Why California Is Reconsidering Its Decision to Shun Nuclear Power

The state is considering extending the life of its last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, and allowing construction of new reactors to help meet its clean energy goals.

California spent decades treating nuclear power as a political pariah. It shuttered every plant except Diablo Canyon, enacted a 1976-era moratorium on new reactors until a federal permanent waste repository exists, and celebrated plans to close its last plant. That consensus is cracking.

A New York Times report this week details the shift: after closing other nuclear facilities, the state is weighing a longer life for Diablo Canyon and studying whether to ease the ban on new reactors. The California Legislature recently passed a bill directing the California Energy Commission to study the feasibility of advanced nuclear technologies to help meet the 2045 100 percent clean electricity target. That target counts nuclear as clean, alongside solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders have voiced support for nuclear. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already relicensed Diablo Canyon’s two units through 2044 and 2045. State law, however, currently authorizes operations only through 2029–2030. Newsom has indicated he will leave any further extension to the next governor.

Diablo Canyon sits on the Central Coast and has been a protest magnet since it was proposed in 1963. It still supplies roughly 9 percent of California’s in-state electricity and a much larger share of its firm, carbon-free power. Closing it on the original 2025 schedule looked increasingly reckless as demand from electrification and data centers rose and as the limits of weather-dependent generation became obvious.

California’s Energy Mix Still Needs Firm Power

California’s generation mix has changed dramatically. Solar has surged. Over the 12 months ending mid-2026, natural gas remained the largest source at about 33 percent, solar around 29 percent, hydro 13 percent, nuclear 9 percent, and wind 8 percent. Renewables reached nearly 58 percent and carbon-free sources (renewables plus nuclear) about 67 percent in some tallies. In-state 2025 data from the California Energy Commission shows similar patterns: gas still generated the most electricity, followed by solar PV, large hydro, nuclear, and wind.

Solar has even beaten gas on many days and set monthly records, helped by batteries that store midday surplus. That is real progress. It does not eliminate the need for always-on, weather-independent generation. Gas still fills gaps on hot evenings and during multi-day weather events. California remains a net importer in many periods. Nuclear at Diablo Canyon is one of the few large, dispatchable, zero-carbon assets the state already owns. Losing it would force more gas or more imports at the exact moment officials claim they are racing to 100 percent clean power.

The Regulatory Machine That Cannot Build on Time or Budget

The same government now talking about nuclear has spent years making almost every large energy and infrastructure project slower and more expensive. CEQA lawsuits, layered permitting, local veto points, and shifting political priorities have become the state’s signature delivery system.

High-speed rail is the clearest exhibit. Voters approved a $33 billion San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line by 2020. Current estimates range from $126 billion for an “optimized” version to more than $230 billion under older assumptions. The first operating segment (Merced–Bakersfield) is now targeted for the early 2030s at a cost comparable to the original full-project price. Track laying is only now beginning after years of viaducts and structures sitting in the Central Valley. Energy News Beat has covered the ballooning costs and the political theater.

The French national railway SNCF, which advised California early on, walked away. Project manager Dan McNamara later said SNCF told the state it was leaving for North Africa because it was “less politically dysfunctional.” SNCF then helped Morocco build Al Boraq, Africa’s first high-speed line. Morocco completed a 201-mile Tangier–Casablanca route that opened in 2018 at a fraction of California’s per-mile cost and on a schedule California has never matched. Morocco is now extending the network toward Marrakesh ahead of the 2030 World Cup. A country with a far smaller economy finished what California, with a nearly $4 trillion economy, still cannot.

High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri has himself blamed California’s accumulating regulations. “We kept regulating ourselves more and more and more,” he said. That is not an outside critic talking. That is the person running the project.

The pattern repeats in oil and gas. California once had more than 20 refineries producing transportation fuels. After the 2025 closure of Phillips 66’s Los Angeles complex and Valero’s Benicia shutdown in April 2026, the state is down to a handful of remaining facilities—commonly cited as seven or eight that still produce CARB-spec gasoline and diesel. Regulatory costs, unique fuel specifications, declining in-state crude production, and policy signals that the industry has no long-term future have driven operators out. Remaining plants face higher operating costs than counterparts in Texas. The result is tighter supply, greater import dependence, volatile prices, and warnings of shortages. Energy News Beat has documented the national-security and consumer-price implications of this managed decline.

Newsom’s administration has layered climate rules, permitting delays, and liability regimes that raise the cost of keeping existing energy infrastructure running while new “clean” projects crawl through reviews. Transmission upgrades needed to connect already-permitted renewables routinely miss dates. Housing, water, and emergency systems show the same over-budget, late pattern.

Nuclear Is the Logical Answer—If California Can Actually Deliver It

More nuclear would be an enormous improvement. Diablo Canyon already proves the point: high-capacity-factor, low-carbon electricity that does not vanish when the sun sets or the wind drops. Advanced reactors and small modular designs could, in theory, add similar firm power with smaller footprints. Extending Diablo through its full NRC license and opening the door to new plants is one of the few realistic paths for the grid to survive 2045 targets without massive new gas or blackouts. Data-center and EV load growth only sharpens the math.

There is no guarantee California can actually build any of it. The state’s record on large projects is one of delay, cost explosion, litigation, and political second-guessing. San Onofre’s troubled shutdown, decades of Diablo protests, the 1976 waste-repository condition that still has not been met, and the general inability to execute on time or budget are not ancient history. They are the operating system. A study of advanced nuclear is useful. Permission to build, followed by actual construction without another decade of lawsuits and redesigns, is another matter entirely.

California’s grid needs reliable, affordable, clean power. Solar and batteries have done impressive work. They have not replaced the need for firm generation. Nuclear can supply it. Whether a state that drove out its own refining capacity and cannot finish a rail line after 18 years can now execute nuclear projects is the open question. Past performance is the only data we have.

The post Why California Is Reconsidering Its Decision to Shun Nuclear Power appeared first on Energy News Beat.