San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. File photo
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. File photo

By Jim Shilander

Residents Organized for a Safe Environment founder Gene Stone has resigned his place on the Southern California Edison’s Community Education Panel on the decommissioning of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, effective March 1.

Stone said he had grown frustrated with what he believed was “lip-service” being paid to his point of view as essentially the designated anti-nuclear voice on the panel.

“I was asked to provide a point of view, which I feel I did,” Stone said. “But it seemed like I would bring up a point, we would go over it and it would be glossed over, like it was checked off.”

Stone said he also made the decision, in part, due to recent revelations of “ex parte communications” between a then-employee and then-California Public Utilities Commission president Michael Peevey at an industry event prior to the shutdown of the plant in 2013.

“I believe that SCEs credibility is on the line because of actions with PUC/Michael Peevey and the investigation that is to come by the state legislature,” Stone said in an email.

Stone noted he had also become convinced that rather than a “state-of-the-art” decommissioning process, he felt Edison was only doing what was required by law to decommission the plant. He advocated having the state take over the panel from the utility, in part to give it some authority in the decision-making process, rather than serving in an educational and advisory role.

No timeline has been set for replacing Stone on the panel, according to an Edison spokesperson. The CEP’s next meeting is not scheduled until April. San Clemente City Councilman Tim Brown, who serves as the panel’s vice chairman, said there is no codified procedure for the replacement of members of the panel, but he and chairman David Victor hope to create a smooth transition for any replacement.

About The Author Capo Dispatch

comments (5)

  • This is an extremely important issue. All residents from Carlsbad to Fullerton should be involved!

    • I agree. When you have a handful of anti-nuclear activists with the backing of madame Boxer, shut down a 2300 MW power plant, cause 1200 of their neighbors to lose their jobs, weaken our electric grid necessitating firing up old NG plants (more GHGs) and the importation of power from out of state (costs will rise), and they continue to present false information at public meetings, it is a problem. This handful of activists are a blight on our community.

      • “Blight on our community”????? If you mean the few folks who bother to understand the problems the public is subjected to, go ahead and call them “activists”…..there’s a lot more to San Onofre than nuclear activity now. It should have never been built there in the first place, nor should have Diablo. The problem now is that Edison just wants to walk away, leave the bill to “rate-payers”. Do you know that the most vulnerable folks are those 60,000+ folks who live at Camp Pendleton?

  • @Bonnie Benton

    “If you mean the few folks who bother to understand the problems the public is subjected to…”

    That is the TRUE problem; these folks don’t “bother to understand” but seek to misinform the public and/or are grossly misinformed themselves. Indeed, the local tin-foil hat crowd lied about San Onofre’s Emergency Batteries claiming they were disconnected for four years, continually made and still make statements regarding the dangers of moving used fuel even though used nuclear fuel has been moved hundreds of thousands if not millions of times in this country alone. They have made preposterous claims that San Onofre almost suffered an accident worse than Fukushima, fantastic science fiction like assertions as to the security vulnerabilities of the plant, and continue in their attempt to mislead the public on dry cask storage. Indeed, in your own post above you claim Edison wants to walk away leaving the rate-payers to foot the bill; THAT is just another in a long train of FALSE statements. There is 4.4 BILLION dollars in a fund for decommissioning the plant and storing the used nuclear fuel. SCE by law cannot “walk away” from this fuel unless some other entity takes responsibility for it and that ain’t gonna happen.
    Didn’t YOU bother to understand that the money has already been collected from the rate-payers or are you simply trying again, to mislead the public? I’ll leave it to you to clarify.

  • @ Bonnie Benton

    Why do you say San Onofre and Diablo Canyon should have never been built? 45 years San Onofre supplied clean, safe, GHG free electrical power to Southern California. At one time, San Onofre was the largest nuclear power station in the nation having 3 nuclear plants…2200+ MW for Units 2&3 and 450 MWs for Unit 1. That is a tremendous amount of power that didn’t pollute the environment and didn’t require a large footprint. That is 2650+ MWs 24/7 on 85 acres of land with a 90% capacity factor compared to the brand new Ivanpah Solar that has a name plate output of 375 MWs with a measly 25% capacity factor it is having trouble achieving and takes up 6000 acres! Because of the mirrors, you can see the plant from miles away and is perhaps the most noticeable man-made site from an airliner in all the west. No, we should have built more San Onofres and Diablo Canyons instead of the incredibly foolish action of shutting them down.

Comments are closed.