Associate Press, August 1, 2013

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. • State regulators have determined that Ameren Missouri owes its electric customers slightly more than $26 million for failing to include some revenue in its calculations.

The Missouri Public Service Commission on Wednesday approved an order for the St. Louis-based company to refund the money to customers.

But Ameren Missouri won’t be sending out checks. Instead, the $26.3 million will be applied by adjusting a fuel charge that customers otherwise would pay.

The PSC found that Ameren Missouri improperly excluded revenues from certain power sales agreements when calculating rates charged under its fuel adjustment clause.

Ameren Missouri called the decision disappointing but not surprising given a recent appeals court ruling on the matter. The company says it still believes its position is correct.

Ameren has 1.2 million electric customers in Missouri.

Senate Vote Ushers In New Era in Oversight of Lending Practices

New York Times, July 17, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was conceived by a Harvard professor, embraced by the Obama administration and pushed into law by Congressional Democrats determined to expand the federal government’s authority to protect borrowers from abusive lending practices — all in the space of just three years.

Richard Cordray was confirmed as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief almost two years after his nomination.

But even after the agency opened its doors in July 2011, almost exactly two years ago, its legal authority remained uncertain so long as Republicans prevented the confirmation of a director to lead the agency, as required by law.

That barricade collapsed on Tuesday. Republicans agreed to allow the confirmation of Richard Cordray, by a vote of 66 to 34, cementing a new era of expansive federal oversight of companies that lend money to consumers.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who conceived the agency when she was a Harvard professor and supervised its creation as an Obama administration official, presided over the 66-to-34 confirmation vote, announcing the results with obvious satisfaction.

“It is a truly historic day,” Ms. Warren told reporters before the vote. “There’s no doubt that the consumer agency will survive beyond the crib. There is now no doubt that the American people will have a strong watchdog in Washington.”

Mr. Cordray, 54, and the agency are now set up to regulate interactions between borrowers and lenders, from the largest banks to mom-and-pop payday shops, and the terms of mortgages and student loans among other financial transactions.

He was confirmed one day shy of the second anniversary of his nomination by Mr. Obama. In January 2012, Mr. Obama installed Mr. Cordray at the agency when Congress was in recess, a move that the administration described as fulfilling the legal requirement for the agency to exercise the full measure of its powers. But some administration opponents did not agree.

Since then, the agency has begun to assert authority over nonbank financial companies, including mortgage and payday lenders, but its actions have been shadowed by uncertainty about the legality of Mr. Cordray’s appointment.

The Supreme Court agreed in June to hear a case regarding the legality of Mr. Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. If the court rules against the administration, it would open the way for challenges regarding Mr. Cordray, who was appointed on the same day and in the same way. The vote on Tuesday, however, means any such ruling most likely would have limited consequences.

“Today’s action brings added certainty to the industries we oversee and reinforces our responsibility to stand on the side of consumers and see that they are treated fairly in the financial marketplace,” Mr. Cordray said in a statement.

Republicans had insisted they would block any nominee to lead the consumer agency, instead demanding that Democrats agree to eliminate the position and replace it with a board of directors. Forty-four Republican senators made that demand in a May 2011 letter, and 43 repeated it earlier this year.

Senator Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, said Tuesday that he had agreed to allow a vote after speaking with Mr. Cordray in person on Monday night and again on Tuesday morning. Mr. Portman said that Mr. Cordray, who is also from Ohio, had promised to testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee, although the panel still would not have power over the agency’s budget. He also said that Mr. Cordray had promised to obtain cost-benefit analyses on proposed regulations. Mr. Portman and other Republicans said they would continue to pursue structural reforms of the agency.

The banking industry, which largely opposed the agency’s creation and then sought to prevent Mr. Cordray’s confirmation, found a silver lining on Tuesday in the prospect that the government would increase its oversight of other financial institutions.

“What we’re looking for now is full steam ahead to level the playing field between banks and nonbanks,” said Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers Association. He cited payday lenders and Wal-Mart as particular examples of the kind of nonbank lenders that banks would like to see subjected to additional regulation.

Mr. Hunt emphasized that his group had always been concerned about the agency’s structure, not about the particular choice of Mr. Cordray.

“I think it would have been much better for the American people” if the structure had been changed, he said. “But I think that train has left the station after today’s vote.”

