Allows electrical corporations to charge for services based on the costs of certain construction work in progress
HB 1626 repeals and replaces Missouri’s existing section 393.135 and adds a new section, the “Missouri Nuclear Clean Power Act.” The bill generally changes utility ratemaking rules to allow electrical corporations to include certain construction work in progress (CWIP) in rate base, rather than waiting until a facility is fully operational. It creates a specific exception for new natural gas-generating units and a broader, separate framework for new clean baseload generating plants, defined in the bill as new nuclear-fueled electric generating facilities in Missouri designed to operate at 600 megawatts or less and intended to serve Missouri retail customers.
Under the new nuclear clean power provisions, utilities may seek commission approval to recover CWIP costs for qualifying clean baseload plants during construction, subject to limits based on estimated project cost and expenditures made during the construction period. The bill also provides that amounts recovered through base rates may be subject to refund, with interest, if the Missouri Public Service Commission later finds the costs were imprudently incurred. It further adjusts how return is deferred under existing utility finance provisions so that CWIP included in rates is offset when the plant enters service.
The bill’s impact on state law is to create a new statutory pathway for utility cost recovery during construction, which is a significant departure from the general prohibition on charging customers for pre-operational facility costs. It would affect electrical corporations, ratepayers, and the Missouri Public Service Commission by expanding commission authority to approve CWIP in rates for certain projects, especially nuclear generation, and by setting time-limited authority that expires in 2035 for the natural gas CWIP provision and in 2036 for the nuclear clean power act unless extended after commission hearings.
Overall sentiment in the available record appears neutral to favorable toward facilitating new generation development, especially nuclear power, since the bill is framed as enabling construction of clean baseload electric generating plants. However, no committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the supplied materials. The structure of the bill suggests an intent to make large capital projects easier to finance, while preserving some consumer protections through commission review and refund authority.
The main point of contention likely concerns utility ratepayer exposure and whether customers should pay for construction costs before a plant is producing electricity. Supporters would likely emphasize financing certainty for new nuclear and other generation projects, while critics may focus on the risk of cost overruns, imprudently incurred expenses, and the possibility that customers would bear costs for projects that are delayed or never completed. The bill’s inclusion of refund provisions and commission oversight appears designed to address those concerns, but the balance between encouraging investment and protecting consumers is the central policy issue.
HB 1626 would amend Missouri utility law by repealing section 393.135 and replacing it with new provisions that allow limited recovery of construction work in progress in utility rates. It would create a new section, 393.1250, establishing the Missouri Nuclear Clean Power Act and authorizing CWIP recovery for qualifying new nuclear-fueled clean baseload plants, while also permitting CWIP recovery for new natural gas-generating units under specified conditions. The bill would directly affect electrical corporations, utility customers, and the Missouri Public Service Commission’s ratemaking and oversight responsibilities.
The available materials suggest a generally supportive or pro-development sentiment, because the bill is designed to enable construction of clean baseload generation and provide utilities with a financing mechanism for large projects. There are no committee transcripts or votes included, so no recorded opposition or amendment debate is available in the provided record. The bill’s safeguards, such as refund authority and commission review, indicate an effort to balance support for new generation with consumer protection concerns.
The likely controversy is whether utilities should be allowed to charge customers for construction costs before a plant is in service. Supporters would argue that CWIP recovery helps finance major generation projects, especially nuclear facilities, and supports long-term grid reliability and clean energy development. Opponents would likely argue that ratepayers should not bear the risk of cost overruns, delays, or failed projects, and that pre-service recovery shifts too much financial risk from utilities to customers. The bill addresses these concerns through commission approval, refund provisions, and time-limited authority, but those protections may not fully resolve disputes over ratepayer exposure.