Missouri Proposition C
October 27, 2008 by cshells58
Filed under Election 2008, environment science, politics
Continuing series on Election 2008. This one is from Missouri.
Proposition C: Clean Energy Initiative
If it is approved by voters, it will create a renewable electricity standard in the state. The standard would require utility companies to gradually increase their usage of renewable energy annually until 15 percent of the energy used in the state is renewable. The initiative would also require that energy rates not increase by more than one percent annually.
This is what I have found out:
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to require investor-owned electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass (including ethanol) and hydropower. The required renewable energy sources must equal the following percentages of retail sales:
• 2% by 2011
• 5% by 2014
• 10% by 2018
• 15% by 2021.
Of the total renewable energy sources required to be sold, at least 2% shall be solar sources. Also, any rate increase to consumers resulting from this measure must be no more than 1%.
A “no” vote simply means that utilities will not have to purchase from a renewable source.
These is no impact on taxes fore this to pass.
My recommendation:
This proposition seems very straight forward, so I am recommending a YES vote. Aside from the fact that there is no fiscal impact, and the utility companies have 3 years to comply with a 2% increase, which seems more than reasonable, the main point of this is that we have to move to renewable resources. HAVE TO. Also, from what I can tell, there is not one publication, utility, newspaper, etc., that has publicly opposed this measure.
There are no website for either position.
Stumble!
Reddit
Stumble it!
James on Tue, 28th Oct 2008 12:40 pm
I know that the Columbia Daily Tribune is against this proposal (Oct 23, 2008) and Ameran UE (the major utility in StL) has voiced some opposition. Further, two points. Nuclear power cannot be used (though there is a nice fine nuclear plant in the state and inital plans to build a second reactor there) and the inability to raise utility rates completely hamstrings the private company. This proposition is forcing private companies to suffer possible increases in costs without the oppertunity to seek compensation for that lose.
Going green is a great idea…but in Missouri, there can be sun and no wind, and then five minutes later there’s clouds and a gale(saying the weather is predictable here is laughable). However, forcing those ideas when there’s no probabilty of effecent or cost-effective sucess is not. I’m voting no.
cshells58 on Tue, 28th Oct 2008 12:52 pm
James… Thank you so much for your input. I posted earlier that since I live in California, I am relying on what I can find online to help me make the decisions. And what I am finding is limited.
Your opinion is so helpful to understand what goes on in other states. So, thank you, again!
Pat Nolan on Wed, 29th Oct 2008 5:39 am
Prop C also requires the utility company to provide rebates that will allow home owners to install solar on their home.
“3. Each electric utility shall make available to its retail customers a standard rebate offer of at least $2.00 per installed watt for new or expanded solar electric systems sited on customers’ premises, up to a maximum of 25 kilowatts per system, that become operational after 2009.”
Everyone should vote yes on this.
Anonymous on Mon, 3rd Nov 2008 5:34 pm
I don’t agree that you should vote “yes”. What if other means are found and are at a cheeper cost/efficiency, we are unable to use these becuase of this proposition. Going Green is a great idea, but you have to think about other factors that could come later on and be hindered by a previous goal.