Tag Archives: Missouri Renewable Energy Policies

Solar Power Feedlot Sun Shade

SolarPower Feed Bunk Cover Shade

Do you have a Livestock Feedlot?  Have you ever considered a Solar Power Feed Bunk Cover Shade for your feedlot?  With a clean energy solar system such this CAD Solar System design by Scotty you will be not only providing cover and shade for your livestock when they are feeding, it will generate income from the Sun for your operation.

The Solar Feed Bunk Cover Shade in these pictures is designed with American SunPower Solar Panels, covers 4000 sq feet, and is estimated to produce 59,680 watts of clean pollution free energy (based on 230w panels that produce 14.92 w/sq ft- (Other higher Output power producing solar panels are available-I used the 230w solar panels since they were already integrated into my computer drafting program from past Solar Projects I’ve designed.  To get the most bang for the buck I recommend the 300 or 400 watt solar panels )

The following CAD designs are examples of the Solar Power Feedbunk Cover – Shade designed by Scotts Contracting-StLouis Renewable Energy that could be added to your existing structure or could be site built to fit your cattle feeding operation.  This example uses my Fathers Missouri Beef Cattle Operation.

 Solar Power Feedbunk Cover Shade designed by Scotts Contracting-StLouis Renewable Energy
 Solar Power Feedbunk Cover – Shade 
The Solar Power Feed Bunk Cover Shade can be added to an existing beef cattle feedlot such as the one pictured below.
If an existing Feedlot shading system is not already in place it is possible to design build a Solar Power Shade to fit over your existing feed bunks.
it is possible to design build a Solar Power Shade to fit over your existing feed bunks
it is possible to design build a Solar Power Shade to fit over your existing feed bunks
Birds Eye view of the SolarPower Feed Bunk Cover Shade, Cattle Pens, Barns, and Silo
Birds Eye view of the SolarPower Feed Bunk Cover Shade, Cattle Pens, Barns, and Silo
Birds Eye view of the SolarPower Feed Bunk Cover Shade, Cattle Pens, Barns, and Silo
The following Diagram is the Suns yearly path over the SolarPower Feed Bunk Cover Shade
Suns yearly path over the SolarPower Feed Bunk Cover Shade

– See more at: http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/#sthash.ZAc8N8dV.dpuf

Advertisements

Energy-Efficient Mortgages and Financing

Energy-Efficient Mortgages and Financing

The following Web sites offer information on energy-efficient financing programs, including mortgages, home improvement loans, refinancing, and home energy ratings. 

  • Financing an Energy-Efficient Home

    This fact sheet from the Department of Energy features an overview of energy-efficient financing programs from mortgages to home improvement loans.

  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Energy-Efficient Mortgage Program

    The Energy-Efficient Mortgage Program is one of many Federal Housing Authority programs that insure mortgage loans to encourage lenders to make mortgage credit available to borrowers, such as first-time homebuyers, who would not otherwise qualify for conventional loans on affordable terms.

  • Energy Ratings and Mortgages

    Energy efficient homes may qualify for mortgages that take into account a home’s efficiency. Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) provides information on home energy rating systems, energy efficient mortgages, and finding certified energy raters and lenders who know how to process energy efficiency mortgages.

  • Refinancing for Energy-Efficiency Improvements

    An overview of refinancing to make energy efficiency improvements, from the Alliance to Save Energy.

Stay Tuned for updates… with all the news on Budget Cuts by out Elected Politicians…Who Knows what will happen with the Green Clean Energy Initiative?

Sen McCaskill Response about Nuclear Energy Power Plants


the following post is a response I received from an email  (Provided in Full)  I sent to Senator McCaskill about: 

