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.

In Governor Kehoe’s State of the State address, he declared that Missouri is “all-in” on nuclear energy. But the question of how the governor plans to turn this statement into a reality remains.

Part of being “all-in” could include allowing the creation of private electricity grids (often referred to as consumer-regulated electricity (CRE)), to bolster the development of next-generation nuclear technology.

Free-Market Principles and the Future of Energy

Private electricity grids could be key to opening the energy sector up to testing and innovation—something that is difficult on a ratepayer-supported grid.

Due to mountains of regulation, public fear, and high costs, there has been little recent experience in constructing nuclear power plants, as only seven of the 94 operating reactors in the United States were built after 1990. While continued regulatory reforms are absolutely imperative, opening the sector to specialists to gain expertise would be significant.

Specialists will be needed to rapidly deploy any new technology like small-modular reactors (SMRs). However, it is expensive to build new technology (as SMRs would be), since there are likely to be unforeseen challenges. These first-of-a-kind (FOAK) costs usually come down with experience and repetition, but asking regulated utilities to handle it would likely be slow and expensive. Further, it simply may not be a risk that ratepayers are willing to accept.

With CRE, different types of private developers could meet different needs for large projects separated from the grid supported by ratepayers.

Consider an example. CRE would allow a private electricity developer that specializes in SMRs for data centers to partner with a data center developer to meet its desire for clean nuclear energy. This is a very lucrative market—there are significant incentives to specialize in meeting this demand, and this kind of pairing allows each party to do what it does best.

New deployments with less red tape would help test new technologies more quickly and identify areas to improve efficiency—which could reduce build time and lower costs in the long run.

There is a lot of uncertainty in today’s energy sector. There is also the opportunity and the need to innovate. Hopefully, Missouri can use the free market, rather than solely rely on government planning, to help usher in the next generation of nuclear technology.

The post Opening the Nuclear Sector Up to Innovation in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to break down the latest from the 2026 Missouri legislative session, including updates on the push to eliminate Missouri’s income tax. They also discuss why the film tax credit doesn’t work out for Missouri taxpayers, which provisions of the early literacy bills are still moving forward, the growing debate over data center incentives and energy demands, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Income Tax Elimination, Early Literacy Bills, and Data Centers in Missouri 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.

The investigation and review are intended to protect ratepayers, assess Missouri’s future energy needs, and manage Missouri’s natural resources effectively. These are good objectives, but the hard question is finding a policy solution to match all those goals.

One option I have written about, consumer-regulated electricity (CRE), is worth considering. (If you’re unfamiliar with CRE, you can click the link to learn more.)

Instead of placing new data centers on the existing regulated grid, we could match data centers with an independent CRE utility (CREU). Furthermore, if electricity demand for these data centers falls short of its sky-high projections, then the excess capacity will have been a poor investment. This protects ratepayers by putting private companies on the hook for that risk instead.

There are benefits to data center developers as well. A CREU can be structured around the developer’s reliability needs and preferred energy resources. Projects could also require less transmission, as new generation facilities could be built near their customer base. CRE could be a reliable, economical, and sustainable energy solution to meet current and future energy needs.

Speed to operation is vital in today’s economy, and data center projects have experienced difficulties securing permissions from the various layers of government. While many hurdles would still remain (like local zoning), CRE projects would not require permissions from the Missouri Public Service Commission since they would not be connected to the regulated grid. At the federal level, Senator Tom Cotton recently introduced the DATA Act, which would exempt CREUs from federal regulations not designed for on-site, self-contained power systems. While still early, this legislation is worth monitoring and could further increase the speed to operation.

The governor has made it clear that he wants to meet growing energy demand in a way that protects ratepayers and addresses Missouri’s current and future energy needs. CRE is a policy approach that matches those objectives.

The post Consumer-Regulated Electricity (CRE) and Data Centers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The new task force is modeled similarly to Tennessee’s nuclear advisory council, which I have written about extensively. This nuclear-focused group will identify strengths to leverage, highlight regulatory and practical reforms worth considering, and serve as a touch point for potential partnerships both nationally and internationally.

After forming its nuclear advisory council in 2023, Tennessee saw notable success in attracting nuclear supply-chain and research investment, as well as a new small modular reactor (SMR) project. With a similar structure now in place, I am hopeful Missouri can achieve comparable success in bringing new nuclear investment to the state.

