Tele Convo Details Solar Rebate RENEW MO

I just had an informative telephone conversation with RENEW MO Director Mr M Walter (Corrected and Updated Information 11/12/2014 Scotty).  We discussed a few things about the State of Affairs specifically AmerenUE suspending the Solar Rebate option for customers in the St.Louis Region.

Thumbs Up Clean Energy Solar in St.Louis

I'm going to share some of our conversation that was not included in his email (see corrected post below):

• Corrected and updated information via Mark-Renew Missouri 11/12/14 (strikethrough comments were/are partially incorrect)
  • Even though Ameren UE has suspended (illegally) the Solar Rebate that is paid to customers who install a clean energy system.  He suggests: "still apply for the Solar Rebate".  
  • His reasoning is: "We the Voters voted this program into existence" which was then challenged by the Lobbying Efforts by the Electric Companies statewide.
  • Just because this program is in limbo is by no reason for not applying since the Legislation is being challenged.  If RENEW MO is successful in their ongoing Court Battle:
  Anyone who has applied and installed a Clean Energy System could benefit retroactively from the Net Metering Request
  
  
  Thanks for the blog post the other day.  Has it gotten much attention?  In the future, Renew Missouri and I personally would love to be involved in your blog in whatever capacity we can.  If you wouldn't mind, we would appreciate it if you'd run any of our conversations by us before you post them on your blog.  There are a couple of things that aren't accurate on the blog post that I'd like to try and get straight.
  
  
  First, there are a few lawsuits going on in Missouri, and Renew Missouri is only involved in one of them.  
  1. In September, we wrapped up a case against Empire Electric in the Supreme Court.  We're still waiting to hear back on the verdict, but if we win then people in Empire Territory only will likely have their rebates reinstated.  We're encouraging solar installers to prepare rebate forms for their customers in Empire Territory only so that should we hear a positive verdict, we can create a rush of solar rebates for customers.
  
  
  The other big case in Missouri right now is Solar LLC (representing several solar companies in the state) and Missouri Coalition for the Environment vs. the Missouri PSC attempting to reinstate rebates for all of the Investor Owned Utilities.  Should they win the case, it is likely that rebates will get reinstated for all customers in IOU territory.  It is possible that if people were wrongfully denied solar rebates (i.e. they applied for solar rebates during the time that the IOUs decided they weren't paying) that they can then get retroactive payment through a separate lawsuit, but since Renew Missouri is not a party to this law suit in any way, we aren't advising our supporters to do anything like that.  I'm sorry if I wasn't very clear in our conversation and I accept total responsibility for any murkiness there.

Mark Walter
Renew Missouri
Deputy Director
(573) 590-2255

End- Corrected Information

• Which is a great thing!  Especially since Ameren is a Co-Owner in any clean energy system that is hooked to the grid.  Thats right: if your system is hooked to their power supply via your electric meter-
  They partly own your system because they can then count this net metering towards the Renewable Energy Target set by the Voters of Missouri.  (The energy created by your clean energy system that you do not have to pay for or buy from the electric company gets credited to Ameren.)  You reap the savings and Ameren gets the credit and then skirts their duty on paying for the Solar Rebate established by Missouri Voters.

I personally have no desire to help a company that poisons the world with Dirty Coal Pollution.  

So I've been working behind the scenes on a way to bring the Residents of St.Louis a clean energy solar system that is affordable and will enable you to completely eliminate Ameren from the mix.

My Goal: 

1. Provide St.Louis Residents with an option to have a clean energy system that is affordable without the Solar Rebate from Ameren. 
2. I've set up an accounts with a Solar Finance company's who is helping everyday Americans become self sufficient by generating their own clean energy electricity without having to burn Dirty Coal. 

Drop me a line, Send an Email, or fill in the contact form and I will help you become energy independent and free you from the Electric Companies grip on your finances and health.

Scotty,

"It was great chatting with you this afternoon.  I think it's pretty clear that we're both in the same place on the issues facing the solar industry today.  I'm glad you have found a good product to offer your customers to help them get over the big front end investment.  I'm sure that will make a big difference as you work harder on sales.