From: senator@mccaskill.senate.gov

To: scottscontracting@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Scott,
Thank you for contacting me regarding nuclear energy. I appreciate hearing from you, and welcome the opportunity to respond.
As the United States seeks to become more energy independent and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) it will be important to diversify our investments in all available energy sources.  Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and biomass will play a valuable role in achieving these objectives.  However, our country’s energy needs are considerable, and they continue to grow.  Even accounting for rapid expansion in recent years, renewable sources provide only a small percentage of our country’s total energy production.  We simply can’t address our energy needs through increased production of renewable energy alone.
To meet our energy demand, we must invest in a diversity of energy sources and new technologies.  Responsible development of new nuclear facilities, carbon capture and sequestration technology to reduce GHG emissions currently associated with coal energy, and expanded use of natural gas will all be necessary.
Along with significant investments in renewable energy, in February 2010, the Department of Energy announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to support the construction of two new nuclear reactors at a plant in Georgia.  This will be the first new nuclear power plant constructed in the United States in three decades.  To provide additional loan guarantees for other planned nuclear facilities, President Obama requested an increase in federal loan guarantee authority, from the current limit of $18.5 billion to $54 billion, in his fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget proposal.  It is important to note that this authority regards authorization for loan guarantees, not funding for direct subsidies or payments.  In addition to repaying the loans themselves, borrowers are required to pay fees to cover both administrative costs and risk of defaulting on the loan.
I support providing additional loan guarantee authority for the construction of new nuclear facilities.  However, I have concerns that the fees charged to borrowers may be insufficient to cover the costs of the guarantee.   In the past, the Congressional Budget Office has calculated that the Department of Energy often underestimates the costs of loan guarantees by at least one percent.  As we consider increasing nuclear loan guarantee authority, I want to be sure that the federal government is collecting fees sufficient to cover costs and protect taxpayers.
Additionally, as our country moves to expand nuclear energy production and open new facilities, it is important that we address the issue of long-term nuclear waste disposal.  Although funding for security measures has been increased in recent years, there is some concern that the number of storage sites presents an unnecessary security risk, and that a central repository would be a better solution to the issue of nuclear waste storage.
For more than 20 years, the Department of Energy has focused on developing a central repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.  This effort has been controversial, and opponents have argued that the potential for earthquakes, water infiltration, and other safety concerns make the site unsuitable.  The President’s FY 2011 budget proposes eliminating funding for work at Yucca Mountain, and White House officials have stated that they will officially withdraw a pending license application for the facility.   In January 2010, the Obama Administration announced the formation of a Blue Ribbon Commission charged with conducting a comprehensive review of nuclear waste management policy.  It remains to be seen whether Yucca Mountain will provide the best option for long term storage for our country’s nuclear waste, or if another solution needs to be found.
There are many legislative proposals concerning nuclear power currently being discussed and debated in the Senate, addressing incentives for new commercial reactors, research and development priorities, plant safety and security, and radioactive waste management policy.  During this session of Congress, the Senate may consider broad-based energy and climate change legislation.  Should the Senate consider such legislation, ideas from many of the legislative proposals that have been introduced to address nuclear energy issues would likely be incorporated.  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to find solutions to our country’s energy challenges.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
Claire McCaskill
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at www.mccaskill.senate.gov.
_______________________

Tell My Politician

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician Click Here
______________________
Jan 28, 2011
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 …
Jan 26, 2011
Renewable Energy Head-to-Head with Nuclear for Clean Energy Production.Last July we wrote about the North Carolina study that showed solarpower to be cheaper than power promised by planned nuclearconstruction in that state. …
Oct 04, 2010
Here’s another tidbit from the conference: Adding nuclear power into the mix of renewables might provide the political muscle to pass a federal RPS. After all, it IS carbon-free. Proponents claim, “Nuclear energy presents a safe, clean, …

Why Nuclear Energy is Wrong For Missouri

I do not support any Nuclear Plants in Missouri or any other State for the following reasons:

<do not support any Nuclear Plants in Missouri or any other State for the following reasons:

1. Scientist do not have long term solutions for waste disposal
2. Solar Energy aka: Renewable Energy is cheaper and less damaging to the environment- http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-study-shows-solar-power-is-cheaper.html
3. Nuclear Power PLANT CONSTRUCTION IS ASTRONOMICAL- We the Consumers Fund the Projects (see below-$26 billion so far)

What happens in USA and Europe?(copied from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/wast.htm)

In USA high-level civil wastes all remain as used fuel stored at the reactor sites. It is planned to encapsulate these fuel assemblies and dispose of them in an underground engineered repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This is the program which has been funded by electricity consumers to US $26 billion so far (ie @ 0.1 cent per kWh), of which about US $6 billion has been spent.

Yucca Mountain:
YUCCA MOUNTAIN – POLITICO's Robin Bravender reports that a Reid loss would likely give new life to the project, which would be welcome news to the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear lawmakers who see the lack of a long-term repository as a roadblock for a U.S. nuclear renaissance. http://politi.co/dtgRrZ

copied from: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44455.html

"Nuclear power has become a central tenet of congressional Republican's energy agenda; senators like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander say expanding the power source will help to cut dependence on foreign oil and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Democrats and the Obama administration have shown a willingness to compromise on the issue, and nuclear is posed to be a focal point of energy talks next year on Capitol Hill if Republicans make major electoral gains."

