Primary Author: Grace McKevitt. Revised by: Eric Gershilevich
Design Analysis
The following is a response to a future of inevitable environmental devastation that Missourians will surely face unless state legislatures intervene. Methods of improperly sourcing energy for our state and country are unsustainable and irreversible mistakes. By continuing to power American households with fossil fuels, fracking, and natural gas, we compound our current environmental problems for future generations. As Missourians, we have the opportunity to show our fellow states that innovation begins here, and we are willing to act now. Our coalition brings Missourians a promising solution, a state-wide effort to make nuclear energy the future of Missouri power. The primary and overarching goal is to increase human security for Missourians as well as increase efficiency in Missouri’s energy market.
Missouri is home to just one nuclear energy plant, the Callaway facility. The success of the Callaway Energy Facility is unmatched by other Missouri alternatives. The Callaway Plant has generated the fourth greatest nuclear energy levels in America and the 10th greatest globally, out of over 425 plants (Ameren). It is clear that Missouri has the potential to do nuclear better. Plans for the facility’s construction date back to 1973, just three years prior to members of the Missouri legislature passing a law that effectively banned further expansion of nuclear energy in the state (Farzan). The policy passed in 1976 was the Construction Work in Progress Law. Proposition 1 of the Construction Work in Progress Law specifically prohibits utility companies from temporarily raising rates to fund the construction of a new plant until after the plant is completed. Investing in nuclear energy without state grants or increased consumer rates makes the barrier to enter the market extremely high. Therefore, because the Construction Work in Progress Law increases the barriers to market entry so greatly, the law effectively bans the expansion of nuclear energy in Missouri. Moreover, the practices set by Prop 1 are extremely unique to our state. Other than Missouri and New Hampshire, no other state bans electricity companies from temporarily raising consumer rates. Not only will this coalition advocate for the expansion of security to Missourians by means of environmental protection, but this coalition also works to bring about economic efficiency in the state’s untapped potential in its nuclear energy market.
This coalition presents state legislators with a variety of options that will catalyze sustainable nuclear energy development. The first option we propose is to pass House Bill 261, which would undo the prohibitions set in place by Proposition 1 of the Construction Work In Progress Law. HB 261 was introduced to the Missouri Legislature in 2021 by Republican Rep. John Black, making it clear that Missouri legislators already find incentives in backing nuclear energy investments. We would like to acknowledge and appreciate the state’s original intentions by passing The Construction Work In Progress Act. However, what once was an attempt to protect citizens from increases in energy bills at a corporation’s expense now stands in the way of a sustainable future. We intend to preserve the efforts of Proposition 1 to protect Missouri consumers by implementing a Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission. We suggest the state replaces this law with a regulatory commission that holds the power to regulate the prices onset onto consumers as new plants are constructed. We must acknowledge that temporary increases in electric rates do not mean less money in the pockets of Missourians. In fact, Missouri households powered by the Callaway Energy Plant pay lower rates than households powered by any other investor-owned utility company in the state (Ameren). Our coalition emphasizes that nuclear energy is an investment, not just for the owners of new facilities, but for the communities they power as well. Although we greatly encourage corporations and communities to take this leap of faith to invest in nuclear energy, we understand that many are still fearful of Nuclear power. This is why our proposed Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission would do more than regulate energy prices. This commission will act under the direction of nuclear and economic experts to ensure nuclear investments prioritize safety. This commission will protect consumers from unreasonable increases in utility prices, maintain the safety of existing and future nuclear plants, and advocate on behalf of sustainable energy solutions for Missouri.
This option would rely on the policy tool of social regulation in order to be implemented in Missouri. The activity of social regulation is defined as the “prohibition of activities or required technology or procedures for firms or individuals” and is delivered through a public agency that can “command and control” said activities. In order for this tool to be effective, social regulation must come with outlined penalties. We suggest that Missouri’s Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission outlines monetary fines for firms that disobey the safety and financial and safety regulations outlined by the commission. These fines would help not only to fund the commission itself, but nuclear energy expansion as well. We would like to emphasize that if we are going to go nuclear, we are going to do it right.
Our proposed policy tool does rely on a few basic assumptions about human behavior. First, we are assuming that if the barriers to enter the nuclear energy market are lowered, individuals will feel incentivized to invest in the industry. We assume that by repealing this act, investors will be incentivized to enter the nuclear energy market and begin construction on new facilities. This assumption is defended by the extremely high monetary cost of constructing nuclear facilities for private corporations. Specifically, the cost to construct the Callaway plant was about three billion dollars (Ameren). This high construction cost nearly assures that a single investor or corporation will not take on this large of a financial risk without either 1. Sharing this cost with consumers, or 2. State subsidies. Therefore, if the state refuses to invest taxpayer dollars in nuclear development, it must, at the very least, allow corporations to distribute these entry costs to consumers.
In the instance that the state does not support our proposed social regulation tool, we also introduce economic regulations that would work to solve the same primary problem: Missouri’s energy crisis. Our second option requires the state itself to directly invest in nuclear energy through state grants. This solution would be implemented through the policy tool of economic regulation.
Economic regulations are delivered through the activity of “controlling prices and entry and exit of firms in the industry.” This would involve the House Utility Commission passing bills that request a portion of the state’s General Revenue budget to be reserved for nuclear energy investment grants. This option would work to solve the inefficiency in the current nuclear energy market in Missouri. Due to Proposition 1 of The Construction Work in Progress Law, the nuclear energy market in Missouri is essentially monopolized by Ameren, the investment firm that owns the Callaway Energy Facility. To propose that state funds take on the steep burden of starting nuclear investments is to assume that this monopoly will last and is something that needs to be acted on. However, in this case, we can be certain that this assumption is correct. The nuclear energy market in Missouri has been monopolized by Ameren for nearly five decades, and there are no existing nuclear construction plans to solve this monopoly either. With the introduction of these grants, we must also assume that the state government would be fair in distributing these grants. In order to ensure that grants are distributed fairly, companies and investors must complete a rigorous application process to qualify for a grant. The state will provide grants based on merit and safety plans proposed in these applications.
An alternative policy tool the Coalition for Change in Nuclear Energy advocates for is a dedication of state resources toward a public information campaign. As a policy tool, public information campaigns work to inform relevant actors about an issue and mold their perspective. This campaign would work to reframe the existing notions Missourians hold about nuclear energy to be overwhelmingly positive. This would be achieved by weighing nuclear energy against fossil fuel-driven resources as well as green options, such as wind and solar power. The campaign would be featured among a variety of media platforms including social media, broadcast news, advertisements, and radio segments.
If the state decides to move forward with a public information campaign, it must consider the assumptions the campaign would be making about human behavior. First, we are assuming that Missourians are open and willing to shift their perspectives on nuclear energy. Second, we are assuming that if a shift in perspective does occur, this will simultaneously cause an increased willingness in Missourians to invest utility costs and tax dollars into nuclear energy. Our coalition acknowledges that as compared to our other proposed options, the assumptions made about human behavior in this plan are far steeper. However, assuming that Missourians will be willing to learn and act as a response to a media campaign is not unheard of. There are many examples of how public information campaigns have molded human behavior and thoughts.
According to Anna Borawska’s “The role of public awareness campaigns in sustainable development”, public awareness campaigns play a crucial role in the development of a sustainable future. “Campaigns, apart from raising awareness and change in behavior, can be aimed also at creating social norms, especially by changing the attitudes to the presented problem (871).” Missouri legislators’ fear of considering nuclear energy as a viable state investment arises out of the public’s negative association with nuclear power. Shifting the Missouri constituents’ perspectives away from fearing the nuclear accidents of the past will be essential for long-term solutions. Borawska proves the effectiveness of public information campaigns at shifting public perspectives by noting The Clean Water Campaign (2001 - 2004). This campaign successfully changed human behavior by making the public aware of the dangers of water pollution. Notably, there was a 25.5% increase in pet clean-up to decrease water pollution and a 12.2% increase in people willing to recycle motor oil (872). The Clean Water Campaign displays how effective a similar campaign could be at reconstructing the public’s association with Nuclear Energy.
