Bill Text: MO HB2448 | 2010 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Requires the Missouri Public Service Commission to have a cost- benefit analysis performed before approving an investor-owned utility's request for sourcing new or expandable renewable energy
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2010-05-14 - Referred: Energy and Environment (H) [HB2448 Detail]
Download: Missouri-2010-HB2448-Introduced.html
SECOND REGULAR SESSION
95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES STILL (Sponsor), KELLY, HOLSMAN AND McNEIL (Co-sponsors).
5431L.02I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 393, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to renewable energy.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 393, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 393.1053, to read as follows:
393.1053. 1. Before approving an investor-owned utility request for sourcing new or expandable renewable energy in accordance with sections 393.1025 to 393.1030, the public service commission shall have a cost-benefit analysis performed considering all economic development aspects of the utility proposed renewable energy sources.
2. An investor-owned utility or other entity requesting approval for sourcing new or expandable renewable energy in accordance with sections 393.1025 to 393.1030 shall provide all possible locations within and outside Missouri that will be considered for the building of the facility in question. For comparison purposes, the cost-benefit analyses shall only be performed relative to these sites. This cost-benefit analysis shall take into account all economic benefits and costs of building, operating, and maintaining new or expanded renewable energy sources in Missouri versus outside Missouri's boundaries. Economic benefits shall include:
(1) Construction, operation, and maintenance jobs;
(2) Payments to landowners;
(3) State income taxes collected;
(4) State and local sales taxes collected;
(5) Local property taxes;
(6) Local economic development multiplying factors due to the location of the facility; and
(7) Any other benefits the citizens of Missouri may obtain from renewable energy facilities located in Missouri.
3. All costs associated with sourcing renewable energy from inside or outside the state of Missouri shall be evaluated, including the cost of electricity to investor-owned utility ratepayers, increases in Missouri unemployment payments, and any other costs. Renewable energy costs shall be capped as provided in section 393.1030. If the benefits of building in Missouri exceed the costs, the public service commission shall require the renewable energy facility to be built in Missouri. Facilities built within Missouri shall only be built at locations considered in the cost-benefit analysis. However, if the costs exceed the benefits, the public service commission shall not oppose such facility being built outside the state of Missouri. Facilities outside Missouri shall only be built at locations included in the cost-benefit analysis.
4. The public service commission shall require an electrical corporation defined in 386.020 or other entities that may construct renewable generation facility to provide the information for analysis and means to verify its accuracy.
5. Renewable energy credits shall not be used to satisfy portfolio requirements provided in sections 393.1020 to 393.1030.
6. Purchased power agreements shall be examined in the cost-benefit analysis based on the location of the actual source of the power.
7. The public service commission shall have rulemaking authority to develop the process and time lines for completing the cost-benefit analysis.
8. The public service commission has the authority to hire outside consultants to conduct the cost-benefit analysis.
9. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter 536 and, if applicable, section 536.028. This section and chapter 536 are nonseverable and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly under chapter 536 to review, to delay the effective date, or to disapprove and annul a rule are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2010, shall be invalid and void.
•
