Last year, the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 4 allowed natural gas plants to raise rates to pay for construction before plants are put into operation, a process known as construction works in progress (CWIP). Companies using CWIP under SB 4 would still be subject to cost caps (by estimated cost and completion date) and a refund mechanism (with interest) if the project is not finished. There was speculation about whether a provision in SB 4 would also allow its usage for nuclear projects.

A recent change to SB 838 would remove any ambiguity; the change explicitly prohibits nuclear energy projects from using CWIP.

But is preventing nuclear projects from being able to use CWIP really a good idea?

Some view CWIP as necessary for new nuclear projects to get a foothold in Missouri. Excluding nuclear from this flexible financing method could either drive up total costs (since loans would bear interest) or even eliminate potential projects altogether.

At the same time, the concerns surrounding CWIP are real and should not be dismissed. Charging ratepayers before a plant is operational raises difficult questions. Should utilities earn a return before delivering a service? Does this reduce incentives to control costs during construction? And what happens if a large, high-risk nuclear project is cancelled (which has happened in the United States before)?

These are not trivial concerns. However, a better solution for Missouri would be to improve the CWIP framework for all energy sources.

SB 4 already includes cost caps and refund provisions, but additional safeguards could further protect ratepayers while still allowing needed infrastructure to be built.

Virginia recently passed CWIP reform, and it instituted additional safeguards that Missouri could also adopt:

• Excluding 20% of development costs from CWIP eligibility
• Mandatory evaluation of federal funding opportunities from the Department of Energy
• Establishing a cap on residential monthly bill increases ($1.40 per 1000 kWh)

Additionally, the Missouri Public Service Commission could evaluate compensating ratepayers appropriately for early contributions and their role in risk-sharing, such as treating CWIP financing more like a bond system.

These improvements could even better protect and reward ratepayers, as well as facilitate needed power plant construction without targeting a specific technology—an effective compromise.

The post Nuclear Energy and Construction Works in Progress (CWIP) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Columbia Missourian.

Missouri, like many states, mandates that a certain share of electricity come from renewable energy sources. Those sources typically include solar, wind, and biomass—but in many states, including Missouri, they exclude nuclear energy.

A productive debate could be had about whether state government should issue any such mandates. But in the meantime, legislators in Jefferson City have introduced several bills using different approaches, each of which would broaden Missouri’s existing standard to include nuclear energy.

Governor Kehoe discussed the issue in his recent State of the State Address, recognizing the long-standing mismatch between policy and reality.

What Is Missouri’s Current Policy?

Missouri’s current renewable portfolio standard (RPS) mandates that no less than 15 percent of each electric utility’s sales come from generated or purchased renewable energy resources (such as solar, wind, biomass, small hydropower, and other non-nuclear sources certified by the state as a renewable). Many other states have adopted similar standards.

Justifications for RPSs vary. Some view them primarily as a tool to improve air quality or limit greenhouse gases. Others argue that portfolio standards help newer energy technologies compete with established fossil fuels or ensure a diverse and resilient mix of energy sources. In any case, if Missouri is going to have an RPS, nuclear energy should be included.

Is Nuclear Energy Clean?

If Missouri’s RPS exists in order to protect the environment, nuclear energy’s exclusion is unreasonable.

Nuclear energy is a zero (or near-zero) emissions energy source, in terms of both criteria pollutants (those that affect air quality) and greenhouse gases.

Further, to produce the same level of electricity, solar farms need 31 times more land than nuclear plants, while onshore wind farms need 173 times more land. In terms of total direct and indirect land use, nuclear is by far the most efficient.

What About Nuclear Waste?

This concern is common but often misguided. Nuclear energy does produce waste, but the waste is compact, carefully managed, and tightly regulated. Much of what is labeled “waste” still contains usable energy. In fact, only about four percent of nuclear fuel is truly unusable after each use, and the United States could reduce nuclear waste in terms of both volume and radioactivity if the industry recycled used fuel. While existing American nuclear power plants are not well equipped to use spent fuel, new advanced reactor designs are increasingly capable of using it to generate electricity.

Regardless, the presence of safely stored waste should not prevent nuclear energy from being included in an updated portfolio.

Government Interference in the Energy Market

Past arguments have held that subsidies level the playing field for renewable energy. Yet, while solar and wind have expanded rapidly in recent years, only seven nuclear plants have been constructed in the U.S. since 1990. Factors such as regulatory burden have also contributed to nuclear energy’s stagnation, but government interference has played a role. Subsidies, tax-credits, and mandates have actually significantly distorted the market in favor of renewables.

The lion’s share of the more than $80 billion in federal support for renewables came through tax expenditures—driven overwhelmingly by the investment tax credit (ITC) for solar projects, which is claimed when a project begins operation, and the production tax credit (PTC) for wind generation. State RPSs create guaranteed demand for these resources, while federal tax policy lowers the cost of supplying them—effectively a double incentive.

