Primary Author: Courtney Risner, Revised by: Grace McKevitt

Decision Memo

To: Utility Committee of the Missouri State Legislature

From: The Change Coalition for Nuclear Energy

Date: November 3, 2021

Subject: Policy Options to Aid in the Expansion of Nuclear Energy Production in Missouri

Executive Summary/PDS

Missouri currently has an energy production crisis that is not being treated with the level of concern its severity requires. In 2020, Missouri consumed eight times the amount of energy that it produced. Energy too often has to be imported from other states via the national grid, which is economically inefficient. Coal still dominates as the main source of energy, but the fossil-fuel emissions it produces are counterintuitive to legislation working to increase clean energy production in Missouri, such as HB 261. 11% of the electricity produced in Missouri comes from nuclear energy, specifically from the state’s only nuclear power plant in Callaway County. As a green and safe option, the expansion of nuclear energy would help combat this crisis and there are various policy options that could ignite that change. 

Background

Due to nuclear power plant disasters such as Chornobyl and Three Mile Island, there has been a worldwide fear of nuclear energy production, and Missouri is not immune to this. While nuclear energy can be detrimental if not handled and produced correctly, it is an efficient, safe, and green form of energy. To ensure that nuclear energy can be safely produced, the federal government has passed laws that take measures to prevent nuclear disasters from happening again. In the wake of Three Mile Island, President Carter signed laws, such as UCS and TMIA, with stricter federal safety standards into effect, such as mandatory emergency evacuation plans and harsher penalties for violations of federal safety standards by utilities (Legal History of Three Mile Islands). In addition, over 150 additional nuclear power plant inspectors were hired from 1979-1981 (Parenti 2015). However, these new regulations, despite improving the safety of existing operational nuclear power plants, made it difficult for new ones to be built. The new regime cost utilities a lot of money and made them “substantially less profitable” (Parenti 2015). Missouri, however, has not made as much headway in evolving its nuclear energy production up to modern-day capabilities. The history of nuclear energy legislation in Missouri is rather short. In 1976, Proposition 1, also known as the Constructive Work in Progress Law, was passed. This law effectively prohibits utility companies from offsetting the costs of building new facilities by raising rates until the plant is finished, which effectively bans the construction of new nuclear plants. In 2021, HB 261 was introduced, which would allow utility companies to charge for services based on the costs of certain kinds of facilities being built.

Criteria

Environmental Consciousness: How environmentally friendly the policy is an important consideration as we seek to increase security and efficiency by means of green investments. Analyzing the ability each option has to lower carbon emissions and be sustainable is crucial.

Feasibility of Implementation: With the energy crisis becoming more and more prevalent, the feasibility of each alternative is an important consideration. We need a policy that affects change now in an efficient and effective manner with as few roadblocks as possible.

Timeliness/ Sense of Urgency: Comparing how long a policy would take to implement and the urgency behind the action will show which options are logistical and timely. The timeline of each policy and the degree to which it can be safely implemented during the crisis that Missouri is in is an important deciding factor. 

The degree to which the option remedies Missouri’s existing energy crisis: In the end, how well the policy alternative solves our problem definition statement, the Missouri energy crisis, is the most important criterion the policy has to satisfy. 