Ms. Warren proposed the creation of a federal agency to protect consumers of financial products in a 2007 article, memorably arguing that the government put more effort into ensuring the safety of toaster ovens than the safety of mortgage loans. The idea resonated with Mr. Obama and his senior advisers, and it became a centerpiece of the administration’s proposal to overhaul financial regulation.

Mr. Obama named Ms. Warren to oversee its creation, and she brought in Mr. Cordray after he lost a bid for re-election as Ohio attorney general, where he had pursued a series of investigations of financial companies.

When Mr. Obama passed over Ms. Warren to nominate Mr. Cordray, she decided to run for the Senate instead. She has remained a vigorous advocate for the agency and for Mr. Cordray. “I can’t think how many times people said to me that this agency has no chance, none at all, that it will be killed in the crib,” she said. “I just couldn’t be more pleased.”

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 1, 2013

Gas-distribution rates would remain unchanged for Laclede Gas Co. customers under a settlement between the utility and consumer advocates that was submitted to the Public Service Commission on May 31.

The St. Louis-based gas utility had sought a $48.4 million rate increase in December that would have raised the typical residential customer bill an average of $4.93 a month.

But Laclede said it can live without an increase for now.

Instead, it is hoping PSC staff will focus attention on the company’s pending $975 million acquisition of Missouri Gas Energy, which requires regulatory approval.

“We believe we can continue to provide safe and reliable service for our customers without general rate increases at this time,” Laclede Gas president Steve Lindsey said in a statement.

The settlement was submitted to the PSC on Friday.

The commission has scheduled public hearings on Laclede’s rate request beginning Monday in St. Louis.

While customers’ overall bills would be unaffected if the settlement is approved, Laclede would be allowed add $14.8 million already being collected through an infrastructure surcharge to its gas-delivery rates.

Laclede also said it will continue to seek small adjustments to rates throughout the year to reflect changes in natural gas costs and to pay for additional pipeline safety upgrades.

The utility sells natural gas to 630,000 customers in the city of St. Louis and surrounding Missouri counties.

CCM Board Member Renee Marver presented the following testimony before the Public Utilities Committee of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen on Wednesday, July 2:

Good evening.  My name is Renee Marver.  I am a resident of the City of St. Louis and member of the Consumers Council of Missouri Board of Directors.

Consumers Council of Missouri is a statewide membership organization that focuses much of its advocacy on protecting utility consumers — consumers who deserve safe and adequate utility service at affordable and fair rates.  We represent the interests of individual consumers collectively, both in advocacy for public policy and in regulatory and legal actions.

We are pleased that the City of St. Louis is exploring ideas for achieving operational and economic efficiencies within its Water Division.  We are also pleased that the city is maximizing its options by seeking proposals from a variety of consulting sources.

However, other jurisdictions’ experiences with consulting services have provided some cautionary tales that have led us to pay close attention to the proposals you are reviewing tonight.  As you consider what is in the best interest of St. Louis water customers, we ask that you keep in mind the following principles of good government and public service:

1.     Paramount among the Consumers Council’s concerns is that the city not go down a path that would make the Water Division less responsive to the public.  St. Louis currently enjoys water quality that is of high quality.
To ensure that this level of quality is maintained, we hope that the city and its elected representatives will continue to be ultimately responsible for water quality, including treatment and testing.
Equally important is that the city continue to be ultimately responsible for setting the water rates that are paid by city residents.
The city should be wary of any contract that defers sits operational or rate-setting responsibilities to an unregulated and unelected entity.

2.      Seeking competitive bids is a good government practice for consultants, contractors and sub-contractors.  We urge the city to insist on this practice and to reject consulting proposals that do not employ this practice.

3.       One of the positive aspects of a municipal water system is that the utility rate structure does not contain private profits.  The city should ensure that its residents receive the economic benefit of future operational cost savings and that such savings not disappear into the coffers of a private entity.

In addition, please be wary of incentives or “shared savings” arrangements that unfairly divert too much of such savings away from the St. Louisans whom you serve.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments.  Consumers Council of Missouri will follow this issue with great interest.  We stand ready to assist in any way our expertise as consumer advocates may allow.

