-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy

Search This Blog

11.09.2010

Re: And the winner is...



On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Dave Boundy, Repower America <info@repoweramerica.org> wrote:
 

Dear Scotts Contracting,

One thing is for certain: you're angry. When I tallied the votes for the 2010 Snake Oil Awards, I found myself nodding my head as I read your comments. Massey Energy, API, Koch Industries and BP America spew lies so they can pollute the air and line their pockets with profits.

Each of the four nominees received a large number of votes, but now it's time to announce the "winner." It's Koch Industries -- the notorious pipeline and refinery company that pours money into groups that defend the interests of big oil.

Find out more about Koch Industries here.

Here are the final vote totals for our four nominees:

Koch Industries: 5,552 votes (42%)
BP: 5,119 votes (39%)
API: 1,347 votes (10%)
Massey Energy: 1,216 votes (9%)

We set out to determine the worst offender so we could spread the word about this dirty energy company's history of pollution and lies.

That's why we made this site: KochIndustriesFacts.com

KochIndustriesFacts.com is a catalog of lies and environmental offenses by Koch Industries and its owners, the brothers Charles and David Koch. What we've listed on the site is just the beginning. Click around for a bit, and if you see something that's missing, make sure to let us know by submitting your own facts about Koch Industries.

Over the years, Koch Industries has spent nearly 50 million dollars funding climate change deniers, while running a very environmentally dangerous company at a high profit. So I'm sure there are new facts for you to add based on their long history of wrongdoing.

Can you help us spread the word about Koch Industries by sharing this website on Facebook and Twitter? Your help will go a long way in making sure Koch Industries is exposed to the American people.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Thanks for all that you do,

Dave Boundy
Campaign Manager
Repower America
DONATE

 







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

Power players still split on energy



Nov 9, 2010 Politico

Darren Samuelsohn

President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans are talking the same talk when it comes to energy bill compromises.

Now let's see what happens when they get into a room together.

Many of the smaller energy measures like electric vehicles, renewable energy tax credits and efficiency incentives that the left refused to relinquish while it was pushing the ill-fated cap-and-trade climate bill could in theory be easy bipartisan victories.

But last Tuesday's tidal wave didn't change the hard reality that energy policy historically breaks down more along regional lines than partisan ones. Come January, it will still be the same coal and Rust Belt lawmakers battling Southern oil and nuclear power interests and renewables advocates from the coasts and Great Plains.

Energy policy dynamics only get trickier as both parties dig their trenches for the 2012 presidential election and Republicans add dozens of tea party-backed lawmakers with little interest in new government spending.

"It's always easier for the Hill to do nothing than to do something," said Christine Tezak, senior energy and environmental policy research analyst for investment firm Robert W. Baird & Co.

The House

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) remains the front-runner to take over the Energy and Commerce Committee, despite the campaign from former Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas).

Upton and other Republicans, such as Barton and likely Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa of California, are tripping over themselves to get started investigating the Obama administration. First in line is the Environmental Protection Agency's climate regulations and the role of White House energy adviser Carol Browner, Upton wrote in Human Events earlier this week.

Republicans have pressed an "all of the above" energy policy while in the minority and expect no changes come January. Upton told POLITICO he supports renewables, hydroelectric, biomass, nuclear and coal, but offered few hints about specific legislative plans.

"We ought to be encouraging our electricity producers, rather then penalizing the users of electricity," Upton said.

At the Natural Resources Committee, Washington Rep. Doc Hastings is poised to take over and promote "domestic energy production through an all-of-the-above energy plan," he said this week.

Republicans and the oil industry have bristled at what they say is the slow pace of issuing offshore drilling permits at the Interior Department, especially after this summer's Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Expect to see a push to force Interior to speed up the process, as well as renewed efforts to open up new offshore areas in Alaska and the Atlantic Ocean to drilling. And at some point over the next two years, oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will have a moment in the sun.

Complicating any House energy push are the 60 Republican freshmen, many of whom are coming to Washington with a mandate from their supporters to cut spending and the size of government. Those members would undoubtedly support efforts to curtail EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but they may oppose spending billions of dollars on loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants or carbon sequestration technologies.