This is not to argue that nuclear energy should be subsidized to a similar degree. However, including nuclear energy in Missouri’s RPS would at least make existing policy more even-handed. Nuclear energy meets growing electricity demand cleanly and reliably. The Missouri Legislature should update the state’s RPS to recognize this fact.

The post Missouri Should Update Its Renewable Portfolio Standard to Include Nuclear Energy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a writer, there are moments when someone else articulates an idea so well that rewriting it in my own words would be unnecessary. A recent op-ed in The Hill did exactly that, clearly laying out the energy challenges facing the United States:

The U.S. electricity sector is a slow-moving maze of regulations, shaped by decade-long transmission approvals, time-intensive interconnection studies for new generators and large new customers, and overlapping layers of state, regional and federal bureaucracy. . . . The regulatory thicket surrounding the electricity industry was tolerable when the pace of change was slow. However, with the rise of AI and renewed growth from manufacturing and electrification, we can no longer endure a sclerotic grid.

In addition to reforming our rigid, reluctant-to-adapt grid, there are questions about whether average ratepayers should be on the hook for increased electricity demand being driven by a few large customers.

In the midst of all of these concerns, there is a U.S. Senate bill that could help fix the problem: S.3585 – DATA Act of 2026. The bill was recently referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

I have written about consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) for Missouri, which would reduce the number of state-level regulations that off-grid CRE utilities (CREUs) would face. (You can click here if you’re interested in what a CRE policy might look like in practice.) However, even if it were allowed in Missouri, there would still be many federal-level regulations that would diminish the benefits of the new practice.

That is where the DATA Act becomes so vital. The act would exempt certain new CREUs from specific federal regulations that apply to the broader grid. If our state and federal governments approve CRE, there would be a pathway for large electricity users like data centers and aluminum plants to more quickly generate their own electricity without impacting the rates of average Missourians. That would be a win for all of us.

All of this suggests that the DATA Act of 2026 is something to watch in Washington, D.C. But Missouri should not wait until the federal government makes its move. We should be proactive and allow CREs in our state, creating a pathway to address modern energy challenges that would become even more viable if federal reforms under the DATA Act follow.

The post Keep an Eye on the DATA Act in Washington, D.C. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Consumer Regulated Electricity and Today’s Economy

CRE would allow off-grid electricity providers to generate, store, transmit, distribute, and sell electricity to new, large customers. They would not be permitted to serve the general public and would still be subject to federal regulations and other rules such as permitting and workplace safety. If a CRE utility (CREU) chooses to interconnect with the regulated grid, it would then cease to be a CREU.

While this might sound like a lot of red tape, it still cuts down on the mountain of regulations and permissions for utilities on the regulated grid that serves the general public. CRE enables innovative, profit-driven entrepreneurs to serve energy-hungry clients building things like data centers.

For example, CRE could allow a new aluminum smelting facility that needs a consistent, high-power energy supply to partner with a CREU specializing in small-modular reactors (SMR). Such a partnership would give the aluminum facility a reliable power source tailored to its needs, with a payment structure negotiated privately between both parties. The aluminum facility could even use industrial heat from the SMR for its own high-intensity manufacturing processes.

Another benefit of CRE is increased flexibility. The energy sector is rapidly changing. Forecasting future demand is difficult even under stable conditions, but today’s landscape makes accurate prediction even more challenging.

Consider artificial intelligence. Many projections warn of an immense spike in electricity demand from data centers needed to power artificial intelligence, while others suggest innovation could make these systems far more efficient. Either way, relying on regulators alone to anticipate these trends and build capacity accordingly is risky for ratepayers who need electricity but also end up paying for new construction.

Free-market mechanisms like CRE would distribute that risk. If demand rises sharply, CRE utilities could more quickly deploy new generation to meet some of it, easing pressure on the regulated grid and diminishing rate hikes. If demand falls short, the CREUs and their customers would be responsible for the financial cost of overbuilding, not captive ratepayers.

Illinois’s willingness to explore CRE shows a growing recognition that the traditional utility model may not be the best way handle modern energy challenges. Allowing CRE in Missouri could attract investment, foster innovation, and relieve stress on the regulated grid and ratepayers. This is a policy Missouri should consider.

The post Illinois Explores Free-Market Energy Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In my recent report, Connecting Nuclear’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future, one of the policy solutions I offer to meet electricity demand is consumer-regulated electricity (CRE). In short, CRE would allow for the creation of private energy entities, disconnected from utility grids, in order to serve the largest customers more efficiently.

A recent article on this topic caught my eye. The article mentions that delegates at the World Nuclear Association summit in London discussed forming private energy clusters, disconnected from the grid, to meet surging demand from data centers.

Doesn’t that sound familiar?

Bringing Energy Clusters (or CRE) to Missouri

A few weeks ago, New Hampshire’s governor signed into law House Bill 672, which allows for “off grid electricity providers”—independent and disconnected from the main grid—to generate, transmit, distribute, and sell electricity.

