end of a nuclear power era in california get the...
TRANSCRIPT
WEDNESDAY JUNE 22 2016 $1STAY CONNECTED SANLUISOBISPO.COM
FACEBOOK.COM/SLOTRIBUNETWITTER.COM/SLOTRIBUNE
NEWS ALL DAY. YOUR WAY
ESPRESSO
Michael Jackson stockpiledporn at his Neverland Ranch.
PAGE 2A
LOCAL
A better way to catch a bus,thanks to three Cal Poly grads.
PAGE 3A
TOP STORIES
Trump shrugs off concernsabout his meager fundraising.
PAGE 5A
BUSINESS
Lawsuit accusing Starbucks ofunderfilling lattes moves ahead.
PAGE 7A
Classifieds C4Comics 6BObituaries 4AOpinion 2BPuzzles 7B
Patchy fog, sun
102°/53° See 8B
The shutdown of DiabloCanyon in 2025 will bringsweeping changes to San LuisObispo County’s economy in theyears to come and will impactalmost every resident here —from lost funding for countyprojects to lost property tax reve-nue at schools.
“The future closure of DiabloCanyon nuclear plant is shockingnews and marks the loss of anemployer that contributes aneconomic impact of over $1 bil-lion to our local economy everyyear, touching nearly every as-pect of our community,” saidMike Manchak, executive officerof the county’s Economic VitalityCorp.
The plant employs nearly1,500 people with an averageannual salary of $157,000, ac-cording to 2014 figures.
In property taxes alone,schools and other governmentagencies will likely lose about$26.75 million in annual revenueonce the plant closes — includinga $9.5 million loss for the SanLuis Coastal Unified SchoolDistrict, and $8 million a year tothe county. Smaller agenciessuch as the Port San Luis HarborDistrict will also be hit by theclosure, with about 7 percent oftheir operating budget disap-pearing.
“It will take strong collab-oration between private and
What DiabloCanyon’sclosure willmean forthe region’seconomy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SLO County’s K-12 schoolsreceived about $12.9 million in property taxes from PG&E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Luis Coastal Unified SchoolDistrict would be hit the hardest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Luis Obispo County getsabout $8 million a year in property taxes from PG&E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BY STEPHANIE FINUCANE,
KAYTLYN LESLIE AND DAVID SNEED
SEE ECONOMY, 8A
In a momentous decision withfar-reaching consequences,PG&E has announced it will notpursue license renewal for thetwo reactors at Diablo Canyonnuclear power plant and willclose it in 2025 — ending atumultuous 31-year relationshipwith the community and leadingto an annual economic loss ofabout $1 billion locally.
The closure is part of anagreement with labor and envi-ronmental organizations an-nounced Tuesday in which theutility agrees to increase in-vestment in energy efficiency,renewable power and electricitystorage to offset the power thatwill no longer be produced by
the nuclear plant.Closing Diablo Canyon will
mean the end of an era in nucle-ar power in California. Diablo isthe last nuclear power plantoperating in the state, after the2012 shutdown of San OnofreNuclear Generating Stationsouth of San Clemente.
“California’s energy land-scape is changing dramatically
with energy efficiency, renew-able and storage being centralto the state’s energy policy,”PG&E’s Chairman Tony Earleysaid in a prepared statement.
“As we make this transition,Diablo Canyon’s full output willno longer be required.”
Diablo Canyon employs about1,500 workers and contributesmore than $1 billion to the localeconomy, according to the Eco-nomic Vitality Corp. It is SanLuis Obispo County’s largestprivate industry employer, withan average annual salary of
END OF A NUCLEAR POWER ERA IN CALIFORNIA GET THE LATEST NEWS AT SANLUISOBISPO.COM
DIABLO CANYON
TO CLOSE IN 2025
SEE DIABLO, 8A
JOE JOHNSTON [email protected]
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, pictured in 2013, will close in 2025. “California’s energy landscape is changing dramatically with energyefficiency, renewable and storage being central to the state’s energy policy,” PG&E’s Chairman Tony Earley said in a prepared statement. “As we make this transition, Diablo Canyon’s full output will no longer be required.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Diablo Canyon became the state’s last nuclear power plant after San Onofre in Southern California closed in 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A closure plan was reached with environmental and labor groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PG&E also says the decision was influenced by state policyrequiring utilities to increase renewables to 50 percent by 2030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BY DAVID SNEED
PG&E WON’T SEEK RELICENSING, SAYS IT WILLFOCUS ON RENEWABLES, SEE STORY BELOW
WHY IT’S NOT A SURPRISE THAT PG&E ISCLOSING THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, 1B
SLO COUNTY LEADERS MUST BEGIN PLANNINGTO REPLACE JOBS, TAX REVENUE, OPINION, 2B
TRIBUNE ARCHIVES
A view of Diablo Canyon construction in 1973. Unit 1 was 65 percentcomplete, and Unit 2 was 25 percent complete.
9Percentage of California’sin-state power that’s generated by Diablo Canyon
3,286Estimated number of jobs thatcould be lost by closing Diablo
LOCAL
ANGER, PROTESTSOVER OAK CUTTINGSLO County supervisors
take first steps to protect
oaks as dozens of residents
express disapproval at the
clear-cutting of oaks on
Justin Wines’ property. 3A
HOME & GARDEN
MAKE YOURGARDEN SMILEBring cheer and lots
of color to your garden
with these tips from
a Cambria couple. 1C
Also: 10 projects to keep
you busy this summer. 2C
SPORTS
FORMER STUDENTSUES TEMPLETONSCHOOL DISTRICTA lawsuit alleging
mistreatment of a former
Templeton High School
football player moves
forward in court. 4B
MORE INSIDE
Timeline: 10 milestones in the history
of Diablo Canyon. 1BReaction: How lawmakers,
environmentalists and others are
reacting to the announcement. 1B
8A WEDNESDAY JUNE 22 2016News SANLUISOBISPO.COM
$157,000 in 2014, accord-ing to PG&E.
The plan is contingentupon approval by theCalifornia Public UtilitiesCommission. It wasreached with the agree-ment of the InternationalBrotherhood of ElectricalWorkers Local 1245, theCoalition of CaliforniaUtility Employees, Friendsof the Earth, the NaturalResources DefenseCouncil, EnvironmentCalifornia and theAlliance for NuclearResponsibility.
