Bill would seed "power campus" grants to pair gas plants with small modular reactors, sponsor says

Representative John Black outlined House Bill 2598 to the House Committee on Utilities, describing an approach that would authorize grants (capped in discussion at $100 million per sponsor remarks) to establish "power campus" projects: co-located natural gas generation plants built to serve large customers (for example, data centers) with contractual arrangements obligating profits to a fund used to develop small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) later.

"The concept is that a generation plant ... would be built, supported by this grant," Black said, describing a dedicated plant that would supply a large on-site customer and whose earnings would be required to finance later nuclear development. He said the bill would create an office to receive applications and manage the process and emphasized language to avoid self-dealing and to preserve PSC jurisdiction where applicable.

David Patterson, CEO of Bridge to Nuclear, testified in support and described the model as a financing bridge: the gas asset provides near-term dispatchable power and a credible PPA for large offtakers while the profits and early permitting work create a pathway to an SMR. "This proposal delivers near term dispatchable generation, establishes a clear financing pathway for the SMR, and caps the state's financial exposure at the grant amount," Patterson said.

Committee members pressed the sponsor and witnesses on why the state should fund such projects when private investors and offtakers can finance dedicated generation; they discussed alternatives (state equity, loan guarantees, conditional grants) and how to structure objective scoring for grant awards. Members also questioned why the bill places the proposed office in the Department of Natural Resources and how PSC authority would be preserved for jurisdictional facilities.

Opponents raised transparency and local-impact concerns. Lisa Pinette (identified with "Armervine") said communities receiving data centers have experienced water stress and property-value impacts and criticized provisions that would keep grant applications confidential, calling the approach an imposition on local residents who she said would not have adequate notice or remedies.

Supporters from business groups, including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, argued the mechanism could send a market signal to federal and private funders and help Missouri compete for data centers and jobs. Ameren's informational testimony cautioned about details such as how assets count toward existing standards and how to avoid counting existing nuclear in a way that changes compliance metrics.

The committee heard multiple witnesses for and against and closed the hearing without taking a vote. Members signaled interest in technical amendments, objective scoring rules for grants, and clarifications on the office's placement and PSC interactions.