Bipartisan Momentum in Nuclear Energy Continues

Momentum for nuclear power continues to build—literally. In Wyoming, ground has just been broken for a new TerraPower advanced nuclear reactor (“advanced” means it does not use water for cooling the reactor, among other things).

This project marks the first time in about 40 years that a company has attempted to use an advanced nuclear reactor as a commercial power plant. Traditional light-water reactors have dominated the nuclear space, and they are usually characterized by enormous cooling towers.

The reactor being built in Wyoming can be ramped up to 500 MW when needed (enough to power 400,000 homes) and will cost around $4 billion to build. However, a decent chunk of those costs had to do with creating a design and getting the reactor itself approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If future projects use the same reactor design, they will not have to undergo that lengthy process, lowering the total cost.

Construction is supposed to take 5 years and the reactor is being built directly next to a decommissioning coal plant. The plan is to immediately transfer much of the existing infrastructure and manpower from the coal plant to the nuclear plant and create a seamless transition.

With a design like the one being built in Wyoming, the enormous cooling towers are not needed, as the reactor itself has a passive cooling system. On top of that, the reactor itself is smaller. In theory, this means that the design will be more easily replicable, as it is a smaller scale and can fit into more landscapes.

Construction is underway in Wyoming and momentum continues to build for the nuclear industry. Hopefully we can see Missouri take advantage of this trend in the near future—but to do that—we’ll need to straighten out our own state regulatory hurdles.

Open Letter to Governors Parson and Kelly Regarding Stadium Subsidies

Researchers at the Show-Me Institute have argued for years that economic development subsidies do little more than drain public funds while providing no real benefit to taxpayers. As the Kansas legislature considers offering tax incentives to the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals to build their stadia in Kansas, we join with the Kansas Policy Institute in urging Missouri Governor Parson and Kansas Governor Kelly to remain committed to the Border War truce (click here to read our open letter to governors Parson and Kelly). In fact, the truce should be expanded by the states’ respective legislatures and further reinforced by local governments in the region.

Longer Days and Fewer Hours with James V. Shuls and Avery Frank

James V. Shuls, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss:

– Their new report, Longer Days and Fewer Total Hours: Examining the Four-Day School Week in Missouri
– The rise of the four-day school week in Missouri
– The impact on student achievement and teacher retention
– Parent opinion on the four-day school week, and more

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Missouri School Districts Are Held Permanently Harmless

From the Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 163.031:

(2)  For districts with an average daily attendance of three hundred fifty or less in the school year preceding the payment year:

  (a)  For the 2008-09 school year, the state revenue received by a district from the state aid calculation under subsections 1 and 4 of this section, as applicable, and the classroom trust fund under section 163.043 shall not be less than the greater of state revenue received by a district in the 2004-05 or 2005-06 school year from the foundation formula, line 14, gifted, remedial reading, exceptional pupil aid, fair share, and free textbook payment amounts multiplied by the dollar value modifier;

  (b)  For each year subsequent to the 2008-09 school year, the amount shall be no less than that computed in paragraph (a) of this subdivision;

Not all of us are lawyers, so I’ll translate the above paragraph from the Missouri law on public education funding. The 184 (out of 517) school districts in Missouri that had an average daily attendance of fewer than 350 students last year either received state funding based on the foundation formula or the same amount of state funding they received nearly two decades ago, whichever is larger. These types of revenue protections are usually referred to as “hold-harmless provisions” and are meant to help districts transition from a prior formula to a new one. The 2006 Missouri Legislature decided to make that assistance permanent.

In 2023, in 138 of the 184 small districts, or 75 percent of them, the foundation formula calculation was run and then tossed out because the result was less than what those districts received the first year the formula was put into place—most likely because of declining enrollment. This means they received their 2004–05 (or 2005–06 figure if it was larger) funding at an additional cost of over $41 million in state funds than what the formula calculated for those districts last year. And they will continue to receive that amount forever, regardless of their enrollment.

When the time comes to reconsider how we fund public education in Missouri, it is imperative that legislators do not put permanent revenue protections into state statute. Doing so distorts enrollment trends, property value trends, and the distribution of taxpayer dollars. We need to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent as wisely and appropriately as possible.

2024 End of the Legislative Session Report

The 2024 Missouri Legislative Session was a mixed bag, and there is still a lot of work to be done. Below, you will find our 2024 End of the Legislative Session Report with more information on some of the reforms passed this session, both good and bad.

End of Session Report_2024-1

Download a copy of the report here.

Build More Housing with Bryan Caplan

In this episode, Susan Pendergrass speaks with Bryan Caplan, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, about his latest book Build, Baby, Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation. They discuss reducing housing regulations to address the housing shortage, the broader impacts of housing policy on urban development and affordability, how to talk about public policy, and more.

Order the book here.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

An Undeniable Trend

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) performs an annual forecast of education data that includes enrollment projections of students by grade by state. According to a recent analysis by Chad Aldeman of the Georgetown Edunomics Lab, these projections have become less and less optimistic in recent years. Missouri, in which enrollment in public schools declined by 2.5 percent between 2017 and 2022, is expected to lose another 3.9 percent between 2022 and 2031. It seems that we hit an enrollment peak around 2013 at almost 920,000students before heading down to a projected 857,000 by 2031.