Luke Popovich, a spokesman at the National Mining Association, likes what he hears from GOP leaders like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell when it comes to "clean coal" technology. But he's not so sure about the freshmen in both chambers.

"Some may not share our view on the importance of supporting costly advanced coal technology — either because of spending concerns or because it could be construed as a tacit acceptance of global warming," he said.

The Senate

Divided government won't be an obstacle for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The New Mexico Democrat prides himself on passing bills with GOP support, including a 2009 committee measure that included a renewable electricity standard and increased offshore oil drilling.

At the time, that bill was intended to be combined with a cap-and-trade measure, creating a giant energy omnibus. But as interest in climate legislation waned, several moderates suggested the Senate proceed with the "energy-only" measure. With Democrats controlling 53 votes in the Senate next year, down from 59, the atmosphere could be set for a deal maker like Bingaman to take charge.

Bingaman is also helped by the fact his panel has jurisdiction over most of the low-hanging legislative fruit that Obama has suggested could be the centerpiece of any energy plan, such as nuclear power and "clean coal" technology.

McConnell last Friday told The Wall Street Journal he believes "energy is an area where there is the potential for a bipartisan accomplishment of some consequence."

"Most people on both sides of the aisle are very enthusiastic about plug-in cars," he said. "Nuclear power, more popular on my side of the aisle than on theirs, [and there is] bipartisan support, however, for that, for clean coal technology."

But each of these ideas carries some baggage. For starters, environmentalists and some Democrats fret that rapid new demand for electric vehicles will lead to the construction of dozens of new coal-fired power plants that will be around for half a century and negate any reductions in greenhouse gases or fossil fuel dependence. Both parties also fought this summer over how to regulate the controversial technique of hydraulic fracturing that's used to extract onshore natural gas, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid trying to get the drillers to disclose the chemicals they pump into the ground.

And longtime nuclear power opponents like Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) offered tempered support this year for more nuclear plants, but her shift came as part of the price of admission to a sweeping climate bill.

The White House

Obama floated some possible areas ripe for deal making during his postelection news conference at the White House.

He suggested there is "broad agreement that we've got terrific natural gas resources in this country. Are we doing everything we can to develop those?"

On electric cars: "There's a lot of agreement around the need to make sure that electric cars are developed here in the United States, that we don't fall behind other countries. Are there things that we can do to encourage that?"

And nuclear power: "There's been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases. Is that an area where we can move forward?"

But as with the climate debate over the past two years, it's unclear whether the White House will step forward with specific legislative proposals or take a more passive approach and let Congress write the bill.

The new Congress also has environmentalists in an awkward spot. They enter this new phase of Obama's term without the type of coherent message they had in January 2009, when the president was expected to make good on a campaign promise of implementing carbon caps.

"Our goals remain the same, but we've got to have an open mind about how to achieve those goals and take into account the new folks, what their perspectives are and listen to their ideas," said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. "We need to be open to new ideas, and we certainly are."

The Sierra Club is pouring a record amount of resources into shutting down coal plants and preventing the construction of new ones. Several other green groups have pledged to play defense against Republicans and moderate Democrats who want to strip EPA of its authority to regulate for greenhouse gas emissions.



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

Webinar Invitation: Can Companies Do Well by Doing Good?

ROI & The Triple Bottom Line: Can Companies Do Well by Doing Good?
November 10, 1 PM ET / 10 AM PT

Register Now

A triple bottom line company is usually defined as one that makes an effort to consider the social and ecological consequences of its actions, in addition to the financial ones, establishing people, planet, and profit as the three criteria for measuring success. Nowadays, most companies claim to value social and environmental responsibility, whether or not they practice it in reality.

But these claims seem to run contrary to traditional economics. Are companies that put broader social and environmental concerns ahead of profits denying their competitive nature and dooming themselves to failure?

