further AARP vs Ameren UE

I was at this demonstration. This is from the St. Louis business journal.

My take: bad idea at bad time. Ameren has not even applied for permit nor are any detailed plans given to the public. I do not mind a pig in the poke type deal once in a while, but this plan as written is foolish.

Alas, if Ameren smart; they would redraft and resubmit. Missouri leglislature has fine record of overturning voters and they would have no problems ignoring the voters. This sort adventure was defeated soundly years ago.

Presently, Missouri house about to overturn recient voter will on the miminum wage/tips law. Who says the democrats won?

two stories here one is the business journal and the other gives a tad more details. Decide which is a little more "informational"
----------------------------------

St. Louis Business Journal - April 6, 2009/stlouis/stories/2009/04/06/daily6.html


Monday, April 6, 2009, 11:31am CDT Modified: Monday, April 6, 2009, 12:30pm
AARP protests Ameren bill
St. Louis Business Journal - by Kelsey Volkmann
Missouri members of the AARP protested Monday outside AmerenUE in St. Louis to rally against legislation that would allow the utility to charge customers for the construction costs of a nuclear power plant in Callaway County.

Seven volunteers and an AARP staff member braved the wintry mix to protest Monday outside the utility's headquarters, said Anita Parran, a spokeswoman for AARP.

“AARP Missouri is opposed to this legislation that would allow electric companies to begin raising electric rates to pay for projects that fundamentally tilts the ratemaking system against consumers,” said Jim Clemmons, AARP volunteer state president, in a statement. “Rates would be dramatically raised during construction periods and would remove any incentives for cost overruns and force consumers to pay the costs of a cancelled plant.”

The legislation under consideration in the Missouri General Assembly would repeal a 30-year-old ban on “construction work in progress.”
AmerenUE’s proposed nuclear power plant in Callaway County is estimated to cost between $7 billion and $14 billion and take seven to 10 years to build.
Ameren officials and supporters say that charging customers for the construction costs would save customers $3 billion.

St. Louis-based Ameren Corp. (NYSE: AEE) provides electricity to about 2.4 million customers and natural gas to almost one million customers in eastern Missouri and Illinois.
AARP represents more than 40 million members over age 50 worldwide.
kvolkmann@bizjournals.com
All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.

-----------------------------------------another source prior to the demonstration-----------


Power play AmerenUE's ambitions face scrutiny.
Source: Columbia Daily Tribune March 1, 2009


Terry Ganey
Mar. 1, 2009 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- JEFFERSON CITY

-- Public Counsel Lewis Mills Jr. won a victory last week before the Missouri Public Service Commission that might help illuminate the dark corners of AmerenUE's plan to build a second nuclear-powered electricity-generating unit in Callaway County.

Mills, who represents the public in rate cases before the PSC, won approval on a 4-1 vote to compel the St. Louis-based utility to turn over its financial analysis for the new plant, which could cost anywhere from
$6 billion to $9 billion. Up until now, lawmakers, regulators and consumer advocates have complained there wasn't enough information available to judge AmerenUE's plan.
The issues of whether there should be a second unit and whether ratepayers should pay for it as it is being built -- if it gets built -- are unfolding in two arenas: the PSC and the General Assembly.
The utility has asked lawmakers to repeal a law adopted by voters in 1976 that prohibits a utility from recovering new plant construction costs until it is generating power. Without repeal, the utility's officers have said, AmerenUE cannot put together the financing necessary to launch the massive project.
Although there have been three lengthy hearings in House and Senate committees to seek answers, a common consensus is more specifics are needed for lawmakers to thoughtfully weigh an issue that will increase customers' electric rates. Information that Mills' office might unearth could go far in providing the basis for making a decision, which one commission member said last week might be the biggest ever made by lawmakers now in office.
In late January, Mills asked the commission to order AmerenUE to answer data requests Mills had filed with the utility in the fall. That is what the agency approved last week. Separately, Mills has also asked the PSC to open a formal investigation into AmerenUE's plans for a second nuclear unit.

