UPDATE: Ameren nuclear plant bill likely dead for this session
UPDATE: The various interest groups on both sides of the Ameren bill are weighing in on the news that the bill is likely dead: From Gregg Keller of Fair Electricity Rates Action Fund: “From day one, FERAF has negotiated in good faith towards a compromise which allows nuclear energy to be part of Missouri’s energy future but doesn’t saddle working Missourians with Ameren’s potential 40% rate hike plan. If and when a true compromise plan is put forward which doesn’t raise rates by as much as 40% on Missourians and which keeps in place crucial consumer protections, we will remain honest brokers on this issue, as always.”
Also, Warren Wood, of the Missouri Energy Development Association, which has been pushing the bill, said that if the bill is indeed dead, it might close Ameren’s window for a nuclear plant, based on two factors: Ameren’s ability to obtain federal loan guarantees and the other possible investors in the plant moving on. The municipal utilities that are considering investing with Ameren for the plant, might have to make their own decisions about new plants, and will likely move on to natural gas options, Wood said.
JEFFERSON CITY – A bill that would pave the way for a new Ameren nuclear plant has hit a roadblock in the Missouri Senate and is likely dead for the session.
One of the Legislative session’s most controversial bills, the Ameren-backed proposal would repeal the state’s prohibition on utility companies charging customers for some costs of an electrical plant before the facility is up and running.
But consumer groups and large industrial companies in the state complained that the bill also rewrote utility regulations to the point where Ameren could reap too many rate increases during the process of building a $6 billion plus nuclear plant in Callaway County.
Today, Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, indicated the bill was unlikely to come up for debate again this session.
“We’ve hit a point where the parties involved simply aren’t willing to compromise and if that’s the case, there’s simply not much to resolve,” said Schaefer, who wrote the current version of the bill that was originally offered by Sen. Delbert Scott, R-Lowry City. “Until the parties are willing to show some compromise, I don’t know that any one of us who have put a lot of time in this issue see any reason to bring it back up.”
Lewis Mills, Missouri’s public counsel, said he’s heard from many sources that the bill is dead for this session.
“It’s either the greatest misdirection in history or it’s true,” said Mills, who represents consumers in utility matters.
Two weeks ago, the bill was the subject of a late-night filibuster led by Democrats and Republicans, but primarily Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau.
Crowell and Schaefer got into a heated and personal discussion on the floor about the bill, exchanging insults about various Republican political consultants involved in the debate over the Ameren bill.
Last week, the major industrial companies opposing the bill met in Scott’s office and delivered the senator a list of possible compromise positions. The companies, led by Noranda Aluminum of New Madrid, said that they wouldn’t necessarily oppose a repeal of the construction work in progress (CWIP) law, but they were against the various changes to Public Service Commission regulations.
Also last week, Gov. Jay Nixon met with Senate president pro tem Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, and indicated that he would veto the bill in its current form if it came to his desk. Nixon has publicly said he believes Ameren should obtain a federal permit to build a nuclear plant before trying to change Missouri law to improve its ability to obtain financing for the facility.
Ameren has said the plant will not get built without a change to Missouri law, and it has said the opponents misstate the possible rate increases that would hit consumers as a result of the bill. But a letter from PSC staff to Sen. Joan Bray, D-University City, said the information Ameren is providing to senators, and the information the company provided to regulators, is different.
Over the last few weeks, Ameren and the opponents have been trading barbs in television ads that have been running in the St. Louis market and elsewhere.
Schaefer said that if Ameren doesn’t eventually build the nuclear plant, Missouri consumers will see their rates increase one way or another.
“No one is going to get a new coal-fired power plant approved,” Schaefer said, because of new EPA regulations about carbon emissions.
Mills doesn’t necessarily disagree with that, but he said the problem with this bill has been Ameren’s unwillingness to compromise from the beginning of the process.
“I think going into the session, AmerenUE thought they would get everything they wanted,” Mills said. “We were willing to give them everything they needed. There have never been any serious negotiations.”