Whether you call it CRE, off-grid providers, or private energy clusters, the concept is similar: enabling private energy systems to serve large industrial customers with less delays, less red tape, and less pressure on the main grid and ratepayers.

Poland and the Netherlands are beginning to consider the use of energy clustering to meet industrial energy needs. The previously mentioned article identifies a few potential benefits from energy clustering:

• It would allow large customers to take their electricity from a co-located generation source
• If a thermal energy source like nuclear is used, large customers could use its industrial heat (high-temperature steam used in industrial processes like manufacturing)
• The energy developer would benefit from simplified project finance
• Both consumers and developers would avoid long transmission lines
• These clusters would also help reduce the burden on grid resources, which are at a premium in most markets and in Missouri

CRE gives large customers the option to use an energy source of their choice, so long as they meet the still-applicable regulations (such as the Clean Air Act for fossil-fuel plants).

As we have seen with the drastic actions of Meta, Microsoft, and Google, there is a market for this type of arrangement as these huge customers have sought connection to nuclear reactors. States and countries are taking notice of these market conditions and are bringing the free market into the energy sector.

Missouri needs to reduce pressure on the grid and attract investment. In the upcoming legislative session, lawmakers should seriously evaluate how CRE—or private energy clustering—could benefit consumers, energy developers, and ratepayers in our state.

Want to read more? Check out these related articles:

Connecting Nuclear’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future

New Nuclear Energy: Business-Speed and Business Friendly

Mission Impossible and Nuclear Energy

One Way Missouri Could Keep its Grid Reliable

Weighing Consumer Regulated Electricity to Meet Energy Demand Growth

Missouri Needs to Be Prepared for Growing Energy Demand

The post Is Consumer-Regulated Electricity Going Worldwide? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Today, many Missourians receive electricity from state-approved monopoly utilities, which own and manage the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity for their customers within exclusive service territories. Transitioning to a retail competition system would shift the ownership of generation from state-approved monopolies to private entities competing to sell power, while transmission and distribution would remain under utility control.

Responding to Change

The energy sector is in a state of flux, with several critical uncertainties lingering:

• How accurate are current energy demand forecasts?
• Will technological advancements from artificial intelligence significantly reduce energy consumption, and if so, how soon?
• What is the trajectory of electric vehicle adoption?
• How will the Trump administration’s regulatory reforms, such as recent changes at the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), impact the coal industry?
• Will the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) enact needed reform?

These unknowns highlight the challenges of relying on a regulated monopoly model, where long-term infrastructure planning is guided by government oversight rather than market signals. Competitive markets, on the other hand, offer greater adaptability. For example, the rise of hydraulic fracturing led to significantly lower natural gas prices over the last decade. Customers in competitive markets experienced the benefits of low gas prices sooner than customers in monopoly markets did.

Additionally, in a competitive market, private suppliers, not ratepayers, bear more financial risk of failed energy investments. If there is a significant cost overrun or if a project fails to come online, customers have less exposure as they can switch to another supplier or remain insulated through competitively priced default service (if they do not select a supplier).

Further Considerations

Despite the benefits of retail competition at the state level, other free-market reforms are needed. Energy regulation is complex, with overlapping layers of subsidies, taxes, and federal mandates distorting market forces. A truly free and competitive energy market would require broader regulatory reforms at the federal level to ensure private developers can better respond to market demand.

Another key consideration is the role of incumbent utilities in a competitive system. House Bill 417 requires utilities to divest their generation assets before retail choice begins, but it grants them discretion in how they do so. Utilities like Ameren could choose to sell their power plants to unaffiliated private developers or transfer them to a newly formed competitive affiliate, as long as the transaction occurs at fair market value and receives commission. As Missouri considers this transition, it will be important to define the appropriate role of former monopolies in a newly competitive market.

Retail competition is not a silver bullet, but it could introduce market forces to a historically insulated energy sector. Missouri policymakers ought to consider how implementing retail competition might work, and what potential barriers exist at both the state and federal levels.

The post Retail Competition in the Energy Market appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

SB 4 allows utilities to recover construction costs gradually during the construction phase, rather than waiting until the project is complete and operational. This will only be explicitly allowed for natural gas projects, although there is potentially a pathway available for nuclear and other resources through the Missouri Public Service Commission (MPSC). This alternative financing strategy should be useful for future capital-intensive projects, as it would reduce financial risk for utilities and possibly lower total project costs by allowing firms to rely more on revenue instead of loans, which accrue interest.

CWIP offers benefits for needed power plant construction, but the interest of ratepayers is still vital. A blank check for a monopoly utility could lead to cost overruns and cancellations (which are issues partly tied to the monopoly system itself).

Further Ratepayer Protections and Compensation

The MPSC will still oversee utility rates, and it should continue to weigh potential safeguards to protect Missouri ratepayers. SB 4 already includes two key provisions—cost caps (limited by the estimated cost and completion date) and a refund mechanism—if the plant is not put into operation.

