Protect electric customers, not utilities

Tuesday, March 31st, 2009

A Missouri Senate committee is to vote this afternoon on a revised — but still deeply flawed — utility bill that was written to benefit the state’s largest electric company.

AmerenUE has applied for a federal permit to build a new nuclear reactor in Callaway County. Whether you think that’s a good idea or not — whether you support nuclear power or oppose it — SB 228 is a bad bill, and not just for AmerenUE customers. are some of the whys:  Please click here to read the full text of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial.

Utility-Backed Legislation is the Worst Bailout Yet.

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

CWIP is among a host of consumer rip-off schemes currently pending in the Missouri Legislature. 

written by John Coffman

General Counsel, Consumers Council of

Missouri

 

Energy utility lobbyists have been exerting increasing influence over the Missouri state legislature, rewriting the laws that are supposed to protect consumers.  Since 2003, investor-owned utilities have successfully lobbied for measures that permit seven unfair surcharges to be added onto our utility bills.  Energy monopolies love surcharges because they allow rates to up without a full audit by the Public Service Commission, and even allows rates to go up for one item during a period when the utility’s overall costs are going down.

 

This onslaught of extraordinary new ways to raise rates for electricity and natural gas has not even stopped in the face of the current deep recession.  In fact, 2009 may be the year that politicians succeed in overturning the citizen-led ballot initiative that banned Construction-Work-In-Progress (CWIP).  The anti-CWIP statute was passed by voters by a nearly 2-to-1 margin in 1976 and remains one of our most important consumer protection laws, prevents electric utilities from raising rates for power plants that are not yet providing power.

 

SB 228 and HB 554 would overturn the will of the voters and put in its place a new ratemaking system, one that is heavily tilted against consumers.  Large power plants, such as the proposed $6-9 billion Callaway II nuclear plant of AmerenUE, could be “pre-approved” and then new CWIP surcharges could be added to electric bills every three months during the approximate ten-year construction period.

 

It is estimated that these charges alone could raise current electric rates by as much as 40% before that power plant has even proven it can be operational.  And get this—the proposed legislation would even allow the utility to collect these CWIP charges is the power plant is ultimately cancelled and winds up serving no one.

 

Although the utilities claim that pre-paying saves money for consumers over the life of the plant, their calculations are flawed.  Moreover, such overblown claims do not take into account the cost of money for the ratepayers to come up with the extra cash upfront.  Their claims also assume that each consumer charged will be around to benefit from the power of a plant that could take more than a decade to build.  The legislation violates a bedrock principle of fair ratemaking in that the consumers who are benefiting from a power plant should be the consumers who are paying for that plant.

 

This legislation is also being supported by Kansas City Power & Light Company and Empire District Electric Company, which will surely be swift on the heels of AmerenUE in taking advantage of such a new rip-off ratemaking scheme.  It is important to recognize that these proponents of SB 228 are privately-held, investor-owned monopolies that do not have to compete for consumers and are already assured of an opportunity to earn a healthy profit—an authorized return on common equity that is usually in the double digits.  These utilities have also rewarded their CEOs well.  AmerenUE CEO Gary Rainwater received a total compensation package of over $5 million last year.  KCPL CEO Michael Chesser’s total compensation for 2008 was $3.5 million.

 

The purpose for allowing such high returns to a monopoly is compensation for managing the risk of providing power.  But they want to continue to reap high returns while passing the risk onto the rest of us.  In my book, that is the very definition of a bailout.  If captive consumers are going to be fronting the money for such large investments, essentially being forced to act as investors, then consumers should, at a minimum, be granted a return for their contribution to future power.

 

In another outrageous affront to consumers, Missouri’s natural gas companies are pushing legislation that would allow its uncollectible accounts to be expeditiously charged back to everyone else.  SB 299 would redefine the bad debt of non-paying consumers as “gas costs” and then be flowed through the purchase gas adjustment charge, which is currently limited to the wholesale cost of natural gas.  So as the recession makes it hard for an increasing number of households to pay their heating bills, the rest of us must pick up their unpaid tab even more quickly.  The goal is ensure that utility profits do not suffer even a blip.

 

While all eyes are trained on Congress and its many bailouts, few citizens seem to be aware of these massive bailouts that are under consideration right under our noses in Jefferson City.

MO senators consider bill to pay for power plants

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Senators grilled AmerenUE leaders during a hearing Tuesday on legislation allowing utilities to charge electric customers for the costs of new power plants before they come online.

Missouri law bars investor-owned utilities from passing the expenses of building a power plant to their customers before the facility starts producing electricity.

Ameren is considering construction of a second nuclear reactor at its Callaway County power plant and says repealing the 1976 state law is critical to financing the estimated $6 billion project.

A large crowd attended Tuesday’s Senate Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment Committee hearing on the legislation, which would apply to new plants powered by nuclear energy, renewable sources or new coal technology.  Please click here to read the entire AP story by Chris Blank.

Missouri lawmakers debate a bad energy bill

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009

A state Senate committee is scheduled to begin hearings today on a deeply flawed bill that would remove key consumer protections for utility customers.