Most Republicans have supported the Yucca repository but it hasn't been finished because "it's not politically correct," John Boehner said in August, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. "We've invested tens of billions of dollars in a storage facility that's as safe as anything we're going to find."

[ I have a hard time believing: "as safe as anything we're going to find." I translate this to be:"We don't have a solution for long term Nuclear Waste disposal"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44455.html#ixzz1BLJVpXkh

Wiki Information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 17 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half life 24,000 years).[20] Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.[21] Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.[22]
Radioactive Waste Disposal: An Environmental Perspective

[EPA 402-K-94-001]

This booklet describes the different categories of waste, discusses disposal practices for each type. and describes the way they are regulated.

On this page:

* Types of Waste

Introduction

Any activity that produces or uses radioactive materials generates radioactive waste. Mining, nuclear power generation, and various processes in industry, defense, medicine, and scientific research produce byproducts that include radioactive waste. Radioactive waste can be in gas, liquid or solid form, and its level of radioactivity can vary. The waste can remain radioactive for a few hours or several months or even hundreds of thousands of years. Because it can be so hazardous and can remain radioactive for so long, finding suitable disposal facilities for radioactive waste is difficult. Depending on the type of waste disposed, the disposal facility may need to contain radiation for a very long time. Proper disposal is essential to ensure protection of the health and safety of the public and quality of the environment including air, soil, and water supplies.

Radioactive waste disposal practices have changed substantially over the last twenty years. Evolving environmental protection considerations have provided the impetus to improve disposal technologies, and, in some cases, clean up facilities that are no longer in use. Designs for new disposal facilities and disposal methods must meet environmental protection and pollution prevention standards that are more strict than were foreseen at the beginning of the atomic age.

Disposal of radioactive waste is a complex issue, not only because of the nature of the waste, but also because of the complicated regulatory structure for dealing with radioactive waste. There are a variety of stakeholders affected, and there are a number of regulatory entities involved.

Federal government agencies involved in radioactive waste management include:

1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
2. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
3. Department of Energy (DOE), and
4. Department of Transportation.
5. In addition, the states and affected Indian Tribes play a prominent role in protecting the public against the hazards of radioactive waste.

Types Of Radioactive Waste

There are six general categories of radioactive waste:

1. spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors
2. high-level waste from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel
3. transuranic waste mainly from defense programs
4. uranium mill tailings from the mining and milling of uranium ore
5. low-level waste
6. naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials.

Radioactive waste is categorized according to its origin and not necessarily according to its level of radioactivity. For example, some low-level waste has the same level of radioactivity as some high-level waste.

The following Clip was copied from the FERAF web site:

Dear Friend:

A proposal announced today by Governor Jay Nixon regarding nuclear power in Missouri represents a key opportunity to strengthen the consumer protections we depend on to keep Missouri energy rates fair and affordable.

The Fair Energy Rate Action Fund has worked hard over the past several years to support initiatives that keep the cost of energy fair and reasonable while providing adequate protections for all Missouri consumers. FERAF couldn't have undertaken that effort without your support and participation. We are happy the Governor is starting the conversation about ways to generate sustainable, low-cost energy and look forward to working with him and members of the General Assembly on provisions important to consumers.

FERAF will encourage the Governor and Legislative leadership to include several pro-consumer provisions, including:

* Robust Office of Public Counsel (OPC). Over the years funding for consumer protection has been greatly reduced impairing the ability of OPC and PSC to conduct adequate reviews of rate case filings. Legislation should include funding of the OPC that allows them to conduct thorough audits of rate cases filed with the Public Service Commission.
* Responsible Cap. Should the Legislature consider the utility's proposed legislation allowing them to recover costs of construction while in progress, they should include a reasonable and fair cap on rate increases to keep energy costs from spiraling out of control. To ensure consumers money is well spent, each step of the construction process should be monitored and controlled.
* Rebate. Currently State law prevents costs associated with building a power plant from being charged to consumers before the plant is fully operational. The proposal announced today would create an exception to this law. If ratepayers pay tens of millions of dollars in rate increases and a plant is never built or the permit is sold at a profit, Missouri ratepayers deserve to be refunded in full.

But what about you? Will you help ensure these consumer protections are included with this year's energy legislation so we can keep Missouri energy rates fair and affordable? Make a difference today by signing up at http://www.fairenergyrates.com and asking people you know to join FERAF.

Contact Your States Politicians by using the Direct Linking Service
TellMyPolitician- http://tellmypolitician.com/search?