Actually, a growing body of evidence suggests that the triple bottom line can be a viable business strategy and not just a marketing ploy. Successful companies need talented, committed employees and loyal customers. More and more business enterprises understand that the most talented employees measure professional success in terms of meaning and significance as well as money and status. And consumers increasingly want to buy from companies that do business in a socially and environmentally sustainable manner.

At the same time, traditional "hard" performance metrics have not gone away: companies still measure success in terms of units sold, savings realized and dollars earned, and will do so for as long as capitalism endures. In this live webcast, we'll tackle the challenge of how companies can do well by doing good:

  • How do companies with TBL values measure success?
  • Can business really expect financial returns beyond good PR out of TBL investments?
  • How can we distinguish real CSR and environmental stewardship from greenwashing? Why should businesses choose one route over the other?
  • What kind of difference to consumer behavior does operating with TBL values make?

Join us!

Featuring:

ImageRyan Schuchard is Manager for Climate and Energy at BSR. His recent work includes starting BSR's Energy Efficiency Partnership for supply chain management, launching Walmart's global supplier energy-efficiency program based at their global procurement headquarters in Shenzhen, and leading global climate policy intelligence for a US$30 billion-plus extractives company. He has co-authored chapters in Corporate Responses to Climate Change (Greenleaf Publishing) and Carbon Trading (ICFAI Books), in addition to numerous reports and articles.

ImageNick Aster is founder of TriplePundit.com, and specializes in using online technology to advance conversations on sustainability. He has worked with Mother Jones magazine, as well as companies including Nike, SAP, Citibank, Gawker Media, Offermatica, and many others. Nick worked for many years on TreeHugger.com, the most popular environmental website in the world. He holds an MBA in sustainable management from the Presidio School of Management and graduated with a BA in History from Washington University in St. Louis.

ImageDebbra A. K. Johnson is the Global Marketing Manager for Sustainable Operations and Clean Technologies - two DuPont Sustainable Solutions practices that work to help clients achieve triple bottom line results. With hands-on experience in Life Cycle Assessments, Debbra has completed package printing and platemaking LCA's for DuPont Packaging Graphics, and went on to launch a program to recover and reuse printing plate waste – a first in the industry. She is a member of the DuPont Sustainability Network, a frequent presenter, and she serves on the Sustainable Green Printing Partnership Board of Directors.

Register for the webcast



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

USA-Dept Energy Loan Guarantee Debt Program

The DOE Loan Guarantee Program: A Primer

The Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee program offers significant promise to stimulate capitalization of large renewable energy (RE) projects. Through the program, the government guarantees debt associated with energy production or manufacturing facilities relevant to renewable and other energy technologies. Government guarantee on the debt lowers the risk and required yield on the funds raised and makes more capital available to the industry.

The following is a primer on some of the key information relevant to the Loan Guarantee program. For an editorial analysis of one whether the program is working and why, particularly for concentrating solar power (CSP) projects, see Will CSP Ever Fly? In July 2010, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued an evaluation of the Loan Guarantee program, focusing on the application review process.

Background

Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) created the Loan Guarantee program for innovative energy efficiency, renewable energy, and advanced transmission and distribution projects (referred to as Section 1703 or "innovative" technologies). The Recovery Act amended Title XVII by adding Section 1705, a loan guarantee offer for commercial technologies. Initially under the Recovery Act, Congress appropriated $6 billion to the 1705 program. In August 2009, $2 billion was redirected to the Cash for Clunkers program. In August, 2010, an additional $1.5 billion was removed from the Loan Guarantee allocation to pay for extended unemployment benefits and other initiatives, reducing the total program size to $2.5 billion (Bartlett et. al. 2010).

The loan guarantees are awarded in the form of credit subsidies (Jaffe 2009). A credit subsidy is a similar structure to a loan loss reserve, in which banks set aside money for their loan portfolio. For each loan guarantee award, the federal government sets aside a sum (the credit subsidy) in the project's name, which acts as insurance in the case of project failure (Ibid). Due to the higher risk nature of the projects, most observers expect a loan guarantee program to establish a 6% to 10% credit subsidy ratio for renewable energy projects to be guaranteed. In other words, each dollar of credit subsidy is expected to support $10.00 – $16.67 of debt investment. If so, the remaining $2.5 billion allocated under Section 1705 is expected to support approximately $25.0 - $41.7 billion worth of economic activity.

