That's not to say it runs better than promised, just that it outshines a dismal industry average. And within the tenuous logic of state electricity regulation, this is sufficient cause to bedevil ratepayers with Diablo's sins. A 1994 rates settlement modified this standard after the Division of Ratepayer Advocates successfully argued that the incentives were a little too generous. The deregulation debate, ultimately, is framed by two hard-line and polarized interpretations. One holds that Diablo Canyon was built with consent from ratepayers via the CPUC, and that consequently there exists an implied and binding contract that makes no distinction between Diablo and other utility assets.
Recovery is guaranteed on all.
At the other end of the spectrum, the debate's most radical voice contends that deregulation is a sort of utility bankruptcy proceeding, and that ratepayers are not obligated to pay a damned thing toward easing the transition. Neither of these interpretations, however, discerns Diablo's egregious role amid a cast of more reasonable generating investments. I don't think there is any legal basis for it. There are so many people who are mad. It's going to get challenged.