The State of Virginia also recently passed CWIP reform, and it instituted additional safeguards that should be considered for future projects. These include:

• A limit on the number of eligible projects;
• Excluding 20% of development costs from early recovery;
• Mandatory evaluation of federal funding opportunities from the Department of Energy; and
• Establishing a cap on residential monthly bill increases ($1.40 per 1000 kWh).

Additionally, the MPSC should evaluate how ratepayers could be compensated appropriately for early contributions and their role in risk-sharing, such as treating CWIP financing more like a bond system.

This could involve limiting or disallowing pre-operation profits or aligning profits with the operation and provision of power. Another approach might be reducing total cost recovery for utilities after the plant is put into operation, since it is a riskier investment that relies on ratepayers earlier. Potential mechanisms include offering credits for reduced rates post-operation (that could function like a principal in a bond) or shortening the depreciation period post-operation to account for profits earned during the pre-operation phase. If this strategy leads to cost savings for a project, ratepayers should receive a portion of those savings.

These provisions could help strike a balance between protecting ratepayers and facilitating needed power plant construction. Utility companies argue that CWIP is required to build more energy generation in Missouri. If that’s the case, adequate safeguards for state ratepayers are needed.

The post SB 4: Missouri’s Energy Challenge and the Push for CWIP Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Rush Island is not the first coal plant to be shuttered, and it will not be the last. At the end of 2022, the 827-megawatt Meramec Power Plant was shut down, and according to Ameren, it plans to phase coal out completely by 2045.

Below is a summary of Ameren’s 2023 Integrated Resource Plan:

Note: “Other Zero Carbon” is expected to include a combination of renewables, energy storage, nuclear energy, and new technologies.

The continued shuttering of reliable coal plants presents concerns for energy reliability and affordability.

Is there reason to be concerned with affordability?

North Carolina is another state on the path of shutting down all coal plants and inserting renewables largely in their place. In response to these state plans, the John Locke Foundation and Center of the American Experiment released an in-depth analysis of the state’s proposed paths forward. The analysis finds that North Carolina’s proposed plan would cost more than a more nuclear-focused one. This is largely attributed to the “build and rebuild” treadmill that wind and solar assets need due to their short lifespan (roughly 20 years), whereas nuclear plans have a lifespan of 80 years (and maybe more).

Utilities, like Ameren, are allowed to charge enough for electricity to cover the cost of providing the service to everyone in their territory, plus a government-approved profit, often set at 5–-10 percent, on their capital investments. As long as the expenses are approved by the regulator in their state, utilities make a profit on every dollar they spend on new builds such as wind turbines, solar panels, natural gas plants, or even renovating corporate offices. The more money utilities spend, the more money they make.

A Missouri-specific study of Ameren’s energy plans could be beneficial to future policy research. Nevertheless, there is some reason to be skeptical of the affordability of such a massive energy transition and continued research will be needed as technology changes.

What concerns are there with reliability?

Some sources of energy are more reliable than others, and there are numerous ways to measure this: accredited capacity, unforced capacity (UCAP), or capacity value. All three measure the general reliability value to the grid. The figure below displays capacity values for the two main regional energy organizations in Missouri—Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) and Southwest Power Pool (SPP):

Solar and wind, which are projected to replace much of the energy that retiring coal plants have produced, are intermittent and do not provide consistent streams of electricity, nor are they available at all times of day (although battery storage is improving). As shown in the table above, MISO rates the reliability of solar and wind far lower than coal and other replacement options. Relying so heavily on them may be dangerous.

There is also the task of building out a vast amount of advanced transmission infrastructure. The New York Times reports: “Already, a lack of transmission capacity means that thousands of proposed wind and solar projects are facing multiyear delays and rising costs to connect to the grid.” We should not bank on the ability to break this trend.

Will Ameren be able to replace 66% of its current generation while also meeting the needs of rapidly rising electricity demand? There is reason for concern. In my next post, I will discuss one policy that could help maintain and strengthen the reliability of our grid.

*Note: This post was updated on October 23 to more accurately reflect the circumstances of Rush Island’s closure.

The post Ameren to Shut Down Rush Island appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Throughout the United States, retail competition has helped to lower the electricity rates for residential, commercial, and industrial consumers.

Between 2008 and 2022, the 14 states with retail competition saw an inflation-adjusted 18.3 percent decrease in average price for all sectors—whereas the 35 monopoly states saw an average price increase of 3.6% in the same time period (these numbers include Washington, D.C., but not Alaska and Hawaii).

Let’s assume you have an electric bill of $200. In a state with retail competition, that bill would have dropped to $178. In a state with total monopoly, your bill on average would have risen to $211—a $33 difference.

