-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy: Ameren UE Greed

Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Ameren UE Greed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ameren UE Greed. Show all posts

3.04.2013

Ameren UE-GREED from the Dirty Coal Industry

Learn the Issues, Get the Facts

SB 207: Unprecedented Overreach by Missouri Electric Utilities 
Missouri electric utilities including Ameren are working to pass legislation to charge a brand new rate increase fee  to every business and resident electric bill. Despite the fact that Missouri electric rates have gone up 46% since 2007, costing Missourians a total of $5.7 billion, Ameren, Kansas City Power & Light and Empire want to change the rules so they can raise your rates without hearing your opinion about it.

The bill, SB 207, is allowing a monopoly utility company to take more money from Missouri businesses and citizens. No other state allows anything like this requested surcharge. SB 207 will kill Missouri jobs by operating as a massive rate increase on Missouri employers and consumers. In addition, SB 207 's massive automatic rate increases will drive up the cost of doing business in Missouri and cause jobs to move to other states.

Despite Missouri's struggling economy, Missouri electric companies are using profits extracted from Missouri ratepayers to prop up losses from its unregulated affiliates in other states.

We need your help to make sure the legislature knows that SB 207 is an unprecedented overreach and would hurt consumers. Take action! Contact your legislator here. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper here.

Local Public Hearings for Ameren Missouri

Ameren Missouri filed a request with the Missouri Public Service Commission to increase revenues by approximately $376 million or 14%. Over the next month, the Public Service Commission will be holding public hearings all over the state to provide an opportunity for ratepayers to ask questions about the pending rate cases. Ratepayers like you can give testimony at the hearing, which will be transcribed as part of the official case record.

If you would like to attend a hearing, please RSVP to the event you will be attending on our Facebook page, so we will know whom to expect.  Also, we will be giving out a free coozie to anyone who testifies at the hearing. If you don't RSVP, you can still show up and testify so please share this message with your friends today.

A History of Ameren Rate Hikes
Ameren has increased rates by 36% in just four years.  Below is a history of Ameren's excessive requested base rate hikes.
  • August 2007                                $360,709,000
  • March 2009                                 $250,806,000
  • February 2011                              $401,500,000
  • August 2011                                  $263,000,000
  • February 2012 (Proposed)        $376.000,000

HB 1316: The $115 Million Ameren Bailout

Ameren is asking Missouri businesses and residents to bail them out for costs they have already incurred and plan to incur in the future which do nothing to produce energy or provide any service to consumers now or in the future.
  • Ameren has already spent at least $25 million towards pursuing an early site permit.  Ameren willingly spent its own money and as with any other business, Ameren ought to be spending its own money on this speculative venture, rather than seeking a bailout through HB 1316.
  • HB 1316 does not guarantee customers will be paid back their money in the case that a new electric plant is never built.
  • HB 1316 will cost Missouri businesses and residents $45 million plus interest and Ameren earnings for 20 years totaling an increase of $115 million.
  • HB 1316 will produce ZERO watts of electricity. This legislation will not result in a new electric power plant.
  • HB 1316 will create ZERO jobs. This legislation has nothing to do with building a new electric power plant that would actually create jobs.
A Plan with Consumer Protections: Senate Bill 406
  • Ameren says it needs this legislation to maintain the option of seeking an Early Site Permit toward building a second nuclear power plant. At the same time the bill protects Missouri employers, businesses and residential ratepayers if Ameren proceeds as it has indicated it would.
  • The bill also protects business and residential ratepayers if Ameren is wrong and holds Ameren accountable.
  • The bill represents a compromise that gives Ameren everything it says is needed to obtain an Early Site Permit and that protects businesses and residential consumers who are being asked to pay for the Early Site Permit.
  • This bill allows Ameren to recover from ratepayers financing costs on $40 Million of expenditures to obtain an Early Site Permit.
  • Consumer protections include the same three requests that were made by consumer groups this past November:
    • A hard cap on expenses to ensure Ameren doesn't charge consumers for cost overruns.
      • This is important to avoid the mistakes and huge overruns that have historically plagued the building of nuclear plants.
      • Consumers must be protected from cost overruns at all stages of the process.
    • A rebate to ensure consumers are refunded their money if energy is never produced or the Early Site Permit is never obtained.
      • Ameren has already spent $25 million dollars towards obtaining an Early Site Permit. A rebate is necessary to keep Ameren from shifting the gamble and all of the risk on getting the permit to consumers.
    • Assessment funding for the Office of Public Counsel
      • This takes the Governor's proposal and makes sure legislative intent for funding the OPC is established and better secures the funding beyond FY 2012, which is the only year the Governor's proposal ensures.