Like I was saying, we've been putting together a campaign with solar installers around the state to reach out to their previous customers and hopefully get some referral business for them while educating the homeowners on their solar rights.  As the legislative session gears up again, we'll be trying to build our grassroots supporters so they can call their legislators and let them know what they'd like to see done, and this will be an important step in that direction.

Let me know what you think or if you have any input on anything else.  It will be great to chat with you as we move forward this year.  And as always, if there's anything we can do to help you out, let us know.

All the best,

Mark Walter
Renew Missouri
Deputy Director
(573) 590-2255"

Background on Renewable Energy Standards via RENEW MO

• In 2007 and 2008, Renew Missouri spearheaded the Missouri Clean Energy initiative via the statewide ballot process. The initiative, which was called Proposition C, passed with 66% of the vote makes Missouri the 27th state to have a renewable electricity standard (RES), and only the 3rd to pass it by ballot initiative. 
  
  • Prop C requires investor-owned utilities to get 15% of their electricity from clean energy sources by 2021, 2% of which must come from solar.
  • Through 2030, Prop C is expected a carbon reduction equivalent to permanently removing 2 million cars from the road by 2021.
  • Prop C includes a solar rebate program that will make it cheaper for most Missourians to install a solar system on their home or business.
  • Over the next 20 years, Prop C is predicted to save Missourians $331 million on their electric bills and is expected to stimulate in-state generation of renewable energy sources resulting in thousands of new “green-collar” jobs.

Thank You for stopping by-Share and Comment below. If additional information in needed or you have a question let me know. Together we can make a difference. Build a Green StLouis Green Building Tips and Resources from Scotty-St Louis Renewable Energy Green Blog
-->

Act Now to Save Solar in Missouri!

Tell your Legislators: Vote NO on HB44

Dear St Louis and Missouri Solar Advocates,

Some of the smartest, most successful companies and organizations in the world are deploying solar — including Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, FedEx, GE, GM, Google, IKEA, Macy's, Target, Walmart, and the U.S. military. So, why is the Missouri General Assembly dismantling incentives to bring more solar investment to the state?

Help us spread the word and tell your legislators to protect the state's solar industry.

Across the nation, the solar industry is creating jobs, building a more resilient power grid and tackling climate change head-on. By nearly all measures, the solar energy industry has been one of the fastest growing industries over the last five years and 2012 set records for new solar installations, despite a slow economic recovery.

And yet, Missouri's legislators are considering a bill that would stall renewable energy development by allowing the renewable energy standard to be met by existing hydro power. Tell them this makes no sense. The best way to encourage companies to invest and create jobs in our state is to give them certainty about policies.

This bill signals to the business and investment community that the rules are changing and their investments are no longer welcome here.

In 2012 alone, $32 million was invested in Missouri to install solar on homes and businesses. There are 64 solar businesses creating investments and jobs in the state. This bill would cripple that momentum. So why are your representatives moving backwards? Because there is a lot of money and power invested in keeping the status quo.

Tell your legislators -- you want more, not less, incentives for solar.

Thank you for all you do, Carrie Cullen Hitt Senior Vice President, State Affairs Solar Energy Industries Association

Missouri-Stand. Act. Defend! Lobby Day April 17

Missouri Needs Your Help-MO Environmental Defense Alliance
 
Lobby Day

Wednesday, April 17th, 2013

One deeply meaningful action you can do for Missouri's energy future, for our air, our water and our state's children, is to attend Lobby Day.  
 
This is a call for those of you who can take the extra step to represent your family, your friends and your neighbors. Register now to be their voice to counter the swarms of paid lobbyists found in Jefferson City this time of year.