Of the 23 states that saw the highest price increases in the 2008–2022 period, only one of them had retail competition (New Hampshire, which was 12th). The 14 retail competition states clustered near the bottom, with seven in the bottom ten.

Here’s an example of Texas’s retail competition website. When searching for a provider, consumers can use a number of different filters, including estimated electricity use, share of renewables, fixed rate versus variable rate (a fixed-rate provides a stable rate for the duration of one’s contract, while a variable rate fluctuates with market conditions), and company rating.

During the period from 2008 to 2022, Missouri saw the sixth-largest percentage increase in electric prices on average. While Missouri still has relatively low electricity prices, things are moving in the wrong direction. Shouldn’t the Show-Me State consider opening up the energy sector to market forces?

The post A Policy That Could Help Lower Missouri Electric Bills appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, policymakers here should understand what the future of nuclear power looks like. Even though Georgia just saw the completion of Vogtle Units 3 & 4 (which cost around $30 billion and over a decade to build), Vogtle may well be the swan song for traditional nuclear power plants. It simply is not feasible to construct such an immense project, and this points to the direction nuclear is going—toward advanced and small modular reactors, which I discuss in another post.

Even on a smaller scale, nuclear construction is still immensely costly, and utilities and private entities alike take on a huge financial risk largely due to the regulatory barriers. In Missouri, while we wait for needed federal reform, we should do what we can at the state level to reduce the risks involved with investment in nuclear power.

Does this mean we should hand out subsidies and tax credits like candy? No. But we need to signal our openness to nuclear expansion. Fortunately, our state already has some history with nuclear. The plant in Callaway has been reliably operating in our state since 1984. We also have a nationally known nuclear engineering school; in 2021, Missouri University of Science and Technology awarded the 11th most nuclear engineering degrees in the country. We have the potential to attract more nuclear developers to our state and should be partnering with them.

Seeking out private nuclear developers, forming a nuclear advisory board (which would focus solely on legislative and policy changes/opportunities to address nuclear workforce and education barriers, storage and waste practices, and coordination with federal agencies), and passing pro-nuclear legislation could all help bring more nuclear energy to Missouri. In a future post, I will discuss how Missouri could also lure developers by creating nuclear infrastructure through acquiring early-site permits on brownfield sites or failed construction projects.

In Tennessee, the Tennessee Valley Authority is partnering with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (USA), Ontario Power Generation (Canada), and Synthos Green Energy (Poland) to jointly invest $400 million into developing up to four small modular reactors. Advanced nuclear reactors are a new technology, and the fact they are reliable, versatile, clean, and powerful is drawing global interest. Missouri should be similarly proactive in looking for potential partners

Missouri should also improve the regulatory environment so that it does not discourage investment in nuclear power. State utilities cannot raise rates to help pay for construction projects in progress; they must wait until the development is fully operational and used in service. But power plants do not arise out of thin air; they are necessary infrastructure that benefit anyone who uses the energy they produce. My colleague David Stokes has discussed how this law was made by the anti-nuclear lobby in the 1970s to kill nuclear construction in the state—and it has succeeded thus far. Last session, Missouri, through HB 225, wisely sought to allow utilities to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (prior to the beginning of construction) in order to raise rates to pay (if needed) for small modular reactor projects only. If the newly requested rates are not “just and reasonable,” the commission can renegotiate or deny the proposed increase. This bill flew through the house but failed to gain traction in the Senate (where just about everything died). I understand the concerns with paying for a project that may never come to fruition, and I think adding a refund measure (if the project is cancelled) could help ease the concerns of ratepayers. A refund measure would also give utilities an additional incentive to finish what they started, which would further signal resolve to develop these reactors.

The emergence of small, modular nuclear reactors presents Missouri with a familiar choice: take the initiative or sit on the sidelines. Option B, which seems to be a traditional favorite among policymakers here, would be a costly error.

The post Can Missouri Be a Leader in a Nuclear Energy Resurgence? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So, what would the bill change?

HB 225 would modify a law passed in 1976 that prevents government-supported utility companies from raising rates to pay for construction of new projects. Specifically, HB 225 would allow only a “clean baseload plant  rated under 600,000 megawatts” to be exempt from the current law. The current ban on raising consumer rates to help pay for construction projects would still apply to traditional nuclear plants (which are rated at over 700,000 megawatts), non-baseload energy sources (such as windmills and solar panels), and fossil fuel plants (which are deemed unclean). A utility company would only be able to raise consumer rates to pay for the construction of (SMRs).

So, what are small modular reactors (SMRs)? How are they different?