New York Times, June 22, 2013

Given the speed with which 401(k) accounts have been replacing pensions, workers can only hope that their employers have assembled a low-cost diversified portfolio that will keep earning money over time — perhaps a long time, given the number of people living to their 90s and beyond.

It is an employer’s legal duty, after all, to look after their employees’ interest in overseeing the accounts.

A series of lawsuits making their way through the courts have raised questions about whether employees are being overcharged for the accounts.

Experts say the suits and new federal rules have helped bring the fees down to a more reasonable level, and have prompted at least some employers to adopt less murky fee arrangements that more clearly separate what they are paying for investments and what it costs to administer the plan. But the fees workers pay can still vary widely and be hard to discern.

One recent lawsuit was brought on behalf of employees at Cigna by Jerome J. Schlichter, a lawyer whose success in similar cases has caused some anxiety among human resources executives. His firm, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, has brought 14 similar lawsuits over the last seven years on behalf of 401(k) plan participants. Typically, the suits claim that the employees were paying too much in fees. Several employee benefit experts have said that Mr. Schlichter’s cases and others have resulted in lower charges as other employers began to fear attracting lawsuits of their own.

“It’s unfortunate that it took litigation to focus attention on costs,” said Fred Reish, a lawyer with Drinker, Biddle & Reath in Los Angeles and an expert on the federal law that governs 401(k) plans. “But it clearly has.”

More recently, another force has been putting pressure on 401(k) fees, which typically include investment and administrative expenses. Last summer, the Labor Department started to require the companies that provide 401(k) plans to disclose more details on fees. Given the complex way these companies price their wares, the new rules are making it easier for employers to comparison-shop. (A separate rule required employers to provide more fee disclosures to employees.)

Benefit experts agree that because of the combination of forces, the cost of running and investing in the plans, on average, have been on the decline for several years.

According to BrightScope, a financial research company that tracks 401(k) plans, the total costs, including fees and administrative expenses, were 0.8 percent of assets in 2011. That’s down from 0.85 percent in 2009.

Still, workers can pay a fairly wide range of fees. Many plans cost between 0.2 and 1.8 percent, but some plans, particularly smaller ones, are more costly.

Fees can make a significant difference. According to the Labor Department, paying just 1 percentage point more in expenses over the course of 35 years could reduce a worker’s retirement savings by nearly 28 percent. Consider a worker with a 401(k) balance of $25,000 who earns 7 percent over the next 35 years. If this person paid 0.5 percent in fees, even if she stopped making new contributions, her account would grow to $227,000 at retirement. But if she paid fees totaling 1.5 percent, her savings would rise to only $163,000, or 28 percent less.

That kind of swing has been at the heart of most of the lawsuits brought by participants.

In Mr. Schlichter’s most recent case, a group of 401(k) participants say that Cigna, the employer, charged them excessive fees (Cigna was using proprietary investments for its own employees; that’s legal, but the fees need to be reasonable). On top of that, the workers say that the employer breached its fiduciary duty — in other words, failed to act in the employees’ best interests — when it sold its retirement division to Prudential in 2004.

Instead of shopping around to be sure the workers would get the best rates, their lawsuit says, Cigna lumped the plan with the rest of the assets it sold, and promised Prudential it could continue to manage their money for at least three years, according to court documents.

Cigna and Prudential dispute the lawsuit’s claims, according to a news release issued by Mr. Schlichter’s firm, which is based in St. Louis, and they said the plan had always been appropriately managed. The proposed $35 million settlement, filed in United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, requires the approval of an independent financial expert and a judge, he said. The settlement would cover all people in the plan — which had more than $2.8 billion in assets as of 2011, with more than 42,000 participants — from April 1999 through May 31, 2013.

“In addition to the money, Cigna employees and retirees will now have a very attractive 401(k) plan to protect and build their retirement assets,” Mr. Schlichter said. The plan will have an independent monitor for three years, for example, and it will take competitive bids to ensure it is paying a fair price for administration.

Mr. Schlichter came to the world of 401(k)’s as an outsider. Though he said he had always represented workers and individuals, once he began to hear from more people who had concerns about their retirement plans, he started to investigate. “We then spent almost two years researching industry practices and talking to independent experts and fiduciaries about what was going on in 401(k) plans before filing a suit,” he said. “We came away convinced that some employees and retirees were paying excessive fees and were subject to conflicts of interest in the handling of their 401(k) plans.”