Diablo Canyon employ-ees were notified of theclosure plan early Tuesdaymorning and a series ofstaff meetings werescheduled throughout theday, as well as a mid-morning all-employeeconference call, officialssaid.
PG&E officials said itsdecision to close DiabloCanyon was influenced byseveral factors. Amongthem are a state policyrequiring utilities to in-crease renewables in theirportfolios to 50 percent by2030; the subsequentgrowth of solar and windproduction; and the loss ofcustomers because ofcommunity choice aggre-gation, which allows localjurisdictions to grouppower purchases to lowerprices.
San Luis Obispo Countysupervisors said the deci-sion to shut the plantdown in 2025 did notcome as much of a sur-prise because of theplant’s seismic safetyissues. Supervisor AdamHill, whose district in-cludes Diablo Canyon,said he is relieved thecommunity has an addi-tional nine years to transi-tion away from the nucle-ar plant.
“The worst possiblething would be for theplant to shut down imme-diately,” he said. “Thisgives us an opportunity toprepare for it.”
“This is an historicagreement,” said ErichPica, president of Friendsof the Earth. “It sets adate for the certain end ofnuclear power in Cali-fornia and assures re-placement with clean,safe, cost-competitive,renewable energy, energyefficiency and energystorage.”
The key elements of theagreement are as follows:
A The utility will with-draw its application withthe federal NuclearRegulatory Commissionto renew the plant’s twooperating licenses.
A The plant will contin-ue to operate the tworeactors until their licens-es expire Nov. 2, 2024,and Aug. 26, 2025.
A During this nine-yeartransition period, PG&Ewill replace the plant’senergy with new green-house gas-free energy.
A PG&E does not be-lieve customer rates willincrease because imple-menting the plan to closethe plant will have a lowercost than license renewaland operating the plantthrough 2044.
A PG&E will pay SanLuis Obispo County about$50 million to offset de-clining property taxesthrough 2025.
A PG&E will provide55 percent of its totalretail power sales withrenewable energy by2031. That exceeds thestate mandate, whichrequires 50 percent re-newable by that date.Currently, the company’srenewable power percent-age is about 30 percent.
The utility also agreedto help its employees andthe community transitionthrough the closure.
This includes incentives
to retain employees until2025, retraining of em-ployees for the decommis-sioning process and sever-ance payments when theiremployment ends.
“We are incrediblyproud of the men andwomen who have madeDiablo Canyon one of thefinest nuclear stations inthe country and who, indoing so, have providedour state GHG-free ener-gy for three decades,”Earley said. Greenhousegases are emissions thatdeplete the ozone layerand cause global warming.
The agreement to closethe plant is contingentupon an extension of theplant’s cooling water sys-tem by the State LandsCommission, whichexpires in 2018. The envi-
ronmental groups that areparty to the agreementhave pledged to supportthe license extension atthe commission’s hearingJune 28.
The groups also agree tosupport an application byPG&E to renew its licenseto operate the plant’s usedfuel storage plant. Theutility is expected to applyfor that license renewal nolater than five years be-fore the plant shuts down.
The agreement also iscontingent upon approvalby the state PublicUtilities Commission ofPG&E’s plans for replac-ing Diablo Canyon’s pow-er with greenhouse-gas-free resources.
The PUC also mustconfirm that PG&E’sinvestment in Diablo
Caanyon will be recoveredby the time the plantcloses in 2025, as well ascost recovery for employ-ee and community-transi-tion benefits.
The agreement to closethe plant in 2025 waswidely praised by envi-ronmental groups, in-cluding the NaturalResources DefenseCouncil, which helpednegotiate the closureagreement.
“Energy efficiency andclean renewable energyfrom the wind and suncan replace aging nuclearplants — and this provesit,” NRDC President RheaSuh said.
Tom Dalzell, businessmanager for IBEW Local1245, said in a preparedstatement that the union
fought to keep the plantoperational until its licens-es expire in order to pro-tect the plant’s workforce.
“Together with the longtransition and the verystrong retention package,we will be able to keepthese highly trained andmotivated workers,” hesaid. “This is a victory inour ongoing struggle tomake sure middle-classjobs are a central part ofthe emerging clean andrenewable energy econo-my.”
Diablo Canyon accountsfor about 9 percent ofCalifornia’s in-state powergeneration, 6 percent ofthe state’s total energymix and about 20 percentof the power in PG&E’sservice area. The utilityserves about 16 millioncustomers in Northernand Central California.
PG&E applied with theNRC in 2009 to renewthe operating licenses forDiablo Canyon for anadditional 20 years. How-ever, the utility put theapplications on hold afterthe nuclear disaster inJapan in 2011 in order tostudy the earthquakefaults surrounding theplant. Critics of the plantalso noted that DiabloCanyon’s highly radio-active used reactor fuelwill be stored at the plantfor the foreseeable future.
A 2013 Cal Poly studyestimated that closingDiablo Canyon would cost3,286 jobs, including posi-tions at the plant and inlocal communities hurt bythe ripple effect of theclosure. The study alsoestimated that the nearly$26 million in annualproperty tax revenueswould decline by 97.3 per-cent.
The plant’s two reactorsbegan operation in May1985 and March 1986.
David Sneed:805-781-7930,@davidsneedSLO
FROM PAGE 1A
DIABLO
public sectors to developstrategies aimed at miti-gating the loss of signif-icant tax revenue to SanLuis Obispo County andour local schools, as wellas the thousands of jobsthat are spread throughoutour region,” Manchaksaid.
IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS
County school districtswere pondering their op-tions in the wake ofPG&E’s announcementTuesday that Diablo Can-yon will close in less thana decade, which will meana large loss of property taxrevenue for one districtand a potential loss ofstudents in others.
County K-12 schooldistricts received about$12.9 million in propertytaxes from PG&E in thecurrent fiscal year endingJune 30.
County Superintendentof Schools James Bresciasaid Tuesday that thedepartment will work withschool districts to helpthem adjust in light ofanticipated lost revenue.
“Our office will workdirectly with the localschool districts that mayexperience a reduction intax revenue,” Bresciawrote in an emailed state-ment. “Our office is grate-ful for the continued com-munity support PG&E hasprovided over the yearsand the nine-year noticefor phaseout of their pro-duction. We are confidentthat local school lead-ership will address poten-tial reductions in tax reve-nue and implement plansto continue serving thestudents of our communi-ty.”