SMRs are essentially a smaller, more compact version of a traditional nuclear plant. They are brand new, cutting-edge nuclear technology, and are beginning to be rolled out across the United States—including a new SMR project a stone’s throw away from my hometown in East Tennessee. Although they are less powerful, they improve upon some of the shortcomings of traditional nuclear power plants. First, they take up far less space—the SMR being constructed near my hometown will be the size of a football field. They are less expensive and can be assembled more quickly, as the major components of each SMR are prefabricated (constructed beforehand), meaning they can be manufactured in a factory offsite and shipped to the location. This differs from traditional plants which are much larger and have to be custom designed to fit certain landscapes. SMRs are very versatile—they can increase or decrease output to match energy demand and shore up weaknesses in the power grid. For example, if a huge concert comes to a town in Missouri, an SMR can ramp up energy output to assist the grid. Additionally, SMRs can be grouped together so that if energy demand exceeds the capability of one reactor, another can be paired with the current reactor.

Are these small modular reactors safe? Could they explode and create radioactive waste?

When thinking of nuclear energy, many conjure up images of Chernobyl—the Soviet Union nuclear plant and subject of a recent HBO series—or of nuclear bombs that loomed ominously during the Cold War. However, modern nuclear energy is clean, safe, and efficient. Nuclear fission does not produce greenhouse gas and misconceptions surround nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is reusable and there is only a small amount of it that has to be stored securely. If you took all the nuclear waste ever produced by the United States nuclear industry since the late 1950s, you could dig a ditch 10 yards deep under the dimensions of one football field and store it there. Additionally, a nuclear plant cannot blow up like a nuclear bomb; it is impossible. While a disaster like Fukushima is already unlikely, the design of an SMR (which does not require power to cool a reactor down) makes an accident even less likely.

HB 225 could expand nuclear energy in our state, providing Missourians with additional clean, safe, efficient, and reliable energy, and deserves serious consideration.

The post Nuclear Energy in Modern Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Electric transmission lines carry electricity from power plants to your home or business. Too much electricity on a line increases the risk of frying a line, and as I’ve written before, several parts of Missouri have overloaded transmission lines already.

More transmission will need to be built, but these bills take the wrong approach to building more transmission lines.

The bills (which are identical House and Senate versions) would allow Missouri’s monopoly utilities to pre-empt any competitor that might build transmission lines for less. The monopolies would have the “right of first refusal” to build any transmission lines over 100 kilovolts (kV) if they connect to a facility owned by the monopoly, even if the location of that transmission line is outside the monopoly’s territory. Lines greater than 100 kV are used for long-distance transmission of electricity, in contrast to local distribution lines (the power lines you see by city streets and neighborhoods) which typically have capacity under 69 kV.

Why is the legislature proposing these measures? Removing any sort of competitive bidding process to construct transmission lines has made projects across the country more expensive. A study from the economic consulting firm The Brattle Group concluded that projects not subject to competitive bidding have cost over 34 percent more than the original estimates. In contrast, transmission line projects that were subject to competitive bidding have been on average 40 percent less expensive than original estimates. All transmission lines are built to standards set by the North American Electric Reliability Council, so competitive cost savings don’t come at the expense of quality.

Wouldn’t it be better for the legislature to propose subjecting transmission lines to competitive bidding, rather than shielding them from it? Since transmission costs are ultimately passed on to customers, it’s customers who bear the brunt, or receive the benefit, of cost-inflating or cost-saving policies.

Missouri will need more electric transmission lines built in the coming years. To build those lines at the lowest possible cost, Missouri needs more free-market activity in transmission projects, not less.

The post Missouri Needs More Free Market Activity in Electric Transmission, Not Less appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Food truck regulations
• A parents’ bill of rights
• Educational accountability
• Retail electric competition
• Social capital and small government

Click here to find the newsletter.

The post Show-Me Institute’s December 2021 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The study grades each state from A through F on several factors relating to electricity market design and competition. On most of the important criteria in the study, Missouri gets few of the answers right. For example, while some Missouri utilities do participate in wholesale electricity markets, where grid operators select the lowest-cost electricity to meet demand, in no part of Missouri do customers get to choose their electric service from among competing providers. Moreover, monopoly utilities are not required to submit requests for proposals to find the lowest-cost new generation portfolio. Monopolies utilities can simply build the generation portfolio themselves, potentially at higher cost. This lack of a competitive market means that hardly any power plants in Missouri are owned and operated by non-monopoly utilities.

Not having a competitive market comes with its costs, and lately Missourians have been paying the price. For instance, customers of states that allow them to choose from competing retail electric service providers have seen their prices decrease 17 percent since 2008, whereas the average Missourian has seen his prices increase 17 percent during the same time period. Additionally, flexibility in choosing electric service providers appeals to businesses, as they can negotiate their own contracts and pursue their own electric generation goals.

If lawmakers want to reverse rising electricity prices in our state and create a more competitive and business-friendly environment, they don’t have to look far. Illinois received the second-highest grade in this study and has competitively structured electricity markets. As a result, its prices have decreased 13 percent since 2008. Based on these facts, shouldn’t lawmakers consider allowing greater competition in Missouri’s electricity markets?

The post Missouri Gets a D Grade in Electric Competition appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missourians have little recourse to deal with these rising costs. Missouri’s retail electric markets are monopolized, meaning that each Missourian only has one possible electric service provider.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. As I have written previously, thirteen states and the District of Columbia allow customers to choose between competing electric service providers. Looking at the time since competitive markets matured in 2008, the results have been quite encouraging, as shown in the graph below.

Source: Energy Information Administration

Missourians are losing ground when it comes to overall electric prices, too. In 2008, Missouri’s prices were quite low—43rd-highest overall electricity prices nationwide. Missouri’s prices now sit in the middle of the pack at 29th, due to the rapid price increases shown in the graph above.

Across every sector, competitive states are outperforming monopolized states—and especially Missouri—when it comes to lowering prices. Competition has helped make the electric service industry in those states more efficient and has passed on savings to customers. If lawmakers want to reduce the cost of living for Missourians while enhancing their economic freedom, they ought to consider embracing retail electric competition.

The post Why Missouri Should Embrace Retail Electric Competition in One Graph appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Once upon a time (in 2008), Missouri had the lowest electricity prices in the Midwest at 6.84 cents per kilowatt hour, while our friends in Illinois paid the highest electricity prices in the region at 9.26 cents per kilowatt hour. (The Midwest is defined as Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Missouri.) Now, as of data from 2019 (the most recent data available), Illinoisans pay less than Missourians do (9.56 cents versus 9.68 cents) and have the second-lowest electricity prices in the Midwest, while Missouri’s electricity prices rose to the middle of the pack in the Midwest.

Moreover, when taking inflation into account, Illinois’ real electric prices decreased 13 percent, while Missouri’s increased by 19 percent—the third-fastest increase in the country between 2008 and 2019.

What gives?

The largest difference between electricity markets in Missouri and Illinois is that Illinois allows customers to choose between competing electric service providers, whereas Missouri still operates on a century-old monopoly model. In Illinois, customers have more than 150 electric service providers to choose from. Options for plans include fixed-rate, variable pricing, prepaid, or green energy plans. The pressures of competition ensure that electric providers operate more efficiently and are more responsive to customers.

In contrast, Missourians, wherever they live, have only one choice for an electric service provider—their government-sanctioned and regulated monopoly. Because there’s no competition, monopoly utilities don’t have an incentive to increase efficiency and don’t fear losing any business.

As the electricity price data above show, one of these systems has been working better, and it’s not Missouri’s. Lower electric prices mean households have more money left over for other needs. It also creates a more attractive environment for businesses. Missouri lawmakers can learn something from Illinois—pursuing competitive reforms to Missouri’s electricity market could be worthwhile.

The post Want Better Electricity Prices? Be More Like Illinois appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A good example is electricity bills in Missouri. From 2008 to 2017, the average retail electric bill in Missouri rose 29 percent—the second-biggest increase in the country over that time period. After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TJCA) lowered corporate tax rates from 35 to 21 percent, Missouri utilities reduced electric rates for customers. And it wasn’t just a coincidence; Missouri’s utilities specifically stated that the reason for the rate decreases was the corporate tax cuts.

For the past decade, electric rate increases for three of the four investor-owned utilities in Missouri have far outpaced average salary increases and general inflation. This means that a larger percentage of Missourians’ budgets are being dedicated to paying electric bills, with less being left over for other needs. However, that finally changed between 2018 and 2019 (2018 was the first full year of TJCA implementation) when electricity rates fell by 6 percent—customers of Missouri’s four investor-owned utilities saw cumulative savings of $159 million in 2018 alone.

In sum, just because you may not run a corporation doesn’t mean what happens to corporate tax rates doesn’t affect you. If a decrease in corporate tax rates meant an electric rate decrease for Missourians, it’s fair to believe a corporate tax rate increase would result in electric rate increases. And, as the last decade has shown, that’s an expensive proposition for all Missourians.

The post Does Your Household Pay Corporate Taxes? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Lebanon provides electricity to its residents through a small, city-owned and operated electric utility. However, a 2019 study from Concentric Energy Advisors found that small public utilities were comparatively inefficient when compared to larger co-ops or investor-owned utilities. Similar studies for decades have recommended that municipalities instead purchase electricity from these larger entities or get out of the business entirely. This is because of economies of scale, meaning that the larger the size of electricity operations, the lower the overall cost is of producing each megawatt of electricity. Think Cheaper by the Dozen, but for keeping the lights on.

Privatization can increase efficiency and expertise and provide public services at a lower cost. More than 86 percent of all electricity sold in Missouri is provided by a utility company or an electric co-op. In fact, Lebanon is the only city in Laclede County that has not already taken this route.

Cities nationwide, such as Eagle Mountain City, Utah (2015), Fort Wayne, Indiana (2011), and Readsboro, Vermont (2011) have privatized their municipal electric utilities in the past decade. These cities have used the divestments to fill budget holes, improve service, and decrease rates for residents. Lebanon officials should look at what worked for these and other cities and tailor their privatization process accordingly.

