Summary#
SCR-23 is a Missouri Senate concurrent resolution, not a bill that amends state law. It encourages the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), working with other state agencies, higher education institutions, federal partners and private industry, to prepare a competitive state response to federal nuclear-campus initiatives. Its stated goal is to strengthen Missouri’s role in nuclear innovation, research, workforce development and economic growth.
- DNR is encouraged to coordinate a response to federal initiatives, including U.S. Department of Energy requests for information about possible host states for Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses.
- The resolution does not require DNR or other organizations to take action; it expresses encouragement rather than creating a legal duty.
- It does not commit Missouri to a project site, region, funding obligation or regulatory action. Those would require future legislative authorization.
- It does not create a campus, fund, office, application process or new regulatory power.
- It has been introduced and referred to a Senate committee; it is not yet adopted.
What it means for you#
- State agencies: DNR is encouraged to coordinate with other agencies and outside partners. The resolution does not set a deadline, required steps or reporting rules.
- Universities, research institutions and private industry: They are named as potential partners, but the resolution does not require them to participate or give them funding or other benefits.
- Missouri residents: The resolution does not directly change taxes, utility rules, nuclear regulation, public services or anyone’s rights.
Money#
No publicly available information gives an estimated cost.
- The resolution does not commit state funding. It says a funding obligation would require future legislative authorization.
- It does not specify staffing, administrative costs or other resources for preparing a response.
What is unclear#
- The resolution does not say what a “strong and competitive” response must include or how the state would judge its success.
- It does not set a timeline, assign specific tasks beyond encouraging coordination, or require public reporting.
- It does not identify a proposed site or explain how a site would be chosen.
- It does not explain how participating institutions, communities or the public would be involved.
Case for#
- The resolution appears intended to help Missouri respond to federal efforts to expand nuclear technology and related industries.
- A possible argument for coordinating state agencies, universities and industry is that it could bring existing research, training and manufacturing strengths together in one response.
- It leaves decisions about a specific site, funding and regulation to future legislative action rather than making those commitments now.
Case against#
- The resolution does not require a response or set deadlines, so it may not lead to coordinated action.
- It does not explain what work DNR or other partners would do, or how much staff time that work might take.
- The resolution names a possible campus but provides no process for choosing a site or involving affected communities.