Public commenters split on Diablo extension — economic benefits, safety and land-rights among top concerns

Public comment stretched across the final hour and presented a wide range of perspectives.

Supporters — including current and former plant employees, union representatives, business and chamber groups, educators and some academics — emphasized jobs, high wages, local tax contributions and Diablo Canyon’s role in providing carbon-free generation. “I love living on the Central Coast… I just hope that I don't have to give that up soon,” said a plant employee during public comment, while Chamber representatives and community business leaders urged the county to press Sacramento for stable mitigation funding.

Opponents and cautionary voices raised multiple technical and fiscal concerns: several speakers questioned seismic analyses (one commenter asked about a southwest-boundary fault model and a thrust fault beneath the plant), reactor-vessel embrittlement and the adequacy and impartiality of economic studies (one commenter noted that John Parsons’ paper is an individual lecturer’s commentary and raised questions about funding sources). Environmental and community groups urged retiring the plant on the fastest safe timeline to accelerate investment in storage and flexibility.

Tribal representatives pressed for land-return planning: Mona Olivas Tucker, chair of the Northern Chumash organization, said the tribe demands that returning land be a priority whether the plant operates through 2045 or closes sooner: “If the plant runs to 2045, we want our land back. Back.” Many attendees also stressed that any extension should include binding, durable commitments from PG&E or the state to restore school and county revenues lost after earlier decommissioning timelines.