Missouri’s Advanced Nuclear Task Force Makeup

The task force is structured much like Tennessee’s; it is composed of different stakeholders from government, higher education, and the energy sector.

The task force is currently not a permanent body, and is required to submit an annual report to the governor and the Missouri Senate and House energy committees with a list of barriers to nuclear energy deployment and actional recommendations. It is set to dissolve after the submission of its third annual report, unless it is extended or dissolved beforehand.

What the Task Force Is Charged with Doing

As outlined in the executive order, the task force will help facilitate actionable next steps and reforms for nuclear power in Missouri.

Just as importantly, it will also be tasked with identifying public–private partnership opportunities and advising the governor on regulatory, technological, and economic developments in the nuclear sector.

With significant momentum and change in nuclear energy (trust me, I had to update my recent report on nuclear energy many times), the task force will be useful in helping Missouri policymakers remain informed and competitive.

One Suggestion in Implementation

While the executive order does not explicitly require national or international experts, the governor is granted latitude to appoint additional members. That flexibility should be used. Expertise in areas such as nuclear engineering, mechanical and civil engineering, and environmental law could meaningfully strengthen the group’s work.

Hopes for the Future

Missouri has taken a meaningful step toward nuclear investment and development. If the task force is used as intended, I am hopeful that Missouri can succeed the same way Tennessee has.

The post Missouri Forms an Advanced Nuclear Task Force appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I remember when Game of Thrones was at the height of its popularity and its catchphrase seemed to be plastered everywhere I looked: “Winter is coming.” Today a similarly ominous refrain is echoing across the energy sector: Data centers are coming.

A data center is a physical location that houses servers and related hardware that process, store, and transmit digital information. As artificial intelligence use expands, demand for computing power is also rising at a feverish pace, driving the need for more and more energy-intensive data centers.

As in Game of Thrones, there is a certain mystery surrounding how dire the situation truly is.

In April 2024, Goldman Sachs forecast that data centers would rise from 2.5% to 8% of all U.S. electricity usage by 2030. However, Google recently reported a 33-fold reduction in their energy usage for AI text prompts in a single year. It is difficult to predict how much more energy will be needed in the coming years.

Current Missouri law protects average ratepayers from “any unjust or unreasonable costs from service to such customers [such as data centers].” However, this does not mean none of the burden of building new generation capacity will fall on ratepayers, and an overbuild based on overly aggressive demand projections could leave them paying for unused assets.

On the other hand, failure to build sufficient power supply (whether due to demand miscalculation or delays in constructing multiple plants) could cause Missouri to miss out on significant investment in the state. Worse, an underbuild could create real reliability concerns. There is real tension here, and a great deal of pressure to predict and build effectively.

Fortunately, there is a policy that could help alleviate some of this pressure: consumer regulated electricity (CRE).

The premise of CRE is fairly straightforward: allow consumer-regulated electricity utilities (CREUs) that are disconnected from the ratepayer-supported grid to create “private energy islands” for the largest new customers (such as data centers). This approach makes sense for two reasons:

1. The anticipated surge in demand is expected to be fueled by a small number of users. By isolating the electricity supply of these customers from the ratepayer-supported grid, CRE can help shield everyday customers from spikes in energy prices.
2. The increase in demand is predicted, but it isn’t certain. CRE ties both the risk and the possible rewards of building new power plants to the companies that will use the resulting energy.

This year, New Hampshire passed a law to allow CREUs to generate, transmit, distribute, and sell electricity as long as they operate independently from existing utilities and do not serve the general public (CREUs are still subject to appropriate oversight, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear plants). Missouri could do something similar, and there are many reasons to do so.

#1: Protecting Ratepayers from Risk

If the projected surge in electricity demand materializes, CRE could help lessen the severity of rate increases by allowing some large customers to be served by independent CREUs. Because these facilities are privately financed and serve only their customers, their costs would not be spread across all ratepayers. If electricity demand falls short of projections, then the excess capacity will have been a poor investment.

#2: Accelerating Capacity Buildout and Investment

 Missouri needs to build new generation capacity. In a permission-first, regulated environment, that process can be slow. Letting CREUs build and operate their own generation facilities could help keep economic development from being constrained by red tape.