We can’t blame the COVID-19 pandemic for this outlook. These projections are based on a combination of factors, but the biggest driver of the downward trend is declining birth rates. Birthrates took a hit during the Great Recession in 2008 and have never recovered.

This graph shows the percent change in enrollment in public schools in Missouri between 2013 and 2023. Each dot is a school district. Some districts have made gains, but they are mostly small ones (with the exception of Grandview, which has increased enrollment in its virtual program). Most districts (366 out of 517) in the state are declining.

What this means is that we need to begin to reframe our thinking on public education spending. When we are serving fewer students, should we always expect to spend more? Is there a way to be smarter about what we spend and better target spending to the students with the most needs? Do we need to start having conversations about rigid teacher contracts and pension commitments? These are questions Missouri policymakers ought to be asking themselves.

The Light Rail Line Less Traveled

If anyone has taken Robert Frost’s words to heart and taken the road less traveled, it is Metro, the St. Louis transit authority. If it knows how to do one thing, it is how to build a new MetroLink line nobody is going to ride.

But now we have good news out of St. Louis County regarding transit. County government has rejected all of the various options for MetroLink expansion into St. Louis County. (This is different from the proposed MetroLink expansion in St. Louis City, which unfortunately has been approved locally. The East-West Gateway Council of Governments is currently seeking federal funding for this project, which I hope it won’t get.)

The problem for the various proposals to expand into St. Louis County is that there is no dedicated way to pay for them, at least not yet. The route starts in the city but the expansion primarily serves the county—so is the city or the county going to pay for the first few miles of the expansion? Would the county pay for light rail inside the city? Would the city pay for part of a light rail expansion that mostly “benefits” residents of the county? (Note the use of quotation marks as there is no overall benefit.) Who knows?

This doesn’t mean that light rail expansion in St. Louis County isn’t going to happen, but anything that puts it in doubt is good news in my book.

The other good news in the story is that St. Louis County is now considering bus rapid transit (BRT) as an alternative to MetroLink:

AECOM [the county’s consulting firm] also has been asked to study the use of rapid bus lines, either using new rights-of-way just for buses or designated lanes on existing roads. Those could be deployed instead of MetroLink expansion or in conjunction with it.

BRT has been used in Kansas City with success, and it is something that Metro should consider for St. Louis. BRT moves people effectively at a fraction of the cost of light rail, streetcars, or trolleys. Unfortunately, it seems spending enormous amounts of money is a good thing from Metro’s point of view, no matter how much of it is wasted.

Increased use of BRT could be the transit option St. Louis has been looking for.

Trust but Verify: CITY SC’s Claims Deserve Scrutiny

On May 23, KMOV TV in St. Louis, a CBS affiliate, aired a report about an “independent planning firm” that issued an economic impact study on the effect the CITY SC soccer club had on the St. Louis region in 2023. The segment featured Carolyn Kindle, the club’s CEO.

The report made a number of claims, according to the graphics presented during the interview. The print version of the story on the website included the following bullet points:

  • The construction of CITYPARK and its 32-acre campus created an additional $1.4 billion in economic impact since 2020.
  • The direct cost of the privately owned stadium campus—which includes the stadium, team training facility and practice fields, team store, parking garage, and corporate headquarters—was $667 million.
  • The overall impact includes approximately $122 million in incremental tax revenue, including $33 million in local and state tax revenue, and $15 million in infrastructure upgrades to lighting, sidewalks, bike paths and streets in the surrounding area.

Those bullet points come directly from the news story.

Kindle said in the interview “We were all very, very, very surprised” by the results of the study. I would be too. The vast research on the impact of professional sports teams indicates they generate no such economic impact. The Journal of Economic Surveys concluded in 2022 that “nearly all empirical studies find little to no tangible impacts of sports teams and facilities on local economic activity, and the level of venue subsidies typically provided far exceeds any observed economic benefits.”

Kindle added of the research, “We’re very excited, when the time is right, to share it.” When might that be? I emailed CITY SC on May 23 asking for an electronic copy of the report and heard nothing. I emailed again on May 30 and was told the next day, “We haven’t yet released the full study results, just the highlights. It is something we will likely do in the future but timing is TBD.” I asked what event they were waiting on to release the report. It has been over a week and I’ve received no response.

It’s more than fair to wonder if this report contains the flaws of other similar analyses that count only spending at the venue and discount any losses in spending elsewhere. But we don’t know, because CITY SC hasn’t shared it yet.

Does that mean KMOV ran the segment without independently verifying the information?

At the bottom of the KMOV article is an invitation to readers: “For more information on the study, click here.” That link only takes you to a page of news releases for CITY SC, in which the club makes the exact same claims that appeared in the story, word for word. My advice to news outlets is to trust but verify. When it comes to claims of economic impact such as these, the claims are often overblown and based on significantly flawed analyses. Until the full report is available, we won’t know the rest of the story.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging