Primary Author: Grace McKevitt

Legislative Testimony Script

Testimony 1:

An Environmental Science Specialist

Hello. I am Michael Shellenberger, founder and president of Environmental Progress. I have been an energy analyst, environmentalist, and social justice advocate for over 25 years, working to encourage clean energy investments across the U.S.

To have a chance at escaping fossil fuels without setting our economy back immensely, we must devote resources to as many sectors as possible. Although we can all agree that renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro, and solar power are the most ideal future of energy, these sources are not yet prepared to take on the burden of Missouri’s energy disparity. Simply put, we do not currently have the infrastructure to rely on renewable energy on a massive scale. Missouri is not always sunny or windy, so we would have to construct massive storage capacities to store electricity generated when the sun and wind are at their peak. We currently do not have the technology to make the transition to renewables fast enough to offset the amount of carbon our state emits every year. 

Just because nuclear energy developments are stagnant at home, they continue to flourish abroad. There are great examples of other nations thriving while dependent on nuclear energy. For example, in France, just 10% of the energy used is fossil fuels, and 63% comes from nuclear reactors. In upcoming decades, countries looking to invest in smaller nuclear reactors will purchase them from the countries that offer the most favorable financial terms and the most experience, which would be Russia and China. Are we comfortable standing by watching dozens of nations partner with China and Russia to expand their nuclear presence over the next century? This makes nuclear investments not only in the interest of the environment and the economy, but national security as well. We have to construct more nuclear power plants to continue to be competitive abroad. 

Next, I would also like to address the public’s stigma around nuclear energy. Anxiety surrounding nuclear waste is displaced anxieties about nuclear weapons. As an environmentalist, I know that nuclear power is the holy grail of energy production. The first thing you learn in an environmental science course is that perfect environmental production methods store all waste at the sight of production. Nuclear is the only energy source capable of this. In fact, all nuclear waste in history could be stacked on a single football field 50 feet high. This minimal amount of waste is unmatched by fossil fuels and even renewables. Notably, solar panels create three hundred times more waste than nuclear facilities, which all end up in landfills. Moreover, a solar farm takes 380x more land than a nuclear plant. 

Simple risk management tells us that climate change will be catastrophic enough to prompt us to not only consider, but also pursue any solutions to the climate crisis. No energy source is perfect, and I prompt the Missouri Legislature to take on an “All of the above” approach to domestic energy production. If our goal is to avoid irreversible damage to our climate, it is time to stop looking at nuclear and renewable energy as not opponents, but as partners. Thank you for your time. 

Testimony 2:

Policy Expert, Missouri State Representative

Good afternoon, my name is John Black and I am here to discuss the logical and political benefits of nuclear energy. I currently serve in the Missouri House of Representatives as a Republican. Prior to my election to the legislature, I worked as a chemical engineer and an engineer manager. Additionally, I served as General Counsel for City Utilities in Springfield for more than a decade.

The nuclear energy market in Missouri has been completely stagnant since construction on the Callaway Facility began in 1973. This was just three years prior to the passing of a Missouri law that effectively banned further expansion of nuclear energy in the state. 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.

That is why this August, I proposed House Bill 261. HB 261 would create the Missouri Nuclear Clean Power Act. Under the bill, clean energy plants or facilities generating 200 or more megawatts using renewable resources would be able to charge for construction costs before beginning operation. Currently, the only states without these standards are Missouri and New Hampshire.

It is time Missouri began to pull its weight in the environmental crisis rapidly approaching. Consuming eleven times more energy than we produce is not the Missouri way. My bill would not only make our state less reliant on coal and other fossil fuels, but will catalyze the Missouri economy, making hundreds of new jobs for workers. I hope you see that passing HB 261 is dire for Missouri’s security and economic success, thank you for your time.

Testimony 3:

Corporate Interest Advocate, CEO of Ameren Missouri

Hello, my name is Marty Lyons, the CEO of Ameren Missouri, the utility company that owns and built the Callaway Energy Facility in 1973. I hope to share with you the successes and challenges faced by my company over recent decades.

The Callaway Facility is Missouri’s only existing nuclear power plant. Our plant is recognized internationally as one of the most successful nuclear facilities of all time. Specifically, the Callaway Facility has achieved the 10th highest lifetime generation among 425 nuclear plants operating globally. 

This international reputation has massive domestic benefits. In 2019, our Callaway Facility powered over 800,000 homes and accounted for 11% of the net energy production in Missouri in 2020. 

I recognize the stigma that still exists around Nuclear energy, but I hope to reframe it. Nuclear power is no longer something to be afraid of. Our plant has passed and exceeded expectations in every safety check we have had over the past 3 decades. Since the meltdowns of the past, technology has developed to make similar incidents nearly impossible. 

The economic benefits are abundant as well; our facility employs 800 Missourians and during refueling outages, which occur every 18 months, hundreds of supplemental workers are typically brought in for several weeks — providing a significant additional boost to the local economy. Our plant also pays $9.8 million dollars in property taxes to the state of Missouri, and our consumers pay less for energy than other Missourians.

It is clear that bringing nuclear energy to the state comes with great benefits. However, refusing to do so comes with even more setbacks. The bill Rep. Black mentioned has made it impossible for Ameren to build more nuclear plants in Missouri, even though we have wanted to. Securing federal grants is incredibly difficult. The Callaway Facility cost $3 billion to create and was in construction for 11 years before it was fully operational. The finances and time needed to build a new facility make the barrier to enter the nuclear market astonishingly high. Thus, if Missouri hopes to expand nuclear energy, the state has two options: 1. Pass HB 261 to allow consumers to temporarily share minimal construction expenses; or 2. Provide state grants to investors looking into the nuclear energy market. Thank you for your time.