Missouri Needs Your Help

MO Environmental Defense Alliance  

Lobby Day

Wednesday, April 17th, 2013

8 a.m.- 3 p.m., Jefferson City, Missouri

See You at 2013 Earth Day Events! Webster University Sustainability Conference   April 12-13     St. Louis Earth Day Festival at Forest Park April 21  Kirkwood Earth Day at the Market April 27 Earth Day at Missouri Botanical Garden April 27      Donate Now Become A Member  Volunteer  Forward  to a Friend        Like Us on Facebook      Follow Us on Twitter            "All that is necessary   for evil to triumph   is for good men   to do nothing." - Edmund Burke One deeply meaningful action you can do for Missouri's energy future, for our air, our water and our state's children, is to attend Lobby Day.       This is a call for those of you who can take the extra step to represent your family, your friends and your neighbors. Register now to be their voice to counter the swarms of paid lobbyists found in Jefferson City this time of year. Missouri Needs Your Help MO Environmental Defense Alliance   Lobby Day Wednesday, April 17th, 2013 8 a.m.- 3 p.m., Jefferson City, Missouri Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Environment Missouri, and Labadie Environmental Organization request your presence for MEDA Lobby Day 2013. Join us in Jefferson City at 8 a.m. for an early start on a day filled with meeting your legislators, sharing your key concerns on this year's top priorities and defending Missouri's environment. Together with volunteers and staff from MEDA organizations, you will take a stand for the environment, enjoy lunch, and make a difference. Lobby day will finish around 3 p.m. Cost for lobby day is $20, which includes a vegetarian lunch.   Priorities this year include: Defending Clean, Safe Energy Investing in Missouri State Parks Keeping Toxic Coal Ash Out of Our Rivers To RSVP, complete the form here.  Want to carpool? Check the box in the RSVP form and you will receive all the details.      Share this invitation on Facebook.  Please join us to make a difference.

Missouri Coalition for the Environment | 6267 Delmar Blvd., Ste. 2E | St. Louis | MO | 63130

Ameren UEs Greed-Missouri-Nuclear Reactor-

Here is some of the latest news on Energy (Electricity) Issues affecting the St Louis Area, Ameren UEs Nuclear Reactor Agenda is just plain GREEDY and will cost us the rate payers now and in the future.

• Amerens goal is to charge the people of the St Louis Area, the ratepayers, millions of dollars up front for an unnecessary, risky, and expensive Nuclear Power Reactor Plant rather than investing in the cheapest energy resource available, energy efficiency
  

• US Department of Energy Statistics on Energy Efficiency-Saves 10% Energy Costs, 20-30% Heating/AC Costs. 
  

• The proposed legislation would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.

• Missouri General Assembly is considering legislation that would allow Ameren Missouri to charge ratepayers $40 million for a permit for a second nuclear reactor in mid-Missouri.
  

• The proposed legislation-SB 321 and SB 406- would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.

• To understand the many other reasons why SB 321 and SB 406 are bad public policy, read Senator Joan Bray's guest column in the Joplin Globe last month.                                                                                                                                                                                        
• Ameren admits it cannot find investors to fund the Nuclear Plant because it is too risky and expensive.

• Scotts Contracting/Facebook Page Latest Estimated Costs for Nuclear Reactor is $10 Billion. we'll have to pay an additional $4 Billion Dollars                                             

• Therefore, Ameren must pass SB 321 or SB 406 which shifts the financial risk of investment of a new nuclear plant from shareholders to ratepayers.  But while shareholders dodge the risk, they still receive a financial windfall if/when the reactor comes online and Ameren then sells the excess electricity out of state for a premium.                                                                                                                                                                           

•  Ameren can easily meet Missouri's energy needs through energy efficiency instead of raising your electric rates to pay for a $6 billion nuclear reactor.  (Per Nuclear Reactor in Florida 6 Billion in Projected Costs ends up with total costs of 22 Billion over Budget)  In the St. Louis Post Dispatch on February 25, Steve Kidwell, Ameren Missouri Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, said:  

1.  
   "If we went after the potential that we've seen in our own study,  we wouldn't have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we'd be OK.  But we'd lose  $30 million a year. And we just can't do that. It's that simple."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Join the Movement and Contact the Missouri Legislative Department Here

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat,
and Let Your Voice BE HEARD!     
Active Participation is Suggested Tell My Politician

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Re: Senate Bill 50- Missouri Nuclear Agenda Just Say NO

Collection of Examples for Solar vs. Nuclear- Energy Production Debate and Proposed Bill

• Missourians, Don't let the TV Ads on Senate Bill 50 Fool You. Read the Information for yourself-I've supplied all the web links where I found the Info. 