In order to weigh our three proposed options against each other, we must rely on 4 main criteria. The first criterion is Environmental Consciousness: How friendly the policy is to the environment is an important consideration as our primary goal is to increase security by means of green energy investments. Thus, this criteria allows us to identify which of our three options most effectively lowers carbon emissions. Although our third option, the public awareness campaign, provides no threat to the environment, our first and second options actively work to remedy the harm that has already been done to our environment, making these options more desirable under this criteria.
The next criterion used to consider the options proposed is the 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. Using these criteria, our third option now seems incredibly desirable. Implementing a public awareness campaign is extremely feasible, and the framework to do so has been used by the state recently in its Covid-19 vaccination campaigns. Our first option, which would require the state legislature to not only pass HB 261 but also introduce a regulatory commission, is not as feasible. The feasibility of this option, along with option 2, which encourages state grants to fund nuclear development, requires bipartisan agreement about nuclear energy in the Missouri Legislature. Finding the bipartisanship needed to make either of these options a reality may prove difficult.
Another crucial criterion used to weigh our options is Timeliness/Sense of Urgency: This criterion looks at how long a policy would take to implement. 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. Our most timely option would be to run a public awareness campaign, option 3. The turnaround time of a public awareness campaign is immensely shorter than the time needed to construct new nuclear facilities. However, this option does not meet the sense of urgency necessary to remedy our energy crisis. Therefore, we believe option 2 meets these criteria the best as devoting state grants to nuclear energy matches the urgency of the situation. This option is ranked higher than our first option in this criteria because providing state grants may have a faster turnaround time than passing HB 261 and implementing a Nuclear Energy Regulatory Committee.
Our final, and most important criterion is the Degree to which the option remedies Missouri’s existing energy crisis: In the end, how well the policy alternative solves our primary problem of environmental and energy crises. This criterion allows option 1 to rank superior to our other options. Option 1’s ability to provide an ongoing framework for nuclear energy facilities to be constructed allows it to be preferable to option 2 over time. Our fear with option 2 is that the state will be stingy with the money devoted to nuclear energy. The state may only decide to provide one or two grants to utility companies, whereas option 1 allows utility companies to begin developments on their own. Additionally, the inclusion of the Nuclear Energy Regulatory Committee in option 1 offers a unique and timeless benefit. Both option 1 and option 2 successfully fulfill the needs of the state to mend its energy production disparities. The environmental benefits of directly investing in nuclear energy development far outweigh the increased feasibility of our more moderate approach, a public information campaign. We conclude that a public awareness campaign would do little to nothing to truly remedy the dire environmental crisis we face today.
Overall, our coalition advocates strongly for the implementation and adoption of option 1, passing HB 261 and creating a Nuclear Energy Regulatory Committee. This plan exceeds the others in terms of environmental consciousness and the degree to which Missouri’s energy crisis will be remedied.
Works Cited
Ameren Missouri. “Callaway Energy Center Facts and Statistics Sheet.” 2020.
https://www.ameren.com/-/media/missouri-site/files/callaway/callaway-fact-sheet.pdf
Borwaska, Anna. “The role of public awareness campaigns on sustainable development.” Econstor, vol. 17, 4, 2017, p. 870-875.
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/193047/1/ees_17_4_fulltext_14.pdf
Farzan, Shahla. “Missouri Commission Wants Legislators to Scrap Nuclear Plant-Funding Law.” NPR. Oct. 2019.
Foust, Jeff. “White House Executive Order Promotes Development of Space and Defense
Nuclear Power Systems.” Space News, 12 Jan. 21AD, https://spacenews.com/white-house-executive-order-promotes-development-of-space-and-defense-nuclear-power-systems/.
