Missouri

Missouri solar in 2026

The Missouri sales pitch has one problem: the tidy property-tax exemption story is wrong. RSMo 137.100(10) remains printed in the code, but the Missouri Supreme Court held it unconstitutional in 2022. That is not a footnote. It is a reason to make an installer show their work before you sign.

Four Missouri roofs, measured

The spread is real but manageable. Springfield is the strongest run here and Columbia the weakest. Do not use a city average as a substitute for shade, roof direction, or a production guarantee.

Method: PVGIS v5.2 model runs by Solar Learning Lab on August 18, 2026, using the NSRDB radiation database. Assumptions: fixed roof mount, south facing, 30 degree tilt, 14 percent losses. Your roof will differ.

The tax-exemption claim does not survive review

The Missouri proposal audit: rule, cap, and court decision

Missouri's net-metering law offers a clear starting line, not a blank check for a large array. RSMo 386.890 applies to customer-generator systems not more than 100 kW that are renewable, located on premises the customer controls, intended mainly to offset that customer's usage, approved by the retail supplier, and fitted with automatic disconnection when utility service is lost. Those details belong in the installer's scope, not just in a legal footnote.

The application path changes at 10 kW. At or below that size, the law provides an all-in-one application document. Above it, systems up to 100 kW have a 90-day utility review. Municipal utilities and cooperatives must use simple interconnection and net-metering contracts. That gives a homeowner a specific paperwork question: which path does this design use, and when was the application submitted?

There is a second checkpoint. Suppliers must make net metering available first-come, first-served until net-metered capacity equals 5% of the supplier's prior-year single-hour peak load. The PSC or the supplier's governing body may raise the limit after that. Do not accept a generic assurance that availability is automatic. Ask the supplier to state its current status.

Finally, keep property-tax claims out of savings unless counsel has established a different basis. RSMo 137.100(10) was ruled unconstitutional in 2022 in Johnson v. Springfield Solar 1, LLC. The statute's continued appearance on a page is not a working incentive. It is exactly the kind of stale claim that should stop a homeowner from trusting the rest of a proposal without checking it.

One more detail can change the quote conversation. Evergy describes a Missouri Solar Power Rebate paid per watt under the Proposition C renewable standard, but the available page does not give a current per-watt value, program status, or end date. The honest response is not to insert a guessed rebate into the model. Ask whether it is open for a residential application now, what amount applies, and where the terms say so.

RSMo 386.890; Missouri DNR Easy Connection fact sheet; RSMo 137.100 and case note.

Stress-test the result against surplus generation

The calculator uses statewide cost and production inputs, not one supplier's avoided fuel cost. It makes the most sense as a screen for an array shaped around the home's demand.

St. Louis solar contractors to investigate

These Google-listed electrical contractors say they perform solar work. A rating is not evidence that the firm knows the forms and timing for your particular supplier.