• Solar is the Best Form of Renewable Energy- I don't consider Nuclear Energy a form of Renewable Energy since the Waste will be placed in the Ground- IE: It could pollute the Water our Bodies Must Have-We Consume Everyday
• I do not Support Nuclear Energy for Our State or any other State

Tell My Politician- Web Site that will direct you to your Elected Representatives-Republican or Democrat, Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician http://tellmypolitician.com/search?

_____________________
Solar and Nuclear Costs —
The Historic Crossover
Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

___________

Easy to understand Solar Vs Nuclear Photos http://www.jeffreyventrella.com/Solar/solar.html

_____________

Which Is Cheaper? Nuclear vs. Solar http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/07/which-is-cheaper-nuclear-vs-solar/

By Bill Roth | July 20th, 2010

The study's premise is that traditional energy supplies including fossil and nuclear energy are experiencing what economists called "upward cost curves" or in other words, their costs keep going up and are not likely to ever go back down. However, the research claims of Blackburn/Cunningham are that renewable energy has achieved a "downward cost curve" over the last decade, namely that their prices have gone down and there is a strong likelihood that they will continue to fall in price.

____________

Report: Solar Energy Cheaper Than Nuclear Energy http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/01/solar-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy/

Tagged with: nuclear, photovoltaic, solar

Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have risen dramatically since the much-heralded "nuclear renaissance" began during the past decade, says Blackburn. "Projects first announced with costs in the $2 billion range per reactor have seen several revisions as detailed planning proceeds and numerous design and engineering problems have emerged. The latest price estimates are in the $10 billion range per reactor."

The costs for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems have fallen steadily while construction costs for new nuclear power plants have been rising over the past decade, which now makes electricity generated from new solar installations cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear power plants, according to a new report published by a retired Duke University professor.
_________________
http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/solar-information/nuclear-vs-solar-2/
These are the advantages, put simply, that I can see right now. There are proponents of one, the other, or both. I see a brighter future for solar for three reasons:
1. It is completely, even daily, renewable.
2. Solar is fast advancing. We are likely on the cusp of a technological windfall for solar power.
3. The risks for nuclear power are high and unlikely to get resolved soon. So far it seems that, in an attempt to stop polluting the sky, we would throw our toxins into the ground.
_______________________

According to Norman Baker, the environment spokesperson...  turning to nuclear power to tackle climate change is "like jumping from the frying pan to the fire". "Nuclear power may not contribute to carbon emissions, but it generates tonnes of radioactive wastes costing billions to store and will pose a risk to humans for thousands of years after disposal," he added.
Darren Johnson... said nuclear reactors had an operational life of between 30 and 40 years but created waste that lasted "thousands" of years. "It is barking mad to consider nuclear power as part of a sustainable energy policy," he opined.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/441990/nuclear_vs_solar_energy_which/
___________________

SB 50- Allows electric companies to recover costs from ratepayers associated with early site development for certain electrical generation facilities

SB 50 - Beginning October 1, 2011, any electric company seeking an Early Site Permit from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must submit reports to the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) every 6 months. The reports must document the work completed and costs incurred up to that point toward the acquisition of the Early Site Permit as well as the projected amount of work and costs remaining. If the total cost of obtaining the Early Site Permit is expected to exceed $40 million, the company must also include an explanation in its reports as to why expenditures beyond that amount are prudent.Once the Early Site Permit is obtained, the electric company may recover the expenditures for the permit from its ratepayers through rates and charges over a period not to exceed 20 years. The company may begin the cost recovery on the effective date of tariffs approved by the PSC at the company's first general rate proceeding following the acquisition of the permit. Other electric companies that also incur expenses toward the Early Site Permit may similarly recover their costs through rates and charges.
If an electric company has recovered costs from its ratepayers for an Early Site Permit but the company's interest in the Early Site Permit is subsequently sold or transferred, the company must refund its ratepayers up to the amount that the company collected from the ratepayers for the permit.
ERIKA JAQUESSenate Bill 50 is sponsored by: Kehoe -http://www.senate.mo.gov/-Capitol Office:201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 429,Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-2076 FAX: (573) 751-2582 EMail Senator Kehoe
__________________________

