by preserving an around-the-clock source of carbon-free electricity until more renewable energy comes online.
51% : But giving new life to nuclear power is such a big change, with so many trade-offs, that Newsom needs to make the case that his plan will support the state's transition to renewable energy, rather than slowing it down, will actually prevent blackouts and will avert more environmental risks than it prolongs.
51% : Officials with the governor's office argue that both the reliability reserve and Diablo Canyon are last-resort options that they wouldn't be doing if the state's procurement of clean energy wasn't behind schedule and they weren't seriously worried about energy shortfalls.
43% : The governor has been scrambling to secure the state's power grid against blackouts during hot summer evenings when risk of energy shortfalls is highest because solar power drops off but demand for cooling persists.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.