A bad bill brings out the worst in Missouri lawmakers
Missouri Senate Chamber
The walls are made of marble, topped by 16 Ionic columns. The ceiling soars 50 feet above the floor. Everything about the Missouri Senate chamber reeks of dignity and statesmanship — everything except the people who sit in it.
The lack of decorum was on painful display Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning as lawmakers debated a deeply flawed utility bill that would benefit investor-owned electric companies at the expense of consumers.
For more than 10 hours, they postured, pouted and personally attacked one another. In the end, the so-called CWIP bill was removed, unfortunately only temporarily, from consideration.
Senate President Pro Tem Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, urged key players to meet privately to resolve their differences.
He also apologized for not acting sooner to stem the decidedly un-senatorial tone of debate. But where’s the fun in that?
Senate Bill 228, the topic of debate, is designed to help AmerenUE build a second nuclear generating plant in Callaway County. It would do so by letting the utility pass on “construction work in progress” (CWIP) costs to customers before the plant is finished.
Perhaps that nuclear nexus explains why Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, one of the bill’s strongest supporters, suffered a “China Syndrome” meltdown during the debate.
At one point, Mr. Schaefer said Sen. Joan Bray, D-University City, should not “sanctimoniously lie” about provisions in the bill that permit automatic utility rate increases.
Ms. Bray, no shrinking violet, fired right back. “I will long resent you standing there and calling me a liar when I’m reading from your bill,” our colleague Tony Messenger quoted her as saying.
Earlier, Mr. Schaefer had exchanged not-so-friendly fire with a fellow Republican, Sen. Jason Crowell of Cape Girardeau.
Mr. Schaefer was complaining about “robo-calls” urging his constituents to oppose SB 228. The calls were paid for by Noranda Aluminum, a smelter that is among AmerenUE’s largest customers. But Mr. Schaefer blamed them on former House Speaker Rod Jetton, now a political consultant with close ties Mr. Crowell.
Mr. Schaefer said the calls originated from a telephone connected to Mr. Crowell’s campaign. “Is Noranda paying you?” Mr. Schaefer asked.
“What’s Ameren paying you?” Mr. Crowell replied.
Mr. Crowell denied having anything to do with the calls or the telephone line that they came from. And he said Mr. Schaefer was working at the behest of two Republican political consultants, Jeff Roe and David Barklage. Both have done work for his campaign and, Mr. Crowell said, been hired by AmerenUE to support the bill.
It’s not surprising that lawmakers would prefer name-calling and personal attacks to discussing the merits of SB 228 — The bill has no merits to discuss.
It would repeal a 33-year-old consumer protection law that prevents utilities from charging ratepayers for costs of building new power plants until those facilities start producing electricity.
But SB 228 goes well beyond repealing CWIP. It also would weaken oversight by the Public Service Commission by imposing artificially short time frames for decision making.
It would prohibit regulators from challenging unreasonable construction costs if new information comes to light before the plant goes on line.
And it would stick ratepayers with the bill if a utility abandons plans to build a new power plant.
The senators tried to improve it during their marathon session on Tuesday. One amendment would have forbidden rate hikes for customers 65 years old making less than $70,000 a year. Another dropped that income threshold to $40,000 and added the disabled. Still another would have exempted Noranda Aluminum and residential customers.
Here’s the best idea of all: Exempt everyone. Let the bill die.
I’m not a fan of this bill, but what’s a utility to do? You try to build a plant, investing time & money, only to have some damned injunction filed - stopping you from ever flipping the ON switch. The public at large (not me) have said we hate power: coal, nukes, gas. We hate business, we hate CEOs… In short, people seem to hate modernity. We’ll see how that plays out soon enough.
I get a kick out of the losers at the PD acting like they know how to run a business and what’s good and what’s bad. If they were really knew anything about running a business they would be able to reverse the ever-downward spiral in their circulation numbers. Instead they trumpet their on-line views. Unfortunately for them, that bubble burst nine years ago. What morons.
I was looking for an alternative solution to the issue from the writers. Couldn’t find it. It’s a simple question. “what’s a utility to do?”. One lawyer, one citizen can stop the whole project with one injunction. If I’m AmerenUE no way would I risk the dollars unless I had a “rock solid” agreement that it would be allowed to be finished. egoist said it. There will aways be someone that hates power: coal, nukes, gas. When Missouri has rolling brown outs or black outs the it will be all AmerenUE’s fault. Talk about a no win.
The only thing the Democrats/liberals hate more than the military and use of force is nuclear power. They tremble at the word, and will do anything to prevent the rest of us from enjoying CLEAN, dependable energy. If they truly were interested in the GREEN issue they would endorse this bill. It is a terrible risk to build a nuclear plant with the EPA and morons placing barriers to every step. We must help them.