Say NO to SB 50- December 10th, 2010-Consumers Council of Missouri calls on customers of AmerenUE

to say NO to the newest legislative attempt to overturn Anti-CWIP law. http://moconsumers.org/2010/12/10/say-no-to-sb-50/#comment-8171
____________________________

Ameren Missouri; Combined License Application for Callaway Plant Unit 2; Exemption

Posted on: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:37:07 EST- http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/aee_uepcp_ameren-missouri-combined-license-application-for-callaway-plant-unit-2-exemption-1436866.html

Symbols: AEE, UEPCP

Jan 21, 2011 (FIND, Inc. via COMTEX) --
1.0 Background
Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren UE, submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a Combined License (COL) Application for a single unit of AREVA NP's U.S. EPR in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), subpart C of part 52, "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." This reactor is to be identified as Callaway Plant (Callaway), Unit 2, and located at the current Callaway County, Missouri site of the Callaway Power Plant. The Callaway, Unit 2, COL application is based upon and linked to the U.S. EPR reference COL (RCOL) application for UniStar's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 (CCNPP3). The NRC docketed the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application on December 12, 2008. In its letter to the NRC dated April 28, 2009, Ameren informed that it was suspending its efforts to build a nuclear power plant in Missouri. Subsequently, by letter dated June 23, 2009, Ameren requested the NRC to suspend all review activities relating to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application. The NRC informed Ameren by letter dated June 29, 2009, that it had suspended all review activities relating to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application. The NRC is currently performing a detailed review of the CCNPP3 RCOL application, as well as AREVA NP's application for design certification of the U.S. EPR.
2.0 Request/Action
The regulations specified in 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) require that an applicant for a combined license under 10 CFR part 52 shall, during the period from docketing of a COL application until the Commission makes a finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g) pertaining to facility operation, submit an annual update to the application's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), which is a part of the application.
On February 25, 2009, Ameren submitted Revision 1 to the COL application, including updates to the FSAR. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii), the next annual update would be due in December 2010. Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren Missouri (Ameren) as of October 1, 2010, as noted in its letter to the NRC dated October 26, 2010, has requested a one-time exemption from the 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) requirements to submit the scheduled 2010 and 2011 COL application FSAR updates, and proposed for approval of a new submittal deadline of December 31, 2012, for the next FSAR update.
In summary, the requested exemption is a one-time schedule change from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next FSAR update at a later date, but still in advance of NRC's reinstating its review of the application and in any event, by December 31, 2012. The current FSAR update schedule could not be changed, absent the exemption. Ameren requested the exemption by letter dated October 26, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number ML103090556).
3.0 Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, including Section 50.71(e)(3)(iii) when: (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) special circumstances are present. As relevant to the requested exemption, special circumstances exist if: (1) "Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); (2) "Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was
[Page Number 3928]
adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii)); or (3) "The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The review of the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application FSAR has been suspended since June 29, 2009. Since the COL application FSAR is directly linked to the CCNPP3 RCOL application, many changes in the RCOL application require an associated change to the COL application FSAR and, because the NRC review of the COL application is suspended, the updates to the FSAR will not be reviewed by the NRC staff until the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application review is resumed. Thus, the optimum time to prepare a revision to the COL application FSAR is sometime prior to Ameren requesting the NRC to resume its review. To prepare and submit a COL application FSAR update when the review remains suspended and in the absence of any decision by Ameren to request the NRC to resume the review would require Ameren to spend significant time and effort and would be of no value, particularly due to the fact that the RCOL application and the U.S. EPR FSAR are still undergoing periodic revisions and updates. Furthermore, the adjudicatory proceedings related to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application were terminated by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) after agreements were made between Ameren, the NRC, and the petitioners for intervention, as documented in "AMERENUE (Callaway Plant Unit 2) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Terminating Contested Adjudicatory Proceeding) LBP-09-23 (August 28, 2009)" (ML092400189). Ameren commits to submit the next FSAR update prior to any request to the NRC to resume review of the COL application and, in any event, by December 31, 2012. Ameren would need to identify all committed changes to the RCOL application since the last revisions to the RCOL application and the U.S. EPR FSAR in order to prepare a COL application FSAR revision that accurately and completely reflects the committed changes to the RCOL application as well as the U.S. EPR FSAR.
