HB853 revises Missouri law governing electrical corporations by repealing the existing prohibition on charging customers for construction work in progress (CWIP) and replacing it with a narrower authorization tied to new natural gas-generating units and certain approved resource additions. Under the bill, the Public Service Commission (PSC) may allow utilities to include specified CWIP in rate base, subject to limits, refund obligations if costs are later found imprudent, and a sunset date of December 31, 2035 unless extended after a 2035 hearing.
The bill also creates a new capacity-planning reporting requirement. The PSC may require utilities to file annual documentation showing how they will meet capacity obligations for the upcoming year and the next three years, and may require audits or additional reporting if needed. If a utility lacks sufficient capacity because of imprudence, the PSC may disallow related costs and require a corrective plan. The bill defines “sufficient capacity” by reference to regional reserve-margin standards or PSC standards for utilities outside a regional transmission organization.
Impact
HB853 would significantly expand the PSC’s oversight of utility resource planning and procurement while changing how certain generation projects can be financed during construction. It would amend Chapter 393 by repealing section 393.135 and enacting new sections 393.135, 393.1080, and 393.1090, affecting rate-base treatment, integrated resource planning, certificate-of-convenience-and-necessity proceedings, and utility cost recovery. The bill would also create a pathway for CWIP recovery for approved supply-side resources and new natural gas generating units, with refund protections if costs are later deemed imprudent.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a utility-regulation and planning bill rather than a highly partisan or publicly debated measure in the provided materials. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, so no direct evidence of support or opposition is available from the context. The structure of the bill suggests a policy goal of improving long-term electric reliability and planning certainty for utilities and regulators.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s authorization of CWIP recovery and its expanded utility planning mandates. Consumer advocates or ratepayer-focused critics could object that allowing construction costs into rates before a plant is operational shifts financial risk to customers, even with refund provisions. Utilities may support the added flexibility and clearer approval process, but could be concerned about the PSC’s broad authority to require detailed planning, audits, and reporting, as well as the bill’s prudence review and cost-disallowance provisions. Environmental and market participants may also scrutinize the bill’s emphasis on new natural gas generation and the treatment of environmental compliance in resource planning.