Haughey, John. “House set to adopt Missouri Nuclear Clean Power Act.” The Center Square - Missouri. Apr. 2021.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/missouri/house-set-to-adopt-missouri-nuclear-clean-power-act/article_c0b814c4-9df0-11eb-9f6f-b7a6b9fda197.htmlPrimary Author: Grace McKevitt. Revised by: Eric Gershilevich
The following is a response to a future of inevitable environmental devastation that Missourians will surely face unless state legislatures intervene. Methods of improperly sourcing energy for our state and country are unsustainable and irreversible mistakes. By continuing to power American households with fossil fuels, fracking, and natural gas, we compound our current environmental problems for future generations. As Missourians, we have the opportunity to show our fellow states that innovation begins here, and we are willing to act now. Our coalition brings Missiourians a promising solution, a state-wide effort to make nuclear energy the future of Missouri power. The primary and overarching goal is to increase human security for Missourians as well as increase efficiency in Missouri’s energy market.
Missouri is home to just one nuclear energy plant, the Callaway facility. The success of the Callaway Energy Facility is unmatched by other Missouri alternatives. The Callaway Plant has generated the fourth greatest nuclear energy levels in America and the 10th greatest globally, out of over 425 plants (Ameren). It is clear that Missouri has the potential to do nuclear better. Plans for the facility’s construction date back to 1973, just three years prior to members of the Missouri legislature passing a law that effectively banned further expansion of nuclear energy in the state (Farzan). The policy passed in 1976 was the Construction Work in Progress Law. Proposition 1 of the Construction Work in Progress Law specifically prohibits utility companies from temporarily raising rates to fund the construction of a new plant until after the plant is completed. Investing in nuclear energy without state grants or increased consumer rates makes the barrier to enter the market extremely high. Therefore, because the Construction Work in Progress Law increases the barriers to market entry so greatly, the law effectively bans the expansion of nuclear energy in Missouri. Moreover, the practices set by Prop 1 are extremely unique to our state. Other than Missouri and New Hampshire, no other state bans electricity companies from temporarily raising consumer rates. Not only will this coalition advocate for the expansion of security to Missourians by means of environmental protection, but this coalition also works to bring about economic efficiency in the state’s untapped potential in its nuclear energy market.
This coalition presents state legislators with a variety of options that will catalyze sustainable nuclear energy development. The first option we propose is to pass House Bill 261, which would undo the prohibitions set in place by Proposition 1 of the Construction Work In Progress Law. HB 261 was introduced to the Missouri Legislature in 2021 by Republican Rep. John Black, making it clear that Missouri legislators already find incentive in backing nuclear energy investments. We would like to acknowledge and appreciate the state’s original intentions by passing The Construction Work In Progress Act. However, what once was an attempt to protect citizens from increases in energy bills at a corporation’s expense now stands in the way of a sustainable future. We intend to preserve the efforts of Proposition 1 to protect Missouri consumers by implementing a Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission. We suggest the state replaces this law with a regulatory commission that holds the power to regulate the prices onset onto consumers as new plants are constructed. We must acknowledge that temporary increases in electric rates do not mean less money in the pockets of Missourians. In fact, Missouri households powered by the Callaway Energy Plant pay lower rates than households powered by any other investor-owned utility company in the state (Ameren). Our coalition emphasizes that nuclear energy is an investment, not just for the owners of new facilities, but for the communities they power as well. Although we greatly encourage corporations and communities to take this leap of faith to invest in nuclear energy, we understand that many are still fearful of Nuclear power. This is why our proposed Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission would do more than regulate energy prices. This commission will act under the direction of nuclear and economic experts to ensure nuclear investments prioritize safety. This commission will protect consumers from unreasonable increases in utility prices, maintain the safety of existing and future nuclear plants, and advocate on behalf of sustainable energy solutions for Missouri.
This option would rely on the policy tool of social regulation in order to be implemented in Missouri. The activity of social regulation is defined as “prohibition of activities or required technology or procedures for firms or individuals” and is delivered through a public agency that can “command and control” said activities. In order for this tool to be effective, social regulation must come with outlined penalties. We suggest that Missouri’s Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission outlines monetary fines for firms that disobey the safety and financial and safety regulations outlined by the commission. These fines would help not only to fund the commission itself, but nuclear energy expansion as well. We would like to emphasize that if we are going to go nuclear, we are going to do it right.