The San Luis CoastalUnified School Districtwill be the agency hardesthit in the county; it re-ceives about $9.5 million ayear in property tax reve-nue from PG&E — about11 percent of the district’s
total revenue.Due largely to Diablo
Canyon revenue, it’s beenfinancially advantageousfor San Luis Coastal toremain a basic-aid schooldistrict, meaning it derivesmost of its income fromlocal property taxes ratherthan relying on the statefor revenue as most otherdistricts do. (Coast Unifiedand Cayucos Elementaryare also basic-aid dis-tricts.)
That may change in apost-Diablo economy.
“As a speculation, I haveto assume we’ll fall out ofbasic-aid status,” San LuisCoastal SuperintendentEric Prater said Tuesday.
Other factors may play arole in that decision, how-ever.
“Gov. (Jerry) Brown isnot a big fan of basic aid,”Prater said. “It may not beDiablo Canyon that forcesthis issue. It may be Sacra-mento.”
A change in fundingwouldn’t necessarily meana devastating monetaryloss for the district.
“The state of Californiais infusing more moneyinto schools,” Prater said.“The distance betweenbasic-aid and state-fundeddistricts has becomesmaller.”
More will be known inthe coming months, Prateradded.
The decision didn’tcome as a total surprise tothe district.
“I’ve been brought up tospeed because of certaingroups that reached out tome over the past year,”Prater said.
It could have beenworse, he added, pointingto a last-minute decisionin 2012 to close SanOnofre NuclearGenerating Station southof San Clemente.
“I really appreciatePG&E at least making adecision that allows meand our board to plan
accordingly,” Prater said.San Luis Coastal Unified
School District board pres-ident Marilyn Rodgerechoed Prater.
“The other shoe hasfallen,” she said Tuesday.“It gives us an opportunityto plan.”
Rodger also said it’s fartoo early to say whetherthere will be a need forlayoffs or other cuts, say-ing instead that the districtwill “go into planningmode” as it gathers moreinformation.
The district, whichserves about 7,500 stu-dents, has a healthy, un-encumbered reserve ofabout $14 million. On topof that, it may be eligibleto receive some of the$50 million that PG&Ehas set aside for communi-ty aid.
At the rest of the coun-ty’s schools, the losseswon’t likely be felt as hardbecause most of themoney they receive isbased on enrollment, not
from property taxes asbasic-aid districts do.
This fiscal year, DiabloCanyon paid about$670,000 in propertytaxes to Lucia Mar UnifiedSchool District, accordingto county records.
Assistant Superintend-ent of Business ServicesAndy Stenson said whenthat revenue source dis-appears, the state will berequired to step in andbackfill the missingamount — meaning thecounty’s largest schooldistrict probably won’t seean immediate fiscal im-pact from the plant’s clo-sure. This is true for thecounty’s other nonbasic-aid school districts, aswell.
He did note that theclosure of a plant thatemploys 1,500 peoplecould have an impact onenrollment, however, byreducing the number ofhead-of-household jobsand possibly forcing somefamilies out of the area. If
that were the case, dis-tricts could see fewerenrolled students, andtherefore have less money,though Stenson said hedidn’t think that would belikely.
“It’s hard for me toimagine homes and apart-ments sitting empty,” hesaid.
Lucia Mar serves about10,600 students.
Atascadero and PasoRobles school districtrepresentatives did notrespond to requests forcomment Tuesday.
PG&E also paid about$2 million in propertytaxes to the San Luis Obis-po Community CollegeDistrict in the currentfiscal year ending June 30.Cuesta College repre-sentatives did not returnrequest for commentTuesday.
IMPACTS ON COUNTY
FINANCES
San Luis Obispo Countyofficials say they’re not
expecting great financialhardship when DiabloCanyon nuclear powerplant closes in 2025.
The county receivesabout $8 million a year inproperty taxes fromPG&E, most of that com-ing from Diablo Canyon.That’s between 1 and2 percent of the county’sannual budget of $574 mil-lion, said Guy Savage,assistant county adminis-trative officer.
PG&E has promised topay nearly $50 million tooffset declining propertytaxes through 2025.
“The plant’s closure willbe a significant hit to thecounty in general, butthere will probably be agreater impact to theschools in the county,”Savage said. “I think wecan absorb the loss of taxrevenue without muchimpact on our public ser-vices.”
During the Great Reces-sion, the county lost about$80 million in total reve-nue and was able to makeadjustments to cover it, soan $8 million annual lossis manageable, Savagesaid.
“We have been planningfor this possibility formany years,” he said.
Port San Luis HarborDistrict is among severalagencies, school districtsand local governmentsthat benefit from DiabloCanyon property taxes.Port district managerAndrea Lueker said thedistrict receives about$440,000 in propertytaxes from the power plant— about 7 percent of theport’s $6 million annualbudget.
Lueker said she is un-sure how the district willrecoup those losses,though she expects theHarbor Commission willlook into how much of thepromised $50 million inaid it will be eligible for.
“Certainly it’s a prettylarge number, but we havetime to look into it andhow we will address it asmore details become avail-able,” she said.
San Luis Coastal Uni=ed$9,522,555
Port San Luis Harbor $396,425
Roads $303,916
$1-$24,999**
$25,000-$249,999*
Cuesta College $2,021,302
General Fund$7,231,619
Lucia Mar Uni=ed $670,079
Paso Robles Uni=ed $436,131
Atascadero Uni=ed $441,268County School Service $1,199,038
County Library $520,425
PG&E Fiscal Year 2015-16 Unitary Tax Revenue AllocationTotal unitary tax revenue from PG&E in 2015-16 Dscal year is an estimated
$26.75 million. (PG&E accounts for 88.8 percent of unitary tax revenue.)
SOURCE: San Luis Obispo County Property Tax Revenue Estimates. TRIBUNE GRAPHIC BY KRISTI MARINELLY
*There are 22 governmental entities that receive between $25,000 and $249,999.**There are 58 governmental entities that receive between $1 and $24,999.