Alternatives

Alternative 1

Passing HB 261 and creation of a Nuclear Energy Regulatory Committee

This option includes the passing of HB 261 by the Missouri General Assembly, which would reverse the effects of Proposition 1; and furthermore, the creation of a regulatory committee to oversee the implementation of the changes it would bring. The committee would be concerned not only with monitoring energy prices but the specialized team of nuclear and economic experts would ensure the nuclear investments prioritized safety as they are implemented. In addition, it would protect Missouri citizens from unreasonable price increases for utilities that would in turn fund the plants. Most importantly, this commission would help advocate for a sustainable energy solution to Missouri’s existing energy crisis. This option involves a combination of two policy tools, including social regulation and economic regulation, by creating a public agency that outlines penalties for prohibited activity for firms or individuals, such as fines on utility companies that charge unfair rates. This committee not only monitors the economic changes that would be brought about by this policy alternative, but it is concerned with protecting the rights and social welfare of Missourians. This policy option is environmentally friendly because it would lead to the creation of plants that would produce green nuclear energy to replace the fossil fuel-emitting energy sources currently dominating energy production in Missouri. While there are multiple steps involved with fully implementing this policy, the timeline isn’t a negative component. HB 261 has already been introduced in the state legislature and the recruitment of nuclear and economic experts for the regulatory commission can begin immediately. This option best remedies Missouri’s existing energy crisis because it actively passes legislation that will allow for the resources needed to produce more clean energy to be created. While other alternatives do this as well, this policy lowers the barrier to entering the nuclear power industry for utility companies as well as provides a long-term footing for the state to follow as they begin their exploration into increasing nuclear energy production. 

Alternative 2

State Grants

This option involves increasing government subsidies for the development of nuclear research and production. If Proposition 1 isn't repealed, this alternative policy option still allows for nuclear power plants to be developed by utilizing government grants instead of private funding. Using economic regulation as a policy tool is beneficial because it helps ensure economic efficiency in the market, which is currently missing from the nuclear power production industry in Missouri. This policy is economically friendly in the sense that it will help further the creation of resources that will increase the production of green energy. But, when compared to other alternatives, the degree to which it will be economically conscious is more difficult to determine since there’s no regulatory committee to oversee the measures being taken to safely build these plants. In the end, this option would be effective in reducing Missouri’s energy crisis because it would result in the construction of new plants that would produce green energy for the state. However, the timeline of this policy alternative isn’t a strong point, as the process for acquiring government grants can be lengthy. The feasibility of implementing this option is difficult to determine because it’s unknown how the grants would be funded. For example, if they were to be funded by an increase in tax rates, that would require a whole set of new legislation to be passed first.

Alternative 3

Public Awareness Campaign

The creation of a public awareness campaign to educate the public and promote support for HB 261 to help get it passed would utilize the benefits of the public information policy tool. Our campaign would weigh the benefits of nuclear power as an energy source against current fossil fuel-emitting methods and other green energy sources. This would help reframe public attitudes about nuclear energy, and furthermore help ease aversions to the private costs citizens would endure if HB 261 was passed. We would use different forms of communication, from social media platforms to broadcast media advertisements to perpetuate our message. This policy alternative is extremely feasible since it is essentially just dependent on content creation for research that has already been done by other advocates for nuclear energy as well as other states and countries that have increased their own nuclear power production. In addition, it does no damage to the environment, and if anything, helps it in the long run by raising awareness for green energy sources that would help reverse the climate crisis. Where this policy option falls short is its ability to directly solve Missouri’s existing energy crisis in a timely manner. This policy option would be the first of many in the process that would lead to the creation of more nuclear power plants in Missouri. However, this policy would require other resources to solve the problem at hand. 

Recommendation

We recommend that you choose Alternative 1. This option allows for new, updated legislation to be passed which will help bring Missouri up to date on nuclear energy production that many other states and countries have already adopted. It also perpetuates the benefits of a social regulation policy tool, such as prioritizing safety and providing checks and balances on the taxes imposed on citizens. When measured up to the criteria, this option possesses the best balance among the three alternatives. It is environmentally conscious by pushing for the production of green energy sources to replace current fossil-fuel-emitting ones. In addition, the implementation process could be done in a timely and effective manner. It also offers the most direct solution to Missouri’s energy crisis by creating new sources that can produce energy on a large scale domestically.

Work Cited

“Legal History of Three Mile Islands.” Legal History of Three Mile Island, 

http://www.tmia.com/old-website/history/tmilegalhistory.html.

Parenti, Christian. “After Three Mile Island: The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Safety Culture.” The 

Nation, 29 June 2015, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/after-three-mile-island-rise-and-fall-nuclear-safety-culture/.