Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two California bills advancing nuclear fusion planning this week, even as a critic warned that commercial fusion remains 30 years away and always will be.
The Democratic governor put his signature on Senate Bill 925 and Assembly Bill 2647, measures that push the state deeper into nuclear and fusion energy planning in the final stretch of his term. The Center Square reported the signings as part of an effort to expand clean energy sources and chase California’s long-term climate targets.
SB 925, authored by Sen. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, requires the state to draft a plan for nuclear fusion energy development facilities. The California Energy Commission must deliver that report to the Legislature by Dec. 31, 2029.
The plan is supposed to cover strategies for expanding fusion research, commercializing the technology, building a regulatory framework, handling permitting and licensing, and judging how much fusion power California would need to hit its renewable energy and greenhouse gas goals.
Bill analysis tied to the measure lays out real costs. The commission would spend roughly $1.1 million in taxpayer funds to hire five new staff members, plus another $500,000 in contract work. Nine more staffers would form a new permitting unit for fusion projects at about $2 million a year.
McNerney has long backed fusion. He told reporters the technology carries clear upsides if engineers can finally make it work at scale.
McNerney said:
"I’ve always been a big promoter of fusion energy because it has so many benefits. The drawbacks, the waste and the risk of accidents is so low that it’s an ideal source. Of course, we have to develop the technology for that to happen."
He framed the bill as infrastructure policy that could lock manufacturing and jobs inside the state.
McNerney added:
"All this is infrastructure. We need to develop that infrastructure here so we can produce this technology. That means jobs; it means economic growth for the state of California."
That pitch lands alongside other late-term moves from the governor’s desk, including when Newsom enacted a ban on disposable battery-powered vapes. Different issue, same pattern of California writing new rules and spending public money to steer the market.
Haakon Williams, CEO of The Committee to Bridge the Gap, drew a sharp line between fusion’s theoretical promise and its commercial readiness. He noted fusion’s safety edge over traditional fission reactors, which split atoms and can melt down if cooling fails. Fusion joins atoms instead. If the process is disrupted, by an earthquake or an attack, the reaction simply stops.
Williams still rejected the idea that California is close to plugging fusion into the grid.
Williams said:
"The problem with fusion is that fusion energy is 30 years away and always will be. The technology is not mature enough for commercial deployment. My understanding of it is that fusion is closer than ever to being viable, but the main developments you see on fusion in recent years amount to an incremental increase in the amount of time you are able to sustain the fusion."
The U.S. Department of Energy describes the basic difference the same way: fusion combines atoms into a heavier one; fission splits them and produces radioactivity. That science lesson does not change the deployment timeline Williams described.
Newsom’s office answered with the familiar clean-energy script. Anthony Martinez, a deputy communications director, pointed to existing state work and private capital already flowing into research.
Martinez wrote:
"California is leading the nation in building a reliable, clean energy future while ensuring the state is ready to harness emerging technologies that can strengthen that progress. California is also currently incorporating fusion into its energy future through the Fusion Research and Development Innovation Initiative administered by the California Energy Commission. In the meantime, California's fusion and quantum research is already drawing private investment and creating good-paying jobs."
Readers have watched similar high-ambition signing sprees before, from when Newsom enacted seven data center laws to tighter industry rules, to broader fights over how Sacramento manages growth and power demand.
AB 2647, by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon, D-Whittier, takes a wider look at nuclear power itself. It directs the California Energy Commission to assess nuclear energy’s role in running critical infrastructure and to decide whether new plants could help meet rising electricity demand. Bill analysis links the measure to the state’s goal of 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2045. Calderon did not respond to questions for the Center Square story.
California’s recent nuclear record is mostly about shutdowns and cleanup bills. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, near Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County north of Santa Barbara, is the state’s only operating nuclear plant. PG&E owns it. The plant runs at a deficit that costs ratepayers nine figures a year even with public subsidies.
Documents filed with the California Public Utilities Commission by the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility show PG&E sought approval to keep Diablo Canyon running through 2030 at a cost of roughly $11.8 billion, up from the $8.1 billion the utility forecast in 2023.
Other plants are already gone. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, once owned by Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, closed in 2012 for repairs and never reopened. Decommissioning ran $4.5 billion, according to the AB 2647 bill analysis. PG&E’s Humboldt Bay plant and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s Rancho Seco plant were decommissioned as well.
Against that backdrop, the new bills ask taxpayers to bankroll planning staff and studies for a fusion future that a leading critic still calls decades out. The same state that shuttered reactors and absorbed multi-billion-dollar cleanup costs is now writing fresh mandates around technology that has not reached commercial scale.
Policy churn from Sacramento rarely stops at one sector. The governor has also moved to lock California into an “AI” label after national debate over advanced computing, another case of state branding outrunning proven deployment.
McNerney argued California must build the magnets, materials, and industrial base so fusion can deliver large amounts of energy quickly once the science catches up. Williams answered that recent progress has mainly stretched the minutes a reaction can be held, not delivered a plant ready for the grid.
SB 925’s report deadline of Dec. 31, 2029, sits years after Newsom leaves office. The staffing line items start sooner. Ratepayers already carry Diablo Canyon’s deficit and the memory of San Onofre’s $4.5 billion wind-down. AB 2647 now asks the energy commission whether more nuclear should power critical facilities on the road to 2045.
Housing, energy, and regulation keep colliding in the same capital. When Newsom tried to pin the housing crisis on Trump, his own figures told a more complicated story about California’s choices. Energy policy is following a familiar script: ambitious targets, new bureaucracies, and thin proof the technology is ready on the schedule politicians sell.
California can draft fusion plans and hire permitting staff. It cannot vote commercial fusion into existence on a political timeline, and the bill for the paperwork arrives first.