The measure, Senate Bill 228, would repeal a 1976 law that prohibits utilities from charging for the cost of building a new power plant until it starts generating electricity.

SB 228 is designed to benefit utility giant AmerenUE, which has applied to build a new nuclear plant in Callaway County. Whether or not you think that new plant is a good idea — whether you favor nuclear energy or oppose it — SB 228 is a bad bill. Click here and let the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board count the ways.

KSDK-TV coverage of AmerenUE’s request for rate increase for nuclear power

Saturday, January 24th, 2009

Click here to view KSDK’s story.

AmerenUE Feigns Nuclear Indecision

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

This editorial is just a place holder. We haven’t decided yet whether to write about one of the biggest issues facing Missouri legislators this year.
Our colleague Tony Messenger did. In a column published Tuesday, Mr. Messenger wrote that executives from utility giant AmerenUE danced around the “gorilla in the room” when they briefed lawmakers on energy issues.
That gorilla would be a new nuclear reactor the utility applied to build in Callaway County. Strictly as an option, of course.
“No decision has yet been made,” utility lobbyist Matthew Forck insisted. It’s the same line utility executives have used for months.
We wouldn’t want to jump the gun. But if we did decide to write about the issue, we’d mention that AmerenUE filed an 8,000-page application to build the plant with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission last July. It expects the facility to cost at least $6 billion.
AmerenUE asked state utility regulators for a rate hike that includes between $5 million and $7 million a year to pay for the application. The company spent about $50 million on it last year.
Maybe it’s just us, but we wouldn’t spend $50 million and fill out an 8,000-page application unless we were pretty sure we were going ahead.  Click here to read the entire St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial.

Nuclear Plant Bill Worrisome for Consumers

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

Missouri’s energy debate is about to go nuclear.

A state lawmaker filed a bill in the Legislature on Thursday that sets the stage for a battle between utility interests who want to build a new nuclear plant and consumer groups that are leery of the costs.

The action comes the day after AmerenUE chief executive Tom Voss visited key decision makers in the Capitol to lobby for the bill.  Click here to read the entire St. Louis Post-Dispatch article which includes quotes from John Coffman, our lobbyist.

Former Enviro Lobbyist Sells Out

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

Groups trying to pave the way for a second AmerenUE nuclear plant in Missouri have a new weapon in Jefferson City — a top lobbyist for environmentalists.

Irl L. Scissors, who previously represented a leading Missouri environmental and conservation alliance, last week announced in an e-mail to leaders of that group he was going to work to help undo the law that prohibits utilities from charging customers for power plants under construction.  Click here to read the full St. Louis Post-Dispatch story.

GA Power Bill Introduced

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

Ga. Power bill introduced Friday
by Tom Crawford

Sen. Don Balfour (R-Snellville) confirmed that he will introduce on Friday a bill that would allow Georgia Power Co. to start charging ratepayers six years in advance for the construction of two nuclear generation units at Plant Vogtle.

The Balfour bill is expected to be one of the most controversial measures debated this session, with environmentalists and consumer groups dead set against the “construction work in progress” (CWIP) proposal put forth by Georgia Power executives.

The $14.4 billion nuclear project would not result in electricity generation until 2016 or 2017. Georgia Power is asking the Public Service Commission for permission to start charging ratepayers for $1.6 billion in construction financing costs starting in 2011, at least six years before the reactors would be finished.

Balfour’s bill would authorize Georgia Power to charge the CWIP rate regardless of what the PSC decides to do on the company’s request.

Georgia Power contends that charging ratepayers for the nuclear units before they go into operation would eventually save ratepayers $300 million. Critics of the plan say the utility is trying to shift all the risk for the project from shareholders to ratepayers who may never benefit from six years of higher monthly power bills.

“If Kroger raised grocery prices because they wanted to build a new store, you can just go to Publix,” said environmental lobbyist Neill Herring. “Where else can Georgia Power customers buy power?”

“This is an abuse of power because Georgia Power can cut off your power unless you pay for something you are not even getting, may never get, don’t need, and for which Georgia Power cannot even tell you the ultimate cost,” Herring added. “Only arrogance can explain their seeking this kind of rate increase when everyone is hit so hard by this economy.”

Balfour contended that ratepayers, in the end, are going to bear the costs of the nuclear plants anyway, regardless of how early their rates are increased.

“The EMCs and MEAGs already can charge off this interest and principle – the only company that can’t is Georgia Power,” Balfour said. “The ratepayer is going to pay the cost of that plant.”

“Contrary to the assertion that recovery of financing costs during construction lowers risks to investors, it actually helps maintain quality credit ratings, thereby lowering interest payments to investors and keeping costs lower for customers,” said Ann Daiss, Georgia Power’s chief accounting officer.

The nuclear payment legislation is already causing nervousness among some legislators who don’t want to be blamed for sudden increases in their constituents’ monthly power bills.

“Why are legislators, who go before the voters every two years, being asked to vote for this when the PSC can take care of it?” asked a state senator.

© 2009 by Capitolimpact. com