The problem with trusting any utility is you can’t trust them when their the only game in town, and then when they get what they want they change their mind when it’s not to their advantage, like they did with the last major law change for them. Who’s to say that once they get the rules change to their benefit that they decide not to build that plant but use this bill to use our money to pay for the financing on everthing they do?
Vince, the 1-3 percent increase Foss talks about is just for the cost of the nuclear plant, it has nothing to do with the other recent rate increases, so your 7.8% increase has nothing to do with this topic. the public service commission approved that last increase everyone received.
Someone is starting to sound like Karen Foss. The commercial cleverly makes it sound like our bills will increase 1-3%. Not 1-3% PLUS whatever other rate increase Ameren can get the PUC to agree to. Bottom line, don’t increase my rates now for a project that may or may not happen down the road. Do business like other companies and float bonds, set aside profits and budget for capital projects.
Analogy - I want to refinish my basement. Maybe I should hire a lobbyist and get the citizens of Missouri to pay for it. What? the citizens don’t want to go along with that? Come on, it will only cost a little bit. I haven’t applied for building permits yet, but don’t you worry about that, I’ll make good use of the taxpayer’s money. Wink, wink.
We are going to need additional power generated at some point. Windmills, solar panels, puppy dog kisses and rainbows is not going to generate what we need. Nuclear is clean and safe, step into the 21st century.
A much better idea would be a clean-coal plant built in central Missouri. Ameren already owns its own railroad, so the coal could be mined in IL and railed to the new plant, creating hundreds of new jobs in mining, construction, and transportation.
I’m with Vince. Our lawmakers are elected to represent us, THE PEOPLE, not guarantee the profits of companies like Ameren. I’m sure there are plenty of small businesses that would love to have taxpayers fund the cost of their growth - especially if they can skirt all the risks and still reap all the rewards.
Yes, Missouri does need to invest in new energy sources, but the Ameren proposal was simply not the answer. Thank goodness this bad bill is dead.
Vince- your going to end up paying for it one way or another. It will probably cost the consumer more in the long run if Ameren funds it all themselves. This 1-3% increase in rates is to pay the interest on the construction. If Ameren can pay more now, it means we the consumer will have to pay less later. That truthfully is why I am all for this bill passing. I like to save money and this will save me money.
Nuclear is the future, and we need to use it.
Sorry, Adam2, but that 1 % to 3% a year is the cost of FINANCING the new plant. That alone would increase rates 23 percent by 2017. After that, we get to pay for BUILDING the plant, which is somewhere between $6 billion to $9 billion.
This is really sad. This project would have provided many job opportunities for out of work Missourians, not to mention it would have created a source of clean energy that we will desperately need in the years to come. I read that we are using 200% more energy that we were just a few years back. I can’t believe that such lies and scare tactics have actually worked. There is no way that Ameren was going to raise their rates 40%.
Ameren is the only game in Missouri that has no programs - zero - in to promote efficiency for its electric
customers. Utilities in almost every other state understand that supply-side is not the only way to
go, and have stopped or significantly slowed electricity usage by picking the low-hanging fruit of efficiency
to their benefit and the consumers’. Even lowball estimates claim that, in a state such as Missouri
with lower energy efficiency standards, that such programs could save 30% or more if implemented aggressively
. Economist.com says the investment has a ROI of 17%. Ameren’s only solution is supply-side because
they are old-school and have a mid-20th century mindset. The growth in electronic “gadgets” (which
is almost always cited as the reason a new nuclear plant is needed) can be offset several orders of
magnitude over by making the big energy hogs (A/C, dishwashers, TV, refrigerators) more efficient.
Even if at some point in the future we needed more supply, there is no question that adding supply incrementally
is the way to go, not 1.6GW at a time. This would have been a windfall for Ameren at the expense of
ratepayers and taxpayers, who would subsidize the operation of the plant. Ameren is one of the few
utilities in the country that just doesn’t “get it”.
Thank goodness this ridiculous piece of legislation failed.