His most prominent case involved ABB Inc., a Swiss manufacturer of power equipment, whose workers sued their employer and Fidelity, the manager of the retirement plan, claiming excessive fees. A Federal District Court judge ordered that ABB pay $35.2 million in damages and that Fidelity pay $1.7 million; he said Fidelity and ABB were appealing the judgment.

He has also received settlements for employees and retirees at Kraft, Caterpillar, General Dynamics and the Bechtel Corporation, an engineering and construction company, among others, largely on grounds that the workers were paying too much, he said. He has had his share of dismissed cases as well, including a suit on behalf of employees at John Deere against Fidelity.

But even as the lawsuits and regulations help bring down fees in one part of the retirement plan universe, it is likely that financial services companies will find a way to make up for it. “If you start pushing the air out of the balloon in one place it will move to some other place,” said Mercer E. Bullard, an associate professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law and founder of Fund Democracy, an advocacy group for mutual fund shareholders. “There will be even more pressure to roll 401(k)’s over into individual retirement accounts when there is less and less of a reason to do so.”

Rolling over a 401(k) into an I.R.A. can be the right choice for many investors, particularly for people who leave an employer whose plan is filled with poor quality, high-cost investments. But for other people, it may make sense to remain invested in an old 401(k), if the employer has kept fees low. “All things being equal, an investor in a 401(k) should be able to get lower expenses because of the buying power of the plan,” said Bud Green, chief investment officer at MJM 401K, a consultancy in Phoenix.

As a March report by the Government Accountability Office found, 401(k) investors are sometimes pressured to roll their 401(k) into I.R.A.’s offered by the financial services company behind their 401(k).

“Plan participants are often subject to biased information and aggressive marketing of I.R.A.’s when seeking assistance and information regarding what to do with their 401(k) plan savings when they separate or have separated from employment with a plan sponsor,” the report said.

That’s one reason the Labor Department has turned its attention to better oversight of retirement plans. It is reworking rules that would reduce conflicts of interest when advisers provide advice in investments like I.R.A.’s. Members of the financial services industry, as well as some lawmakers from both parties, are trying to block those efforts, fearing it would put limits on the way they can do business.

“Many workers will rely solely on what they have saved in 401(k) plans and I.R.A.’s during retirement,” said Phyllis C. Borzi, the assistant secretary of labor, who oversees the department’s Employee Benefits Security Administration.

“It makes sense that people seek out investment advice. But when they do, they are often reaching out to people who are not accountable for the advice they give — particularly in the I.R.A. marketplace, where today there are few protections for investors. This needs to change.”

By Timothy McBride in the St. Louis Beacon, June 11, 2013 

The Missouri legislature closed its 2013 legislative session without resolving what was likely the most important question facing it: whether to adopt the proposal put forward by Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, to expand the Medicaid program to a projected 260,000 uninsured people in Missouri.  While a bipartisan solution did not pass, the legislature appointed a committee to consider this question further. Recent signals suggest that a compromise solution could be found in the 2014 session.

It is imperative that the legislature and governor find a bipartisan solution to the problem of the uninsured. In Missouri, in 2011, the uninsured reached a record number of 877,000 people, according to the Census Bureau. Also this researcher has found that Missouri has experienced the second largest increase in the uninsured rate in the country over the last 12 years, rising from 6.6 percent in 1999 to 14.9 percent in 2011. This suggests that expanding Medicaid for the neediest should be a moral imperative.

Nixon proposed a sensible and straightforward expansion of Medicaid that would meet the guidelines laid out by the Affordable Care Act in January; it would have made Medicaid available for all people below 138 percent of the federal poverty line. The federal government would cover the entire costs of this expansion in the first three years (2014-16) and up to 90 percent of the expansion during the years 2017-19.

In response, Republicans in the state House proposed a logical counter-proposal (HB700) authored by state Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City.  Unfortunately, even though the governor suggested that this proposal could be a vehicle for compromise, Republicans in the state Senate told Nixon that there was no possibility of passing Medicaid expansion this session.  What were the reasons for blocking the legislation and can this stalemate be broken?

