Ameren officials at reactor hearing: We're willing to compromise

Tuesday, February 17, 2009 | 9:14 p.m. CST; updated 10:33 a.m. CST, Wednesday, February 18, 2009

JEFFERSON CITY – AmerenUE officials indicated willingness to compromise on the company's rate plan for financing a new nuclear plant after facing criticism at the second legislative hearing on the issue in two weeks on Tuesday.

Members of the state agency that regulates utilities also questioned Ameren officials.

Public Service Commission member Jeff Davis told the House Utilities Committee that if a second facility is to be built in Callaway County, the current law – which prohibits utility companies from recouping costs associated with construction before the plant is finished – will have to be repealed.

However, Davis also said, "I'm not endorsing the way that Ameren has conducted themselves in proposing this piece of legislation. I think they need to be a lot more up front with you and with the people of the state of Missouri, and a little bit of humility could go a long way in a time when you're seeking to raise people's rates 15 (percent), 20 (percent), maybe as much as 40 percent in the next few years."

Ameren CEO Thomas Voss testified in a Senate committee hearing last week that rates would increase 10 percent to 12 percent during the construction phase of the plant and would stabilize or decrease once Callaway II is operational.

Public Service Commission Chairman Robert Clayton expressed concern that the bill would not allow adequate time for the commission to review whether costs proposed by Ameren for the plant's construction are prudent. 

The bill would create time restrictions as short as 10 days on some of the actions and decisions that can be made by the commission.

One section of the bill drew attention because it seemed to preclude judicial review of some commission decisions involving the utility. It states, "No court of this state shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any issue, case, or controversy concerning any matter which was or could have been determined in a proceeding before the commission."

Rep. Jake Zimmerman, D-St. Louis County, said he found parts of the bill "repugnant" and "unconstitutional."

A delegation of Ameren officials said it is more than willing to revise the language of the bill if the intent is not what would actually occur.

In response to criticism voiced last week that the bill lacks consumer protection items, Ameren attorney Tom Byrne referenced different consumer protections he said the bill provides.

Byrne said it gives the utility-regulating commission the final decision on whether costs are prudent and even on whether the project makes good economic sense. He added that the commission would be given detailed, semi-annual reports and could perform audits whenever it deems that necessary.

Some, such as Ameren's chief executive, have hailed the bill as an effective job-creation measure.

At last week's Senate hearing, Voss said expansion of the Callaway County nuclear site would create 12,000 jobs during construction and as many as 4,000 jobs upon completion.  Five hundred employees would work at the plant, Voss added.

On Tuesday, former state Rep. Ed Robb likened construction on Callaway II to "rebuilding Interstate 70 across the entire state of Missouri."

Environmental lobbyists, in turn, questioned whether rate increases would actually create new jobs for Missourians or make financial decisions more difficult for existing businesses by raising utility payments. Kathleen Logan-Smith, a representative with the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, said many of the jobs created might not be staffed by current Missouri residents.

To that argument, state Rep. Gina Walsh, D-St. Louis, countered, "I've worked on these jobs. They do have road crews of engineers. They do have road crews of skilled craftsmen, but they're one to probably maybe every 10 to 20 of the workers that live here in Missouri. ... You are saying that the folks are coming from outside of this state when the fact of the matter is many of these people in this room, I've worked with them in this plant, and they've all lived within a 200-mile area of that plant."

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


marvin saunders February 18, 2009 | 5:19 a.m.

I worked on the first plant what a joke! They wasted so much money. Hire & fire,build & tear down. They had a speed limit of 15 mile a hour if the drivers were caught going 17 that was reason to be fired. Mr.kennedy(i think that was is name)rode around all day looking to fire any union worker for the sightest reason. It was a cost plus job so that meant money was no object.Don't let build the next plant the same way.Don't let them use tax payers to build it.They will raise our rates anyway.They say after the plant is built the rates will stay the same or go down.Does the people of missouri look that stupid to you??

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.