A ballot initiative to close California's two nuclear plants won't qualify for the November ballot, but its sponsor says he'll take it to the courts next.

The initiative would have extended California's current moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants to cover its two existing plants, Diablo Canyon Power Plant and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The two existing plants contribute about 14 percent of California's electricity supply (E&ENews PM, Nov. 21, 2011).

As written, the current ban will last until the federal government approves a long-term disposal method for nuclear waste.

The initiative's author, Santa Cruz resident Ben Davis, blames the state's Legislative Analyst's Office for its fiscal analysis, which accompanies the text of the initiative on signature-gathering petitions. He said he had collected fewer than 500,000 signatures by the April 16 deadline.

The LAO said the measure would cost billions of dollars annually in electricity rate increases and disrupted grid reliability and could potentially cause rolling blackouts.

"The legislative analyst basically killed our chances with this initiative," Davis said.

Davis pointed to the continued closure of one of the plants, Southern California Edison's San Onofre facility, as proof that the grid can function without it.

"As it would have it, San Onofre went down, and there are no rolling blackouts and there are none planned," he said. The state's grid operator has estimated a capacity shortage of 1,028 megawatts for the Los Angeles Basin if the plant continues to remain offline, as it has since January due to unexpected deterioration of steam generator tubes. To compensate, the state is considering bringing a recently retired natural gas plant online this summer (Greenwire, March 23).

LAO policy analyst Tiffany Roberts stood by the analysis, saying it calculates the cost of shutting both plants down immediately and permanently.

"If you're shutting a plant down completely, you have to think about long-term, how you would replace that power," she said. The part of California that San Onofre powers is in a particularly transmission-constrained area, so the state would need to approve new transmission as well as new baseload power plants, which would take years, she said. "Knowing that, that's when you start to run into problems," she said. "You've got somewhat of a ripple effect."

Davis said it was crucial to get the initiative onto the November ballot in order to draw a connection between California's plants and the meltdown last year at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant. He said he was considering filing suit in the state Supreme Court against the LAO and the state finance director but didn't have a firm timeline. The secretary of state must make ballot determinations by the end of June.

Another California nuclear opponent said Davis' efforts may be quixotic. Barbara George, executive director of Women's Energy Matters, said she disagreed with the LAO's conclusion that more generation is needed. Energy efficiency gains and other measures could make up any shortages, she said. The costs of an accident would be astronomical as well, she said.

"Nothing is more expensive than a nuclear accident, so that's certainly one thing," she said.

But George said she didn't support Davis' initiative because she didn't think it would be successful. "I just didn't feel that the approach he was taking was going to get him what he wanted, and I thought there wasn't going to be enough time as a result to organize a strong campaign," she said. "I just felt we should try it in a couple years."