Our proposed policy tool does rely on a few basic assumptions about human behavior. First, we are assuming that if the barriers to enter the nuclear energy market are lowered, individuals will feel incentivised to invest in the industry. We assume that by repealing this act, investors will be incentivised to enter the nuclear energy market and begin construction on new facilities. This assumption is defended by the extremely high monetary cost to constructing nuclear facilities for private corporations. Specifically, the cost to construct the Callaway plant was about three billion dollars (Ameren). This high construction cost nearly assures that a single investor or corporation will not take on this large of a financial risk without either 1. Sharing this cost with consumers, or 2. State subsidies. Therefore, if the state refuses to invest tax payer dollars in nuclear development, it must, at the very least, allow corporations to distribute these entry costs with consumers.
In the instance that the state does not support our proposed social regulation tool, we also introduce economic regulations that would work to solve the same primary problem: Missouri’s energy crisis. Our second option requires the state itself to directly invest in nuclear energy through state grants. This solution would be implemented through the policy tool of economic regulation.
Economic regulations are delivered through the activity of “controlling prices and entry and exit of firms in industry.” This would involve the House Utility Commission passing bills that request a portion of the state’s General Revenue budget to be reserved for nuclear energy investment grants. This option would work to solve the inefficiency in the current nuclear energy market in Missouri. Due to Proposition 1 of The Construction Work in Progress Law, the nuclear energy market in Missouri is essentially monopolized by Ameren, the investment firm that owns the Callaway Energy Facility. To propose that state funds take on the steep burden of starting nuclear investments is to assume that this monopoly will last and is something that needs to be acted on. However, in this case, we can be certain that this assumption is correct. The nuclear energy market in Missouri has been monopolized by Ameren for nearly five decades, and there are no existing nuclear construction plans to solve this monopoly either. With the introduction of these grants, we must also assume that the state government would be fair in distributing these grants. In order to ensure that grants are distributed fairly, companies and investors must complete a rigorous application process to qualify for a grant. The state will provide grants based on merit and safety plans proposed in these applications.
An alternative policy tool the Coalition for Change in Nuclear Energy advocates for is a dedication of state resources towards a public information campaign. As a policy tool, public information campaigns work to inform relevant actors about an issue and mold their perspective. This campaign would work to reframe the existing notions Missourians hold about nuclear energy to be overwhelmingly positive. This would be achieved by weighing nuclear energy against fossil fuel driven resources as well as green options, such as wind and solar power. The campaign would be featured among a variety of media platforms including social media, broadcast news, advertisements, and radio segments.
If the state decides to move forward with a public information campaign, it must consider the assumptions the campaign would be making about human behavior. First, we are assuming that Missourians are open and willing to shift their perspectives on nuclear energy. Second, we are assuming that if a shift in perspective does occur, that this will simultaneously cause an increased willingness in Missourians to invest utility costs and tax dollars into nuclear energy. Our coalition acknowledges that as compared to our other proposed options, the assumptions made about human behavior in this plan are far steeper. However, assuming that Missourians will be willing to learn and act as a response to a media campaign is not unheard of. There are many examples of how public information campaigns have molded human behavior and thoughts.
According to Anna Borawska’s “The role of public awareness campaigns in sustainable development”, public awareness campaigns play a crucial role in the development of a sustainable future. “Campaigns, apart from raising awareness and change in behaviour, can be aimed also at creating social norms, especially by changing the attitudes to the presented problem (871).” Missouri legislators’ fear of considering nuclear energy as a viable state investment arises out of the public’s negative association with nuclear power. Shifting the Missouri constituents’ perspectives away from fearing the nuclear accidents of the past will be essential for long-term solutions. Borawska proves the effectiveness of public information campaigns at shifting public perspectives by noting The Clean Water Campaign (2001 - 2004). This campaign successfully changed human behavior by making the public aware of the dangers of water pollution. Notably, there was a 25.5% increase in pet clean up to decrease water pollution and a 12.2% increase in people willing to recycle motor oil (872). The Clean Water Campaign displays how effective a similar campaign could be at reconstructing the public’s association with Nuclear Energy.
