Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Generation Reliability Qip topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears 'Power Mo' bills to speed construction of generation, reform resource planning
Summary
House bills 853 and 963, labeled "Power Mo" by sponsors, would require utilities to demonstrate near‑term capacity, reform integrated resource planning and allow construction accounting (QIP/QUIP) to accelerate new generation. The Public Service Commission supported the bills; consumer groups warned QIP shifts risk to ratepayers.
The House Committee on Utilities took testimony on House Bills 853 and 963, sponsored by Rep. Josh Hurlburt (District 8) and Rep. Brad Pollat (District 52), which together would create a state reliability mechanism, change the integrated resource planning (IRP) process and allow construction accounting treatment (often called QIP/QUIP) for new generation to speed projects into service.
Why it matters: Sponsors and the Missouri Public Service Commission said reforms are intended to address increasing electricity demand from electrification, data centers and onshoring and to keep generation in‑state so utilities and ratepayers avoid the higher cost of purchasing out‑of‑state power. Opponents said QIP shifts construction risk and costs to utility customers and recalled the 1976 voter ban on construction work in progress in Missouri.
What the bills would do: Rep. Josh Hurlburt summarized the three pillars: a state reliability mechanism requiring utilities to demonstrate sufficient capacity for the next four years; a reformed, more dynamic IRP process with stakeholder participation and consequences; and a construction accounting change—QIP—that lets utilities recover financing costs during construction to reduce total project financing expense. Hurlburt said, "With this simple change, the PSC estimates that $87,000,000 can be shaved off the overall project cost on a standard $1,000,000,000 natural gas generator."
Public Service Commission testimony and data: Kayla Hahn, chair of the Missouri Public Service Commission, told the committee the agency supports the bills and highlighted regional capacity trends, saying that in the most recent MISO planning auction "in 2024 we have a deficit of 800 megawatts" and that constrained regions pay significantly more for emergency supply. Hahn and PSC staff explained QIP mechanics and said the PSC would have rule‑making and enforcement authority, including processes to claw back customer funds if projects fail to come online or exceed budgets; the PSC identified both financing and construction expenditures as QIP‑eligible under the draft language.
Opposition and consumer concerns: Representatives of consumer groups and large energy users raised objections. John Kaufman of the Consumers Council of Missouri said the 1976 voter ban reflected consumer concerns about prepaying for plants and argued QIP typically increases long‑term costs and shifts risk away from utilities. The Midwest Energy Consumers Group and AARP also testified against the bills, warning that prepaying large sums "for something that's not serving them" risks vulnerable ratepayers, including seniors on fixed incomes. Opponents pressed for stronger, specific clawback language and a lower burden of proof to return funds if projects fail.
Economic development and utility testimony: Michelle Hathaway, director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development, and Evergy's Jason Clint said insufficient in‑state power has cost Missouri projects; Hathaway said site selectors now rank electric power capacity among the top location factors and that Missouri has active leads that require megawatts to a gigawatt of power. Evergy and other utilities pointed to Kansas's recent reforms and subsequent generation announcements as evidence that QIP‑style accounting can attract investment.
Technical and policy clarifications: Committee members sought detail on what QIP would cover (finance versus construction costs), how the PSC would determine prudence, what would trigger clawbacks (PSC staff investigations or complaints), and whether the QIP option is limited to natural gas or could apply to other generation, including nuclear. The PSC said the IRP‑based QIP could be resource neutral and, in practice, the commission would set the allowable QIP amounts and adjudicate prudence.
Ending and next steps: The committee heard more than a dozen witnesses on both sides, took public comment and kept the record open for written testimony through midnight. No formal committee votes were recorded at the hearing.
