Callaway 2: Where does it stand?
Gov. Jay Nixon announces he will call a special session in September to approve an economic development deal, but he says the other pregnant idea that might be included in his call, enabling a rate increase for a consortium of electric utilities to underwrite the cost of a nuclear generating site permit for Callaway 2, is not ready to hatch.
To listen to the major parties to the deal, previous disagreements are mended but subterranean discord seems to lurk. The best explanation we have so far is a mysterious comment by Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer, R-Dexter, that some players have gotten cold feet. Referring to a bill brought forth in the waning hours of the last legislative session, Mayer said, “The feedback is that maybe the agreement we agreed to is no longer the agreement.” Figure that one out.
The original bill got bogged down because of opposition from Noranda Aluminum Co., Ameren’s largest electric power customer and a big economic presence in the southeast Missouri territory represented by Mayer and fellow Republican Sen. Jason Crowell. The two promised to kill the bill even though an apparent majority of lawmakers were for it.
Then, at the last minute, a compromise bill emerged that seemed to have support from both sides, but time ran out. Now, Noranda is on the hustings, saying it favors that compromise bill and believes Mayer and Crowell will go along, but arcane rumors of discontent persist, keeping the governor at bay as he makes plans for his special session.
Despite today’s friendly sayings by Noranda’s leaders, skeptics say the big company still wants to see the bill die and blame Ameren. One theory is that the bill is now opposed by Mayer’s referenced “players” — other users of electricity from all over the state who are privately being urged to oppose the deal with the question, “Why would you want to pay higher rates so Ameren can build a nuclear plant at Callaway?”
These are the kinds of Jefferson City swirls that are almost impossible to fathom. What we do know is most legislators, including Sen. Kurt Schaefer and our local representatives in the House, are strongly in favor of a small rate increase to underwrite the site permit fee. We also know Noranda has opposed any rate increase at all until recently, when it proclaims a change of heart that would seem to an objective, rational outsider to pave the way for a compromise bill.
But Mayer, who should know, hints the advertised compromise might not be real, and a number of sources suggest the seeds of discontent are sown in the bill’s details by parties secretly against the rate increase who want to be seen as supportive.
Mayer and Crowell have the leverage to make or break the deal. If they let the bill receive a floor vote, it will pass. Despite suggestions by Noranda that the way is open and they “see no reason the two lawmakers should be in opposition,” the two pivotal legislators leave a different impression. Ameren does not want to be labeled as responsible if a compromise is not reached. Neither does Noranda.
Noranda says it is willing to live with the rate increase and other terms of last session’s late-inning compromise bill. Ameren wants the compromise. Gov. Nixon wants the bill and will put it on the agenda for the special session if the parties are on board, but so far no deal. Who’s the culprit?
