On June 29, a Cole County Judge declared the popular voter approved solar rebates (included in Prop. C - The Renewable Energy Standard Act which passed with 67% public support) unconstitutional in Missouri.  The Judge heard from 5 well funded and experienced plaintiffs including two utilities (Ameren and Empire), an association representing large industrial electricity users and the Missouri Retailers Association (MRA) . No renewable energy advocate or company was heard nor were they notified of the proceedings in order to offer a defense. KCP&L was not a party to the lawsuit.  During testimony, an attorney for the MRA made the comment to the Judge that this "...sounds like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, Judge." The utilities immediately suspended rebate payments and petitioned the Public Service Commission (PSC) to freeze payments during the appeal - shutting down the solar industry in Missouri.  

The MRA initially challenged the constitutionality of the solar rebates - not the utilities. Their members include Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowe's, Macy's, J C Penny's, Schnucks, Dierbergs and many other retailers - all with bold sustainability goals and many with solar on their own rooftops. The MRA still stands alone in objecting to the rebates, the utilities have indicated neutrality toward the issue.

The solar rebates have had the precise impact that voters had hoped.  The solar industry in Missouri has expanded to employ over 1,200 people working for 35+ businesses - many of them brand new.  The price of solar installations has fallen dramatically making the dream of energy independence more affordable for everyone in the state.

Not only is the PSC appealing this decision, but the Attorney General (AG) has indicated they will intervene in the case. The Missouri Solar Energy Industry Association  has formally asking the Judge to reconsider.  He has done more than that. After the PSC denied the requests to freeze rebates during their appeal on July 27, the following day Judge Green set his decision aside after hearing arguments from the solar industry. He also ordered the utilities to continue rebate payments during appeal.  

What may be troubling the judge is that he may not have been originally presented all material information available in order to make his decision.  He declared in his judgment that "neither the utility nor its ratepayers receive consideration of any kind for these payments (meaning the rebates)". This is not accurate.  The parties (the MRA) may have failed to present to the judge information about the mechanism provided to the utilities to recover the solar rebate costs in their rates.   

For now the judge is considering the solar industry's petition to intervene in the case. Responses to that Motion are due by August 12. Legislatively, there is the possibility that a fix can be devised and passed in September during the Special Session.