Some legislators rejected Medicaid expansion because they say the state cannot afford it. One problem with this claim is that reasonable fiscal projections show that the costs of expansion would be more than offset by cost savings as some individuals in the new expanded program — financed almost entirely by the federal government — would have cost the state more if they had enrolled otherwise. In addition, the state will collect additional state taxes on the new federal dollars flowing into the state. The governor’s budget office estimates that the savings would in fact exceed the costs to the state by about $46 million in the first fiscal year alone.

Finally, the legislature passed a quite large $800 income million tax cut, which the governor vetoed. The legislature’s action, though, suggests that the idea that the state cannot afford to expand Medicaid is a weak argument.

A further benefit of Medicaid expansion is the economic activity created by the nearly $2 billion of new federal dollars, which has been estimated to create at least 24,000 new jobs in Missouri.

In arguing that no political consensus exists to expand Medicaid in Missouri, legislative leaders such as House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, argue that we “know where Missourians are on Medicaid expansion – they’re opposed to it. They’re opposed to Obamacare” because, these leaders argue, the voters twice voted “against Obamacare” in ballot initiatives in 2010 and 2012.

The fallacy is that both ballot initiatives were cast on very narrow parts of “Obamacare”: in 2010 on the “individual mandate” and in 2012 on the “health-care exchanges.” Neither initiative was on Medicaid expansion. Further, the 2010 initiative was voted on in a primary election with a very narrow turnout (less than 25 percent of voters, in contrast to the 66 percent turnout in the 2012 general election). In contrast, a statewide poll commissioned by the Missouri Foundation for Health found that a majority (52 percent) supports a Medicaid expansion.

If the argument against Medicaid expansion is weak, as this suggests, is there a compromise path? Barnes’ HB 700 would expand Medicaid to a lesser extent than envisioned by “Obamacare” (generally up to the poverty level, not 138 percent of the poverty level) and ask the federal government for a “waiver” to accept this, while also cutting children’s health coverage. Every analyst who has followed health reform knows that this waiver would be rejected by the Obama administration, and the additional cuts in eligibility would also not be accepted.  However, if a compromise is reached to raise the eligibility level to 138 percent of the poverty line, then a compromise is much more likely.

In addition, the proposed House legislation comes from a view that it would be irresponsible to expand Medicaid without “reforming” or “transforming” the program first or simultaneously.  Barnes’ bill includes a set of initiatives to achieve cost savings and improve care. It is in this area where common ground can certainly be found. Every reasonable analyst can agree that further reforms of Medicaid are possible, even though many analysts would disagree with the characterization of Medicaid as a totally “flawed” or “broken” program.

I am the chair of the MOHealthNET Oversight Committee, an 18-member committee, with most public members recommended by the governor and approved by the legislature. This committee, created during Gov. Matt Blunt’s administration, regularly reviews every aspect of the state’s Medicaid program.  In contrast to the view that the state’s Medicaid program is flawed or inefficient, delivering low quality care, the members sitting on the committee know that Missouri has a Medicaid program that delivers medical care on par with the rest of the health-care system (when it is understood that Medicaid is designed as a safety net to serve the neediest).

In addition, in recent years, Missouri’s Medicaid program has put in place many very good initiatives, which are improving quality for the recipients and saving the taxpayers’ money. If the legislature wishes to achieve efficiency and improvements in the Medicaid program, it should simply hold up a mirror to its own Medicaid program to find some very good ideas that can be expanded in many cases to broader populations. In addition, the program can look to other states for models of reform.

This is the common ground that Republicans and Democrats can reach either in a special session or early in 2014 to expand Medicaid so that the neediest Missourians are not forgotten. Nearly everyone who has looked at Medicaid can agree that some reforms would be acceptable. But they must be wrapped in a package that includes expansion of eligibility up to 138 percent of income for all people, as envisioned in “Obamacare,” bringing in significant federal dollars to Missouri and increasing economic activity.

Timothy D. McBride, a professor in the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, serves as chair of the MO HealthNET Oversight Committee, a public body that serves in an advisory role over Missouri’s Medicaid program.

Sen. McCaskill’s Subcomittee on Consumer Protection Holds Hearing

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 21, 2013

WASHINGTON • After working for two years to get rental car companies on board, safety advocates encountered a new obstacle today to legislation banning rental of recalled vehicles: opposition from car manufacturers.