Lebanon’s electric utility equipment is valued at $14 million, but it is not known how much a sale would bring in. Lebanon residents could benefit from this money and sale in several ways. The city’s long-term public employee costs would be reduced, and the money could be used to finance any immediately needed public improvements, build a rainy-day fund, or finance a tax cut. As seen in other cities, this may also result in lower electricity prices or better services for residents.

Lebanon officials would make the deliberations as transparent as possible so citizens can observe. Adding the financial incentives of competition may be difficult due to Missouri’s monopolized electricity structure, but any deal should include a provision holding any new entity accountable if it does not meet quality-of-service and implementation expectations.

Lebanon officials and Laclede Electric will be studying the issue for the foreseeable future, and as more information emerges it will make evaluating the specifics of any deal easier. If the experience with privatization in other cities is any indication, Lebanon should consider taking advantage of this opportunity.

The post Privatizing Lebanon, Missouri’s Municipal Electric Utility appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This exemption would favor large, traditional nuclear power plants at the expense of cutting-edge nuclear energy technology—small modular reactors (SMRs). Putting aside the merits of the current monopoly structure—customers in other states benefit from competitive electricity markets—does it even make sense for a bill to promote traditional nuclear over SMRs?

Let’s put this in perspective. Few large, traditional nuclear power plants have been built nationwide in the past few decades. In recent years, multi-billion dollar cost-overrun debacles for new traditional nuclear plants in South Carolina and Georgia have put a damper on constructing new large nuclear plants. So what’s so special about SMRs?

SMRs are much smaller than traditional nuclear power plants (generating fewer than 200 megawatts of electricity per year) and are also cheaper to construct on a per-megawatt basis than traditional nuclear plants. NuScale Power, which is on track to receive the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s first construction approval of an SMR this August, expects its SMR to produce electricity for $65 per megawatt-hour. That price is competitive with electricity from natural gas plants, which are also “baseload” power providers. (Baseload power is reliable, around-the-clock power, as opposed to the intermittent power provided by solar and wind.)

SMRs are also safer than traditional nuclear plants. The traditional way of generating nuclear power is already the safest form of electricity production available, even when considering disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima, but SMRs come with enhanced safety features. For instance, traditional nuclear power plants cool their reactors by circulating water via electricity, meaning that in the event of a natural disaster that removes all possibility of power (such as what happened in Fukushima in 2011), the reactor could malfunction. SMRs use natural circulation rather than power to cool the reactor, meaning that a disaster like Fukushima is even less likely to happen with SMRs, and it is already extraordinarily unlikely.

Their smaller size also means that SMRs may be deployed in places where it wouldn’t make sense to build an enormous, traditional nuclear power plant, such as in remote towns or industrial sites. SMRs can operate individually as well as being grouped together, again in contrast to traditional nuclear plants. This allows for more flexible operation and even expansion if population or industry requires it.

SMRs are nearing full approval by federal regulators and are already being built in several countries. Putting aside the concerns about the monopoly powers Missouri utilities currently have (which are not insignificant), wouldn’t Missouri be better off focusing on the future of nuclear energy technology rather than the past?

The post Suggested Change to Missouri’s Nuclear Construction Bill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Electricity prices change as demand fluctuates throughout the day, but customers who pay fixed, per-kilowatt hour rates are shielded from those changes. This price shielding also means consumers don’t benefit from cost-conscious electricity use.

Many Missourians do have access to time of use rates through their utility, which do reflect market principles to a limited degree. Two or three different rates for electricity use are set based on demand at certain times of day. For instance, customers pay a higher set rate between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. (since demand is higher) than they do during all other hours, yielding some benefits for cost-conscious consumers.

But since electricity prices change by the hour, could this time-sensitive pricing principle be extended further to yield even more consumer benefits? How would that work?

Utilities in many states offer customers “real-time pricing,” which grants residents the ability to pay market rates for electricity that change hourly based on demand. Transparent real-time prices allow customers to plan their electricity use and save money accordingly. For example, real-time pricing customers of ComEd, Illinois’ largest utility, saved an average of 15 percent on electricity supply charges between 2015 and 2018 compared to what they would have paid under a fixed-rate plan. Ameren Illinois’ real-time pricing customers also saved 10 percent during that same period.

Logistically, utilities offer websites publishing day-ahead hourly electricity prices for their customers, who are equipped with an advanced meter to measure their hourly electricity use. No cost estimates for implementing a real-time pricing program in Missouri exist, but the only equipment needed is a low-cost meter upgrade. Enrollees in Ameren Missouri’s time-of-use program pay a $1.50 fee per month to use an advanced meter. If this is any guide, costs incurred should be low and only charged to customers applying to the program.

Ultimately, while Missourians have access to a watered-down version of real-time pricing, introducing more market-based principles into electricity markets has the potential to bring more consumers benefits.

The post Let’s Get Real (Time Pricing) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.