I am perhaps missing it, but my takeaway from the article was that doesn't seem to actually specify existing nuclear, preferring to talk about nuclear subsidy.

I am perhaps missing it, but my takeaway from the article was that doesn't seem to actually specify existing nuclear, preferring to talk about nuclear subsidy. If it were only existing nuclear I would mostly agree on keeping it save for certain certain end of life reactors (e.g diablo canyon built near an earthquake fault).