With representatives of Clayton-based Enterprise Holdings looking on, the CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers testified in a Senate hearing that major American and foreign car companies won’t back a bill as written requiring rental companies to fix defective cars and trucks before putting them on the road.

Mitch Bainwol, representing companies accounting for three-fourths of vehicles sales in the United States, said he worries about carmakers’ liability.

“Once you federalize a voluntary agreement, you’ve introduced absolutely a loss-of-use liability,” Bainwol said, describing his objection to the legislation.

In other words, carmakers worry that rental companies will sue them if defects render vehicles impossible to rent.

Similarly, the president of the National Automobile Dealers Association said his organization opposes the legislation as written, arguing that it would “create friction between large rental companies, auto manufacturers, franchised new car dealers and members of the public who own recalled vehicles.”

Bailey Wood, spokesman for the automobile dealers, said later: “We do not want to stop this legislation. We think a few tweaks can be made.”

They were testifying at a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, chaired by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

The hearing grew heated when Bainwol refused to answer yes or no when asked if he believed rental car companies should fix defective vehicles before leasing them.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., a sponsor of the legislation, called Bainwol’s comments “shameful” and remarked: “I don’t know what planet you’re living on.”

McCaskill, a co-sponsor, said to Bainwol: “I think you’re on the losing side of a very bad PR situation if you’re not careful.”

McCaskill said later she was optimistic that agreement with the automotive industry could be reached.

The legislation in question is the product of a protracted negotiation and is supported by Enterprise, the industry leader, and all of the major rental car companies. McCaskill and Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., have worked to fashion the compromise.

The proposed law grew from the death nine years ago of two sisters in California driving an Enterprise rental car that had gone unrepaired despite a defective power steering hose.

It was the first opportunity for Carol Houck to testify in Congress about the death of her, daughters Raechel and Jacqueline, ages 24 and 20, in the recalled PT Cruiser.

“I received the phone call dreaded by every parent: My daughters had been involved in a terrible traffic collision that took both of their lives in a fiery crash with an 18-wheeler,” she said.

A campaign by Houck and consumer groups led to pressure on industry leader Enterprise last year to drop objections to the bill. In two days time, more than 160,000 people signed an online petition requesting Enterprise to relent, which the company eventually did after changes in the legislation.

The bill requires rental car companies to ground most defective vehicles within 24 hours after receiving notice of safety recalls. In cases of minor defects, companies are permitted to rent vehicles with interim fixes that eliminate safety risks until parts can be secured.

David Strickland, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, offered his support in testimony. He said the efforts of Carol Houck after the death of her daughters “served to highlight a very serious gap in federal law.”

Regarding carmakers worry of litigation, Houck asked afterward: “You may get sued, but you may save somebody’s life. Have you thought about it that way?”

Excerpted from St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial, May 30, 2013

The Utility Handouts

Early in the session, before lawmakers were fully educated on the dangers of single-issue rate-making in the case of monopoly gas and electric utilities, the Missouri Senate passed SB 240, which would do two bad things for consumers. First, it would expand the existing ability of gas utility companies to charge consumers an extra surcharge to pay for underground pipes and other infrastructure. Consumers would extend free credit to the utility company.

Currently gas companies can impose a three-year surcharge of up to 10 percent of their base rates. Lawmakers upped that to five years and 13 percent, even though the monopoly gas companies (such as Ameren Missouri and Laclede Gas) haven’t made the case that the existing surcharge isn’t doing the job. Second (and worse), the bill also forces consumers to pay up to 90 percent of the bad debt written off by the gas utilities, taking away the existing incentive for the monopolies to collect their debts.

With this bill, consumers lose big. By the end of the session, a bipartisan group of senators had realized that. So there’s little danger that the governor’s veto would be overridden. He should kill the bill.

Although a tentative agreement on Laclede Gas Co.’s rate case has been reached witht he company, the Public Service Commission staff and the Office of Public Counsel, hearings are still scheduled to be held in the St. Louis Region.

Click here for the calendar of hearings.

Capitol Watch: Failure and Inertia in Jefferson City

Kansas City Star, May 17, 2013 

Missouri Medicaid Expansion Too Important to Die

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 22, 2013