What did the Missouri AG decide about the ballot summary for the version 3 renewable energy initiative filed by James Owen in 2020?

Plain-English summary

This opinion is a near-twin of opinion 12-2020, issued the same day. James Owen had filed two parallel versions of his renewable energy initiative amending Chapter 393, RSMo. Version 2 (petition 2020-143) was reviewed in opinion 12-2020. This opinion (13-2020) reviews version 3 (petition 2020-144). The Secretary of State drafted summary statements with identical bullet points for both versions. AG Eric Schmitt approved the legal content and form of this version's summary under § 116.334, RSMo. As with all such reviews, approval was not an endorsement of the proposal.

The proposed amendment would have raised Missouri's renewable energy standard from 15% of retail sales by 2021 to 50% by 2040, eliminated the solar rebate program, required investor-owned utilities to buy solar credits for ten years from rooftop solar customers, raised the solar carve-out from 2% to 5%, and confined the use of renewable energy credits to electricity actually delivered to Missouri customers.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Section 116.334, RSMo, requires the Secretary of State to send any proposed summary statement for a citizen-initiated petition to the Attorney General for review of legal content and form before the petition can move into signature gathering. The AG's review is procedural, not substantive: it asks whether the summary fairly captures what the petition would do in language that meets statutory drafting requirements, not whether the underlying policy is sound.

Initiative proponents in Missouri routinely file multiple substantively similar versions of the same proposal so the campaign can pick the version that performs best in polling and survives any judicial challenges to the ballot summary. Each version is reviewed separately. The two James Owen petitions reviewed in opinions 12-2020 and 13-2020 are an example of that practice.

What the petition would have done

According to the summary statement that the AG approved, voters would have been asked whether they wanted to amend Missouri law regarding the renewable energy standard for investor-owned electric utilities to:

• raise the minimum renewable energy share from the then-current 15% of retail sales in 2021 to 20% by 2022, with incremental steps to 50% by 2040
• eliminate the existing solar rebate program
• require utilities to buy solar credits for ten years from customers with solar panels
• raise the solar energy minimum from 2% to 5%
• limit the use of renewable energy credits to those associated with electricity the utility actually sold to Missouri customers

The summary's bullet points matched the parallel version reviewed in opinion 12-2020.

Common questions

What is the difference between version 2 and version 3 of the same petition?
The opinion does not say. The petitions were filed and assigned numbers separately by the Secretary of State, and proponents commonly file multiple versions with small drafting differences. The AG's review focuses on the summary statement, not on the petition text itself, so this opinion does not catalog substantive differences between the two versions.

Did the AG approve the underlying policy?
No. Approval under § 116.334, RSMo, is review of legal content and form only. The opinion did not endorse, oppose, or evaluate the renewable energy mandate.

What happened to the petition after this approval?
This opinion does not say. After AG approval of the summary, the petition would have entered the signature-gathering phase. Whether it ultimately qualified for the ballot is outside the scope of this opinion and would need to be confirmed against the Secretary of State's records.

Is the AG's approval reviewable in court?
The Missouri courts have repeatedly entertained challenges to ballot summaries, including AG-approved summaries, under § 116.190 (insufficiency or unfairness challenges). The opinion does not address that route.

Citations

• Section 116.334, RSMo, governing AG review of initiative summary statements

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/13-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
Eric SCHMITT
February 18, 2020
OPINION LETTER NO. 13-2020
The Honorable John R. Ashcroft
Missouri Secretary of State
James C. Kirkpatrick State Information Center
600 West Main Street
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dear Secretary Ashcroft:
This opinion letter responds to your request dated February 7, 2020, for
our review under § 116.334, RSMo, of a proposed summary statement prepared
for the petition submitted by James Owen regarding a proposed amendment
to amend Chapter 393, version 3, (2020-144). The proposed summary
statement is as follows:
Do you want to amend Missouri law regarding the
renewable energy standard for investor-owned electric
utilities as follows:
• increase the minimum renewable energy amount from the
current 15% of retail sales in 2021 to 20% by 2022, with
incremental increases to 50% by 2040;
• eliminate the solar rebate program;
• require utilities to purchase solar credits for ten years from
customers with solar panels;
• increase the solar energy minimum from the current 2% to 5%;
and
• only allow the use of renewable energy credits that are
associated with electricity the utility sold to Missouri
customers?
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High Street
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (573) 751-3321
Fax: (573) 751-0774
www.ago.mo.gov

OP-2020-0016