[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6277095,"mediaKeyId","2657780-bb2a5b347e560b763b4add1fb1c681ef","parentId",2657780,"title","Senate Bill 4 clears House after extended debate over reliability, costs and consumer protections","audioSeconds",1107,"startMs",6148000,"endMs",7255000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2657780-bb2a5b347e560b763b4add1fb1c681ef&start=6148&end=7255","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2657780-bb2a5b347e560b763b4add1fb1c681ef/thumbnail_6148000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6277095/Missouri/Senate-Bill-4-clears-House-after-extended-debate-over-reliability-costs-and-consumer-protections","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6277095-f4e009504a321754901a57d04f7b8d8a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775197368&Signature=Ow0nQlk9PyZ7sLlJCxFyM96Ub8m1LKkyM7-oez82ACyIgoMIUIBpE0VuIzEveb4n1au~ckYGGc347Sb4AyprXR618Jpt2Zw8ZYwNlw1~Lej0Q~gMQBQx-BDeHmgdAhoPW6w288UcZxBT6dS2mPv0AVLU5C-N1oUtYFbmPwhxOakM0OVKLLvAo5aE4Hh3hkF7ckP5RiwKSa90-yQtNC0J3n9Kw6CEtSK0jedr3jQrMndLotCTZ1I432YTXnKuGZ7h0nlkDX2rsDAvZ6A~lOXZ506gcUe6y9r8T~oFRql6FAfYS9E53GR~quwoiwIhpWlbMiQxnOuoJooGMFOB09JnFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Missouri State Legislature","date","2025-03-13T00:00:00Z","article","The Missouri House on March 12 approved Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill 4, a 33‑page package described on the floor as the \"Power, Predictability and Reliability Act,\" by a recorded vote the clerk announced as 96 ayes and 44 nays.

Why it matters: Sponsors and supporters said the measure is intended to ensure grid reliability, spur replacement generation capacity (including natural‑gas and possibly small modular reactors in future), and keep Missouri competitive for energy‑intensive economic development projects. Opponents warned the bill could raise residential utility bills, increase fossil‑fuel generation, and transfer financial risk to ratepayers through provisions such as construction work in progress (CWIP) and future‑test‑year accounting.

On the floor, the sponsor identified as the Representative from Clay County opened debate by framing the bill as a bipartisan, negotiated package that reduces regulatory barriers to build new generation, strengthens Public Service Commission (PSC) oversight and includes consumer protections. \"When we flip the switch, our lights come on,\" the sponsor said, arguing the bill protects households and businesses from volatile open‑market prices during tight supply periods.

Supporters emphasized worker and economic arguments. The Representative from Pulaski County described practical consequences of past outages and the costs some communities faced when buying emergency power at high market rates. Another supporter noted the bill includes an expanded role and funding for the Office of Public Counsel and other consumer protections negotiated in the Senate, including opt‑out rules for smart meters and provisions for low‑income customer discounts.

Opponents repeatedly raised the bill's possible effect on household rates. The Representative from Jackson County said many constituents \"can barely afford their bills currently\" and urged colleagues not to \"condemn our children and future generations to poverty\" by approving provisions that might drive rates higher. Environmental concerns were also raised: one member asked whether the measure would increase carbon emissions by favoring dispatchable fossil‑fuel generation when coal plants retire.

Key negotiated protections were highlighted by the sponsor and supporters: limits on the size and timing of recoverable CWIP amounts, a 2.25% rate‑impact cap tied to specific accounting treatments, a statutory cold‑weather rule preventing disconnections during forecast extreme cold, additional funding for the PSC to hire expertise, expanded Office of Public Counsel resources, and clawback provisions allowing the PSC to require utilities to return funds with interest if projects go over budget or fail to come into service on time.

The House debated a series of technical questions and inquiries to committee members and bill handlers, including discussion of construction work in progress, the definition of \"dispatchable\" generation, protections for municipal utilities and co‑ops, and the mechanics of future‑test‑year accounting. Supporters repeatedly argued the bill puts Missouri \"in the headlights, not the taillights\" on energy planning; opponents said it risks saddling ratepayers with costs for projects that may not deliver proportional public benefit.