As of August 2010, the DOE has awarded three loan guarantees and conditionally committed to 6 others related to the manufacture of renewable energy components or the development of renewable energy generating facilities. The nine loan guarantees relevant to renewable energy manufacturing or generation are referenced in Table 1.

Table 1. Renewable Energy Loan Guarantees Awarded/Conditionally Committed

Loan Guarantee Awardee Award Announce Date Loan Amount ($millions) Awarded or Conditional Commitment Description
Solyndra, Inc. 9/4/09 $535 Awarded For manufacture of cylindrical solar PV panels
Nordic Windpower, USA 7/02/09 $16 Conditional Commitment For manufacture of two-bladed wind turbines
BrightSource Energy 2/22/10 $1,370 Conditional Commitment 3 utility-scale solar CSP plants at Ivanpah (400 MW total)
First Wind - Kahuku Wind Power, LLC 3/5/10 $117 Awarded 30 MW wind generation facility and battery storage system
U.S. Geothermal 6/10/10 $102 Conditional Commitment 22 MW geothermal generation facility
Nevada Geothermal Power 6/15/10 $98.5 Awarded 49.5 MW geothermal generation facility at Blue Mountain - first FIPP award
Abengoa Solar 7/3/10 $1,450 Conditional Commitment 250 MW Solana CSP solar facility (+ 6 hours thermal storage)
Abound Solar 7/3/10 $400 Conditional Commitment For manufacture of CdTe thin-film solar panels in Longmont, CO and Tipton, IN
Caithness 10/10/10 $1,300 Conditional Commitment For 845 MW Shepherd Flats, OR generation facility
Total As of 11/04/10 $5,389

Source: DOE (2010).

Two additional guarantees, representing $60 million, have been awarded or conditionally committed to support electric storage facilities in New York and Massachusetts. These projects are expected to provide ancillary and transmission services competitively in their respective wholesale markets, which will enable renewable energy production. One loan guarantee (the most recently announced) was conditionally committed to a transmission facility in Nevada. Other Loan Guarantees have been made by the DOE for development of advanced vehicle manufacturing facilities, nuclear facilities, and other projects. In total, the DOE estimates, the Loan Guarantee program has supported $24.75 billion in project financing. Since the passage of EPAct 2005, eight unique solicitations under the Loan Guarantee program have been issued by the Department of Energy for relevant projects, including:

1) August 6, 2006 Innovative Technologies

  • October 4, 2007 – DOE Invites 16 Pre-Applicants to Submit Applications for Federal Support
  • Included Solyndra, Tesla, Beacon Power which were recently approved

2 – 4) June 30, 2008 - Three Solicitations

  • 2) Innovative Energy Efficiency (EE), Renewable Energy (RE), and Advanced Transmission & Distribution (T&D)
  • 3) Nuclear
  • 4) "Front-end" nuclear

5) September 22, 2008 – Innovative Clean Coal

6 – 7) July 29, 2009 – Two Solicitations

  • 6) Innovative EE, RE, and Advanced T&D
  • 7) Transmission
  • 8) October 7, 2009 Financial Institution Partnership Program (FIPP)

Source: DOE (2010).

Currently Open Solicitations

Two solicitations currently open are directly relevant to renewable energy – the July 29th 2009 Innovative Technologies (#6) and the October 7th, 2009 FIPP (#8) solicitations.

The July 29th solicitation is for "innovative" technologies, that either (i) have not been installed in and used in three or more projects in the U.S., or (ii) involve meaningful and important improvements in productivity or value in comparison to commercial technologies (Klepper 2009). Loans are available from the Federal Financing Bank – which can provide very low-cost debt - if applicant seeks a 100% guarantee from DOE (WSGR 2009).