Further, CREUs could offer more tailored payment structures and allow companies to align their energy sources with their own environmental or strategic goals—without forcing all ratepayers to work toward those same goals.

#3: Alleviating Pressure

Not only does Missouri face new demand growth, but our two largest electric utilities are dealing with coal-plant retirements. This transition would be challenging even without a new surge in demand. CREUs would allow utilities to focus more on serving their current customers.

CRE could be an ideal response to an abrupt surge in energy demand driven by a narrow set of customers. It would provide price security to everyday ratepayers, give data centers control over their power supply, and decrease the need for governments to predict future energy demand. Data centers are coming, and CRE is worth exploring as a way for Missouri to prepare for them.

The post Data Centers Will Require Innovation in Missouri’s Energy Sector appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss local ballot measures in Missouri, including new hotel taxes in Springfield and Jefferson City, municipal use and gas taxes, how the ongoing federal shutdown could jeopardize food stamp benefits for hundreds of thousands of Missourians and what the federal Rural Health Transformation Fund means for reform, and emerging ideas in energy policy such as consumer regulated electricity and the debate over data center development in Missouri.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Election Season Insights
04:57 Convention Center Controversies
09:09 Understanding Use Taxes
13:32 State Budget and SNAP Challenges
16:12 Rural Health Transformation Fund
21:59 Energy Prices and Consumer Regulation
27:21 Data Centers: Economic Growth vs. Local Concerns

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Election Day Preview, SNAP Shortfalls, and Missouri’s Data Center Debate | Roundtable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

-Potential reforms to the initiative petition process in Missouri
-The need for better accountability measures in our schools
-The role consultants play in creating harmful economic development policies
-Creating free-market policies in energy
-Big changes coming to welfare policy via the One Big Beautiful Bill
-Kansas City’s expensive failures are a warning, not a model

Click here to find the newsletter.

The post Show-Me Institute’s October 2025 Newsletter 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.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Show-Me Institute policy analyst Avery Frank about his new report, Connecting Nuclear Energy’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future. They discuss why electricity demand is rising again, why major companies are turning back to nuclear, and how Missouri can position itself to benefit. From data centers and AI to regulatory hurdles and smart policy steps like a state nuclear advisory council, Avery explains how Missouri could play a leading role in America’s nuclear resurgence.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 The Resurgence of Nuclear Energy
03:37 Challenges and Historical Context
07:30 Missouri’s Nuclear Potential
12:06 Future of Nuclear Energy and Policy
16:09 Conclusion and Future Outlook

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
This morning we’re joined on the podcast by Avery Frank, policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute. You’ve got a paper out, and I’m really looking forward to talking to you about it because I have a lot of questions. You’ve done a lot of research and analysis around nuclear energy, and I see a lot in the media these days about the resurgence of nuclear energy.

Number one, why does nuclear energy seem to be back, bigger and better than ever? And secondly—well, I’ll start with that. Why is nuclear energy back in the news so much?

Avery Frank (00:34)

Nuclear power surged in the United States during the Cold War. Electricity demand was soaring—it kept going up and up. Nuclear energy is clean, reliable, and powerful. Just in Missouri, we have one nuclear power plant and it supplies 14% of the entire state’s electricity. So when you need a lot of electricity, nuclear power is something you can turn to.

Since 2007, electricity demand has pretty much flatlined as we’ve become more efficient. But with data centers, artificial intelligence, and electric manufacturing, electricity demand is back on the rise, looking similar to Cold War–era growth. Just data centers by themselves are supposed to go from 3% of U.S. electricity demand today to 8–12% by 2030. That’s a huge jump.

Susan Pendergrass (01:56)
Well, if it’s so great, why did it go away? I remember Three Mile Island, and I saw the movie about Chernobyl. When it gets bad, it gets really bad. Why did nuclear go away so hard if it’s such a great, clean, reliable source of energy?

Avery Frank (02:26)
I’d say it went away for three key reasons: public fear, regulation, and regulatory attitude. Most of the time, public fear from events like Three Mile Island drove increased regulation.

Two key events stand out. First, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) *correction* in 1970. That was a huge blow for the nuclear industry. Construction costs went up 25% and projects took two years longer. Then came Three Mile Island in 1979. It was mitigated by safeguards, but public fear skyrocketed. Costs afterwards were three times higher and construction took twice as long. That was the big turning point.