"Can the PSC gather information and produce analysis that can and should inform the legislative process? Yes, absolutely," Mills said.
So far, all five of the commissioners agree a case should be opened. The two Democrats on the commission want the case launched now. The three Republicans prefer to wait until after the legislature has a chance to act on AmerenUE's request for a change in the law.
The political atmosphere at the PSC is in a state of flux, with an overhaul in the commission's makeup coming in the next few months. On April 28, the term of Commissioner Connie Murray, a Republican, will expire. Murray cast the lone dissent last week on the issue of whether the public counsel was entitled to data from AmerenUE. Her departure will give Gov. Jay Nixon the chance to appoint a Democrat who might be eager to vote to open an investigation into AmerenUE's plans.
Lawmakers, meanwhile, have begun unraveling the bill AmerenUE originally filed. A group of senators, which includes state Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, plans to go over the 24-page measure this week. At the same time, Sen. Brad Lager, R-Savannah and chairman of the committee considering the bill, has told AmerenUE to supply models of what its rate charges would be to large industrial customers who have come out to challenge the bill. Lager hopes to have some agreements worked out by March 12, when lawmakers go on spring break.
Sen. Delbert Scott, R-Lowry City and sponsor of the bill, predicted it would change significantly by then.
"It will get a new nuclear plant but provide protections for consumers," Scott said.
But Nixon's office sent a signal last week that even if the complicated legislation reached his desk, it's doubtful he would sign it. Jack Cardetti, a Nixon spokesman, said the governor wants to make Missouri an energy exporter and that nuclear power might be crucial to make that happen. And Cardetti said Nixon believes AmerenUE should move forward with getting a federal permit for the plant.
"This is a two-step process that involves both procuring a license and then deciding whether to build," Cardetti said. "It is premature at this time to saddle ratepayers with potential construction costs before regulators have awarded a permit and Ameren has made the decision to build."
SHIFTING RISKS
The law AmerenUE is trying to repeal was approved by voters after an initiative petition drive. The law prohibited customers from being charged for an electric plant's construction while it was in progress. Only after a plant is producing power would ratepayers be charged for it.
In December 1975, the PSC allowed Union Electric Co. (OOTC:UEPEN) to charge customers for the costs of financing construction work in progress on the nuclear power plant being built in Callaway County. The motivation for the ruling was based on the size of the massive project and the length of time it took to complete.
A group called Citizens for Reformed Electric Rates launched a petition drive to put Proposition 1 on the ballot, seeking to block the PSC's decision. Alberta Slavin, a consumer advocate from St. Louis County, was a leading proponent of the issue. She said, "Either power companies are capitalists or they aren't. They should be willing to take the risk along with the profit." Slavin said investors should pay the financing costs, not the consumers.
On Nov. 2, 1976, Proposition 1 was approved overwhelmingly, 1,132,664 "yes" to 663,486 "no." Boone County voted 21,388 "yes" to 11,868 "no." It didn't stop the utility from completing the plant, and AmerenUE's 1240-megawatt single-unit nuclear plant in Callaway County began operating in 1984.
Slavin died in October, but a group called Missourians for Fair Electric Rates still opposes repeal of the 1976 law on the same ground -- that the financing costs and the risks accompanying them would be shifted to consumers.
AmerenUE has 1.2 million customers in central and eastern Missouri. Coal-fired plants feed most of its base-load capacity, providing about 77 percent of the utility's output.
A planning document on the utility's Web site shows that through 2025, demand for electricity will grow, while the utility's power supply will remain static and eventually decline because of the retirement of aging coal-fired plants. Thomas Voss, president and CEO, said in the 2018-2020 time frame, the utility will need to build a new plant. Voss said the utility's preferred plan for adding electric generating capacity includes the option of building a new nuclear unit.
Voss has said it's only an option and that there is a chance the nuclear plant would never be built. The utility has already sunk $60 million into the process of applying for a license for the second nuclear-powered unit.
But the bill AmerenUE filed with the legislature goes far beyond merely repealing the prohibition against charging customers for construction work in progress. The bill contains a schedule that determines how quickly the PSC must act on the utility's application, it shortens the window of time in which regulators could review a proposal, and it limits what courts could do in terms of reviewing decisions.
The costs of plants started but not completed, including coal-fired generating facilities, could also be charged against customers if it could be demonstrated that the utility acted prudently.
"The staff's effectiveness and role will be limited by this bill," said Robert Clayton, PSC chairman, during an appearance before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment.
Clayton suggested a formal record should be compiled with evidence and sworn testimony from AmerenUE as to whether it's necessary to change the law.
'GOING BALLISTIC'
Several state senators, Schaefer included, support the notion of building the nuclear plant because they believe the future of burning coal to produce power will be risky and expensive given environmental concerns. But the issue of what the nuclear plant will cost consumers has yet to be resolved.
There is a substantial spread between what AmerenUE and the Office Public Counsel say the new plant will cost consumers over the six years it would take to build it. Richard Mark, AmerenUE's senior vice president for energy delivery, said the difference stems from the fact that the OPC based its projections on a 1600-megawatt unit, while AmerenUE is saying it would own only 900 megawatts and other utilities would control the rest.
The OPC estimates rate increases for the 1600-megawatt plant after six years at a low of 29 percent to a high of 40 percent. AmerenUE's estimated rate hike of the 900-megawatt portion of the plant is about 18 percent.
"I don't think either side is making full disclosure as to the rates that will occur," said Jeff Davis, a member of the PSC.
Florida Public Service Commissioner Nancy Argenziano suggested in an interview last week that Missouri lawmakers carefully weigh the issue of "upfront recoveries." Argenziano was a member of the Florida Senate in 2007 when an energy bill was approved that allowed utilities to recover money spent on new nuclear plants. She was later appointed to the state's PSC.
Just last month, the Florida PSC allowed a utility there to recover $34 million in pre-construction costs associated with a coal project that was later canceled.
"People are going ballistic because of the increase in rates," Argenziano said. "These are big numbers coming at the wrong time, and many legislators who voted for it are starting to understand the ramifications."
Reach Terry Ganey at 573-815-1708 or e-mail tganey@columbiatribune.com.
Newstex ID: KRTB-0037-32442746