Nixon endorses idea of second Callaway County power plant

Gov. Jay Nixon on Friday announced plans to pursue a second nuclear power plant in Missouri, to be located adjacent to the current one in Callaway County.

Gov. Jay Nixon on Friday announced plans to pursue a second nuclear power plant in Missouri, to be located adjacent to the current one in Callaway County.

Gov. Jay Nixon endorsed a proposal Friday that allows electric customers to be billed for some costs of developing a second nuclear power plant in central Missouri.

photo

The plan would allow utilities to charge customers for the cost of getting early site permits for power plants. Currently, state law does not allow utilities to bill their customers for costs of building new power plants until the facility is online.

Nixon said the early site permit would cost about $40 million and estimated customers would pay an extra $1 to $2 per year.

The governor said a consortium of Missouri electric utilities plans to ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to examine whether Ameren Missouri’s Callaway County location, home to the state’s only nuclear plant, is a suitable site for another plant. Approval of the site, about 25 miles northeast of the state Capitol, would not specify a plant design or authorize construction, but would allow Missouri to seek to qualify the Callaway site for potential future development.

The utilities involved — including Ameren Missouri, the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives, Kansas City Power & Light and the Missouri Public Utility Alliance — have not decided whether to build the second plant, but they want the option.

“Given the uncertainties regarding how best to replace aging power plants, the potential impact of anticipated EPA regulations, and continued consideration at the federal level of carbon tax proposals, Ameren Missouri believes strongly that our state must keep all options on the table — including additional nuclear power generation,” Ameren Missouri CEO Warner L. Baxter said in a statement.

Advocates for consumers and seniors warned that customers could pay millions of dollars before benefiting from the power plant. Critics said consumers would bear the risks of the construction project instead of the utilities and their investors.

A second power plant “is a huge endeavor, but it shouldn’t be financed by ratepayers before it even puts out a single watt of power,” said Craig Eichelman, the state director of Missouri AARP.

The Consumers Council of Missouri said the proposal was not in the interest of customers. The Fair Energy Rates Action Fund, a coalition that includes businesses and consumer groups, said there should be a cap on rate increases to pay for power plants and that customers should get a refund if the plant is never built.

Missouri lawmakers last year considered legislation to help build a nuclear power plant by letting utilities seek permission from state regulators to add the financing costs for certain types of new power plants onto electric bills before plants are operational.

A 1976 voter-approved law bars utilities from charging customers the costs of a new power plant before it starts producing electricity. Ameren officials previously argued that they doubted the utility could amass sufficient private capital without repealing the 1976 law.

Nixon said this year’s proposal has protections for consumers and that building another nuclear power plant would create thousands of jobs.

“Residential and commercial ratepayers will not pay one penny unless the consortium is given the early site permit; the costs associated with seeking that permit are determined to be ‘prudent;’ and the Missouri Public Service Commission approves them,” Nixon said in a statement. “In addition, this agreement will keep consumer protections on the books for construction work in progress.”

The power plant permits address site suitability and environmental protection issues as well as plans for coping with emergencies. If approved, the permit would be valid for 20 years and could potentially be renewed for an additional 10 to 20 years.

It was not immediately clear when a decision on a plant would be made, how the utilities would operate it and how much power it would produce.

Ameren spokeswoman Susan Gallagher said it’s not uncommon for nuclear plants to be operated by multiple utilities.

“It’s a clean energy source and we need clean energy sources because the state is 80 percent coal fired,” Gallagher said. She noted that various regulations are in the works that could affect coal-fired generation.

Associated Press writer Chris Blank contributed to this report.

Comments

LBF 2 years, 6 months ago

Hmmm... $2 a year now, or $20 a month when construction is complete. I know which way I want to go. You do use electricity, don't you? How do you think we are going to generate electricity when the EPA won't let the utilities burn coal anymore?

