Legislation introduced by state Rep. Travis Fitzwater, R-Holts Summit, could affect the future of solar power in Missouri.
House Bill 340 would allow electrical companies to charge customers who generate their own power though solar panels or wind turbines, and sell the power back to the company, known as net metering.
HB 340 recently passed the Missouri House of Representative by a 102-51 vote and is currently sitting in a Senate committee.
Net-metering customers would be charged a recurring monthly grid usage fee, on top of the existing service availability charge. This charge - according to the language of the bill - could be up to 75 percent of the base rate.
But P.J. Wilson, director of Renew Missouri, said this charge could eliminate the money-saving benefit of going solar.
"The problem is, if you're a solar customer, then paying an extra $15 a month would be roughly equivalent to what you save," he said. "That amount then raises in proportion to a raise in the base rate."
The confusing thing, Wilson said, is electrical co-ops were gung-ho about a bill passed in 2007 that established net metering in Missouri.
"I started my career in clean energy back in 2007 with the 'Easy Connect Act,'" he said. "At the time, all the utilities were on board. We negotiated the terms of the bill with rural electrical co-ops that all utilities in Missouri must offer a customer the chance to go solar until the solar generation became 5 percent (of the total energy generated by that company)."
That percentage is nowhere near being met, but co-ops appear to be changing their positions.
"There are 300 customers, statewide, who generate solar power," Wilson said. "Divide that number by the 650,000 customers who don't, and you see that only .05 percent are solar. That is a tiny amount and they agreed to allow up to 5 percent to go solar with no incentive."
Callaway Electric Cooperative's CEO and General Manager Tom Howard said the bill aims to fix a problem in the current law before it becomes an issue.
"In other areas of the state, I think (net metering) has become more substantial," he said. "In Callaway, we have less than 15 customers who (net meter).
"But, I am a proponent of fixing the law at this time. It brings clarity and fairness today so it won't be an issue (in the future)."
That issue, Howard said, stems from customers who generate their own power. He said they're not paying their fair share to maintain the system.
"Most utilities have a monthly charge, then a fee per kilowatt hour," he said. "The intent is to fairly charge every unique person on the system a fee that fairly pays for the many costs of operating that system. The problem with net metering is that we are required to credit them with the retail rate of the power they generate, so the part they would have contributed for use of the grid goes away."
In December, local businessman Matt Gowin installed solar panels on a carwash he co-owns in Fulton. Gowin said he chatted with Fitzwater about the bill and was concerned removing the financial benefit of net metering would hurt efforts to go green.
"In the push for green energy, if you take away the financial cost savings, it becomes kind of a moot point unless you do it out of the goodness of your own heart," he said. "I understand, though, that co-ops are trying to recover the money they put into infrastructure."
According to Fitzwater, the bill is not designed to hurt those who net meter.
"Without seriously considering updating our net-metering law, we are unfairly pushing infrastructure costs onto ratepayers that are low income or on fixed income," he said. "We should not, as a state, push these costs onto our state's most vulnerable rate-payers. The idea of a grid usage fee establishes fairness among all rate payers, while leaving the majority of the net metering law alone."
Howard added co-ops and energy companies are not trying to kill the solar industry.
"I think we should all work to be good stewards of our planet," he said. "There is nothing wrong with trying to lower your bill. But net-metering customers are getting to use the infrastructure for free, and all the rest of our membership is paying for that."
Wilson said he is not convinced by the arguments made by Fitzwater and the energy co-ops.
"They are arguing that having solar is not fair (to other customers)," he said. "But I know that those same utilities offer rebates on energy efficient equipment. Is a customer who does that also not paying their fair share? That's what the base rate is for. Should they be (taxing) customers for doing anything to pay less than what they normally would have?"