Blueprint for Missouri

Issue Area 01

Economy

An economy that works for Missourians allows people to earn a living, invest, and start businesses.

3 Policies

Issue Area 02

Education

Missouri’s education system should empower families with real choices, operate transparently, and hold schools accountable for results.

5 Policies

Issue Area 03

Health Care

Health care should be easier to access, easier to understand, and more affordable for patients.

2 Policies

Issue Area 04

State and Local Government

Governments should be transparent, responsible with taxpayer money, and focused on essential services.

7 Policies

17 Policy Recommendations

The full Blueprint

Each policy is a self-contained working document: the problem, the evidence, the proposal.

Economy

3 Policies

Occupational Licensing

Cut barriers that keep Missourians out of the trades they’re qualified to enter.

Economic Development Subsidies

Stop picking winners; reduce TIF, tax-credit, and grant programs that distort markets.

Nuclear Energy

Permit, build, and operate small modular reactors to meet Missouri’s grid demand.

Education

5 Policies

Statewide School Choice

Empowering families with real options across public, charter, and private pathways.

Education Funding Formula

Reform the formula so dollars follow students and incentives reward outcomes.

School Report Cards

Plain-English accountability metrics every parent can read and act on.

Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights

Codified rights to records, curriculum, and meaningful participation.

Early Literacy

Evidence-based reading instruction beginning in kindergarten.

Health Care

2 Policies

Free-Market Healthcare Reform

Direct primary care, telemedicine, and association plans as real alternatives.

Healthcare Price Transparency

Prices posted, plainly, before treatment — by procedure, by facility, by physician.

State and Local Government

7 Policies

Income Tax Reform

Flatten brackets, broaden the base, and lower the rate Missourians actually pay.

Property Tax Reform

Caps, exemptions, and assessment fairness for Missouri homeowners.

Budgetary Reform

Bring obligations back into line with revenue, not the other way around.

Taxpayer Bill of Rights

Codified protections so Missourians know what their tax dollars can — and can’t — do.

Office of Government Efficiency

An accountable, mission-specific office to audit how state government actually runs.

Local Government Transparency

Open records, open meetings, and open budgets — by default, not by request.

Welfare Reform

A welfare system that helps Missourians rise, not one that traps them at the bottom rung.

The post Blueprint for Missouri 2026 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.

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.

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.

These days, though, I have come to love St. Louis too. It is a big city with a small-town feel. I go to an amazing church, and there is always something new to do or see.

Growing up in East Tennessee, I know firsthand how much that region has been defined by nuclear innovation, a tradition that continues today. Recently, Oklo Inc. announced that it plans to build a $1.68 billion nuclear recycling facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which is a stone’s throw away from my hometown. This project joins a wave of planned nuclear investments in the region, including a multibillion-dollar uranium enrichment facility and the planned construction of a new small modular reactor (SMR).

While I am excited for East Tennessee, I also want Missouri to grow and thrive. Leaders here have recognized the importance of nuclear power, with Governor Kehoe stating that we need to build new nuclear at “business speed.” If Missouri wants to attract the same kind of investment Tennessee has, we should follow its example, starting with the creation of a nuclear advisory council.

What Could a Nuclear Advisory Council Look Like?

Just as Missouri should take note of Tennessee’s zero-income-tax advantage, we should also learn from its policies on nuclear energy.

In my recent report, Nuclear Energy’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future, I detail how the formation of a nuclear advisory council—modeled after Tennessee’s—could help fortify our grid and attract needed investment to our state. A council would bring together the brightest minds to provide accessible information, engage with stakeholders, and foster key partnerships at no cost to taxpayers.

Our state already has unique assets that position us well for nuclear development, and a council could advise how to best use these strengths. It could also flag weaknesses in regulation, workforce development, or siting. Further, a council could help identify opportunities for utilities or even independent off-grid electricity providers if our state allows it.