FROM PAGE 1A
ECONOMY
An excerpt from PG&EChief Nuclear Officer Ed Halpin’s letter:
Our team has been on anemotional roller coaster inregard to the future of ourDiablo Canyon Power Plant(DCPP) for the last sevenyears. We have successfullynavigated through multiplechallenges only to be facedwith rapidly changing elec-tric market conditions,which have significanteffects on the future needfor DCPP’s safe, clean andcost-effective power. Hon-estly, those are difficultwords for me to writedown. The extensive analy-sis conducted by PG&Eand others shows thatcontinued load loss and theincrease in renewablesmandated by the statemakes license extension forDCPP beyond 40 years agoal we will not achieve.
I deeply regret this out-come and its impact on allof you. DCPP has been in
our com-munity forover 50years —from thedesign andconstruc-tion tothree de-cades of
safe operation. Gener-ations of families havebuilt their lives aroundDCPP. It breaks my heartto be leading our nuclearprogram only to announcethe decision to phase itout.
I have been, and alwayswill be, concerned aboutthe lives of our employees,their families and ourcommunity. ...
While license renewal isno longer an option thatwe will pursue, I ampleased with the outcomeof what has been negotiat-ed and proposed, as itsupports the operation ofDCPP for almost anotherdecade and because our
people and our communi-ty will be taken care of. Iam hopeful key decisionmakers external to PG&Ewill also support this set-tlement and will recognizethe importance of retain-ing well-qualified, en-gaged professionals inorder to maintain a strongsafety culture at DCPP. ...
Nuclear power began inCalifornia as a result ofthe visionary, determinedand courageous employ-ees of PG&E. The lead-ership of our team whodedicated their lives toserving our state is some-thing each and everyteammate who has everhad anything to do withDCPP should be proud of.You have made a differ-ence in people’s lives byproviding safe, clean,reliable and affordablepower to our customers.Now it’s time for us totake the next step and helpCalifornia in transitioningto a new tomorrow.
Diablo Canyon executive’s letter to employees on closure
Ed Halpin
WEDNESDAY JUNE 22 2016 1BFACEBOOK.COM/SLOTRIBUNETWITTER.COM/SLOTRIBUNESANLUISOBISPO.COM
Insight WHAT’S NEXT FOR
THE WARRIORS AFTER
THEIR NBA FINALS
COLLAPSE? 4B
SPORTS
Diablo Canyon nuclearpower plant is the latest ina string of facilities toeither shut down — four inthe past few years — orannounce closure. Innearly all cases, decisionswere based not on peren-nial issues such as seismicsafety, storage of spentfuel or the presence orabsence of greenhouse gas
emissions, but on dollarsand cents.
While other issues havecontinued to fuel publicdebate over nuclear pow-er, concerns about profit-ability have been at theforefront in the UnitedStates.
How did this happen toan industry once associ-ated with the catchphrase“too cheap to meter”?
Financial analysts andenergy experts point to afew key reasons:
A The decline in thecost of other forms ofenergy — especially nat-ural gas — is making itless attractive to operatenuclear power plants,which require a large andexpensive labor force.
A Trends in the energyworld are changing; somelarge utilities are focusingless on power generationand more on transmis-sion, distribution and theemerging field of energystorage.
A And mistakes havebeen made. San Onofre inSan Diego County is aprime example: The plantshut down in 2012 after aleak of radioactive mate-rial and discovery of pre-
END OF A NUCLEAR POWER ERA IN CALIFORNIA DIABLO CANYON TO CLOSE IN 2025
Here’s why Diablo Canyon’sclosure is not a surprise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Decisions are based moreon dollars and cents thanon issues such as spentfuel and seismic safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Decline in cost of otherforms of energy makes itless attractive to operatenuclear power plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Diablo Canyon also faced regulatory hurdlesand uncertainty overrelicensing costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BY STEPHANIE FINUCANE
SEE COSTS, 3B
VIDEO
What will happen to
Diablo Canyon after it closes?
Go to sanluisobispo.com and
watch our video explainer.
PG&E announcedTuesday that it hasdecided not to pursuerelicensing the two
reactors at the Diablo Canyonnuclear power plant near AvilaBeach in San Luis Obispo County. After opening in 1985,the plant will now close in 2025.Here’s a quick look at someimportant moments in the power plant’s history.
Feb. 27, 1963: PG&E announcesit will build a new power plantin the Nipomo Dunes. The pro-ject is vehemently opposed bythe Sierra Club and other envi-ronmentalists who want thedunes protected.
Sept. 27, 1966: PG&E selectsDiablo Canyon over the NipomoDunes as a site for a nuclear
PHOTO BY LARRY JAMISON
An aerial photo of construction of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in September 1972.
KEN CHEN Tribune archives
A group of anti-nuclear protesters wave a flag above the DiabloCanyon nuclear power plant in 1981. Thousands were arrested duringa blockade of the plant, which lasted two weeks.
10 milestones in the history ofDiablo Canyon
SEE MILESTONES, 3B
power as a clean energysource.
Others just said theywere blindsided.
“We didn’t expect sucha big decision so soon,”said Assemblyman KatchoAchadjian. “It’s very dis-comforting.”
Achadjian said, howev-er, that he was glad to seePG&E had proposed sev-eral ways to ease the tran-sition — including payingSan Luis Obispo Countyalmost $50 million tooffset declining propertytaxes through 2025 — he
From Sacramento toSan Luis Obispo, reactionto PG&E’s announcementTuesday that it will shut
down Diablo Canyonnuclear power plant whenits permits expire in 2025has ranged from shock tooptimism and applause.
Locally, many focusedon the economic impactsthe closure of San Luis
Obispo County’s largestprivate employer will haveon jobs and property taxrevenues. Environmentalgroups generally hailedPG&E’s assertions that itintends, by 2031, to pro-vide 55 percent of its totalretail power sales withrenewable energy. Someopponents scoffed at thefeasibility of that claimand defended nuclear
KatchoAchadjian
RochelleBecker
BillMonning
Jan Marx
‘Sad day’ or ‘good move’?Lawmakers, others react. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Most environmentalists praise the utility’s decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plant supporters worry about wages, tax revenue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BY DAVID SNEED
SEE REACTION, 3B
News spread quickly onTuesday that DiabloCanyon nuclear powerplant will close in 2025.Here are some of thereactions.