      • Consumers need an adequately funded independent OPC to ensure consumers are protected through the entire process of building the nuclear plant.

"Ameren Demands $263 Million Rate Hike"

With an unemployment rate of nearly 10%, Missouri families and employers are struggling. Rather than tightening their belts like Missouri's working families, Ameren is asking the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC), the regulatory body responsible for policing the monopoly, to allow another Ameren rate hike which will:
  • Raise electricity rates on Missouri's working families and employers by $263 million.
  • Drive up the cost of doing business in Missouri Ameren's rate hike plan comes at a time of crisis for Missouri's economy. Missourians are losing their jobs. Missouri businesses are being forced to downsize in order to stay afloat.  Missouri's employers and small businesses are already struggling to prevent layoffs of even more workers.
  • Drive up the cost of living for already struggling Missouri families Ameren's $263 million rate hike demand before the PSC comes at a time when Missouri's employers and small businesses are hurting and at a time when Missouri families are hurting even more. In this fragile economy, thousands of families live on the brink of financial disaster.
Ameren has been awarded over $577 million in rate increases, a 26% hike, at the expense of Missouri ratepayers in less than two years.  It's time to ask Ameren to do the same, just like Missouri's working families.

"The Nuclear Option"

It seems like common sense: the market should make decisions on whether a second power plant is financially viable, not the whims of politicians.  In the midst of a recession and with unemployment at record levels, now is not the time to ask taxpayers and ratepayers to pay more money for energy investment. But that hasn't stopped the big utilities from trying to push their financial gamble on us.  Senate Bill 50 was crafted by the utility companies to create an exception in long-standing state law.  It would allow large Missouri utilities to charge YOU for the costs associated with Early Site Permit (ESP), the first step in construction of a nuclear power plant.
The Situation
  • The fact that Ameren is seeking money from ratepayers and cannot get private backing means that there is substantial financial risk in building a second nuclear power plant.
  • Missouri's other nuclear power plant was built without a rate-hike in advance of the plant.
  • Ameren made over $600 million last year and is still seeking to raise rates on consumers.
  • Ameren has already raised energy rates several times in the past few years, and is now looking to raise them again.
  • Other states have allowed energy companies to pass on development costs to ratepayers, and consumers in those states have seen their electric bills skyrocket.
  • The development of a new power plant is financially risky, which is why Ameren wants to raise energy rates to cover the costs, instead of using their own money.
  • Ameren is seeking to transfer the financial cost of energy development to their consumers in order to appease their shareholders.
The Solution
Any proposal that were to meet General Assembly approval must have strong consumer protections. FERAF encourages you to express your support for consumers by insisting on pro-consumer provisions including:
  • Robust Office of Public Counsel (OPC). Over the years funding for consumer protection has been greatly reduced impairing the ability of OPC and PSC to conduct adequate reviews of rate case filings. Legislation must include funding OPC that allows them to conduct thorough audits of rate cases filed with the Public Service Commission.
  • Responsible Cap. Should the Legislature consider the utility's proposed legislation allowing them to recover costs of construction while in progress, they must include a reasonable and fair cap on rate increases to keep energy costs from spiraling out of control. To ensure consumers money is well spent, each step of the construction process should be monitored and controlled.
  • Rebate. If ratepayers pay tens of millions of dollars in rate increases and a plant is never built or the permit is sold at a profit, Missouri ratepayers deserve to be refunded in full. We believe these consumer protections to be essential for the health of Missouri's energy future, and therefore, Missouri economy.