Susan Pendergrass (03:54)
Then if it’s that expensive, why is it coming back?

Avery Frank (04:14)
Companies are turning to nuclear out of desperation. They need a lot of power, as I mentioned with data centers, but they also have clean climate pledges. They can’t really do it with solar or wind. They’re kind of backed into a corner.

Susan Pendergrass (04:20)
Why not solar or wind?

Avery Frank (04:39)
Solar and wind are intermittent resources. Nuclear plants run consistently. Data centers can’t have outages—you need steady, reliable power. That’s what nuclear does best.

Susan Pendergrass (05:08)
Does it generate a lot of nuclear waste?

Avery Frank (05:15)
In the U.S. we use a once-through cycle. We refine uranium, put it in a plant, then seal it up forever. Other countries like France and Japan recycle their fuel. About 96% of spent fuel is still reusable, but the U.S. stopped recycling in the 1970s. If we restarted, we could reduce waste significantly, which already isn’t that large to begin with.

Susan Pendergrass (06:09)
So what could Missouri be doing right now to take advantage of this moment?

Avery Frank (06:32)
Timing is key. Missouri already has advantages: intellectual capital, infrastructure, the Missouri University Research Reactor, and Missouri S&T producing top nuclear engineers. We also have retiring coal plants that could be retrofitted into advanced nuclear plants, cutting costs by up to 35%.

Federal reforms like the ADVANCE Act are making things easier, but Missouri could act too. For example, we could form a Nuclear Advisory Council, like Tennessee did, to identify strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations. That’s attracted significant investment there.

Susan Pendergrass (08:14)
What about public-private partnerships?

Avery Frank (08:37)
That’s a great point. We believe the free market can play a big role, just like it did in space travel. One idea is Consumer Regulated Electricity (CRE), where private developers build small modular reactors for large customers like data centers on their own dime, outside the regulated grid. That takes the burden off ratepayers while meeting rising demand.

Susan Pendergrass (10:26)
Because I assume energy demand forecasts keep being revised up, right?

Avery Frank (11:03)
Exactly, and they’re hard to predict. What if AI suddenly uses less power? Then Missouri could be stuck with excess nuclear capacity. Letting the free market take some of that risk makes sense.

Susan Pendergrass (11:39)
What about the last Missouri legislative session?

Avery Frank (12:06)
Senate Bill 4 passed. It was a big utility bill that allowed “construction work in progress,” meaning utilities can charge ratepayers during construction, not just when a plant comes online. It’s unclear if it applies to nuclear, but it could. I’ve suggested treating it more like a bond, so consumers who shoulder the risk also see some reward, like lower rates or refunds.

Susan Pendergrass (13:44)
Any other signs that Missouri welcomes nuclear investment?

Avery Frank (13:47)
Yes. I attended the Missouri Nuclear Energy Summit in Columbia. Governor Kehoe was there and said we need to develop nuclear at business speed, not bureaucratic speed. That shows real resolve. Legislators are supportive too. Missouri has the advantages and infrastructure—we just need the right regulatory environment.

If Missouri created a Nuclear Advisory Council, like Tennessee, it could attract significant investment and expertise. Energy availability is now one of the top factors for companies deciding where to locate. If Missouri can offer abundant, reliable, clean energy, we’ll be far more competitive.

Susan Pendergrass (16:20)
That’s awesome. You have a paper out on this, available at showmeinstitute.org. Thanks for coming on and explaining it to us.

Avery Frank (16:32)
Awesome, thank you for the interview, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Missouri’s Nuclear Opportunity with Avery Frank 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.

Managing this problem in the current system that is dominated by monopolies is difficult. But what if market forces could be infused into our current system to help address new demand?

An Introduction to Consumer Regulated Electricity (CRE)

One potential policy solution that could complement Missouri’s current system is consumer regulated electricity (CRE). While still a developing idea, CRE is worth considering as Missouri navigates an uncertain and potentially very costly energy future.

In theory, CRE would allow private investors to create new, independent electric power systems (both generation and transmission) using their own capital. These private grids would be scaled to specifically meet new demand growth from large consumers. In order for a CRE entity to operate appropriately, it would need to be free from restrictions placed by the Missouri Public Service Commission (MPSC). That means CREs would need to be unconnected to the regular grid and only serve new industrial and large commercial customers.

It should be noted that these CRE entities would still be subject to federal regulations, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear projects. These entities would still need to meet federal safety standards.

Considering the Benefits of CRE in Missouri

Travis Fisher of the CATO Institute argues that these private grids—partly free of the massive regulatory red tape for utilities—could be developed more quickly, infusing needed competition and innovation into the energy sector. As “private energy islands” for new, large energy consumers, CREs could potentially relieve strain on the primary grid and ratepayers. Rather than relying on ratepayers to fund new power plants to accommodate rising industrial demand, the market could provide that solution.

This idea aligns with growing momentum in the private sector to pair small modular reactors with corporations (Google, Microsoft, Meta) urgently seeking energy sources tailored to their needs. CRE could allow the free market to guide this practice, and potentially, more quickly match demand with supply as companies would not be subject to current MPSC regulations that limit competition. This could be a boon for economic development in Missouri.

In theory, CRE would not tear down Missouri’s existing framework, but rather, complement it and allow private developers to target growing energy demand from the largest consumers, which are causing the most concern about reliability.

How Could We Potentially Bring this to Missouri?

Bringing CRE to the Show-Me State would likely require a modification of state statute to declare that CRE entities—if they are not connected to existing infrastructure and only serve large, industrial customers—are not subject to state regulation. New Hampshire is one state considering this concept. While further study is needed, CRE is a compelling idea that our lawmakers ought to consider.

The post Weighing Consumer Regulated Electricity to Meet Energy Demand Growth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Spoiler alert: It’s taxpayers. Taxpayers foot the bill.

The scale of these data centers is staggering. As Friestad reports, the energy demand from these facilities is equivalent to 100 Walmarts or 40 hospitals​. Their massive electricity needs—driven in part by artificial intelligence—have led Evergy, the regional utility provider, to plan two new natural gas plants and expand renewable energy production by 3,000 megawatts over the next decade​.

While Evergy insists that existing customers won’t subsidize these projects, some experts aren’t convinced. The Missouri Office of Public Counsel warns that the increased demand could drive up energy prices across the region​. Even if Evergy builds enough capacity, ratepayers may still bear the costs of maintaining infrastructure that primarily benefits tech giants.

Kansas City approved up to $8.2 billion in tax incentives for Meta alone, a package more than three times the city’s annual budget​. Google has also secured generous tax benefits, though the full scope is still unclear​.

These incentives were pitched as a way to boost local schools and communities. But as Friestad’s reporting shows, and as regular readers of this blog have come to expect, the expected windfalls have been slow to materialize. The Smithville School District, which was promised rising tax revenues, has instead seen a fraction of what was projected. In 2024, Meta paid just $86,839 in property taxes to the district—far short of the more than $1 million in annual payments initially forecast​. Construction delays and city permitting issues have further postponed expected revenues.

The pieces highlight an important debate: Did Kansas City need to offer such massive subsidies at all? Economic development officials argue that data centers wouldn’t come without them, but others suggest that factors like cheap land, energy access, and infrastructure play a much bigger role​.

A broader trend is at play. At least 36 states now offer incentives for data centers, creating a nationwide bidding war​. Critics like Good Jobs First director Greg LeRoy argue that these subsidies often do little to sway a company’s decision, while shifting tax burdens onto residents​.

And while data centers bring major investments, they don’t create many full-time jobs—typically around 100 per facility, despite requiring billions in public support​.

As they have with entertainment districts, hotels, and sports stadia, Kansas City leaders are making a massive bet on data centers, banking on future economic gains. But as the Kansas City Business Journal’s reporting makes clear, the immediate costs are real, and the benefits remain uncertain. Will the promised revenues materialize? Will taxpayers ultimately bear the burden of subsidizing these projects?

The people of Kansas City should demand answers. If policymakers want to keep handing out billions in incentives, they owe the public clear, transparent explanations of when—and if—the promised returns will actually arrive.

The post Kansas City’s Data Center Boom: Another Costly Gamble appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Positive trends in regulation, attitudes toward nuclear power, and technology have fueled a resurgence in American nuclear power. The good news for Missouri: our state has a strong history with nuclear power and engineering. With real national momentum, Missouri has an opportunity to leverage our existing strengths to benefit from this resurgence.

