I do support a new nuclear power plant. I think nuclear power is a great way to produce energy. However, I don’t want the power companies making us pay for the plant before it’s built.

This troubles me on two levels, the first of which is that it privatizes the profit, but socializes the risk. This is a huge problem with modern businesses and investors. They do all sorts of risky ventures, and justify their huge profits by saying “but we took the risks, we should get the reward”. However, when the risks hit the proverbial fan, they cry for assistance and bailouts “If you don’t bail us out, the cascading reaction will affect you all!”. In essence, they want the rewards, but not the consequences – when they win they take the money, when they loose they stick the taxpayer with the bill.

The second part that bothers me is making the people buy a plant for a private business is backwards. If the people pay for it up front, don’t they own it? If the people own it, shouldn’t we charge the power company for the use of the plant? In practice though, the power company will own it, and charge the consumers the going rate for the electricity generated by the people’s investment.

The way things are supposed to work is a company invests its own money (either earned or borrowed) to build something that people need. The company then sells this product to the consumers at a competitive rate (or we buy from someone else). The way Ameren WANTS to make it work is the company takes money from the people, invests it in their own company, then charges the customer for the goods produced by that investment. Competition? Not allowed. Government issued monopoly. You pay the rates they charge or you don’t get power.

If Ameren wants to build a new power plant, they should secure the financing or issue bonds. If they can’t afford it, then perhaps the people will have to step up and pay for a new plant. But in that case, the plant should be the property of Missouri taxpayers – and any power Ameren derives from that plant should be paid for at free market rates. In other words, if Ameren wants to risk it’s money, they deserve the rewards. But if it’s the taxpayer’s money that gets risked, the taxpayer should get the rewards.

So your saying you don’t want to pay for the plant while it’s being built(not before it’s built as you state) but it’s ok to pay for it after it’s built? I don’t get that. The way it is now, Ameren can’t enter the cost of a new plant into the rate base until it goes on line producing power. This has been the case since before Callaway was built. While it was a financial hardship for the company it was accomplished. However, when Callaway was built it cost approx. 1 billion dollars to build. The new plant, which will probably be Callaway 2 is priced a 6 bill. and surely will go over that cost as all projects do. I think Ameren may have a hard time getting financing for that kind of project even though they have a long track record of successful projects in their history. I, for one, would prefer to see them using private funding. I feel that a nuke is much less objectionable these days than a coal fired plant and so would not be so much of a risk.

Sorry, I just remembered Callaway 1 was approx. 3 bill. when complete. Original projections were 1 bill.

Folks, UE canceled the Callaway II plant and tried to stick consumers for the costs of the canceled plant. Now, AmerenUE says their projections show they need another nuke plant—mind you the same one which was canceled due to poor projections for demand—in addition to the one operating. AND, we also according to Ameren UE and GOP utility lackey PSC chair Jeff Smith, need to allow Ameren UE to recover the costs of the new nuke plant while it is being built, and before it ever produces one watt of energy (which Missouri law currently does not allow).

The threat is to use Illinois natural gas plants (owned by a separate subsiduary of Ameren and not regulated)and allow the unregulated rates to just flow through (along with any now approved by the GOP controlled PSC surcharges) and then any and all profits going to Ameren. OR, we let another private, unregulated company build the nuke plant (owned by a separate subsidiary of Ameren and not regulated) and allow the unregulated rates to just flow through (along with any now approved by the GOP controlled PSC surchagres)and all and all profits go to Ameren.

Someone needs to go to jail for this conniving corruption. Why doesn’t the Cole County Prosecutor have a grand jury investigate the onflicts of interesets, e-mails between utility execs and the PSC and Governonr’s offices, and the destruction of e-mails and obstruction of justice going on around the state regulatory bodies in Missouri?

What’s the best way to build another nuke plant in Missouri?

That’s a bit like asking what’s the best way to kill my husband? Not really a good idea to begin with. Unless I was sleeping while they discovered a way to safely dispose of the nuclear waste.

Like any other corporation AmerenUE can sell bonds to raise funds for capital expenditures. These bonds could very well be tax exempt and would no doubt draw strong investor interest. AmerenUE should not get any public monies and should not be allowed to bill the customer for their expansion needs.

Do the car manufacturers charge you before they build a car? Is it really right for us to pay for something and then pay for it again? After all, if we build it we should own it. Let them build it and pay for it themselves. It’s a good idea. We will buy what it produces. You don’t have to pay the farmer before he takes his grain to market.

The time is right to consider expanding nuclear power generation.

Power plants are different from other business ventures. They are located where they are for regulatory, supply, and environmental concerns. Out of public concern for energy policy, the state of Missouri or the Federal government might give an incentive for site preparation. This would be more worthy of a public funding supplement than for a stadium or an office building.

The law says consumers can’t be billed for power before its generated. Does anyone object to that? A more responsible way around funding would be for the government to negotiate an agreement with the power company. The power plant would get better loan terms if the government would agree to abate taxes. The government might get price-reduced electricity for the indigent, or a price cap on power for consumers or a favored industry in return. Here’s a way for proactive government to help its citizens get what we actually need.

I think expanding Callaway is a great idea. Todays eco-friendly ideals prohibits the construction of new coal fired plants, and while everyone screams for “green” energy (wind, solar, biomass) these get shot down just as fast when people find out the ideal location is in their back yards.

Nuclear is the power of the future, more and more of our coal gets exported to China and eventually we will need a power source that is reliable and is cleaner than coal. Solar was brought up, but what do you do at night? Currently you build a coal/oil/natural gas fired plant next to it. But all of those fuels are in short supply and again the Sierra Club will lobby and sue any utility even thinking about a new coal or oil fired plant.

So that leaves us with wind, biomass, and nuke. Wind is a good idea, but you would need to cover a area the size of Utah to generate enough energy (and not have the wind EVER let up) to replace the coal fleet. The life expectancy of a wind turbine is short as well, maybe 10 years? Most coal units today are in their 40’s, nearly most of them had/have 40-45 year life spans, that means in the next 5-10 years America will either go nuke, or build new coal plants to replace the decaying and dirty fleet that is out there.

Should people pay for the Callaway 2 before its built? Maybe not, but you will pay for it eventually. The comment was brought up about cars makers, if they want a new plant, they build it, then hide the costs of the plant in the MSRP of the car. Does this mean you own the plant? No. Same can be said for a farmer, you go to a farmers market and the price he sets on his produce will take into account the mortage he has to pay on his land, the cost of the seeds, the fuel for his tractors, and the chemicals to make them so big and juicy. Does this make you a partial owner of his land? No.

Everything you buy today has this built into it. The question is, do you want to pay for it now, and have hopefully lower energy rates later, or wait until its done and then roll all of those costs into a new rate hike?

Whatever you answer, we need new sources of power, and we need them soon.

I think the new nuclear plant is a good idea. Coal is just too dirty and the amount of waste is staggering. Wind and solar power just can’t fill the void. We’d have to make Montana a wind farm just to supplement the west. Natural gas plants can only support the grid at peak times. If the 1976 law is repealed and we have to start paying for it while it is being built, I’d at least like to see provisions that will hold Ameren accountable for cost overruns. Of course, I’m not optimistic about that.