The "Bad Debt Surcharge" is Unfair to Consumers

Big gas companies have pushed the Missouri legislature to create a surcharge so they could raise our bills without going before the Public Service Commission, which currently sets utility rates in Missouri. This new surcharge would have allowed them to charge you immediately when other people don't pay their utility bills. If this new practice had become law, what motivation would the gas companies have to track down customers skipping out on their bills when they could just stick you with their debt?
  • Two bills before the legislature in 2010 (SB 705 and HB 1610) would have allowed increases on natural gas bills to pay the utility for the bad debts of its non-paying natural gas customers, overriding the current consumer protection against such single-issue ratemaking.
  • This legislation would have allowed energy rates to increase, even at times when Laclede Gas Company or Missouri Gas Energy's overall cost of doing business was not going up!
  • Bad debts are already included in rates. When a utility needs to adjust rates, including for bad debt, it may initiate a rate case. The Bad Debt Surcharge would allow accelerated increases without the protections of a full rate case audit.
  • This Bad Debt Surcharge would have increased the volatility of natural gas bills, due to the correlation between wholesale gas rates and uncollectible accounts.
  • The Bad Debt Surcharge would have been a hidden surcharge.  By cleverly attempting to redefine certain bad debts as "gas costs", it would have been disguised in the Purchased Gas Adjustment (PGA), instead of being identified separately on gas bills.
  • The legal purpose of the PGA is solely for recovering the wholesale cost of natural gas—not to compensate the utility for bad debt.  In 2009, the Missouri PSC ruled unanimously that bad debt is not a "gas cost" [Case No. GT-2009-0026].
  • This legislation would have decreased the utility's incentive to effectively manage its bad debt accounts and increased the incentive to write off accounts early and pass those costs through the PGA.  However, writing off accounts as "uncollectible" does not stop the utility from continuing to attempt collection from the customer who owes the debt.
  • The Bad Debt Surcharge also reduces the utilities' risk, and therefore increases their profits. These companies are already compensated for this risk through the return on equity (ROE) component of rates.  Laclede and MGE are already permitted double-digit ROEs.  In other states, it has been estimated that such surcharges would enhance earnings by 0.75% to 0.95%.

Single Issue Ratemaking

Single issue ratemaking is an unfair utility proposal whereby Missouri's public utilities are allowed to increase electric rates on Missouri consumers through rate increase surcharges outside of the normal ratemaking process. As fuel charges have increased on Ameren as on all other consumers, for instance, Ameren has raised electrical rates via fuel surcharge increases. Often, Ameren has imposed these fuel surcharges even when their revenues are increase from other means such as off system sales. The result is that, while all Missourians struggle at times with increased fuel charges, only Ameren is able to pass those increased costs on to hard working families. FERAF opposes single-issue ratemaking for exactly these reasons.

Ameren Demands 18% Rate Increase

Missouri's families and employers are struggling with a state unemployment rate of nearly 10%. In the face of this struggle, rather than tighten their belts like Missouri's working families, Ameren  demanded that the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC), the regulatory body responsible for policing the Ameren monopoly, allow another Ameren rate hike.  Thanks to the efforts of concerned Missourians and FERAF the rate hike was cut nearly in half.
  • Raise electricity rates on Missouri's working families and employers by 18%.
  • Resulted in an immediate rate hike on Missouri's electricity users. If Ameren has their way, Missouri's families and employers would have had their electricity rates raised immediately, during one of the most difficult economic downturns we've seen in decades.
  • Ameren's original request would have allowed them to raise rates more frequently.Despite the fact that they enjoy a monopoly, Ameren isn't content with its profits. Buried in the fine print of of its 18% rate hike request was a plan to allow it to raise rates on struggling Missouri families more often through rate increase surcharges on customers' electric bills. If Ameren had their way, Missourians would need to be prepared for more frequent rate increases!
  • Cause Missouri job losses. Missourians are losing their jobs. Missouri businesses are being forced to downsize in order to stay afloat. Hiking rates on Missouri's employers and small businesses when they're already struggling will force many to lay off even more workers.
  • Push already struggling Missouri families into poverty. Rate increases will hurt Missouri's employers and small businesses but it will hurt Missouri families even more. In this fragile economy, thousands of families live on the brink of financial disaster. Electric rate increases will cause the number of Missouri families living in poverty to increase.

8.27.2011

Re:Missouri Flunks! -- Save EPA & Coal Ash Rule -- Landfill Update





Subject: Missouri Flunks! -- Save EPA and Coal Ash Rule -- Landfill Update
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:05:26 +0000

       
tl.gif t.gif tr.gif
l.gif


Some news and information from 

Labadie Environmental Organization

August 25, 2011

____________________________________________________


When Will County Commission Decide Landfill Zoning Issue?    