A Simple First Step: Forming a Nuclear Advisory Council

A straightforward step would be forming a Missouri Nuclear Advisory Council to inform comprehensive strategies for guiding nuclear development. Tennessee’s recent experience offers a replicable model.

In 2023, Governor Bill Lee of Tennessee established a nuclear advisory council through executive order to inform legislative actions for addressing regulatory, education, and workforce barriers, as well as strategies for financing, waste storage practices, and opportunities Tennessee should pursue with federal partners and agencies. For example, the council recommended amending a regulatory statute to classify nuclear energy production facilities as Certified Green Energy Production Facilities, leveling the playing field with renewables.

Tennessee’s council serves as a model of collaboration and expertise, with membership that includes:

• Directors of interested state departments: Environment and Conservation, Economic Development, and Emergency Management
• Officials from the state legislature, congressional delegation, and local government
• Experts from higher education, utilities, workforce development, the energy production sector, and the nuclear industry
• Representation from the regional national laboratory
• Additional members as determined necessary by the governor (Tennessee opted to include more experts and scientists).

Missouri could create a similar council through executive order, establishing a platform for collaboration among the state’s brightest minds.

Potential Focus Areas for the Council

While Tennessee’s council had a partial focus on economic development, Missouri’s council could prioritize identifying best practices and potential legislative solutions without interfering in market outcomes.

To provide one example, the council could identify and evaluate suitable locations for new advanced nuclear facilities. The U.S. Department of Energy reports that repurposing coal plants for advanced nuclear reactors can reduce construction costs by up to 35%. Oak Ridge National Laboratory has already identified retired and retiring coal plants in Missouri as promising sites for new reactors. The council could assess these opportunities and recommend actionable steps.

The Potential for Missouri

Missouri has the talent, the track record, and the need to build new, advanced nuclear facilities. A nuclear advisory council could bring these elements together to inform best practices for new nuclear development in our state, catalyzing investment, attracting high-paying jobs, and securing a reliable energy supply for decades.

The post Forming a Missouri Nuclear Advisory Council appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What does a reliable electric grid even mean?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission defines grid reliability as:

“The provision of an adequate, secure, and stable flow of electricity as consumers may need it. In other words, when you flip the light switch, the lights turn on. The grid remains functional even during unanticipated but common system disturbances.”

Essentially, there needs to be a sufficient and secure amount of dispatchable power plants supplying electricity to consumers. Dispatchability is an energy source’s ability to be “dispatched” to the grid’s consumers whenever they need it. Intermittent energy sources, like wind and solar, are not dispatchable, as they are not continuously available for consumers when they need it.

Missouri’s retiring coal plants are consistent and dispatchable, and to maintain grid reliability, they should simply be replaced with similar plants—such as nuclear or natural gas.

But what about battery storage for intermittent sources?

The presence of energy storage does not make wind and solar any less intermittent. They are still intermittent, but it’s possible battery storage could help alleviate this problem.

Globally, battery storage is rapidly rising, and costs are decreasing. These trends should bolster the effectiveness of renewables—but the sheer amount of energy the United States uses is daunting. The Mackinac Center notes that the United States is set to add 191.6 gigawatt hours of battery backup systems between 2022 and 2026. This is a ton of storage. However, in 2021, the United States used 4,116,000 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2021 alone. Per calculations from the energy analysis group Doomberg, that nets out to 24 additional minutes of battery backup storage added over that five-year period.

Additionally, the International Energy Agency noted the difficulty of providing the materials for a mass battery and renewable expansion at scale. Compared to total mineral demand in 2020, it projects a need for six times as many total minerals for a “net-zero by 2050” scenario.

What’s a policy that could help boost grid reliability?

Last session, House Bill (HB) 1753 passed through the Missouri House but failed to make it to the floor in the Senate. This bill outlined that, prior to the closure of an existing power plant, there must be:

• A new “replacement” power plant secured and placed on the electric grid (which can be in another state) with an equal or greater amount of “reliable electric generation”

• “Adequate” transmission lines in place and ready to operate immediately or shortly after a plant is taken offline (depending on the interconnectedness of the plant being shut down).