Let them know that you do not support Any Nuclear Plants in Missouri

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

Republicans Take Heed-Science the GOP can’t wish away

Suggestions for the Republicans in Office:

  1. Get with the Program and push yourself away Monetary Feed Trough; supported by the Big Oil and Big Coal Campaign Donations, it is clouding your Judgment on Global Warming / Climate Change.
  • The Fog in your Head is being caused by the CO2 emissions from Fossil Fuels

See for Your Self and determine which Politician in your States Elected Officials- whose side of the Bread gets Buttered by the Big Oil and Big Coal Companies at: http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=congress (Missouri’s Roy Blunt made the Top 5. (That’s sure something to be proud of-NOT!))

If you think the USA does not want Clean Energy for Homes and Business- Take note of the Nov 2, 2010 Election and the Clean Green Energy-http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_%282008%29

It obvious that the Republican Party is not interested in Creating Jobs-yet so many Americans are out of Work-WTF? Is not a portion of your Pay Check created by the Taxes levied against our Pay Checks? Maybe Americans should claim Exempt on their W4’s?

Food For Thought: What if the Political Leaders Pay Checks were determined by the Performance of their Actions or Lack of Actions in the Congress and Senate. I bet many would be singing a different tune.

Mark my Words: Lack of Bi-Partisanship will be a factor in the Next Election

Republicans supposedly support Business Growth- How much will a Business Grow if the Un-Employed can’t buy any products?

I encourage everyone to contact your Leaders in the House and Senate, use the following web link to find your Elected Officials Contact Information and Let them know your Thoughts. They are supposed to Listen to their Constituents.
http://tellmypolitician.com

Science the GOP can’t wish away

By Sherwood Boehlert
Friday, November 19, 2010

Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn’t help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party’s line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.

National Journal reported last month that 19 of the 20 serious GOP Senate challengers declared that the science of climate change is either inconclusive or flat-out wrong. Many newly elected Republican House members take that position. It is a stance that defies the findings of our country’s National Academy of Sciences, national scientific academies from around the world and 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists.

Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.

I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.

In a trio of reports released in May, the prestigious and nonpartisan National Academy concluded that “a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.” Our nation’s most authoritative and respected scientific body couldn’t make it any clearer or more conclusive.

When I was chairman of the House Committee on Science, top scientists from around the world came before our panel. They were experts that Republicans and Democrats alike looked to for scientific insight and understanding on a host of issues. They spoke in probabilities, ranges and concepts – always careful to characterize what was certain, what was suspected and what was speculative. Today, climate scientists – careful as ever in portraying what they know vs. what they suspect – report that the body of scientific evidence supporting the consensus on climate change and its cause is as comprehensive and exhaustive as anything produced by the scientific community.

While many in politics – and not just of my party – refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change, leaders of some of our nation’s most prominent businesses have taken a different approach. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This was no collection of mom-and-pop shops operated by “tree huggers” sympathetic to any environmental cause but, rather, a step by hard-nosed, profit-driven capitalists. General Electric, Alcoa, Duke Energy, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler signed on. USCAP, persuaded by scientific facts, called on the president and Congress to act, saying “in our view, the climate change challenge will create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy.”

There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem’s existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution. The record flooding, droughts and extreme weather in this country and others are consistent with patterns that scientists predicted for years. They are an ominous harbinger.

The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn’t stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member of any party should look the other way when the basic operating parameters of scientific inquiry – the need to question, express doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity – are exploited for the sake of political expediency. My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it’s also bad politics.

What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn’t deny the existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to address them.

The National Academy reports concluded that “scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming.” Party affiliation does not change that fact.

The writer, a Republican, represented New York’s 24th District in Congress from 1983 to 2007. He is a special adviser to the Project on Climate Science.

Renewable Energy Rebates-Ameren UE-Federal Tax Incentive


Ameren UE Renewable Energy Rebate Program

Recently I was asked:

  • “Why does Ameren UE buy back the electricity created by Renewable Energy System on my House?”

When I directed the question to Ms L.Cosgrove[i] who handles the Local Ameren UE Renewable Energy Department.  She replied:

  • AmerenUE provides the MO Solar Rebate in response to Missourian’s passing Proposition C back in November, 2008[ii],[iii]”

In a nutshell it seems to me that Ameren UE will either have to build Renewable Energy Producing Systems or Purchase the Electricity that is made from Residents and Businesses to comply with the Law.
Which means that Ameren has a Stake in any Renewable Energy Sytem that produces Electricity and is Interconnected utilizing Net Metering to our / their Electircal Grid here in the St Louis Area.
Good News for all those who would like additional Monetary Incentives for Installing RE (Renewable Energy) Systems.
The Ameren Rebate and the Federal Tax Incentive can add up to as much as 2/3 of the cost of the RE System.
Click Here to Contact Scotty if any additional information is needed.