Formal action and votes

- Motion: \"I move that Senate substitute number 2 for Senate Bill 4 be truly agreed and finally passed.\" Mover: Representative (Clay County). Final tally announced by the clerk: ayes 96, nays 44; outcome: approved.

Context and clarifying details

- The House debate included extended questioning and multiple inquiries to members who had carried related provisions in committee; the transcript records a dense, hours‑long debate with many technical exchanges.
- Supporters cited a recent near‑miss of system stress and warned that planning, permitting and construction for new baseload plants takes multiple years.
- Opponents cited external studies and sample scenarios suggesting possible rate increases; proponents countered that many of those projections used assumptions (for example, conventional nuclear plant costs) not applicable to the projects most likely under this law (natural‑gas combined‑cycle and smaller modular options).

Provenance

This article draws on floor remarks beginning with the sponsor's introduction of the bill (floor remarks by the Representative from Clay County) and concludes with the clerk's final announcement of the vote that passed Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill 4.

Ending

After several hours of debate and multiple technical exchanges about consumer protections, accounting treatments and reliability needs, the House passed the bill 96–44. The transcript records both the bill sponsor's and critics' core arguments and the specific package of negotiated consumer protections added in the Senate; questions about long‑term rate impacts and environmental tradeoffs remained central in floor remarks.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025 Legislative Session - Day Thirty Nine - Thursday, March 13 10:00 AM - 1:45 PM","oneSentenceSummary","After extended debate on grid reliability, costs and consumer protections, the Missouri House on March 12 passed Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill 4 by a recorded vote of 96–44.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MO, Missouri","taxId",77693,"location","Missouri","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6277099,"Missouri House repeals parts of voter-approved Proposition A but rejects emergency clause",1141,4341000,5482000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2657780-bb2a5b347e560b763b4add1fb1c681ef&start=4341&end=5482","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2657780-bb2a5b347e560b763b4add1fb1c681ef/thumbnail_4341000.jpg","/articles/6277099/Missouri/Missouri-House-repeals-parts-of-voter-approved-Proposition-A-but-rejects-emergency-clause","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6277099-4af3a82959bb686db64142c6ccc9642d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775197368&Signature=MIjvLaYsFiPxF15JGrXPVzLWvuwUWMbYVdzfM09YK60sbJhKPY3-pwFvkitgiS5~I~9T7AXzhrg6Yr0YW6Lm8wVM7dLUsqoHp~OXFiFj8nN5D4SgIkHl6Z5oryLUjcSMiNkq~gYq5bfKTaTS33ZcjhAHZ3K7nF2gUKqUiOpnBk9OqEyM6dXnasv9ok90Lw9auN3FUD2~ktBIfbWTDzR73MhjrVFTtZxw3X1t5AUzZZhUwHpnGXssNeUdrQcUwwBZxo4Rcs7dSZK2vQ4K-nyyyMm2EBa6aNer-lOa5R7OM7mlSm8cZIM7YN2Ttoq2oyK78caNis3OxRCJeZIrG9We6w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Missouri House on March 12 approved a committee substitute that removes parts of Proposition A, the voter‑approved 2024 initiative that included a minimum‑wage increase and paid sick‑leave provisions. Representative (Cass County), the bill sponsor identified in debate as the mover of House Committee Substitute No. 2 for House Bills 567, 5406, 7508 and 958, renewed the motion and the clerk announced the final tally with \"the ayes being 96 and the nays being 51,\" showing passage.

Why it matters: lawmakers and witnesses said the changes affect employers, employees and local governments across Missouri. Supporters argued the substitute protects businesses from costs they say will force price increases or closures; opponents said the House was overturning a recent statewide vote and stripping protections from workers who supported Proposition A.

Supporters and opponents pressed competing points in floor debate. The bill sponsor, identified on the floor as the Representative from Cass County, argued the substitute would protect businesses and allow time to adapt to higher wages and new sick‑leave rules. \"The emergency clause is necessary for health and safety reasons,\" the sponsor said when arguing for an emergency clause to make repeal effective immediately.

Opponents framed the vote as reversing a clear public mandate. The Representative from Saint Louis City, who spoke against the substitute, said: \"The people voted for it. The previous representative sort of touched on another concern that I think we all should have. When workers that are working a job are not getting paid enough by their employers, do you know who picks up the slack? The taxpayers.\" Several members warned that repealing the voter measure would be perceived as overriding voters.

The House also debated, and then rejected, an emergency clause that would have made parts of the repeal effective immediately. The sponsor urged adoption of the emergency clause on public‑health grounds, saying employers need to know immediately whether they must implement paid‑sick‑leave rules. Critics questioned that rationale and whether an emergency existed; a back‑and‑forth on the floor included this exchange: the Representative from Cass County argued an emergency could expose workers in certain workplaces to infectious illness if the sick‑leave mandate remained in effect, while the Representative from Jackson County responded, \"This emergency clause and explanation behind it goes against the bill itself and what the bill is trying to do. I hope you all were listening to that dialogue. Emergency clauses were not put in place for purposes like this.\" The clerk recorded the vote on the emergency clause as 84 ayes to 62 nays, meaning the emergency clause failed.

Formal actions recorded on the floor were twofold: a motion to adopt the committee substitute for the listed house bills and a separate motion to adopt the substitute's emergency clause. The emergency clause motion failed; the substitute itself passed.

What the record shows (votes and motions)

- Motion: \"I move that house committee substitute number 2 for house bills 567, 5406, 7508, and 958 be third read and passed.\" Mover: Representative (Cass County). Final tally: yeas 96, nays 51; outcome: approved.

- Motion (emergency clause): \"I move for the adoption of the emergency clause on house committee substitute number 2 for house bills 567, 5406, 7508, and 958.\" Mover: Representative (Cass County). Final tally: ayes 84, nays 62; outcome: failed.

Debate context and key points

- Supporters said the substitute corrects unanticipated costs and legal complexity in the voter measure and voiced concerns about businesses closing or passing costs to consumers.
- Opponents said the House was undoing a recent statewide vote and that the electorate had approved the measure by a clear margin; they argued the legislature should not nullify voter decisions.
- Several members pointed to pending litigation and court review as another reason to defer legislative repeal; others urged immediate action to protect employers.

Clarifying details

- The emergency clause was offered separately from the repeal motion and failed 84–62.
- The committee substitute passed on final passage 96–51. The transcript records the motions and final tallies but does not include roll‑call names for each vote. The precise statutory text removed or retained is not printed in the on‑floor remarks in the transcript excerpt.

Provenance

This article draws on the House floor record beginning with the sponsor's motion to consider the committee substitute (floor remarks beginning at the Representative from Cass County) and concluding with the clerk's final tally for the committee substitute (clerk's announcement of \"ayes being 96 and nays being 51\").

Ending

The House approved the committee substitute by a 96–51 vote after failing to adopt an emergency clause. The floor debate recorded competing appeals to voters' intent, economic impact and public‑health concerns. The transcript does not show subsequent action steps beyond the House's passage of the committee substitute.

","On March 12, 2025, the Missouri House voted 96–51 to approve a committee substitute that removes the paid‑sick‑leave provisions enacted by Proposition A; an attempt to adopt an emergency clause failed 84–62 amid heated debate over voters' intent, business impacts and public‑health arguments.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6277091,"Votes at a glance: key bills the Missouri House passed March 12, 2025",5931,1319000,7250000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2657780-bb2a5b347e560b763b4add1fb1c681ef&start=1319&end=7250","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2657780-bb2a5b347e560b763b4add1fb1c681ef/thumbnail_1319000.jpg","/articles/6277091/Missouri/Votes-at-a-glance-key-bills-the-Missouri-House-passed-March-12-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6277091-82157c107e8e1bf704888b92db7c64bc/orig.mp4?Expires=1775197368&Signature=GY0vjcykry3cJBWgW7OOtkZTSbRIqdW0-fSHV5Q98P6~Ut0Hr3MTqgMQ4TsslOjZJz4tBcAZa74yELmzFWhM2F5ksS-K6Qws-OuVHRFK6lqi169ex5K0fhWw3Dm1-MV-kH2XXu42-0Nel-k812UCHqqWe4gnWEGKeraXCUH6o-0JaiqVWYV~2MdCIRfYdISCAIXZvXdP0HtbCsa5viOrnYGoC6evdLNHsW4ggFKxDvq2~uNpFTEzWqNddUVJCn93IfL74kz3pOBOV-iMhM6QIV~H~M8jQTxOkcsQpaYBZXx1UOpDxwtGJkQCqh6VpATfGSuzS4Jykqoiu-R4TCvegA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Missouri House on March 12 considered a long list of bills. Many drew brief floor discussion and were approved on third reading. Below are selected items from the day's calendar with the sponsor's short description (as read on the floor) and the recorded roll‑call tallies where the clerk announced them.

Selected bills and outcomes (as recorded on the floor)

- House Committee Substitute for House Bill 607 (education omnibus combining several K–12 provisions): sponsor said it packages multiple education measures that had bipartisan support. Clerk announced the passage (tally reported on the record during the session). (Vote details: announced on record; transcript indicates broad support.)

- House Committee Substitute for House Bill 615 (various provisions): sponsor moved the bill; the clerk recorded the vote as yeas 148, nays 2. Outcome: passed.

- House Committee Substitute for House Bill 799 (phase‑out of most motor‑vehicle inspections and related provisions): sponsor described it as eliminating certain inspection requirements and including specialty license plates; the clerk recorded yeas 110, nays 33. Outcome: passed.

- House Committee Substitutes for House Bills 974, 5057, 10302 and 1141 (consumer protection/insurance and related items): sponsor described the bill as \"a consumer protection insurance bill\"; clerk recorded ayes 150, nays 0. Outcome: passed unanimously.

- House Bill 903 (tuition measure mentioned in committee report): sponsor described reduction of valuation of personal property for tax assessment; clerk recorded yeas 84, nays 63. Outcome: passed.

- House Bill 618 (prior authorization reform for health care): sponsor described the bill as streamlining prior authorization to improve access; clerk recorded yeas 148, nays 4. Outcome: passed.

- House Committee Substitute for House Bill 1259 (tax trust fix): sponsor said the bill passed unanimously out of committee; clerk recorded yeas 152, nays 0. Outcome: passed.

- House Committee Substitute for House Bill 331 (career technical certificate program): sponsor said it creates a career tech certificate for students out of high school; clerk recorded yeas 149, nays 3. Outcome: passed.

- House Committee Substitute for House Bill 32 (adult high‑school program; age lowered to 18): sponsor described it as lowering the enrollment age for adult high school; clerk recorded yeas 151, nays 1. Outcome: passed.

- House Committee Substitute for House Bill 87 (DUI sentence changes—\"Melanie's Law\" per sponsor): sponsor described raised penalties for intoxicated drivers who kill or injure others; clerk recorded yeas 142, nays 2. Outcome: passed.

- House Bill 419 (in‑state tuition for military personnel): sponsor said it extends in‑state tuition opportunities; clerk recorded yeas 153, nays 0. Outcome: passed.

- House Committee Substitute for House Bill 643 (Lake of the Ozarks entertainment zone): sponsor said it creates entertainment zones for economic development; clerk recorded yeas 129, nays 23. Outcome: passed.

- House Committee Substitute number 2 for House Bills 567, 5406, 7508 and 958 (repeal of Proposition A provisions): sponsor moved passage; clerk recorded ayes 96, nays 51. Outcome: passed (see fuller article on the Prop A repeal for debate and emergency‑clause vote details).

Notes and clarifications

- The transcript records sponsor descriptions, short floor statements in support or opposition, and the clerk's announced tallies for each third‑reading vote. In most cases the floor remarks summarized committee action and the intended purpose of the bill; longer technical debate occurred only on a subset of measures (notably Senate Bill 4 and the Proposition A repeal).
- Where the transcript recorded the clerk's announced tallies, those numbers are cited above. Several other items were reported on committee motion and passed with unanimous or near‑unanimous votes; their full text and statutory specifics are in the bill files and committee reports.

Ending

The House passed a series of bills March 12 ranging from education and workforce measures to public‑safety and tax items. The day's record shows a mixture of unanimous or lopsided votes on routine bills and prolonged debate on items with greater policy or fiscal implications (see separate articles for those items).","The House approved a package of mostly noncontroversial bills on March 12, including education, veterans, workforce and public‑safety measures; the floor record shows vote totals where the clerk announced them on the record.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate Bill 4 clears House after extended debate over reliability, costs and consumer protections

Missouri House repeals parts of voter-approved Proposition A but rejects emergency clause

Votes at a glance: key bills the Missouri House passed March 12, 2025