U.S. Rep. Lois Cappsissued a news releasesaying: “For the past 30years, PG&E and the DiabloCanyon Power Plant havebeen important partners inour local community,providing a significantportion of our energy andserving as the largestprivate employer in SanLuis Obispo County. Inlight of today’sannouncement, I ampleased to hear that theyhave been working with awide range ofstakeholders, includingrepresentatives from boththe labor community andenvironmental interests, toensure a responsibletransition.”
A A A
State AssemblymanKatcho Achadjian, whorepresents San LuisObispo County, said hewas taken by surprise withthe announcementTuesday that DiabloCanyon nuclear powerplant would close in 2025.“We didn’t expect such abig decision so soon. It’svery discomforting.”
A A A
State Sen. Bill Monning,who represents San LuisObispo County, issued astatement saying: “TheDiablo Canyon Power Planthas been an anchor tenantfor the region as well as apoint of controversy overthe decades it has been inoperation. The agreementby PG&E not to seeklicense renewal is historicand will have a majorimpact on the San LuisObispo region. This actionunderscores the need formy Senate Bill 968, whichcalls for an economicassessment to assist thecommunity on how to bestaddress the needs of theplant’s workforce, thepublic’s safety and theregion’s economicinterests.”
A A A
Rochelle Becker,executive director of theAlliance for NuclearResponsibility, whichopposed relicensing of theDiablo Canyon nuclearreactors after the currentlicenses expire in 20024and 2025, said: “We laudPG&E for acknowledgingthe inevitable changes inthe way we make and useenergy in our state. Partsof this proposal usher in abold new paradigm for thestate’s energy future, butfor those of us in San LuisObispo, the proposal alsoprovides an orderly path tophase out the reactors.”
A A A
Michael Manchak,president and CEO of theEconomic Vitality Corp. ofSan Luis Obispo County,said: “It will take strongcollaboration betweenprivate and public sectorsto develop strategiesaimed at mitigating theloss of significant taxrevenue to San Luis ObispoCounty and our localschools, as well as thethousands of jobs that arespread throughout ourregion.”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
What is beingsaid about the closure
WEDNESDAY JUNE 22 2016 3BInsightSANLUISOBISPO.COM
mature wear on over3,000 tubes in replace-ment steam generators.Ultimately, the plant’sowner, Southern Cali-fornia Edison, decided topermanently close theplant rather than makeexpensive repairs.
San Onofre’s closureleft Diablo Canyon as thelast nuclear plant oper-ating in a state withwhat’s arguably the tough-est regulatory climate inthe nation. On top of that,PG&E has faced uncer-tainty over whether itwould be required tomake additional seismicupgrades and/or installcooling towers that couldcost as much as $12 bil-lion.
To friends and foes ofDiablo, it was a foregoneconclusion the plantwould be forced to close ifthe state required coolingtowers to replace the ex-isting once-throughcooling system, whichruns 2.5 billion gallons ofseawater through theplant each day, and thendischarges the heatedwater back into the ocean.
PG&E also recognized itas a make-or-break issue:“If the California WaterBoard requires the in-stallation of cooling tow-
ers that the Utility be-lieves are not technicallyor economically feasible,the utility may be forcedto cease operations atDiablo Canyon,” it wrotein its 2015 report to stock-holders.
Employees and othersupporters of Diablo Can-yon tried to counter pessi-mism with a grassroots“Save Diablo” effort com-plete with yard signs,marches and fundraisers.All the while, though,PG&E executives havebeen conspicuously silent.
They said little aboutDiablo’s future in public,other than some obliquestatements about theutility having a lot on itsplate.
Supporters worried thatlack of an aggressive pos-ture spelled doom forDiablo. MichaelShellenberger, an authorand noted environmental-ist who founded an organ-ization called Save DiabloCanyon, warned lastmonth that the decisionhad already been made.
At a rally in San LuisObispo, he told supportersthat PG&E’s CEO, TonyEarley, had been broughton board to “de-risk”PG&E following the SanBruno gas line explosion.
In a follow-up interviewwith The Tribune, Shel-lenberger asserted thatDiablo Canyon executiveswanted to move ahead
with relicensing, but saidEarley believed it wouldbe too costly and toomuch hassle to keep theplant open.
“They’ve been treatedridiculously by everybo-dy,” Shellenberger said ofPG&E. “People just thinkthat thing (Diablo) is go-ing to blow up.”
Shellenberger and othersupporters warn that theloss of Diablo Canyon willdevastate the environ-ment, because the nuclearplant — which supplies9 percent of the state’senergy — will likely bereplaced with natural gas.That’s what happenedwhen San Onofre closed.
Not so, say opponents.They counter that DiabloCanyon actually hindersdevelopment of renew-ables like solar and wind.That’s because DiabloCanyon operates at fullpower, 24 hours per day; itcan’t ramp up and downto meet demand. On rareoccasions, there havebeen surpluses of energy,necessitating curtailmentof wind and solar.
In announcing the clo-sure agreement, PG&Estressed that it’s commit-ted to replacing DiabloCanyon with energy effi-ciency and renewables.
Stephanie Finucane:805-781-7933,[email protected], @SLOTribOpEd
FROM PAGE 1B
COSTS
Closure of Diablo Can-yon nuclear power plantby 2025 effectively kills aplan for Diablo’sdesalination plant to sup-ply water to 4,000 homesin south San Luis ObispoCounty — a project thatwas widely hailed as a
valuable tool for protect-ing communities duringdrought and unreliablestate water deliveries.
“The desal project willhave to be scrapped,” saidSan Luis Obispo CountySupervisor Adam Hill,whose district includesDiablo Canyon. “I think ithas got to be taken out ofthe equation right now.”
PG&E, which operates
Diablo Canyon, confirmedHill assessment.
“This limits our use ofdesalination facilities tosupport plant operations,”said Blair Jones, PG&Espokesman. “Therefore, itis no longer viable to pro-ceed with sales of desal-inated water to the coun-ty.”
The project, estimatedto cost $22 million to
$36 million, would haveinvolved expanding thereverse osmosis systemthat supplies Diablo Can-yon with fresh water forits operations. Seven milesof pipeline would havebeen installed from thenuclear plant to the LopezLake pipeline in AvilaBeach, delivering up to1,300 acre-feet of water tothe cities of Pismo Beach,Arroyo Grande and Grov-er Beach, as well as theOceano and Avila Beachcommunity services dis-tricts.
In March, the countyBoard of Supervisors
voted unanimously tospend $900,000 for plan-ning and permitting forthe project, which wasexpected to take abouttwo years to complete.