Posted by Scotty  Labels: , , , , , , , ,



[i] Lisa M. Cosgrove | Renewables Specialist  | 1901 Chouteau Avenue, MC 611 | St. Louis, MO 63103
314-554-2649 | fax 314-206-1387 | lcosgrove@ameren.com [ii] See http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008petitions/2008-031.asp for more details.

[iii] 2008 Initiative Petitions
Approved for Circulation in Missouri

Amendment to Chapter 393 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, Relating to Renewable Energy, version 4, 2008-031

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Be it enacted by the people of the state of Missouri:Chapter 393, RSMo, is amended by repealing sections 393.1020, 393.1025, 393.1030, and 393.1035, and substituting therefor three new sections to be known as sections 393.1020, 393.1025 and 393.1030, to read as follows:393.1020. Sections 393.1025 to 393.1030 shall be known as the Renewable Energy Standard.393.1025. As used in sections 393.1020 to 393.1030, the following terms mean: 1. “Commission”, the public service commission; 2. “Department”, the department of natural resources; 3. “Electric utility”, any electrical corporation as defined by section 386.020; 4. “Renewable energy resources”, electric energy produced from wind, solar thermal sources, photovoltaic cells and panels, dedicated crops grown for energy production, cellulosic agricultural residues, plant residues, methane from landfills or from wastewater treatment, clean and untreated wood such as pallets, hydropower (not including pumped storage) that does not require a new diversion or impoundment of water and that has a nameplate rating of 10 megawatts or less, fuel cells using hydrogen produced by one of the above-named renewable energy sources, and other sources of energy not including nuclear that become available after the effective date of this section and are certified as renewable by rule by the department; and 5. “Renewable energy credit” or “REC”, a tradable certificate of proof that one megawatt-hour of electricity has been generated from renewable energy sources. 393.1030.1. The commission shall, in consultation with the department, prescribe by rule a portfolio requirement for all electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity generated from renewable energy resources. Such portfolio requirement shall provide that electricity from renewable energy resources shall constitute the following portions of each electric utility’s sales: (a) No less than two percent for calendar years 2011 through 2013; (b) No less than five percent for calendar years 2014 through 2017; (c) No less than ten percent for calendar years 2018 through 2020; and (d) No less than fifteen percent in each calendar year beginning in 2021.

At least two percent of each portfolio requirement shall be derived from solar energy. The portfolio requirements shall apply to all power sold to Missouri consumers whether such power is self-generated or purchased from another source in or outside of this state. A utility may comply with the standard in whole or in part by purchasing RECs. Each kilowatt-hour of eligible energy generated in Missouri shall count as 1.25 kilowatt-hours for purposes of compliance. 2. The commission, in consultation with the department and within one year of the effective date of sections 393.1020 to 393.1030, shall select a program for tracking and verifying the trading of renewable energy credits. An unused credit may exist for up to three years from the date of its creation. A credit may be used only once to comply with this act and may not also be used to satisfy any similar non-federal requirement. An electric utility may not use a credit derived from a green pricing program. Certificates from net-metered sources shall initially be owned by the customer-generator.  The… continues on web site


Energy Explained

Oil-Natural_Gas-Solar-Geo Thermal-Wind-Electricity-Bio Mass-Nuclear-Gasoline-Heating_Oil-Diesel-Propane-Coal

US Energy Data Links for Energy and Energy Related Questions-All Areas of Energy Production and Uses are covered in this report by US Energy Department.