The FIPP program is designed for technologies deemed commercial, i.e., has been installed in and is being used in three or more commercial projects anywhere in the world for two or more years and has been in operation for at least two years (Martin, 2009). The solicitations also differ in that the FIPP program relies on the private market to conduct the bulk of due diligence including the evaluation of project and developer risk, review of contracts, and negotiating loan documentation. Projects must also obtain a near-investment grade credit rating from one of the nationally-recognized rating agencies. Minimal project ratings start at "BB" from either S&P or Fitch, or "Ba2" from Moody's (WSGR 2009). The FIPP program was designed for simple "plain vanilla" project finance structures without complex tax equity arrangements (Klepper 2009).

Under FIPP program, debt cannot exceed 80% of total capital, and DOE will guarantee 80% of loan, up to 64% of total capital (Martin 2009). The July 29th solicitation allows DOE to guarantee 100% of the debt. The loan term can be up to 30 years or 90% of projected useful life. Table 2 breaks down some of the key parameters of the two solicitations.

Table 2. Comparison of 1703 and 1705 Loan Guarantee Solicitations

Solicitation

July 29 Innovative Technologies

October 7 Financial Institution Partnership Program

Technology Innovative Commercial
Lender Federal Financing Bank Private Commercial Lenders
Applicant Project developers Lenders - FIPP
Conducts Due Diligence DOE Lender
Pays Credit Support Charge Applicant DOE
Refinance Allowed No No
Avail. Credit Subsidy $2.5 billion $750 million

Sources: Klepper (2009), WSGR (2009), DOE (2010).

The two solicitations are expected to produce very different interest rates for respective borrowers. Because approved applications to the Innovative Technologies program borrow from the Federal Finance Bank, associated interest rates are projected at 25 basis points (b.p.) over treasuries, or approximately 4.65% at current rates for 20 year treasuries currently (prior to consideration of issuance fees) (Martin, 2009). Under the FIPP program, although guaranteed by the DOE, the debt starts with private lenders. Experts predict the debt yields will range from 150 over treasuries (for insurance companies and other buyers of debt that can accept a longer tenor) to approximately 200 b.p. over treasuries (at today's LIBOR-treasury spreads) for banks and other entities seeking a shorter tenor.  

Both solicitations require projects to commence construction by September 30, 2011 meaning the borrower has completed all pre-construction design and testing, received all necessary licenses, and environmental permits, and engaged all required contractors and ordered all equipment. A minimum level of physical construction including site preparation must have begun by that date as well (Klepper 2009).

As the FIPP program requires a private lender and covers a maximum of 80% of the project debt, special rules guide the allocation of risk and reward. Lender-applicants can be domestic or foreign banks, insurance companies, or other companies in the business of lending money. The rights of the lender and DOE must be pari passu and the separate loans paid on a pro rata basis with equal amortization schedules (i.e., on equal terms) (Klepper 2009). Lenders can transfer the economic interest but not the ownership of the loan.

On December 7th, 2009, the DOE issued a rule change to the Loan Guarantee program whereby the DOE will be able to consider financing projects together with other lenders and will be able to provide loan guarantees to projects with multiple participants (who may hold undivided interests in a project). As an example, export credit agencies and other financial institutions will now be able to provide financing to complement Title XVII loans and loan guarantees (DOE 2010). The rule change also eliminates the requirement that the Secretary receive a first priority lien on all project assets as a condition for obtaining the loan guarantee (Stoel Rives 2009).