At the time, SupervisorBruce Gibson called theproject “an opportunitywe can’t afford to miss,”while Hill said it wasneeded for a region in a“very fragile situation”because of limited watersupplies.
David Sneed:805-781-7930,@davidsneedSLO
Diablo closure kills plan to supplyhomes with desalinated water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plan would have suppliedenough fresh water toserve 4,000 homes in the South County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PG&E says desalinationplant expansion plan isdead because the nuclearpower plant will close and it’s “no longer viableto proceed”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BY DAVID SNEED
A Operated since 1985 byPG&E.
A Contains twin reactorsthat are licensed until 2024and 2025.
A Produces about 2,300megawatts of electricity,enough to power about3 million homes inNorthern and centralCalifornia.
A Sits near two earthquakefaults. The U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commissionand PG&E have said theplant is built to withstand amagnitude-7.5 quake, themaximum consideredpossible for the site.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Facts aboutDiablo Canyonnuclear powerplant
power plant.
April 1968: Atomic Ener-gy Commission approvesthe construction permitfor Unit 1 of Diablo Can-yon.
Dec. 17, 1973: The U.S.Geological Surveyconfirms a fault has beenfound offshore of Diablo.It turns out that the faulthad been discovered in1969 and mapped in a1971 paper by two Shell
Oil geologists, Ernest G.Hoskins and John R. Grif-fith. It was named theHosgri Fault in their ho-nor.
Sept. 15, 1981: AbaloneAlliance blockade of Dia-blo Canyon begins. Itcontinues two weeks andresults in nearly 2,000arrests.
Sept. 28, 1981: Discoveryof “mirror image” blue-print error delays opening
of Diablo Canyon by morethan three years.
May 7, 1985: Unit 1 beginscommercial operation.
June 2, 2000: Californiawater officials and PG&Eannounce a settlement fordamage Diablo Canyon’swarm water dischargedoes to the ocean. It callsfor PG&E to pay $4.5 mil-lion for marine restorationprojects and to preservean undisclosed amount ofcoastal land between thepower plant and Montañade Oro State Park.
Oct. 23, 2008: The Nucle-ar Regulatory Commis-sion rules that PG&E canbegin loading used reactorfuel into an above-grounddry cask storage facility.
June 7, 2011: PG&Emoves to suspend licenserenewal application filedwith NRC amid concernsabout the Fukushimanuclear disaster and theseismic safety of DiabloCanyon. Following com-pletion of seismic studies,the NRC later began re-processing the application.
— TRIBUNE STAFF
MICHAEL A. MARIANT Associated Press
Aboveground casks, pictured in 2008, that store radioactive waste at Diablo Canyonnuclear power plant near Avila Beach. The dry casks, like all of Diablo Canyon’sfacilities, are guarded around the clock by a highly trained and heavily armed securityforce, according to a NRC spokesperson.
TRIBUNE ARCHIVES
Ruins of an adobe structure near the site of what wouldbecome Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in March 1968.
FROM PAGE 1B
MILESTONES
is still worried about thelong-term effect the de-parture will have on thecounty’s economy, in-cluding loss of jobs andproperty taxes.
“The pain is going to befelt when that $50 milliongoes away,” he said. “Wewon’t feel the full dominoeffect until then.”
One of the groups thatnegotiated the agreementwith PG&E not to seeklicense renewal with thefederal NuclearRegulatory Commission isthe Alliance for NuclearResponsibility, whichlobbied against licenserenewal.
Rochelle Becker, thegroup’s executive director,said PG&E’s decisionreflects a change in ener-gy production in the state.It will give the county andcommunity nine years toadjust to the change andfor PG&E to replace thepower generated at DiabloCanyon with renewableenergy.
“Parts of this proposalusher in a bold new para-digm for the state’s ener-gy future, but for those ofus in San Luis Obispo, theproposal also provides anorderly path to phase outthe reactors,” she said.
The anti-nuclear groupMothers for Peace werepleased with PG&E’sdecision but will remainvigilant during the rest ofthe plant’s operation,according to Linda Seeley,a spokeswoman for thegroup.
“Our work to safeguardpublic health and theenvironment is needednow more than ever,” shesaid. “Every day that Dia-blo Canyon is online,PG&E is playing Russianroulette with the safety ofour community.”
Two pro-nuclear groups,Environmental Progressand Mothers for Nuclear,issued a statement blast-ing the Diablo Canyonagreement as a corruptbackroom deal that willfail. They said the public,lawmakers and the courtswill ultimately reject thedeal because it will in-crease fossil fuel use andmethane and carbonemissions.
They went on to call thetwo environmental groupsthat helped negotiate thedeal, the NaturalResources DefenseCouncil and Friends of theEarth, hypocrites.
“Organizations seekingto increase carbon emis-sions by moving fromlow-carbon energy tonatural gas from frackingmust be called what theyare: anti-environmentalorganizations,” they said
in a statement. “By mov-ing from nuclear to nat-ural gas, these organiza-tions are putting our chil-dren and grandchildren atrisk of worsening globalwarming, ocean acid-ification and air pollu-tion.”
Michael Shellenberger,president of Environ-mental Progress, notedthat PG&E must take itsclosure plan to theCalifornia Public UtilitiesCommission.
“If it goes to the CPUC,we may sue, just as rate-payers,” he said. “I’mtalking to my attorneysabout that now.”
Plant employees Heath-er Matteson and KristinZaitz, members of Moth-ers for Nuclear, said theyplan to lobby environ-mental groups and thepublic to build support forkeeping the plant open.
Achadjian said the sur-prise announcement maycomplicate a bill he andstate Sen. Bill Monningintroduced this year tostudy the economic im-pact of closing DiabloCanyon. The bill wasscheduled to go to thestate Committee onUtilities & Commerce fordebate but will now likelyfail, Achadjian said.
“It doesn’t help doing itwhen we’ll see soonerthan the study can bedone what will happen,”he said.
But Monning said the
closure announcementreinforces the need for thebill to move through theLegislature.
“The Diablo CanyonPower Plant has been ananchor tenant for theregion, as well as a pointof controversy over thedecades it has been inoperation,” he said. “Theagreement by PG&E notto seek license renewal ishistoric and will have amajor impact on the SanLuis Obispo region. Thisaction underscores theneed for my Senate Bill968, which calls for aneconomic assessment toassist the community onhow to best address theneeds of the plant’s work-force, the public’s safetyand the region’s economicinterests.”
Mike Manchak, exec-utive officer of the coun-ty’s Economic VitalityCorp., said the closuremeans the loss of an em-ployer with a $1 billionannual economic impacton the region.
“It will take strong col-laboration between pri-vate and public sectors todevelop strategies aimedat mitigating the loss ofsignificant tax revenue toSan Luis Obispo Countyand our local schools, aswell as the thousands ofjobs that are spreadthroughout our region,”he said.
San Luis Obispo MayorJan Marx said she thinksPG&E’s decision was awise one, even though itwill mean the loss of localrevenue.
“I think the turn towardclean and alternate energyis a good move,” she said.“There are more ques-tions that need to be an-swered, and I have greatfaith in the resilience ofour economy and commu-nity.”
Gene Nelson, with thepro-nuclear groupCalifornians for GreenNuclear Power, said hewas disappointed and felta sense of betrayal.
“I predict the state willhave more rolling black-outs once the plantcloses,” he said. “It is avery sad day for San LuisObispo, in my opinion.”
David Sneed:805-781-7930,@davidsneedSLO
PHOTO BY JOHN LINDSEY
The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant at sunset.
FROM PAGE 1B
REACTION
‘‘THE PAIN ISGOING TO BE FELT WHEN THAT $50 MILLION GOESAWAY. WE WON’TFEEL THE FULLDOMINO EFFECTUNTIL THEN.Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian
‘‘THERE ARE MOREQUESTIONS THATNEED TO BEANSWERED, AND IHAVE GREAT FAITHIN THE RESILIENCEOF OUR ECONOMYAND COMMUNITY.San Luis Obispo Mayor Jan Marx
2B WEDNESDAY JUNE 22 2016Opinion SANLUISOBISPO.COM
FACEBOOK.COM/SLOTRIBUNE » TWITTER.COM/SLOTRIBUNE
Stephanie FinucaneOpinion Page Editor
Tom CullinanPublisher
Sandra DuerrExecutive Editor
Devon GoetzGeneral Manager
Call 781-7933 to commenton the opinion pages.
The decision toclose the DiabloCanyon nuclearpower plant is a
milestone, not only for ourcounty, but also for theentire state of California.PG&E is making a signif-icant commitment toincrease renewables, suchas solar and wind, in itsportfolio.
That’s commendable;this is a long-range direc-tion we must take if we’reto cut greenhouse gasemissions. We look for-ward to learning moreabout PG&E’s plans as itmoves into this new era ofenergy generation.
For the time being,though, San Luis ObispoCounty must focus on amore immediate issue:what this means to ourlocal economy.
While PG&E’s decisionto close Diablo Canyon in2025 doesn’t come as acomplete surprise — therehave been rumblingsabout it for months — itnonetheless makes thingsreal.
For that, we thank
PG&E. It could have de-layed the announcementfor several more months,or even years, forcinglocal leaders to continueto base budgetary deci-sions on rumors and spec-ulation.
Now we know. We havenine years to prepare.That may seem like a longtime. It’s not.
Michael Manchak, pres-ident of the EconomicVitality Corp., put it likethis: “We have some time,but the time will go quick-ly.”
He’s right. We can’tafford to put off planningfor another year or two.We have to start now, inearnest.
Because no matter howyou feel about nuclearpower, there is no denyingDiablo Canyon has beenan economic dynamo forSan Luis Obispo County.PG&E is the county’slargest single private em-ployer. It has an economicimpact of $1 billion peryear, and it’s a source oftax revenue for local gov-ernment agencies, espe-cially the San Luis CoastalUnified School District.
It’s not going to be easy
to replace the tax revenueand the high-paying jobs(average wage was$157,000 in 2014) provid-ed by Diablo Canyon, butwe’re going to have tobegin somewhere.
For starters, we need totake a look at other com-munities that have dealtwith similar losses andfigure out what worked
and what didn’t. We alsoshould get behind Sen.Bill Monning’s bill thatcalls for a study on theeffects of Diablo Canyon’sclosure. We were skepticalabout the legislation whenit was first announced —do we really need anothereconomic study? — butgiven the circumstances,we believe it makes sense
to take a hard look atexactly what closure willmean for the community.
Many of those losseswill be impossible to tally.Diablo Canyon employeesare more than figures on aspreadsheet. They arefriends and neighbors,they are volunteers, theyare community leaders.
PG&E plans to dedicate
$350 million to employeeseverance, retraining andredeployment programs.Ideally, as many employ-ees as possible will begiven opportunities tocontinue working forPG&E, in plant decom-missioning or at otherfacilities owned by thecompany.
PG&E also plans toallocate $50 million toreimburse local govern-ment for loss of propertytax revenue.
But let’s not kid our-selves. That’s not going tomake up for the financialblow.
Though we can’t give into negativism, we cannotafford to minimize thefinancial consequences ofclosure.
Business and local lead-ers must redouble effortsto create an environmentthat supports the expan-sion and creation of com-panies that provide high-paying, head-of-house-hold jobs.
Diablo’s looming closure makes job creation an even greater priority
BY THE TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD
JOE JOHNSTON [email protected]
Job seekers line up for PG&E’s job fair at the company’s Energy Education Center inSan Luis Obispo in January 2016.
YOUR OPINION
What do you think? Share your
thoughts at sanluisobispo.com.
Where the oakshave more rightsthan the citizens
Bulldozing oaks forgrapes — that would neverhappen in Atascadero,where oak trees have beendeclared endangered andhave more rights thancitizens (except they don’thave their own bathroom).We are taking this oak treeshortage seriously.
We have our own oakpreserve: Three BridgesOak Preserve. I’ve beenby it several times, but Ican’t find it for all the oaktrees.
Isn’t it interesting thatnobody noticed thesemissing oaks until some-body put a picture on theinternet? That’s how im-portant these oaks were;nobody knew they weremissing. Developers havegone too far. We have todraw the line somewhere.No more Wal-Marts, andno more vineyards!
