Taum Sauk Updates
FAQs: Suggestions for $5 Million Escrow Account Set Up for Project Enhancements at or near the AmerenUE Taum Sauk Plant
1.	Q.	You’ve said before that you would not revise the panel’s proposal. If that’s the case, why are you inviting the public to comment on it?
	A.	Ameren has confidence in the panel and its recommendations. However, because the intent of this process was to identify projects that would benefit the community, we felt it appropriate that the community should have the opportunity to comment before Ameren submits its final recommendation to FERC.
2.	Q.	What were the criteria for selecting the recommendations?
	A.	One criteria is that some of the funding goes toward the development of an advanced emergency management system which may cost approximately $1 million. These funds would cover administrative and structural systems, advanced communications systems and medical, police or fire equipment to serve the medical and evacuation needs of the nearby Johnson’s Shut-Ins State Park.    As agreed upon with the FERC, other recommendations for the funds must fall into one or all of the following categories:
			Enhancing economic development and quality of life
			Environmental protection – including preservation of animal habitats at or near the Taum Sauk Plant
			Developing or promoting educational and/or recreational opportunities, including hydropower education at or near the plant and including access to these opportunities for disabled persons
		In addition to the FERC criteria, the panel is developing some additional criteria to help further prioritize projects for consideration.
3.	Q.	What if someone has a problem with the choices the panel made?
	A.	That person may submit a written comment to FERC.
4.	Q.	Must the projects be completed by Dec 2007?
	A.	The FERC order indicates that the full $5 million must be spent by that time.
5.	Q.	While the $5 million has been in escrow, you’ve earned interest on that money. How much has been earned, and will those funds go to fund projects?
	A.	Interest accrued will go to fund projects. Total interest earnings are not known at this time and will be difficult to determine precisely because funds will be dispersed over time.
6.	Q.	Will the amount spent for emergency management initiatives be only $1 million, leaving $4 million for other projects?
	A.	One criteria is that some of the funding goes toward the development of an advanced emergency management system which may cost approximately $1 million. The panel will decide how the funds would be allocated in the event that awards for emergency management projects do not meet or exceed the $1 million earmarked for emergency management efforts.
7.	Q.	How will you monitor the projects’ completions and determine if the money has been spent for the designated purposes?
	A.	A process is being developed. There will definitely be an auditing trail to ensure the money is properly accounted for and goes for the projects it was meant to fund.
8.	Q.	When will each winner know that his or her project has been accepted?
	A.	The plan must be filed with the FERC by February 28, and the FERC must look over the plan and respond. There is no set timeline for FERC response. Not until the plan is final will applicants be notified of the status of their recommendations.
9.	Q.	Some members of the panel are relatives of people who work for the schools or have other links to people who have submitted applications. What about conflicts of interest?
	A.	Given the need to draw panel members from the community, it was inevitable that panelists would have links to organizations that have submitted or are reviewing recommendations. We trust in the integrity and quality of the panel and believe they will do the right thing in evaluating the applications impartially.
10.	Q.	What is meant by “near” the plant in terms of the recommendations? Will some applications be rejected because they are not close enough to the plant?
	A.	The panel must think through the geographic definition of what is “near the plant.” The FERC offered no definition for “near the plant,” but we recognize that the Dec. 14, 2005, breach had wider implications than for just those communities in the immediate vicinity of the plant.
11.	Q.	How were the four criteria for project enhancements arrived at? Was this FERC’s idea, Ameren’s idea, or was this negotiated between the two sides? And are there any other documents that would sow what the meaning of these criteria was meant to be?
	A.	The four were negotiated between the parties. There are no documents other than the final settlement.