Tennessee’s council, created by an executive order from Governor Bill Lee, has already helped signal resolve to interested developers and foster a more nuclear-friendly environment. Missouri has the ability to do the same.

Creating a nuclear advisory committee is a simple first step. Hopefully, another big nuclear investment next door can motivate Missouri to follow in Tennessee’s footsteps (and maybe we can also start making all iced tea sweet by default, please).

Interested in this idea? Read a more in-depth analysis in my recent report:

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

Check out these other related articles:

Forming a Missouri Nuclear Advisory Council

Missouri’s Nuclear Opportunity with Avery Frank

What Could New Executive Orders on Nuclear Mean for Missouri?

The post Tennessee Lands Another Nuclear Project 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.

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.

Recently, the White House unveiled its detailed framework for deploying nuclear energy, which emphasized the need for nuclear power in America’s future. This plan included an ambitious target to triple U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050. While this specific plan may not survive the transition, the sentiment is likely to endure.

Bipartisan Support for Nuclear

Both sides of the aisle recognize the potential in an American nuclear resurgence, albeit with different motivations. Part of the reason the Biden administration supports nuclear energy is because of climate change. Ambitious emissions goals are difficult to achieve without nuclear energy. The previously mentioned report argues:

Expanding domestic nuclear energy production has a key role to play in helping to avoid the worst impacts of climate change by enabling the nation to achieve a net-zero greenhouse gas emission economy no later than 2050. Nuclear power delivers safe, clean, reliable, and affordable electricity.

The Trump administration’s support hinges largely on reliability, capacity, and energy security. Members of the first Trump administration have advocated for keeping plants open, investing in SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors), and continuing to modernize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The president-elect recently affirmed this stance:

Starting on day one, I will approve new drilling, new pipelines, new refineries, new power plants, new reactors and we will slash the red tape. We will get the job done. We will create more electricity, also for these new industries that can only function with massive electricity.

Outside of the Oval Office, another notable example of nuclear momentum is the passage of the ADVANCE Act, which is designed to spur advanced nuclear construction and streamline regulations. This bill flew through Congress with an 88–2 vote in the Senate and a 393–13 vote in the House of Representatives before being signed by the president.

Bipartisan Action in Missouri

Nuclear energy is unique in that it is safe, powerful, and environmentally friendly. It is the most reliable energy source, and some claim it produces the lowest amount of greenhouse gas emissions over the lifecycle of the power plant. Public awareness of these benefits is increasing, as Bisconti Research found that favorability for nuclear energy increased from 49 percent in 1983 to 77 percent in 2024 among the U.S. public.

In the past, nuclear energy may have been viewed through a partisan lens, but today, it represents a solution to address some of our nation’s key concerns. This upcoming legislative session, lawmakers in Jefferson City should come together to craft meaningful policy that will help bring more nuclear power to the Show-Me State.

The post Nuclear Energy Is a Bipartisan Solution appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• “Microsoft deal would reopen Three Mile Island nuclear plant to power AI”
• “Amazon goes nuclear, to invest more than $500 million to develop small modular reactors”
• “Amazon and Google have plans for fueling their data centers: Nuclear power”
• “Oracle will use three small nuclear reactors to power new 1-gigawatt AI data center”

Why are some of the largest corporations, who are the biggest consumers of energy, trying to get nuclear plants up and running?

In my view, energy security—access to sufficient, affordable, and reliable energy—is the key motivator. These corporations likely foresee potential shortfalls in energy supply, particularly for sources that can meet demand at any time.

As these headlines show, corporations are even willing to go “behind-the-meter” in order to have access to clean, reliable, and consistent nuclear power. Behind-the-meter refers to the practice of purchasing power directly from a plant, bypassing tradition utility infrastructure. For Missouri, these national trends again highlight the need to seriously consider nuclear power as a solution to building a reliable grid for the future.