The requested one-time exemption to defer submittal of the next update to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application FSAR would provide only temporary relief from the regulations of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). Ameren has made good faith efforts to comply with 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) by submitting Revision 1 to the COL application dated February 25, 2009, prior to requesting the review suspension. Revision 1 incorporated information provided in prior supplements and standardized language with the RCOL application.
Authorized by Law:
The exemption is a one-time schedule exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next Callaway Unit 2 COL application FSAR update on or before December 31, 2012, in lieu of the required scheduled submittals in December 2010, and December 2011. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions. The NRC staff has determined that granting Ameren the requested one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) will provide only temporary relief from this regulation and will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety:
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. The requested exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to the schedule for submittal to the NRC of revisions to an application under 10 CFR part 52, for which a license has not been granted. In addition, since the review of the application has been suspended, any update to the application submitted by Ameren will not be reviewed by the NRC at this time.
Based on the nature of the requested exemption as described above, no new accident precursors are created by the exemption; thus, neither the probability nor the consequences of postulated accidents are increased. Therefore, there is no undue risk to public health and safety.
Consistent with Common Defense and Security:
The requested exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next FSAR update prior to requesting the NRC to resume the review and, in any event, on or before December 31, 2012. This schedule change has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
Special Circumstances:
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), are present whenever: (1) "Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); (2) "Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii)); or (3) "The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. As discussed above, the requested one-time exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to a one-time schedule change for submittal of revisions to an application under 10 CFR Part 52, for which a license has not been granted. The requested one-time exemption will permit Ameren time to carefully review the most recent revisions of the CCNPP3 RCOL application as well as the U.S. EPR FSAR, and fully incorporate these revisions into a comprehensive update of the Callaway, Unit 2, FSAR associated with the COL application. This one-time exemption will support the NRC staff's effective and efficient review of the COL application when resumed, as well as issuance of the safety evaluation report, and therefore does not affect the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). Under the circumstances that Ameren has suspended its pursuit of the COL, the NRC has suspended its review of the application, and the adjudicatory proceedings have been terminated by ASLB, application of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would result in Ameren spending significant time and effort in incorporating changes made to the RCOL application into the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application, but not achieve the underlying purpose of that rule; granting a one-time exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would provide only temporary relief; and Ameren has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation; therefore, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR
[Page Number 3929]
50.12(a)(2) for the granting of an exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) exist.
4.0 Conclusion
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the NRC hereby grants Ameren a one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) pertaining to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application to allow submittal of the next FSAR update prior to any request to the NRC to resume the review and, in any event, no later than December 31, 2012.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the NRC has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (76 FR 800).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of January 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph Colaccino,
Chief, EPR Projects Branch, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2011-1263 Filed 1-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Vol. 76, No. 014
[Docket No. 52-037; NRC-2008-0556]
Notices
For full details on Ameren Corp (AEE) AEE. Ameren Corp (AEE) has Short Term PowerRatings at TradingMarkets. Details on Ameren Corp (AEE) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.
For full details on (UEPCP) UEPCP. (UEPCP) has Short Term PowerRatings at TradingMarkets. Details on (UEPCP) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.
_________________________

Tell My Politician-

 http://tellmypolitician.com/search?

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com