PG&E agrees to 2 years of community funding.
Before getting deeper into some details, there are three things everyone should know about Diablo Canyon and SLO County:
1. If PG&E keeps its promise, our County and schools will be receiving additional revenue for two years.
2. Your participation matters. This would not have happened without community support, engagement, and activism in conjunction with the work of our representatives in Sacramento, Sen. John Laird and Asm. Dawn Addis. It’s easy to let yourself believe that writing letters, sharing Instagram posts, talking to friends, and pressuring Diablo Canyon (DCPP) stakeholders is futile, but what we do as a community is meaningful and effective.
3. We are not finished fighting for our community and our kids. We’re still in the early stages of making sure public services are properly supported while DCPP is operating.
On to the updates!
What happened last week?
Last Monday, Senator John Laird, PG&E, and SLO County announced an agreement for the company to pay $8.3M per year to SLO County for two years.
We do not know what the agreement will look like, whether it is legally binding, or any details yet.
For some local coverage, see articles at the Tribune (gift article) and KCBX. A New Times SLO article is also forthcoming.
What does this mean for SLCUSD?
According to SLCUSD and the County, the district will receive $4.09M per year, which is consistent with the Joint Agreement negotiated in 2016 (NOT adjusted for inflation).
We do not know what the district will decide to do if it receives additional revenue, but the Collective Bargaining Agreement between SLCUSD and the teachers’ unions allows salary negotiations to reopen if the district receives additional money from PG&E’s operations at Diablo Canyon.
We would love to see full-time counselors and librarians back in every school, but those decisions ultimately rest with the school board.
Additionally, SLCUSD has made clear that its goal is consistent, ongoing funding while DCPP is operating.
What about SB 931?
As described in our last legislative update, SB 931 cleared most of the hurdles left for the bill to pass the State Assembly. Sen. Laird has agreed to “pause” the bill now that PG&E has pledged to provide the same amount of money without the need for legislation.
Didn’t PG&E say that legislation was the only possible solution to our concerns?
Yes!
The narrative that legislation was the only way to secure revenue for our community has been repeated consistently for a year and a half:
On February 18, 2025, by PG&E employee Erica Cabrera at a SLCUSD Board meeting.
On August 19, 2025, by PG&E employee Eric Daniels at another SLCUSD Board meeting.
In October 2025, by Mr. Daniels in a meeting with SLCUSD Board members. Mr. Daniels said the district would get no “love money” and noted that SLCUSD’s poor lobbying in Sacramento was a specific weakness.
In November 2025, by Mr. Daniels in a form email response to our first letter-writing campaign.
On January 20, 2026, by Mr. Daniels before the SLO City Council, both in public comment and in saying “pass legislation then” out loud while Councilwoman Marx discussed Diablo Canyon’s property tax responsibility.
On April 2, 2026 by PG&E spokesperson Carina Corral in response to the introduction of SB 931.
These are just a few of the public remarks by PG&E; there are plenty of examples of PG&E (and its allies, since PG&E hasn’t engaged with us) telling SLC-PIN, SLCUSD, and elected officials privately that our options were legislation or nothing.
We have maintained that PG&E has not been acting in good faith about its property tax obligations and any potential solutions, and believe the record speaks for itself.
Does this agreement “reinstate the unitary tax”?
No.
As we have noted before, this phrase is effectively meaningless but is often used by PG&E and others as a catch-all term for community funding from DCPP operations.
What does this mean for ongoing operations at DCPP beyond 2030?
We don’t know.
PG&E and the County will push hard to extend DCPP operations in the next legislative session, potentially with the support of a new Governor that PG&E spent millions of dollars to help get elected.
We believe our community is owed fairness, consistency, and transparency when it comes to funding from DCPP operations. Having to revisit and relitigate this issue every few years is not an effective way to accomplish those goals.
Fundamentally, there should be a baseline level of financial support for our County and our schools so long as Diablo stays operating. Whether that money comes from property taxes, mitigation funds, or some other source is ultimately a political question.
Why did PG&E agree to provide money without legislation?
We don’t really know, and there is a lot of speculation about PG&E’s motivation for the agreement.
Two weeks ago, Governor Newsom announced that he would not ask the legislature to extend operations at Diablo this year, punting the question to his successor.
Politico has reported that PG&E reached out to Senator Laird to negotiate this deal and suggested it might be an attempt to get on the senator’s good side before a late push to have the company’s legislative priorities passed this session.
Some folks have told us that PG&E did not like the idea of using the Volumetric Performance Fund (VPF) to pay the County, which is what SB 931 would have required.
This gets deeper into the weeds, but PG&E received about $270M last year in VPF funds and has very broad discretion in how that revenue is disbursed. SB 931 would have been the first legislation to specifically direct how PG&E spends VPF money, which may be a precedent the company wanted to avoid.
It’s also possible that PG&E wanted to anchor its financial responsibility to a particularly low number before entering negotiations related to ongoing operations at DCPP. This amount ($8.3M), unadjusted for inflation, had community support because it was a short-term, stopgap measure that needed to pass the legislature.
We do not believe PG&E’s motivation was benevolence or a desire to do the right thing.
What do you think? Want to find out more? Have any suggestions or comments? Know something we don’t?
Let us know! Feel free to contact us at info@slcpin.org.
Also, please share this newsletter with anyone who might care about this issue!
If you've received this from a friend or family member, you can add your name to our mailing list at www.slcpin.org.
Thanks so much,
The SLC-PIN team.