What Big Tech is Saying about Energy

A strong and reliable electric grid is vital. Demand for electricity is growing because of data centers, artificial intelligence, electrical manufacturing, and electric vehicles. More than ever, citizens rely on energy to power their daily lives.

Michael Terrell, senior director for energy and climate at Google, said this:

We feel like nuclear can play an important role in helping to meet our demand, and helping meet our demand cleanly, in a way that’s more around the clock.

When major corporations, whose profits depend on uninterrupted power, express concern about future electricity demand, it is worth paying attention.

A Warning Sign for Missouri

Missouri is not doomed, but if you see a bear running away from something in the woods, it is wise to at least consider why it is running. Big Tech’s movement toward nuclear may be a similar warning signal.

Missouri needs to be prepared for an immense energy transition. Amending the Construction Works in Progress (CWIP) law is one way forward. This would open the door for nuclear construction by allowing utilities to gradually recover costs during construction as opposed to all at once afterwards. Investing in more nuclear power is an investment in a strong, reliable power source that we will need as energy demands continue to increase.

The post What to Make of Big Tech’s Pivot to Nuclear 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.

Missouri cannot keep putting off energy reform until the next year—change is happening now, and energy demand is growing.

For the first two decades of the 2000s, electricity consumption remained flat without significant growth, as increased demand was offset by increased energy efficiency. However, in recent years energy demand has been on the rise again.

Forbes, the Department of Energy, and The New York Times all note the same driving forces for this increasing demand—data center growth (accelerated by the growth of AI) and a boom in electrical manufacturing (batteries, computer chips, etc.). What is one thing data centers and factories have in common? They both require power 24 hours a day—something non-dispatchable resources like solar cannot effectively provide alone. (Small modular nuclear reactors are great at providing continuous power . . . just saying.)

Some prominent organizations, such as Goldman Sachs and McKinsey & Company, have forecasted that U.S. data center energy usage will double by 2030. To put it into perspective, Goldman forecasts that data centers’ share of total U.S. power demand will rise from its current 3% level to 8% by 2030. This is an enormous amount of electricity—equivalent to the power needed for over 40 million U.S. homes.

Ameren is planning to shut down all coal plants by 2045. To replace coal plants’ production and meet new demand, our state will need to build reliable, powerful, and clean power plants.

Nuclear power can check all of these boxes, but we need regulatory reform to allow nuclear to flourish in Missouri. To replace and meet new energy demand, our state should strongly consider nuclear energy.

The primary policy that has impeded our nuclear industry for decades is the construction-works-in-progress (CWIP) law. This statute prevents utilities from raising rates in order to help pay for construction-works-in-progress, making it much more difficult to develop nuclear projects. CWIP has proven fatal for Missouri’s nuclear industry, as nuclear projects are both extremely capital intensive and subject to extensive holdups in the regulatory process.

Nuclear plants do not arise out of thin air, and they will not be built in Missouri if there are too many regulatory barriers. Eliminating the longstanding CWIP statute by passing HB 1435 and HB 1804 would provide a backstop for the large upfront costs of small modular reactor construction so that utilities can work with both domestic and international nuclear developers to revive our state’s nuclear industry.

In the remaining weeks of the session, the legislature cannot forget about the need for modernization in the energy sector. Electricity demand is on the rise, and Missouri should prepare to meet this demand.

The post Missouri Needs to Be Prepared for Growing Energy Demand appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The United States is known for its diversity: from our landscapes, to our immigrants, and to the different states across the nation—the United States truly has a wide range of interests, individuals, and industries. Our energy sources are no different, and as shown below, we use a diverse assortment of energy sources to power our nation.

Created with mapchart.net; Source: Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

In order to better understand energy policy for Missouri, it is important to know some background about each energy source.