Energy Explained - Home

Missouri Incentives/Policies for Renewables & Efficienc

Financial Incentives Corporate Tax Credit

* Wood Energy Production Credit

Personal Deduction

* Tax Deduction for Home Energy Efficiency Improvements

Sales Tax Exemption

* Sales Tax Holiday for Energy-Efficient Appliances

State Loan Program

* Energy Loan Program

Utility Loan Program

* Columbia Water & Light – Super Saver Loans
* Laclede Gas – Loan Programs for Energy Efficiency

Utility Rebate Program

* AmerenUE – Commercial Natural Gas Equipment Rebates
* AmerenUE – Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Program
* AmerenUE – Residential Natural Gas Equipment Rebates
* AmrenUE – MultiFamily Property Owners Rebate Program
* City Utilities of Springfield – Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* City Utilities of Springfield – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* Co-Mo Electric Cooperative – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* Columbia Water & Light – Commercial Lighting Rebate Program
* Columbia Water & Light – Home Performance with Energy Star Rebates
* Columbia Water & Light – New Home Energy Star Rebate
* Columbia Water & Light – Solar & Efficiency Rebates
* Cuivre River Electric – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs
* Empire Distric Electric – Commercial and Industrial Efficiency Rebates
* Empire District Electric – Low Income New Homes Program
* Empire District Electric – Residential High Efficiency Air Conditioner Rebate
* Independence Power and Light – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate
* Intercounty Electric Cooperative – Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* Kansas City Power & Light – Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* Kansas City Power & Light – Cool Homes Residential Rebate Program
* Kansas City Power & Light – Energy Optimizer Programmable Thermostat Program
* Kansas City Power & Light – ENERGY STAR New Homes Rebate Program
* Kansas City Power & Light – Home Performance with ENERGY STAR
* Kirkwood Electric – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* Laclede Gas Company – Energy Efficient Appliance and HVAC Equipment Rebate Program
* Missouri Gas Energy (MGE) – Efficiency Rebates
* Ozark Border Electric Cooperative – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebates
* Southwest Electric Cooperative – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* White River Valley Electric Cooperative – Energy Efficiency Rebate Program

Rules, Regulations & Policies Building Energy Code

* Missouri Building Energy Code

Energy Standards for Public Buildings

* Life-Cycle Analysis and Energy Efficiency in State Buildings

Interconnection

* Interconnection Standards

Net Metering

* Missouri – Net Metering

Renewables Portfolio Standard

* Columbia – Renewables Portfolio Standard
* Renewable Electricity Standard

Solar Access Law/Guideline

* Solar Easements

Missouri Incentives/Policies for Renewables & Efficienc

Financial Incentives Corporate Tax Credit

* Wood Energy Production Credit

Personal Deduction

* Tax Deduction for Home Energy Efficiency Improvements

Sales Tax Exemption

* Sales Tax Holiday for Energy-Efficient Appliances

State Loan Program

* Energy Loan Program

Utility Loan Program

* Columbia Water & Light – Super Saver Loans
* Laclede Gas – Loan Programs for Energy Efficiency

Utility Rebate Program

* AmerenUE – Commercial Natural Gas Equipment Rebates
* AmerenUE – Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Program
* AmerenUE – Residential Natural Gas Equipment Rebates
* AmrenUE – MultiFamily Property Owners Rebate Program
* City Utilities of Springfield – Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* City Utilities of Springfield – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* Co-Mo Electric Cooperative – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* Columbia Water & Light – Commercial Lighting Rebate Program
* Columbia Water & Light – Home Performance with Energy Star Rebates
* Columbia Water & Light – New Home Energy Star Rebate
* Columbia Water & Light – Solar & Efficiency Rebates
* Cuivre River Electric – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs
* Empire Distric Electric – Commercial and Industrial Efficiency Rebates
* Empire District Electric – Low Income New Homes Program
* Empire District Electric – Residential High Efficiency Air Conditioner Rebate
* Independence Power and Light – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate
* Intercounty Electric Cooperative – Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* Kansas City Power & Light – Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* Kansas City Power & Light – Cool Homes Residential Rebate Program
* Kansas City Power & Light – Energy Optimizer Programmable Thermostat Program
* Kansas City Power & Light – ENERGY STAR New Homes Rebate Program
* Kansas City Power & Light – Home Performance with ENERGY STAR
* Kirkwood Electric – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* Laclede Gas Company – Energy Efficient Appliance and HVAC Equipment Rebate Program
* Missouri Gas Energy (MGE) – Efficiency Rebates
* Ozark Border Electric Cooperative – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebates
* Southwest Electric Cooperative – Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
* White River Valley Electric Cooperative – Energy Efficiency Rebate Program

Rules, Regulations & Policies Building Energy Code

* Missouri Building Energy Code

Energy Standards for Public Buildings

* Life-Cycle Analysis and Energy Efficiency in State Buildings

Interconnection

* Interconnection Standards

Net Metering

* Missouri – Net Metering

Renewables Portfolio Standard

* Columbia – Renewables Portfolio Standard
* Renewable Electricity Standard

Solar Access Law/Guideline

* Solar Easements