Callaway II: To Be or Not To Be
I support building a second nuclear reactor in Callaway County (Callaway II) for two reasons:
- Missouri requires a stable source of base power and there are currently only two ways to generate it––coal and nuclear. Nuclear power comes with its own environmental and health questions, but from my vantage point, it offers a more viable and environmentally friendly option than coal.
- Missouri––and our district––will benefit economically from the construction and ongoing operation of the plant. This plant will be the largest construction project in Missouri history and will employ a large, highly skilled and well-paid workforce upon completion.
When I say, “base power,” I mean the power that we expect to have at our fingertips 24/7––to turn on the lights, to run our appliances, and to supply our industries and businesses. We must also draw on other sources for additional power––solar, wind, and perhaps water––but the bulk of our needs, given the technology that is available today and is likely to be available in the near future, will rely on coal and nuclear.
The one other factor that we do not discuss enough is conservation. If we can decrease our total power needs by serious conservation efforts, we can reduce the requirement for more power plants in the future. Nevertheless, our growing population and increasing use of technology will continue to demand a stable and reliable source of base power.
I favor Callaway II because, on balance, I believe it is a better option than building more coal plants. Coal mining is dangerous, causes environmental damage, and fouls waterways; burning coal pours pollutants into the atmosphere, causing both acid rain and global warming. Better technology can reduce some of the harmful effects, but coal by any definition is not clean.
Nuclear power comes with its own set of problems. It, too, requires mining with its resulting environmental contamination––that must be minimized. Generating nuclear power, however, causes neither atmospheric pollution nor global warming. Still, the storage of the spent fuel is an issue that has not been addressed to our satisfaction. While nuclear is far from a perfect option, it seems preferable as a way to generate an increased portion of our power. At the same time, the additional power generated by Callaway II would allow us to close the oldest and dirtiest coal plants.
To proceed with the plant’s construction, Ameren argues that the state must repeal the “Construction While in Progress (CWIP)” ban that was approved by voters in 1976. This provision prohibits utilities from passing costs to ratepayers before a project actually generates power. Because of the enormous costs associated with the construction of a nuclear facility, estimated to be $6+ billion, Ameren contends that it cannot build the plant without some help from ratepayers and that this ratepayer help during the construction phase will reduce electric costs later.
A short history lesson will explain why we find ourselves at this point. In the 1970's Union Electric Company built Callaway I. The company helped to pay for the plant by charging consumers for a portion of the cost before electricity was generated. Consumer and environmental groups objected to this practice and placed on the ballot a ban to include Construction While In Progress (CWIP) costs in the electric power rate base. In November 1976, Missouri voters approved the ban on CWIP by an almost 2 to 1 margin.
Now Ameren wants to build a second plant (Callaway II). The company argues that sufficient funds cannot be borrowed and the overall cost of the construction will rise dramatically without the repeal of CWIP.
My approach is to respect voter wishes, while realizing that a 33-year-old vote may not reflect current voter attitudes. I believe the best way to achieve both goals is to return the CWIP issue to a vote of the people of Missouri. If they choose to uphold the CWIP ban, the likely outcome will be that the construction of Calloway II will not move forward. If they opt to remove the ban and allow some portion of the interest costs associated with the construction of Calloway II to be included in Ameren bills before the plant is completed, I will work as hard as I can to enact into law a bill that includes solid conservation and serious alternative energy components, while insisting on a “shared-risk” approach. Although I am not well versed in regulatory rate structure, I would work with the Public Service Commission to find a way for ratepayers who contribute to the interest cost of construction to financially share in the post-construction profits, perhaps in the form of ownership interest or a rebate on future bills.
The political climate has changed with regard to nuclear energy over the last thirty years. I suspect that those who favor nuclear power––plus those who can be persuaded by adding significant elements of conservation, wind, and solar power generation to the ballot issue––might constitute the majority. But, Ameren, not the legislature, must convince voters of the implausibility of a multi-billion dollar Callaway II building project WITHOUT consumers’ sharing in the payment of interest costs before completion.
The legislature should ask the people to reconsider the action of a generation ago in light of today's energy and economic reality. People like to be asked. They don't like the government shoving anything down their throat.
I assume that an election is a certainty in any case because opponents will force a ballot issue through the petition process. Therefore, if the legislature sends a repeal of the CWIP ban to a vote of the people––rather than repealing the ban directly––it will ultimately save both time and money. Personally, I'd rather err in the name of democracy and have both the legislature and Ameren take their cases to the people.
In summary, I will vote in favor of repealing CWIP and building Callaway II if we tie its repeal to legislation with major conservation, wind, and solar components, making it a serious effort to implement multiple forms of alternative energy and diversify our energy production. A legislatively-called election could go on the ballot much more quickly, thereby decreasing the cost of delay, shortening the period of uncertainty, and creating the “greenest” practical energy solution currently possible. It would hopefully also bring the environmental community to the table as collaborators, not as opponents. Only with all sides involved––Ameren, the environmental community, the business community, and ratepayers––can we achieve the best way to move forward.