advertisement

Missouri House panel to consider nuclear plant bill

Tuesday, February 22, 2011 | 7:17 a.m. CST; updated 7:22 p.m. CST, Tuesday, February 22, 2011

JEFFERSON CITY — A Missouri House committee is preparing to consider legislation letting utilities charge electric customers for some of the costs of developing a second nuclear power plant in the state.

The measure would allow power companies to recoup the cost of applying for an early site permit from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

A group of utilities has announced it is considering seeking such a permit for a nuclear power plant in Missouri. The permit would not authorize construction, and the group has said it has not decided whether to build a plant.

The House Utilities Committee was scheduled to consider the legislation Tuesday.

A 1976 voter-approved law bars utilities from charging customers for the costs of a new power plant before it starts producing electricity.

 


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.


Comments

Derrick Fogle February 22, 2011 | 3:46 p.m.

One promise from Ameren would fix this CWIP mess. Just guarantee that the financing ratepayer base gets first dibs on any energy the financed plant produces, and gets it at a guaranteed 'reasonable' rate: i.e. 5.5% markup over actual ongoing operating costs. Any production unused by the financing ratepayer base could be sold on the open market, no strings attached.

OK, technically that's two promises. But... put *that* to the Missouri voters and see if we don't get that project rolling. Most of us are not against the project. We just expect, as collective financiers of the project, to get something for our investment.

And it shouldn't cost $40M and 44 months to certify Callaway for a 2nd plant. It should cost maybe $5-$6M and take about a year. Anything more needs to be scrutinized as over-regulation.

(Cross-posted here and to one of the "Letters" on this subject)

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 22, 2011 | 4:03 p.m.

Derrick: I agree on all points.

I once heard a rumor that Truman Reservoir power goes to someplace other than MO, but I have no idea if that's true or not true.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle February 22, 2011 | 4:12 p.m.

AFAIK, there are absolutely no stipulations on where, or for how much, the energy from that reservoir gets sold. But, I don't know what really happens to it.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 22, 2011 | 5:37 p.m.

AFAIK??????

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush February 22, 2011 | 5:44 p.m.

A new nuclear plant will definitely create jobs...for oncologists.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 22, 2011 | 5:51 p.m.

Gregg.....oh, for heaven's sake.

(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.

advertisements