Ameren just alerted me to a rate hike. Most people in the city can barely afford current rates, and they don’t have another option for electricity.
For the sake of modernity, in that case, you might see a comeback in candlelight.
But, what is a utility to do? Well, they enjoy a monopoly’s status, and these are the drawbacks. Maybe they should put together a proposal that doesn’t put people at risk of losing their service or their shirt. Unlike charging a little more for potato chips because you are opening a new potato factory, Ameren provides a neccessity, and one that represents one of the larger bills that anyone near the poverty line has to pay.
Perhaps they should seek investments from their smelter buddies or cap the increases to the amount of increase anyone would receive. Yes, keeping up with the times is important, but you wouldn’t expect to pay more for your Honda than it is worth, simply because Honda is developing a new hybrid car.
CWIP sucks for utilities, but Ameren didn’t do themselves any favors.
I suppose the PD Editorial Page could be balanced and actually discuss why a nuclear power plant would make a lot of sense in the current environment when the state is highly dependant on coal power and the federal government is proposing a cap and trade program on carbon emissions. Additionally, MO isn’t ideally positioned for wind or solar power.
I find it very ironic to hear the PD routinely pound on Ameren when we have some of the lowest power prices in the country and simultaneously cheerlead for MSD and Metro just because they are government owned.
SoCoBoy is looking for alternatives. He has perhaps missed the half dozen other editorials on this topic, which have laid them out in considerable detail.
Specifically, AmerenUE and other stakeholders could — and should — negotiate an agreement like the one reached by KCP&L and its ratepayers for the Iatan 2 plant north of Kansas City. That agreement allowed the company to maintain its cash metrics by receiving accelerated depreciation that helped finance the plant. Groups of large industrial customers and consumers have offered to engage in those negotiations. AmerenUE has refused.
SoCoBoy and Egoist seem to believe that one lawyer and one citizen can stop a power plant from being built. They are wrong. The Legislature changed the law last year to allow a power plant in Cass County to go on line. It had been built by Aquila in direct violation of both local zoning rules and two state court judges’ orders. Not citizens, not local communities, not even judges could stop it. The laws that apply to that plant apply equally to any others in the state.
Several other posters seem to think the issue with the CWIP bill is whether or not to build the plant. They are mistaken. Many of the large industrial users who are opposed to the bill are in favor of both a new plant in general and a new nuclear plant in particular.
Their concern is that provisions of the law will prevent the PSC from effective oversight during construction. Some of those concerns are highlighted in this editorial. They were explored in greater detail in earlier editorials.
The fundamental issue is how to ensure that any new plant is built efficiently and on time. This bill would shift the considerable risks involved in building a new nuclear plant from shareholders of Ameren, a for-profit company, onto ratepayers.
In return for taking those risks, shareholders earn a good return on their investment. That (and I know I don’t really have to explain this) is how capitalism has always worked — take the risk, earn a reward. If the risks are shifted to ratepayers, investors will still earn their big reward. And ratepayers?
Remember that, as a regulated monopoly, AmerenUE is obliged to provide power needed to meet demand in their service area. The PSC has been asked to consider neither the need for or financing of this plant. Why should the law be changed before that’s done?
This really is very complicated stuff. All of these issues have been discussed in considerable detail in posts on this blog and on the Post-Dispatch editorial page. If anyone has seen a similarly detailed discussion elsewhere, please send me a link because I sure haven’t.
I also haven’t seen much discussion about those issues from regular posters here. Perhaps I will now.
I’m not opposed to helping the utility with financing costs. I support nuclear and alternative energy investment. The problem I have with this bill is more than the weakening of the PSC. I really can’t image how much weaker it can be. I’m just overwhelmed with the mountain of misinformation from both sides in this issue. I got a letter from Ameren praising it and discrediting the group paying for commercials against the bill. The commercials claim skyrocketing utility bills, which appears to be a “shock and awe” tactic when you consider the facts. Both sides are buying up politicians like it’s a legislative yard sale. With the kind of money being thrown around by both supporters and opponents, I can’t see how this bill can be good in any way for the consumer.
I’m inclined to agree that letting this bill die would be the best course to take. Let the legislature cool off and reconsider it’s responsibilities and then try again.
John G. Carlton’s post is one of the best I have seen on the PD’s blogs in a long time–and gives me hope that blogs can some day move beyond the partisan bickering and political sniping.
Just a couple incidental thoughts:
1. Why not renegotiate the terms of the bill to include a provision requiring Ameren to aid homeowners and businesses install solar arrays where feasible?
2. In re the above: Ameren would have to help defray the upfront costs of the solar arrays in exchange for “considerations” toward the building of the power plant.
3. Consumers who avail themselves of such a plan can pay off the cost of the array on the monthly bill until such time they (the consumer) actually winds up selling power back to the grid.