0

herewego 2 years, 6 months ago

Livefree, please read the article again, It does state the following: "The utilities involved — including Ameren Missouri, the A's'sociation of Missouri Electric Cooperatives, Kansas City Power & Light and the Missouri Public Utility Alliance" Before you blast only one company, you should have the facts, it is Ameren, KC power and light, and MOST if not ALL the co-ops in the state of MO, NOT just one all. Ameren was shut down on unit 2 last year by our legislators, this is not a 'construction' cost (6-8 BILLION $), approval, but a cost to get the permits to build (40 million). Just the facts (as reported by NT)

0

herewego 2 years, 6 months ago

Livefree, please read the article again, It does state the following: "The utilities involved — including Ameren Missouri, the A's'sociation of Missouri Electric Cooperatives, Kansas City Power & Light and the Missouri Public Utility Alliance" Before you blast only one company, you should have the facts, it is Ameren, KC power and light, and MOST if not ALL the co-ops in the state of MO, NOT just one all. Ameren was shut down on unit 2 last year by our legislators, this is not a 'construction' cost (6-8 BILLION $), approval, but a cost to get the permits to build (40 million). Just the facts (as reported by NT)

0

LBF 2 years, 6 months ago

Apparently you know nothing about how the regulated utility industry functions in Missouri. There are costs connected with providing electricity. No Public utility can recover these costs from the people who are benefiting from them (that's you and me...) without "approval" from the gov't. They are not permitted to charge what the market demands - I'm sure that they would love to be able to. The simple fact is that all power plants, especially nuclear ones, require a significant investment in time and money to construct. They must be completed prior to the time at which their output is required. If you really think that it is not a good idea to spread out the costs involved with keeping the lights on, then I hope you are not in charge of your budget. The tree-huggers in the EPA will certainly make it less cost-effective to burn coal within the next decade, and despite your foolish, head-in-the-sand opinion, something must be ready to replace coal when the time comes.

0

herewego 2 years, 6 months ago

Right on LBF! Wait until the EPA mandates really take effect for ALL the coal plants. Then the rate increases will fall on the consumers head. We had better start now getting new power sources that are reliable (not depending on the weather, sun or wind) Kinda like the old Fram oil filter commercial, Pay me now, or pay me later. Now is cheap compared to what later will cost us all. Better to have head in sand that some place other not so pleasant.

0

LBF 2 years, 6 months ago

So let me see if I understand... You're willing to pay more for your electricity when the EPA says so, and you're willing to pay more for Carnahan's wind power electricity, and you're willing to pay more for solar panels on your roof. Sounds like you're anti-nuclear, instead of anti-price increases. And, you obviously have the concept of free-markets and gov't regulated industries confused. Let’s see, when the gov't in their infinite wisdom increased the minimum wage, did you have a problem with paying more for your Cheeseburgers? Because wages are a cost of doing business that was given to the consumer, just like the cost of building new baseload power plants should be, if generation was truly a free market like you desire. The law that you worship was voted on in 1976 - hardly right out of the mouths of the people. This law was actually an attempt by anti-nuclear activists to block the construction of the first Callaway plant - one that thankfully failed. Ultimately there is the possibility of reducing the overall cost to the consumer with a repeal of ant-CWIP legislation by reducing the cost of financing the enormous debt that will be required to build another Nuclear Plant. New baseload production will be required in the future, and "alternative" sources such as wind and solar will not be sufficient to keep the lights on.

0

two_cents_worth 2 years, 6 months ago

Looking 20, 30, 50 years down the road, I can't help but feel we will have to have a second nuclear power plant. Weather we pre-pay some of that cost now for a cheaper amount, or wait til it's built, we're still gonna pay for it.

Perhaps we could make the amount we'll have to pay a bit cheaper and more meaningful by adding a couple of things to this proposal.

LAWMAKERS...LISTEN UP...

Let's tie a right to work law into the legislation for this proposal. Not having to pay the unions to have the plant built would save a ton of cash.

Also... Make it a stipulation that every consumer that helps pay for this plant through increased rates is guaranteed to receive power from it. After all...fair is fair.

If you're going to change our votes through legislation, make it worth our while.

0

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting