SAN FRANCISCO -- It has been an open question how earthquake-prone Californians might respond to the magnitude-9.0 earthquake and tsunami that crippled Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in March.

Opponents of California's two existing nuclear plants are hoping to use the often-arcane relicensing process to wedge in arguments against nuclear power's safety and cost-effectiveness.

A routine hearing at the California Public Utilities Commission yesterday drew about two dozen anti-nuclear advocates, who urged the agency to dismiss Pacific Gas & Electric's request for ratepayer funds to pay for federal license renewal. Since the federal government has jurisdiction over evaluating the safety of nuclear plants, nuclear opponents are pressing state regulators to nix plans over financial concerns.

Utility officials are currently conducting seismic studies around the 2,300-megawatt Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, located on the state's central coast and a mile away from an offshore fault discovered in 2008 (E&ENews PM, March 24). If retrofits are needed, the cost of relicensing could skyrocket.

"In light of Fukushima, it would be incumbent on the commission to take a searching look at the reasonableness of ratepayer money spent during this renewal process," said Ed Mainland, a member of Sierra Club California.

PG&E applied to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission for license renewals in 2009, 15 years ahead of the expiration dates for Diablo's two operating reactors. Along with that application, the utility asked the CPUC for permission to bill customers for the costs of renewing the licenses -- about $80 million, by PG&E's reckoning. The agency was originally scheduled to hear the request April 13, but postponed it after the March 11 quake.

PG&E officials asked the CPUC yesterday to delay deciding on the expenses until the utility finishes the seismic studies, which were requested by the California Energy Commission at the behest of state lawmakers. PG&E has already asked the NRC to delay its decision on the federal level, which could have come as early as 2013.

Administrative Law Judge Robert Barnett, in charge of the proceeding, questioned utility officials sharply on the costs. "In 2015, when inflation and costs have doubled, and the cost of going forward is $160 million, you're going to say that $80 million is all you're going to ask the ratepayers for?" he asked.

PG&E attorney Mark Patrizio said the relicensing process wouldn't necessarily be more expensive after the seismic evaluation. "To the extent the seismic studies require that work be done to ensure the ongoing safety of Diablo Canyon ... that work will very likely need to be done immediately," he said. "The economics aren't necessarily going to change with regards to the renewal of the operating licenses."

The NRC is due to release a set of safety recommendations stemming from the Japanese crisis later this month, which would help inform any changes PG&E might make to the plant.

"We don't know what the NRC's going to come out with, don't know whether they'll be effective or cost-effective," said Rochelle Becker, executive director of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. "We don't know how many faults are near Diablo Canyon."

Matthew Freedman, an attorney for ratepayer advocate group the Utility Reform Network, said he didn't think the NRC's prescriptions would have much teeth, but that policies could change on the state level. "There's a much bigger debate people are having here about the future of nuclear," he said. "Fukushima is potentially a game-changer."

Rashid Rashid, an attorney for the CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates, agreed.

"Japan changed everything," he said.