Process

Both the Innovative Technologies and FIPP solicitations require a two-part application process. Part I applications to the FIPP are intended to provide DOE "with a summary level description of the project and its creditworthiness, project eligibility, financing strategy, and compliance of the proposed funding plan[...]" (DOE 2010). Under the FIPP program, Part I applications also include information regarding the lender-applicant, including its capability to conduct the primary due diligence and negotiate the terms of the loan. Part I and Part II applications are accepted on a rolling basis although seven application round due dates – starting September 13, 2009 for Part I and November 13 for Part II and continuing approximately every six weeks – allow projects submitted in the same timeframes to be evaluated against other filings. Earlier-round applicants will have priority of review (WSGR 2009)

Under the Innovative Technologies program, DOE scoring will be based on six criteria (weights in parentheses):

  • • Creditworthiness (30%)
  • • Construction plan (10%)
  • • Legal and regulatory risk (10%)
  • • Technical merit (15%)
  • • Technical approach (20%)
  • • Environmental benefits (15%)

DOE scoring of projects will be based on three primary criteria:

  • • Programmatic - 35% - project readiness
  • • Creditworthiness – 45% - financial strength of project
  • • Financing Plan – 20% - Ability of lenders to execute  

The DOE offers potential applicants advice for a swift loan guarantee application process (DOE 2010). Among other things, DOE references specific attributes to facilitate financial evaluation of an application, including:

  • • "Strong" engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract with a large, established creditworthy counterparty. The EPC contract should specify performance guarantees with liquidated damages for non-compliance
  • • Clear rights to the Intellectual Property (IP) necessary to implement the project (especially for innovative projects) and "a willingness to assign those intellectual property rights to the DOE as collateral in the event of a default"
  • • Source of equity capital "provided directly by the project sponsor or a combination of the sponsor and committed, creditworthy joint venture partners."

Fees

Applying for and obtaining a Loan Guarantee can be expensive. There are three types of fees payable to DOE which add up to roughly 1% of the loan amount: the application, facility, and maintenance fees. The fees ranges based on the size of the loan. Table 3 compares these fees under each program. The bottom line of the table provides an example of the combined fees in the first year of the loan.

Table 3. Fees by Loan Size under the Loan Guarantee Program

Loan Size $0 - $150 mm $151 - $500 mm $501 + mm
Application Fee $75,000 $100,000 $125,000
Facility Fee 1% of guar. amount $375k + 0.75% of guar. amount $1.625 mm + 0.5% of guar. amount
Maintenance Fee $50 - $100k $50 - $100k $50 - $100k
Year 1 example: Loan Size / Combined Fees $100 mm / $1.125 million $300 mm / $2.8 million $750 mm / $5.6 million

Source: WSGR (2009), NREL (2009).

Importantly, these fees are only the costs payable to DOE. Any project developer will also incur millions of dollars conducting its own due diligence, including the procurement of engineering, legal, geologic and other consultants and advisors.

Conclusion

The loan guarantee program offers substantial promise to capitalize evolving technologies at lower costs and greater project size that the private market is currently capable of. The FIPP program leverages the due diligence capabilities of the private sector to improve the speed and accessibility of the program.

But significant hurdles – including complex environmental regulations, access to available transmission capacity, and cost – remain. Can the DOE and the private sector ramp up the program to provide the massive quantity of capital the renewable energy industry needs to meet the goals of developers, state regulators, and Federal policymakers? Lets just say the jury is still out.

References

Bartlett, J., Goldstein, A. (19 August 2010), Q2 2010 Solar Industry Update, DOE.

Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program, 2010 http://www.energy.gov/recovery/lgprogram.htm

Jaffe, S. (4 August 2009). "Robbing Renewable Energy to Pay for Clunkers." Greentech Media. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/robbing-renewable-energy-to-...  Accessed March 17, 2010.

Klepper, 2009, Financing Opportunities Under the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program, Solar Power International Conference, October 27, 2009

Martin, et. al., 2009, Keith Martin (Chadbourne & Parke), Steve Greenwald, Kenneth Hansen, Walter Howes, DOE Loan Guarantee Webinar, March 2009

Stoel Rives, 2009, Show Me the Money: The Law Of The Stimulus Package, 2nd edition, August, 2009.

Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati (WSGR). 2009. FIPP, FIPP, Hooray…? Analysis of and Commentary on DOE's Financial Institutional Partnership Program, http://www.wsgr.com/publications/pdfsearch/wsgralert_fipp.pdf



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

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest

Featured Post

1 Hack To Eliminate Your A/C Power Bill This Summer!