Natural Gas

According to 2022 preliminary data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), natural gas generated 39.8 percent of electricity in the United States—the largest generator in our country. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, meaning it is formed from decomposing plants and animals. Companies use seismic surveys to determine where to drill for natural gas, similar to the process used for oil. The captured natural gas is then processed, and a chemical called Mercaptan is added. Mercaptan adds the smell that makes natural gas smell like rotten eggs so leaks can be detected. This now smelly natural gas is then used for combustion turbines or steam turbines to generate electricity. In recent times, combined-cycle natural gas plants have greatly increased efficiency by using both processes together. Natural gas is burned to power combustion turbines, and the heat byproduct from the combustion turbine (think of how a car engine releases heat) is used to heat water, create steam, and turn a steam turbine.

Coal

At 19.5 percent of electricity generation, coal is the second-largest energy source in the United States. Once used primarily to power locomotives and heat homes, coal is now mostly used to generate electricity by heating water to turn steam turbines. Coal, like natural gas, emerged as an electricity generator in the 1950s and grew quickly in the 1970s and 80s. However, coal emits much higher emissions than natural gas, and thus its usage is shrinking in modern times as natural gas continues to capture more market share.

Hydroelectric

Speaking of old energy sources, hydroelectric (or hydropower) is one of the oldest forms of electricity generation—with 1880 marking its first year of industrial use. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a big proponent of hydropower, which uses moving water to spin turbines. By 1940, it generated 40 percent of our nation’s electricity. However, in 2022, it only generated 6.3 percent. American hydropower has largely fallen out of favor due to safety and environmental regulations, legal obligations to Native American tribes, and the economic costs associated with them. For example, two hydroelectric dams on the Elwha River came under attack due to environmental and legal concerns over the salmon population. The owners would have been forced to add expensive fish ladders, and continued legal pressure from the tribes persisted until they decided the dam was not worth the cost.

Nuclear Energy

Making up 18.2 percent of electricity generation, nuclear is the largest clean energy source in the United States. The first commercial reactor was built in Shippingport, Pennsylvania in 1958, and the nuclear industry grew rapidly in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. With nuclear fission, uranium atoms are split, which causes a chain-reaction and generates an immense amount of heat—which boils water and creates steam that turns a turbine. As time has passed, stringent regulations have slowed down the construction of nuclear power plants; the average age of a reactor for the remaining 93 reactors in the United States is 42 years old. Currently, the industry is regaining momentum as it transitions from large plants built during the Cold War to safer and cheaper small-modular reactors.

Wind

Wind energy makes up 10.2 percent of electricity generation. The mechanics of wind energy are relatively straightforward. The cycle of wind is used to turn turbines which generate electricity without creating greenhouse gas. In the olden days, windmills were used to cut wood, pump water, and grind grain—but now wind turbines are used to generate electricity. Financial incentives and requirements to use renewable energy in the 1990s spurred the development of wind power, with similar incentives continuing today. These wind turbines can also be located offshore in the ocean—such as ones taller than the Statue of Liberty in Rhode Island.

Solar

Enough energy from the sun hits the planet every hour to power the entire world for a year. Comprising 3.4 percent of our electricity generation, solar energy is a relatively small source of energy in the United States. Solar energy can be harnessed in two ways—through solar thermal or solar photovoltaic. Solar thermal technology is like the hot metal slide on the playground that would make you pay for foolishly venturing down it during recess. The sun heats up metal, which heats water—creating steam and turning a turbine. Solar photovoltaic is what most people think of when they think of solar energy—panels made up of a great number of cells turned towards the sun and capturing light energy to charge up like a battery. America’s largest solar photovoltaic farm is the Solar Star Farm in California.

Petroleum

Oil is typically used in transportation, but it can also be used in electricity generation—although it makes up only a tiny 0.9 percent of generation in the United States. The process to create electricity from petroleum is similar to the process for natural gas, as it can be used in steam, combustion engines, or in a combined-cycle power plant.