Someday, maybe, weNorth County folk willfigure out what we want.We like expensive restau-rants, parks, and drunkencowboys and cowgirls atthe fair. Unfortunately,parks and drunks don’tgenerate enough econom-ic growth to put enoughmoney in the wallets oflocals to be able to eat at
our expensive restaurants.So we have let the winer-ies do their thing so out-of-towners will come andeat at our restaurants sowe can pay for our parksand keep the beer flowingat the fair.
Save the oaks!– Chris Temple, Atascadero
New housing formentally ill tenantsis a win-win
Congratulations toTransitions-Mental HealthAssociation and our com-munity for the new BishopStreet Studios that wasrecently submitted for cityapprovals (“SLO housingapplication filed forindependent, mentally illtenants,” June 12).
For Transitions, it willprovide 34 affordableunits for their clients whohave worked hard to man-age mental illness and liveindependently, and whoneed an affordable home.For our city, we will re-ceive new housing to helprelieve a crowded rentalmarket, the renovation ofthe beautiful Sunny Acresbuilding and a great wayto support individualswanting to contribute toour community.
– Andy Pease, San Luis Obispo
SLO Countyrestaurants right to pull Justin wines
It was great to read ofrestaurants’ partnershipwith residents in the dis-approval of the removal ofthe oak trees (“SeveralSLO County restaurantsyank Justin wines afteroak tree removals,” June18).
Money talks — so notselling Justin wines, hope-fully, will have an effect.
– Linda Akin, Paso Robles
If you turned on cableTV news Monday, chancesare good that you caughtCorey Lewandowski fib-bing that he doesn’t have aclue why Donald Trumpfired him as his campaignmanager. Of course heknows.
In a series of interviewson several shows, Lewan-dowski dodged everyquestion, including fromCNN’s Dana Bash onwhether Trump’s daughterIvanka and her husbandhad anything to do withhis dismissal. Tensionsamong them were well-known to campaign fol-lowers, but Lewandowskishrugged off such con-cerns as typical of all cam-paigns.
But Lewandowski was aspecial case. He lookedand acted more like abodyguard/bouncer than acampaign manager. At oneTrump event, he was ac-cused of assaulting a fe-male reporter. On Mondaynight, however, there wasno evidence of the toughguy. Rather, Lewandowskiportrayed a humble,thoughtful, soft-spoken,gee-whiz guy who onlywants to do the right thingfor his country.
Naturally, people won-dered: How big is his gold-en parachute? And spec-ulators wagered: He musthave signed a confidential-ity agreement. This ishighly probable. Usually,when high-profile employ-ees are escorted from thebuilding, as Lewandowskiwas, they tend to leavewith two things: a checkand a promise never tospeak ill of the company.
There’s no disagree-ment that Lewandowskihad become a liability. His
brash style, which reflect-ed that of his employer,rubbed many the wrongway. Moreover, Trump’scampaign is in dire straits.His poll numbers are slip-ping and are below anycandidate’s, Democrat orRepublican, in the pastthree election cycles. Add-ing to his travails, Trump’scampaign cupboard isrelatively bare with just$1.3 million compared toHillary Clinton’s $42 mil-lion. Something had tochange and somebody hadto take the fall.
Another plausible theoryis far more cynical andseems more Trumpian. Itwasn’t money or campaigndiscord that got Lew theboot. He was fired as asacrifice to one of the fewconstituencies Trumphasn’t thus far insulteddirectly — evangelicalChristians. Could it bemere coincidence that justone day later, Trump wasscheduled to meet in NewYork with a congregationof about 900 Christianleaders to sort things outin advance of likely en-dorsements? That’s arhetorical question.
Those gathered wantedto know more about the“real” Trump, to find away to support him, de-spite his un-Christianbehaviors and attitudes.And Trump’s purpose wasto assure them that he’sreally a good guy wholoves the Lord, “believeme,” and just wants tomake America great again.
The meeting was closedto media, especially TheWashington Post, whichTrump has banished fromall events. It seems hedoesn’t like the way thepaper is covering him.Richard Nixon felt thesame way.
But one imagines thathis metamorphosis mirrorsLewandowski’s. Remem-ber Lewandowski, thehumble, soft-spoken, gee-whiz-I-just-love-my-coun-try fellow? Just add “and-Jesus” after “country” and
you’ll have a fair idea ofhow a new, improvedTrump might appear.
This is how I imagineTrump’s handling of themeeting: “Look, I nevermeant any of those thingsI said, not really. Sure, weneed to secure our bordersand be smarter aboutimmigration, but thisdoesn’t mean I dislikeMexicans or think they’rerapists, even though, Iassume, some of them are.
“I just get carried awaysometimes because I’m sopassionate about makingthis country great again.God willing. Plus, to beperfectly honest, I wasgetting some really badadvice from my campaignmanager and that’s why Ihad to let him go.”
Lewandowski, notTrump, was the problemall along, you see. He toldTrump to act like a raging,misogynistic, xenophobic,racist. Cleansed of Lewan-dowski’s influence, he’sliberated to be his presi-dential self. And, in thisnew light, the evangelicalcommunity can justifysupporting this unlikelybearer of civilization’storch. Christians love thepenitent sinner who hassought forgiveness andbeen reborn.
Not all will buy Trump’sreinvention, no matterwhat sort of incantationstranspired Tuesday. In-deed, just across town onthe same evening, anothergroup of faith leadersgathered for dinner withmembers of “Better forAmerica,” a new organiza-tion aimed at finding andfunding an alternative toTrump and Hillary Clin-ton.
Barring divine interven-tion, they’re probably toolate. Then again, miraclescan happen. A penitent,born-again Trump wouldcertainly be one.
Kathleen Parker writes forThe Washington Post. Reach her at [email protected].
COMMENTARY
Trump’s pivot to Damascus
BY KATHLEEN PARKER
YOUR OPINION
Letter policy
The Tribune welcomes your letters.
Send them to:
THE TRIBUNE, P.O. BOX 112,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406. Fax
letters to 781-7905 or email them
to: [email protected].
Letters should be no longer than
200 words. Shorter, emailed letters
are preferred. Your letter must be
signed and include your address
and phone number. Writers are
limited to one letter a month. We
reserve the right to edit letters for
length, clarity and taste. All letters
and Viewpoints become the
property of The Tribune.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
EDITORIAL OPINION OF THE TRIBUNE
ONLINE
Go to sanluisobispo.com/opinion/
letters-to-the-editor/submit-letter
to submit a letter online.