In order to weigh our three proposed options against each other, we must rely on 4 main criteria. The first criteria is Environmental Consciousness: How friendly the policy is to the environment is an important consideration as our primary goal is to increase security by means of green energy investments. Thus, this criteria allows us to identify which of our three options most effectively lowers carbon emissions. Although our third option, the public awareness campaign, provides no threat to the environment, our first and second options actively work to remedy the harm that has already been done to our environment, making these options more desirable under this criteria.
The next criteria used to consider the options proposed is 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. Using this criteria, our third option now seems incredibly desirable. Implementing a public awareness campaign is extremely feasible, and the framework to do so has been used by the state recently in their Covid-19 vaccination campaigns. Our first option, which would require the state legislature to not only pass HB 261, but also introduce a regulatory commission, is not as feasible. The feasibility of this option, along with option 2, which encourages state grants to fund nuclear development, require bipartisan agreement about nuclear energy in the Missouri Legislature. Finding the bipartisanship needed to make either of these options a reality may prove difficult.
Another crucial criteria used to weigh our options is Timeliness/Sense of Urgency. This criteria looks at how long a policy would take to implement. 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. Our most timely option would be to run a public awareness campaign, option 3. The turnaround time of a public awareness campaign is immensely shorter than the time needed to construct new nuclear facilities. However, this option does not meet the sense of urgency necessary to remedy our energy crisis. Therefore, we believe option 2 meets this criteria the best as investing state grants in nuclear energy matches the urgency of the situation. This option is ranked higher than our first option in this criteria because providing state grants may have a faster turnaround time than passing HB 261 and implementing a Nuclear Energy Regulatory Committee.
Our final, and most important criteria is the Degree to which the option remedies Missouri’s existing energy crisis: In the end, how well the policy alternative solves our primary problem of environmental and energy crises. This criteria allows option 1 to rank superior to our other options. Option 1’s ability to provide an ongoing framework for nuclear energy facilities to be constructed allows it to be preferable to option 2 over time. Our fear with option 2 is that the state will be stingy with the money devoted to nuclear energy. The state may only decide to provide one or two grants to utility companies, whereas option 1 allows utility companies to begin developments on its own. Additionally, the inclusion of the Nuclear Energy Regulatory Committee in option 1 offers a unique and timeless benefit. Both option 1 and option 2 successfully fulfill the needs of the state to mend its energy production disparities. The environmental benefits to directly investing in nuclear energy development far outweigh the increased feasibility of our more moderate approach, a public information campaign. We conclude that a public awareness campaign, would do little to nothing to truly remedy the dire environmental crisis we face today.
Overall, our coalition advocates strongly for the implementation and adoption of option 1, passing HB 261 and creating a Nuclear Energy Regulatory Committee. This plan exceeds the others in terms of environmental consciousness and the degree to which Missouri’s energy crisis will be remedied.
Works Cited
Ameren Missouri. “Callaway Energy Center Facts and Statistics Sheet.” 2020.
https://www.ameren.com/-/media/missouri-site/files/callaway/callaway-fact-sheet.pdf
Borwaska, Anna. “The role of public awareness campaigns on sustainable development.” Econstor, vol. 17, 4, 2017, p. 870-875.
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/193047/1/ees_17_4_fulltext_14.pdf
Farzan, Shahla. “Missouri Commission Wants Legislators to Scrap Nuclear Plant-Funding Law.” NPR. Oct. 2019.
Foust, Jeff. “White House Executive Order Promotes Development of Space and Defense
Nuclear Power Systems.” Space News, 12 Jan. 21AD, https://spacenews.com/white-house-executive-order-promotes-development-of-space-and-defense-nuclear-power-systems/.
Haughey, John. “House set to adopt Missouri Nuclear Clean Power Act.” The Center Square - Missouri. Apr. 2021.