Energy: nuclear generation facilities.
AB 65 mandates the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to create a plan by January 1, 2026, to enhance procurement of electricity from nuclear facilities while simultaneously phasing out the procurement of electricity generated from natural gas facilities. This approach reflects an increased reliance on stable energy sources like nuclear power, particularly as California faces climate change challenges and aims to transition away from fossil fuels. The emphasis on including small modular reactors also indicates a potential shift towards more flexible and safer nuclear solutions that address public safety concerns and waste management issues.
Assembly Bill 65, introduced by Assembly Member Mathis and coauthored by Assembly Members Arambula and Hoover, aims to amend California's energy policies concerning nuclear fission thermal power plants. This bill seeks to repeal existing provisions that restrict the certification of nuclear facilities unless specific conditions are met regarding the technology for reprocessing nuclear fuel rods and managing high-level nuclear waste. By doing so, AB 65 opens the door for the development of nuclear energy as part of California’s broader strategy to achieve carbon neutrality and to supply 100% of its electricity from renewable and zero-carbon resources by 2045.
The sentiment surrounding AB 65 appears to be mixed among stakeholders. Supporters, including certain environmental advocates, contend that expanding nuclear energy is essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring a reliable energy supply as the state transitions from natural gas. On the other hand, critics express concerns about nuclear safety and the unresolved issues surrounding nuclear waste disposal. Public opinion is likely influenced by the historical context of nuclear energy in the state, particularly after the Fukushima disaster and ongoing discussions about the environmental impacts of nuclear waste.
Key points of contention center around safety measures and the adequacy of waste management solutions associated with increased nuclear energy reliance. Opponents of the bill are particularly apprehensive about the potential risks of accidents and the long-term storage of nuclear waste. Moreover, the efficacy of phasing out natural gas — which many still see as a necessary transitional fuel — is a topic of heated debate, with concerns about energy reliability and affordability. Ultimately, AB 65 reflects a balancing act between moving towards cleaner energy sources while addressing pressing safety and environmental concerns.