Tick.  Tock.  No "save the date" for this event.  Check the Commission agenda every Friday afternoon here  and attend the Tuesday 10 am Commission meetings at the Government Center in Union.  The decision meeting will likely happen in the next several weeks and with very little notice.   An action alert will be sent as soon as we know.

But there is still time to put the Commissioners on notice that landfills DO NOT belong in a floodplain or a floodway or a seismic impact zone… EVER.   Strong rules at the local level that actually protect affected residents are more important than ever now that we know these 3 things:
1.       State coal ash regulations that truly protect the public are a myth
2.       No national coal ash standards currently exist,  and
3.       Congress is actively trying to prevent future enactment of national coal ash standards. 
The landfill issue represents the intersection of local, state and federal policies and how they should work together to benefit the public but often end up failing to do that.  Here's what we've learned.



Myth Busted! 

Missouri flunks the test when it comes to managing coal ash.   According to a recent state-by-state analysis, Missouri falls in the top 12 of the worst states for coal ash management.  # 6 to be exact.  That's an alarming statistic that must be emphasized to the Franklin County Commission as they wrestle with zoning changes that would allow coal ash landfills. 

This report debunks the myth that state regulatory agencies are strong and actually protect the public from the dangers of toxic coal ash.   Read the report here (Missouri details are on pg 15 of the report) and then take action.  Here are 3 easy ways to share your concerns with the Commissioners.
Ø  Send an email to commission@franklinmo.net
Ø  Send a letter to Franklin County Commission, 400 E. Locust, Union, Mo. 63084 or
Ø  Call 636-583-6358
Trusting state regulations on coal ash management will protect our drinking water creates a false sense of security.  The truth is, State regulations are lacking and/or unenforced.  But surely the EPA will come to the rescue.  Won't they?  Not if the House of Representatives get their way.


Coal Ash Rule and EPA Under Attack!   

House Reps are on a roll – rolling back our environmental protections.   Here is a partial hit list: 
ü  suspending vehicle car mileage goals
ü  suspending rules on mountaintop removal mining
ü  disallowing almost any activity related to greenhouse gas regulation
ü  stopping stricter mercury emissions standards
ü  and preventing the EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste… EVER !
The Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act are under attack … that means you, your kids, your grandkids and your future grandkids are under attack.  There are many fronts in this battle but here's how to fight back on coal ash:
v  Let your member of Congress know you want federal protection from toxic coal ash.  Tell them to oppose H.R. 2273 aka "The McKinley Bill".   This bill is a gift to polluters.  Find out more here.
v  Coal Ash Talking Points.  Get the lowdown here on how Congress is trying to use budget riders to the Appropriations Bill to kill coal ash protections … another gift to polluters. 
For details on a different House bill (HR 2018*) that has incredibly passed the House and would dismantle 40 years of environmental progress if the Senate passes it this Fall, read this article from Health News Digest.   *The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011 will amend the Clean Water Act of 1970 and give authority over clean water regulation back to the States. 

Think about that… considering Missouri is at the very end of one of the largest watersheds in the country!  WE ALL LIVE DOWNSTREAM and Missouri is downstream from many, many states.  Tell your Senator to reject HR 2018 and save the Clean Water Act.   Tell Senator McCaskill to protect the public and "unsign" the White House coal ash letter she endorsed that would prevent managing coal ash as the hazardous waste it is.  Contact your Senator here.


Powerful Words and Images:   

A concerned citizen recently wrote a thoughtful and moving open letter to Senator Claire McCaskill about the Ameren coal ash landfill issue.  It was prominently displayed in the August 17th edition of the Missourian.  See it here and read what one person had to say.  Get inspired to add your voice wherever you can.  





r.gif
bl.gif b.gif br.gif




Labadie Environmental Organization, Inc.
PO Box 112
Labadie, Missouri 63055
US

Try Email Marketing with VerticalResponse!



