A letter from Columbia mayor Darwin Hindman on city letterhead to Ameren president and CEO Thomas Voss has Callaway nuke opponents crying foul. "As Mayor of the City of Columbia, I write to express my personal support of AmerenUE's proposal to build a second nuclear-powered unit in Callaway County," Hindman wrote Oct. 27, 2008. Citing his desire for green, renewable energy sources, Hindman told Voss he recognized the need for an "additional power source" as well. "Nuclear power must be the source because of its low contribution to climate change."Also stating that he looked "forward to the economic opportunity," Hindman said that "potential jobs associated with the plant during construction and operation will be welcomed by families throughout the mid-Missouri region."
He also added a quid pro caveat: "For the proposed new Callaway Plant unit to be truly meaningful to Columbia, power from the plant must be made available to Columbia. My support assumes that will be the case."Helping put the controversy in context, Columbia Daily Tribune columnist and conservationist Ken Midkiff called the nuclear plant proposal "very divisive.
There is no consensus of opinion," he told the Heart Beat. "Neither the City Council nor the citizens of Columbia have subjected this issue to a debate. For the Mayor to express an opinion on City of Columbia stationary and sign it as the 'Mayor' is inappropriate."
A CWIP (Construction Work in Progress) proposal is part of the controversy. AmerenUE, Midkiff said, is proposing to pass along to consumers the costs (and risks) for construction of the Callaway II Nuclear Power Plant.
A CWIP (Construction Work in Progress) proposal is part of the controversy. AmerenUE, Midkiff said, is proposing to pass along to consumers the costs (and risks) for construction of the Callaway II Nuclear Power Plant.
"AmerenUE has stated publicly that they cannot secure financing through conventional means (bank loans, shareholders) because the risks are too great, so AmerenUE wants to charge its current consumers a higher rate to fund the construction work on Callaway II," Midkiff said. "They have stated that unless the CWIP law is repealed, they can't or won't build Callaway II."
In 1976, an initiative petition placed on the ballot a measure which prohibited utility companies from charging a higher rate to fund Construction Work in Process. The no-CWIP measure passed by a 2-1 vote and became law. AmerenUE has lobbied the legislature to repeal this voter-passed measure, and a bill is pending in the Missouri General Assembly which would do exactly that.
There are several other arguments pro and con, Midkiff said. "There are those opposed to Callaway II simply because it is a Nuclear Power Plant. There are those in favor because nukes produces less carbon dioxide (the primary "Greenhouse" gas) than coal-fired plants. However, neither of those arguments deal with the question Who Pays? Callaway II would cost somewhere between $9 and 12 billion."Hindman closed his letter by asking Voss and Ameren to "keep the city posted on the development of legislation you are proposing for the next General Assembly."
In 1976, an initiative petition placed on the ballot a measure which prohibited utility companies from charging a higher rate to fund Construction Work in Process. The no-CWIP measure passed by a 2-1 vote and became law. AmerenUE has lobbied the legislature to repeal this voter-passed measure, and a bill is pending in the Missouri General Assembly which would do exactly that.
There are several other arguments pro and con, Midkiff said. "There are those opposed to Callaway II simply because it is a Nuclear Power Plant. There are those in favor because nukes produces less carbon dioxide (the primary "Greenhouse" gas) than coal-fired plants. However, neither of those arguments deal with the question Who Pays? Callaway II would cost somewhere between $9 and 12 billion."Hindman closed his letter by asking Voss and Ameren to "keep the city posted on the development of legislation you are proposing for the next General Assembly."
RELATED:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2009/02/04/letter-just-say-no-amerens-proposal/
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2009/02/03/consumer-advocates-try-find-voice-callaway-2-debate/
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2009/02/03/consumer-advocates-try-find-voice-callaway-2-debate/
CLICK EACH PAGE TO READ THE LETTER BELOW.
Pretty sure that should be a "b," as in "billion." We should still build it, but yes, it's going to cost a lot.
ReplyDeleteIt is "b", as in billion.
ReplyDelete$9 to $12 billion is a high estimate. Busbar costs for nukes in 2008 are estimated at $4,000/kw (50th percentile), so it will probably come in closer to $7-8billion.
DK
How dare he send a letter and think he represents everybody's view point in this matter and send it on city letter head at that.
ReplyDeleteHe does not represent my interests so how in the hell can he speak for me.
Chuck get off your horse! Mayor Hindman sent it as a personal support not a city supported letter. If you don't like it don't vote for him during the next mayoral election. Callaway II would be a lot cleaner then the city owned coal plant not to mention the potential jobs it brings to the region.
ReplyDeleteAs to the plant issue, I'm still not sure whether I support Callaway II or not.
ReplyDeleteBut, as to the Majors letter, it is perfectly legit. He is an official elected by the people of the city. As mayor, he is supposed to have his personal opinion expressed on political matters. It never represents the cities opinion, it represents the mayor's office opinion. He didn't have to, but explicitly said "personal support" right there on the opening line.
I recommend folks go to wikipedia and look up "representative democracy". He did precisely what he is supposed to do.