The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments
Wednesday on a case that focuses on a question of whether a state government
commission overstepped its legal bounds when it removed key provisions from a
2008 renewable energy law.
The renewable energy standard law requires that utility
companies, such as Ameren Missouri, Kansas City Power & Light, and Empire
District Power Company, use a certain percentage of renewable energy in their
power sales to customers — 15 percent
by 2021. Sixty-six percent of Missouri voters supported the law at the ballot box eight years ago.
The Missouri Public Service Commission passed a law in
January 2010 to enforce this standard, but the state legislature's Joint
Committee on Administrative Rules removed two paragraphs from the law requiring
that the utility companies provide their own renewable energy. Instead, the
companies can purchase "renewable energy credit" papers to meet the
law's requirements using out-of-state energy.
The Great Rivers Environmental Law Center, a nonprofit
geared toward environmental issues, sued the state in 2013 for the omission.
The firm argued in a release that the legislative committee didn't have the
authority to override the Public Service Commission's law and that the two
paragraphs should be reinstated.
"JCAR's action was not only unconstitutional; it was
also an infringement on ... the people's right to enact legislation by
initiative petition," said Heather Navarro, executive director of the
Missouri Coalition for the Environment, in a release.
Henry Robertson, staff attorney for Great Rivers, said in an
interview on Tuesday that the Missouri Supreme Court decided
a similar case with renewable energy in 1997. At the time, the court
ruled that legislators cannot rewrite laws after a certain point in the
lawmaking process. State laws typically have a window for public comment, after
which they are sent to the Secretary of State's office for publication. With
its 2010 ruling, Robertson said the administrative rules committee missed this
window.
"The fundamental conflict in this case involves (the
committee's) legislative veto of administrative rules," Robertson said.
"The Supreme Court already held that unconstitutional in 1997. The
legislators tried to fix that before and did not succeed, so it's still
unconstitutional now when JCAR prevent rules from taking effect."
Robertson followed this line of argument in presenting Great
Rivers' case to the state Supreme Court, in front of a full courtroom of
observers. When a justice asked what effect the court could have on the
renewable energy law, Robertson said that the court could issue an order of
mandamus for the Secretary of State to reinstate the law's two missing
paragraphs. That action would put into effect the law voters originally
approved.
Vaughn Prost, chief executive officer of Missouri Solar
Applications, stressed in a news release the importance of reinstating the
paragraphs. Unless utility companies are required to deliver renewable energy
in-state, the law is "largely meaningless," he said.
"Missouri isn't getting new jobs or the new renewable
energy that should be built here (if the full law isn't enforced)," wrote
Prost. "These policies are working in 28 other states, and there's no reason
it can't work in Missouri too."
The state Supreme Court will issue its ruling at a date to
be determined in the coming months.
No comments:
Post a Comment