The retirements of functioning power plants should not be done in haste. HB 1753 would have helped pump the brakes on an energy transition that seems to be barreling out of control. Even if you believe that renewables should be the primary energy source, there should be a highly dispatchable and reliable source backing them up.

Commissioner Mark Christie of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) noted:

I think the United States is heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability. . . .The core of the problem is actually very simple. We are retiring dispatchable generating resources at a pace and in an amount that is far too fast and far too great, and it is threatening our ability to keep the lights on. The problem is not the addition of wind and solar and other renewable resources. The problem is the subtraction of dispatchable resources such as coal and gas. . . . A nameplate megawatt of wind or solar is simply not equal in terms of capacity value to a nameplate megawatt of coal or gas or nuclear.

Renewable construction is good—it can bring development and diversity to the generation portfolio—but dispatchability needs to be emphasized, and an intermittent source should not be our backbone. We do not need to make the transition away from coal more convoluted than it is. HB 1753 would have protected energy reliability for Missourians. This policy should be given stronger consideration in the 2025 legislative session.

The post One Way Missouri Could Keep Its Energy Grid Reliable 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.

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.

The post Bipartisan Momentum in Nuclear Energy Continues appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

HB 1753 mandates that prior to the closure of an existing power plant, there must be:

• A new “replacement” power plant secured and placed on the electric grid (which can be in another state) with an equal or greater amount of “reliable electric generation”
• “Adequate” transmission lines in place and ready to operate immediately or shortly after (depending on the interconnectedness of the plant being shut down).

What does “reliable electric generation mean?” This is calculated by taking the average of the summer and winter accredited capacity (the most a plant could produce in each peak season) of the plant being shut down and comparing it to the plant(s) replacing it. For example, let’s say a Solar Plant Alpha could produce a maximum of 600 MW in the summer, but only 200 megawatts (MW) in the winter. The amount of “reliable electric generation” would then be 400 MW. This is an improvement from using nameplate capacity, which is how much a plant could produce if it produced at full power 100% of the time.

HB 1753 also mandates that the new plants replacing a closing power plant must be also comprised of at least 80% dispatchable energy (dispatchable energy is from a source that is available for use on demand and can have its power output adjusted to market needs). The bill defines dispatchable as: natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, biomass, petroleum, geothermal, and coal.

While the 80% rule may sound like a strong protection ensuring that most of our energy is dispatchable, I am concerned that the provision isn’t strong enough.

Let’s say Missouri has coal plants that produce 800 MW of dispatchable energy and solar farms that produce 200 MW of intermittent, non-dispatchable energy, for a total capacity of 1,000 MW. In this scenario, dispatchable energy comprises 80% of total energy capacity.

If you shut down a 100 MW coal plant (which is dispatchable) and replace it with 80 MW of new natural gas (dispatchable) and 20 MW of new solar (non-dispatchable), the total capacity now would be 780 MW of dispatchable energy (800 – 100 + 80) and 220 MW of intermittent, non-dispatchable energy (200 + 20).

Then let’s say you shut down seven more 100 MW coal plants and replace them with seven new 80 MW natural gas plants and seven new 20 MW solar farms. Now after these closures, you would have 640 MW of dispatchable natural gas plants (780 – 700 + 560) and 360 MW of non-dispatchable solar farms (220 + 140). Now, in this new scenario, dispatchable energy comprises 64% of total energy capacity—a gradual erosion.

California, in which non-dispatchable energy makes up around 40% of its portfolio, has had significant issues with energy reliability. During particularly hot summers in recent years, Californians have been urged to ration energy usage:

Officials are urging Californians to run their air conditioning earlier in the day, when more power is available, and to turn up the thermostat starting at 4 p.m. They’re also asking people not to use large appliances, like washing machines, dishwashers and dryers, between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m., which are peak hours for electricity use.

HB 1753 is a step in the right direction and would help provide energy stability for Missourians, but it could be strengthened by changing the 80% dispatchable rule to a 100% rule. There are other concerns that are outside the scope of this bill—in particular, how to account for the growing energy demand in Missouri—but I will address that in a later post. For now, policymakers should consider tweaking HB 1753 to ensure energy reliability in Missouri.

The post Could HB 1753 Help Protect Missourians During a Future Energy Transition? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.