--


6.21.2011

Bad combination: Floodplains, nuclear materials and understated risk Print E-mail Share173
By Bob Criss, special to the Beacon   
Posted 7:00 am Fri., 6.17.11     

It's only June but one thing is certain: 2011 is another extraordinary flood year. The record high water levels just experienced on the Mississippi from Cairo to Baton Rouge will soon be joined by new record levels on the Missouri River at numerous sites above Kansas City. The vagaries of rainfall delivery will dictate how bad things will become and how far downstream serious problems will propagate, but indications are that many dozens of levees will fail, either by overtopping, under-seepage or simply because they will be water saturated for long periods of time.

How is it that this extraordinary flood year came so soon after the extraordinary flood year of 2008, which came so soon after the extraordinary flood years of 2001, 1995 and 1993? The explanation is that damaging episodes of high water are no longer statistically extraordinary, but rather represent the new norm. Describing these events as "50-year," "100-year" or "500-year" floods grossly mischaracterizes what's happening.

Understated flood risk is not an academic matter. Faulty risk calculations are used by FEMA to set flood insurance rates that are too low and to define flood zones that are too narrow.

Understated risk promotes development projects that place property and lives in hazardous areas. Ironically these same developments encroach on rivers and floodplains in a way that amplifies flood frequency and increases floodwater levels. At the same time, valuable farmland is destroyed, habitat is eliminated and surface water and ground water resources are degraded.

In cases where floodplain development projects are encouraged by TIFs and other inappropriate financial inducements, tax revenues can actually go down, even as municipal responsibilities to provide services such as police and fire protection go up.
westlake300bobcriss
Photo by Bob Criss
The West Lake landfill

Counterproductive enough? Not for some. Now combine the high and progressively increasing likelihood of flooding with the placement of nuclear materials in floodplains. Let's examine two examples.
Incredibly, large volumes of the oldest radioactive waste materials of the Atomic Age were dumped at West Lake landfill in Bridgeton in 1973. From every conceivable viewpoint, the situation is deplorable. Radwaste does not belong in the most populous county in Missouri, near the Missouri River, upstream of several water intakes and within 1.5 miles of Interstates 70 and 270.

This site has high risk factors for flooding and is underlain by soils that have high potential to undergo liquefaction during seismic shaking. USGS maps indicate that the potential for strong shaking is significant in this area, so the possibility for slumping of the landfill or the protective levee is significant, particularly during flood years when shallow sediments become saturated. Moreover, the landfill does not have a clay liner or any other protective barrier, nor does it have the leachate collection and drainage systems that are standard in modern landfills.

The landfill is not capped, so wind erosion and rainwater penetration can disseminate radwaste. Historical slumping of the landfill has already spread radwaste over adjacent fields. The waste has not been adequately characterized, but enough is known to establish that its level of radioactivity will increase approximately tenfold over time. 

This can occur because the systematic decay of the radionuclides produces several additional short-lived "daughter" radioisotopes that will cause the radioactivity of this waste to grow for thousands of years. Few things are as absurd as burying such waste in a substandard landfill in a floodplain in a populous area.

As another example, two nuclear power plants in Nebraska have been constructed in the Missouri River floodplain where new records for flood levels are expected to be set this June. The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant has been recently sandbagged, only a year after the plant was cited for having inadequate flood protection. Floodwaters are already adjacent to several of the buildings, and water levels are projected to increase by at least five feet. Fortunately, the reactor was recently shut down for refueling, but about 300 tons of spent fuel rods have accumulated onsite over the years. Make no mistake; some of the most serious, recent problems and explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant involved spent fuel, not just the active reactors.

Of course, the NRC and power industry promoters routinely assure us that the risk of nuclear accidents is incredibly low, something akin to the probability of being attacked by a shark while riding a ski lift. The historical record provides a more realistic and vastly higher assessment of nuclear risk. More than 2 percent of the world's 440 nuclear power reactors have been irreparably harmed by nuclear accidents during their operating lifetimes - prominent cases are Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima.

The bottom line is that understated risk is rampant and the consequences can be economically and environmentally disastrous. Understated risk fosters inappropriate land use in high-risk geologic areas, causing harm that can spread far beyond the boundaries of the offending properties. In contrast, realistic risk calculations and improved economic assessment of construction projects will promote wise land use and resource conservation, while reducing the economic burden caused by flooding or other disasters. Thoughtful stewardship will increase opportunities for research, innovation, enterprise and job creation, and ensure a brighter and more equitable future for all.

