Ezel / AG Opinions / MO
MO Opinion No. 9-2020 2020-02-06

Did the Missouri Attorney General sign off on the State Auditor's fiscal note summary for James Owen's renewable energy initiative (version 2)?

Short answer: Yes. Attorney General Eric Schmitt approved the legal content and form of the fiscal note summary for Owen's version 2 petition (2020-143). The summary estimated about $143,500 in annual ongoing state costs and a possible electricity rate increase capped by existing law at 1 percent annually. The AG did not review the accuracy of the underlying numbers.
Currency note: this opinion is from 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.
Disclaimer: This is an official Missouri Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Missouri attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

Same procedural posture as Opinion 8-2020, but for the second of three James Owen renewable energy petition versions (2020-143). The AG approved the fiscal note summary under § 116.175.4, RSMo. The summary's estimated ongoing state cost was about $143,500 annually (slightly lower than the $147,000 estimate for version 1, indicating the State Auditor's analysis varied across versions). The 1 percent annual rate increase ceiling carried over.

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

Missouri's initiative process produces three or four AG opinions per filed petition: the form review (§ 116.332), the fiscal note summary review (§ 116.175.4), and the summary statement review (§ 116.334). All three reviews are narrow legal-sufficiency checks. None grades substance.

The State Auditor's fiscal note has two components:

  • The longer fiscal note is the Auditor's full analysis, often including responses from affected state agencies and units of local government.
  • The shorter fiscal note summary is the paragraph that will appear on the petition (during signature collection) and on the ballot.

The AG only reviews the summary. The full fiscal note is not part of the AG's review.

The cross-version variation in cost estimates (Owen v1: $147,000; Owen v2: $143,500; Owen v3: $143,500) reflects small differences in the petition text. The Auditor analyzed each version separately.

What this means for you

If you are tracking the same proposal across versions

Compare the fiscal note summaries side by side to spot the cost-driver differences. For Owen, v1 and v2 differed in some way that produced about $3,500/year in projected savings. The actual driver lives in the petition text, which is in the Secretary of State's records.

If you are a voter looking at a ballot summary

The fiscal note summary on the ballot is the short paragraph approved here. You can rely on it as a legally vetted statement of what the State Auditor estimated, not as a guarantee that the estimate will hold.

Common questions

Why is version 2's cost ($143,500) lower than version 1's ($147,000)?

The AG opinion does not say. The Auditor's full fiscal note (separate from the summary) would explain.

Did Owen's version 2 reach the ballot?

This opinion does not answer. Approvals at the AG fiscal-note-summary stage are necessary but not sufficient to reach the ballot. Signature collection still has to succeed, and the underlying initiative has to survive any pre-election court challenges.

What's the relationship between this opinion and Opinion 12-2020?

8-2020 / 9-2020 / 10-2020 are fiscal note summary approvals (Feb. 6, 2020). 11-2020 / 12-2020 / 13-2020 are summary statement approvals (Feb. 18, 2020). They are the AG's two-step review for the same three petition versions: fiscal first, then ballot summary. Both are legal-form reviews.

Citations

  • § 116.175, RSMo (State Auditor's role in preparing fiscal note and fiscal note summary)
  • § 116.175.4, RSMo (AG review of fiscal note summary for legal content and form)

Source

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
Eric SCHMITT
February 6, 2020

OPINION LETTER NO. 9-2020

The Honorable Nicole Galloway
Missouri State Auditor
State Capitol, Room 121
Jefferson City, MO 65101

Dear Auditor Galloway:

This office received your letter of January 27, 2020, submitting a fiscal note and fiscal note summary prepared under § 116.175, RSMo, for an initiative petition submitted by James Owen (2020-143). The fiscal note summary that you submitted is as follows:

State governmental entities estimate additional ongoing costs of approximately $143,500 annually. Additionally, state and local governmental entities anticipate a possible unknown increase in electricity costs from this proposal, which is limited by existing law to be no more than an average retail rate increase of one percent annually.

Under § 116.175.4, RSMo, we approve the legal content and form of the fiscal note summary. Because our review of the fiscal note summary is mandated by statute, no action that we take with respect to such review should be construed as an endorsement of the initiative petition or as the expression of any view regarding the objectives of its proponents. Furthermore, our review under § 116.175.4 does not examine the fairness or sufficiency of the estimated fiscal impact.

Very truly yours,

ERIC S. SCHMITT
Attorney General

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-2020-0009