Biomass

Biomass is a fancy term for burning wood or using biofuels created with corn, soybeans, etc., to turn turbines. Although it is a large U.S. export commodity, our nation only relies on biomass energy for 1.3 percent of electricity generation. Developments are in the works for converting municipal solid waste (paper, shirts, furniture), animal manure, and human sewage into electricity sources.

Geothermal

Accounting for only 0.4 percent of electricity generation, geothermal is the smallest energy source in our nation. Since the earth has an inner core, outer core, mantle, and crust (where we live), heat from pressure and magma in the outer core and mantle produce heat that we can harness for electricity. Wells are drilled into the earth’s surface (some going 2 miles deep) and the heat is used to boil water and turn a steam turbine.

Now that we have a foundation on all of America’s top energy sources, we can further explore how energy is produced and transmitted and consider what would be the best energy policies for our nation and Missouri.

The post Show-Me Energy: Today’s Energy Sources 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.

A basic challenge for electricity generation in Missouri is a lack of transmission capacity. Electricity must be transmitted via wires from where it’s generated to where it’s used. But these transmission wires can only carry so much electricity at once, and carrying too much power will fry the wires. Large parts of Missouri’s grid infrastructure (and the larger regional grids it participates in) are too congested to accommodate all the electricity generated today, let alone have room for new projects. Take a look at this map. The map is a little confusing at first glance, but the blue, green, and yellow represent regions that can handle more electricity on their transmission lines, whereas the grid is already overloaded in the orange, red, and brown regions. How much more or less electricity transmission lines can handle can be seen in the map legend, with dark blue able to carry the most additional electricity and dark brown being the most overloaded.

Building new transmission capacity can help solve this problem. Transmission lines owned by public utilities are open to be used, for a fee, by any power generator. Since 1996, this “open access” practice has been required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the agency responsible for overseeing interstate power transmission.

Increased transmission capacity can help the integration of new power plants. It also aids in overall economic development by increasing the ability of cities to access the electricity needed for growth, as well as the incorporation of new energy sources like small modular nuclear reactors and distributed generation.

Missouri needs more transmission capacity, and injecting competition to the construction process, which was started with FERC Order 1000 in 2011, can bring real cost-savings benefits for new construction. The process of building new transmission lines begins when the grid operator declares the need for more capacity to meet electric demand. However, states and grid operators have used project classification loopholes to allow incumbent utilities a competition-free bidding process to construct transmission lines. Even small competitive reforms to tighten these rules can have a big impact. A study from the Brattle Group found that the winning bids in competitive transmission projects were 40 percent less expensive than original estimates, whereas noncompetitive projects ended up costing 34 percent more than the original estimate.

Transmission capacity is necessary for delivering electricity from power plants to homes and businesses, and expanded transmission capacity is vital for Missouri’s economic growth. As Missouri sets its sights on revving up the economy after Covid-19, building more transmission capacity can help get Missouri to where it wants to be.

The post Highlighting an Energy Opportunity During Missouri’s Clean Energy Week 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.

However, Ameren Missouri officials may have found a solution to the dilemma: the U.S. Department of Energy’s competitive federal cost-share investment funds. Ameren Missouri and Westinghouse Electric Company recently announced that they are seeking competitive federal cost-share investment funds from the Department of Energy, which would be used to manufacture Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. If Ameren receives the funds, Ameren would then expand the nuclear power plant in Callaway County without the need for reforms to Missouri’s CWIP law. This would help Missouri generate more alternative energy without unnecessary mandates. Making this deal even sweeter is the potential for the partnership between Ameren Missouri and Westinghouse Electric Company to create thousands of jobs for the engineering, manufacturing, and operation of the Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. Finally, because portions of the electricity produced in Missouri will be shared around the nation via the electric grid, some level of federal investment is legitimate here. It makes sense that Missouri customers will not pay every penny for something that benefits more than just Missouri.

This is an exciting project that has potentially great benefits for Missourians.

The post Ameren: A Boost For Nuclear Energy? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.