Bob Criss is a professor in the department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Washington University. He is the coauthor of the 2003 book, "At the Confluence: Rivers, Floods, and Water Quality in the St. Louis Region." To reach Voices authors, contact Beacon features and commentary editor Donna Korando.

9.30.2010

Renewable Energy Rebates-Ameren UE-Federal Tax Incentive

Ameren UE Renewable Energy Rebate Program

Recently I was asked:
  • "Why does Ameren UE buy back the electricity created by Renewable Energy System on my House?" 
When I directed the question to Ms L.Cosgrove who handles the Local Ameren UE Renewable Energy Department.  She replied:
  •    "AmerenUE provides the MO Solar Rebate in response to Missourian’s passing Proposition C back in November, 2008[ii],[iii]"

In a nutshell it seems to me that Ameren UE will either have to build Renewable Energy Producing Systems or Purchase the Electricity that is made from Residents and Businesses to comply with the Law. 

Which means that Ameren has a Stake in any Renewable Energy Sytem that produces Electricity and is Interconnected utilizing Net Metering to our / their Electircal Grid here in the St Louis Area. 

Good News for all those who would like additional Monetary Incentives for Installing RE (Renewable Energy) Sytems.

The Ameren Rebate and the Federal Tax Incentive can add up to as much as 2/3 of the cost of the RE System. 




[i] Lisa M. Cosgrove | Renewables Specialist  | 1901 Chouteau Avenue, MC 611 | St. Louis, MO 63103
314-554-2649 | fax 314-206-1387 lcosgrove@ameren.com   

[iii] 2008 Initiative Petitions
Approved for Circulation in Missouri

Amendment to Chapter 393 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, Relating to Renewable Energy, version 4, 2008-031

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Be it enacted by the people of the state of Missouri:
Chapter 393, RSMo, is amended by repealing sections 393.1020, 393.1025, 393.1030, and 393.1035, and substituting therefor three new sections to be known as sections 393.1020, 393.1025 and 393.1030, to read as follows:
393.1020. Sections 393.1025 to 393.1030 shall be known as the Renewable Energy Standard.
393.1025. As used in sections 393.1020 to 393.1030, the following terms mean:
 1. "Commission", the public service commission;
 2. "Department", the department of natural resources;
 3. “Electric utility”, any electrical corporation as defined by section 386.020;
 4. "Renewable energy resources", electric energy produced from wind, solar thermal sources, photovoltaic cells and panels, dedicated crops grown for energy production, cellulosic agricultural residues, plant residues, methane from landfills or from wastewater treatment, clean and untreated wood such as pallets, hydropower (not including pumped storage) that does not require a new diversion or impoundment of water and that has a nameplate rating of 10 megawatts or less, fuel cells using hydrogen produced by one of the above-named renewable energy sources, and other sources of energy not including nuclear that become available after the effective date of this section and are certified as renewable by rule by the department; and
 5. "Renewable energy credit" or “REC”, a tradable certificate of proof that one megawatt-hour of electricity has been generated from renewable energy sources.
393.1030.1. The commission shall, in consultation with the department, prescribe by rule a portfolio requirement for all electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity generated from renewable energy resources. Such portfolio requirement shall provide that electricity from renewable energy resources shall constitute the following portions of each electric utility’s sales:
(a) No less than two percent for calendar years 2011 through 2013;
(b) No less than five percent for calendar years 2014 through 2017;
(c) No less than ten percent for calendar years 2018 through 2020; and
(d) No less than fifteen percent in each calendar year beginning in 2021. 

At least two percent of each portfolio requirement shall be derived from solar energy. The portfolio requirements shall apply to all power sold to Missouri consumers whether such power is self-generated or purchased from another source in or outside of this state. A utility may comply with the standard in whole or in part by purchasing RECs. Each kilowatt-hour of eligible energy generated in Missouri shall count as 1.25 kilowatt-hours for purposes of compliance.
2. The commission, in consultation with the department and within one year of the effective date of sections 393.1020 to 393.1030, shall select a program for tracking and verifying the trading of renewable energy credits. An unused credit may exist for up to three years from the date of its creation. A credit may be used only once to comply with this act and may not also be used to satisfy any similar non-federal requirement. An electric utility may not use a credit derived from a green pricing program. Certificates from net-metered sources shall initially be owned by the customer-generator.  The... continues on web site 

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest