Mayor Bowser's Threat to Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs)

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the PPs who don't like the "unearned economic rent" of the current SRECs system actually in favor of her proposal which would increase costs and do nothing to remove the mandate?

Removing the RE portfolio mandate is the best option. Particularly for a city that is unwilling to set aside land for utility scale RE generation.

We know your opinion about something that is not happening. Do you have an opinion on what is actually happening?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the PPs who don't like the "unearned economic rent" of the current SRECs system actually in favor of her proposal which would increase costs and do nothing to remove the mandate?

Removing the RE portfolio mandate is the best option. Particularly for a city that is unwilling to set aside land for utility scale RE generation.

We know your opinion about something that is not happening. Do you have an opinion on what is actually happening?

DP. I am not sure what opinions you are looking for? You have a government entitlement and the government decided to reduce the value of your entitlement. It is not great for you, but it doesn’t seem like a major problem for citizens generally.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the PPs who don't like the "unearned economic rent" of the current SRECs system actually in favor of her proposal which would increase costs and do nothing to remove the mandate?

Removing the RE portfolio mandate is the best option. Particularly for a city that is unwilling to set aside land for utility scale RE generation.

We know your opinion about something that is not happening. Do you have an opinion on what is actually happening?

DP. I am not sure what opinions you are looking for? You have a government entitlement and the government decided to reduce the value of your entitlement. It is not great for you, but it doesn’t seem like a major problem for citizens generally.

Generally it is appropriate to discuss the topic of the thread. We are not discussing the elimination of renewable energy mandates since such mandates will exist even with Bowser's changes. Therefore, that poster's opinion about them is not relevant to this thread. That's a different discussion.

As for your last sentence, you apparently assume that electricity price increases are not a problem for citizens generally. You also assume that further dependent on dirty energy is not a problem for citizens generally. I disagree with your assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not seeing the problem here. Solar paneled people needed to think about the long term and understand there was no way the US or DC was going to be able to implement this long term. We just don't have the infrastructure and moreover, there is a looming recession so logically the city's needs come before a few dozen people.

Huh? People made very substantial long term investments, the economics of which only work because of these credits. Credits which do not cost the City or its taxpayers anything.

If the proposal was to eliminate the solar % mandate then you might have a point. But that is not the proposal. All the indirect costs of the locally produced energy mandate remain. She's just screwing over the people that relied on the law.

They cost the ratepayers who can't afford / get solar.

Yes and no. The law mandating a percentage of local/renewable supply does indeed increase costs. However that requirement isn't being taken away and the credits make that compliance cost cheaper.

Cheaper as opposed to building your own PV solar plant? The whole point of the law was to create a cross subsidy mechanism for ratepayers to subsidize home rooftop solar installations. RE mandates are no longer needed because solar is now so cheap there is no need to provide government subsidies.

Production and distribution are two separate markets. The mandate applies to distribution not production. This manuever also negatively impacts large scale producers.

You were enjoying unearned economic rent.

All states have locally produced requirements. It's also not unearned because it's the exact same production just at a lower scales.

Yes, the mandate does increase costs BUT the mandate is not being removed. The only thing her move does is increase costs an additional 10-15%.

How is it unearned? You purchased a panel and the state mandated someone to pay you. Is this serious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not seeing the problem here. Solar paneled people needed to think about the long term and understand there was no way the US or DC was going to be able to implement this long term. We just don't have the infrastructure and moreover, there is a looming recession so logically the city's needs come before a few dozen people.

Huh? People made very substantial long term investments, the economics of which only work because of these credits. Credits which do not cost the City or its taxpayers anything.

If the proposal was to eliminate the solar % mandate then you might have a point. But that is not the proposal. All the indirect costs of the locally produced energy mandate remain. She's just screwing over the people that relied on the law.

They cost the ratepayers who can't afford / get solar.

Yes and no. The law mandating a percentage of local/renewable supply does indeed increase costs. However that requirement isn't being taken away and the credits make that compliance cost cheaper.

Cheaper as opposed to building your own PV solar plant? The whole point of the law was to create a cross subsidy mechanism for ratepayers to subsidize home rooftop solar installations. RE mandates are no longer needed because solar is now so cheap there is no need to provide government subsidies.

Production and distribution are two separate markets. The mandate applies to distribution not production. This manuever also negatively impacts large scale producers.

You were enjoying unearned economic rent.

All states have locally produced requirements. It's also not unearned because it's the exact same production just at a lower scales.

Yes, the mandate does increase costs BUT the mandate is not being removed. The only thing her move does is increase costs an additional 10-15%.

How is it unearned? You purchased a panel and the state mandated someone to pay you. Is this serious?

I have solar panels, and I think this proposal is ridiculous, but I also think it's sort of hard to argue that the SRECs aren't basically unearned economic rent. The fact that we paid for the panels doesn't make the rent unearned. Quite the opposite; typically, you need some capital to enjoy unearned rent. SRECs are like the definition of passive income.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not seeing the problem here. Solar paneled people needed to think about the long term and understand there was no way the US or DC was going to be able to implement this long term. We just don't have the infrastructure and moreover, there is a looming recession so logically the city's needs come before a few dozen people.

Huh? People made very substantial long term investments, the economics of which only work because of these credits. Credits which do not cost the City or its taxpayers anything.

If the proposal was to eliminate the solar % mandate then you might have a point. But that is not the proposal. All the indirect costs of the locally produced energy mandate remain. She's just screwing over the people that relied on the law.

They cost the ratepayers who can't afford / get solar.

Yes and no. The law mandating a percentage of local/renewable supply does indeed increase costs. However that requirement isn't being taken away and the credits make that compliance cost cheaper.

Cheaper as opposed to building your own PV solar plant? The whole point of the law was to create a cross subsidy mechanism for ratepayers to subsidize home rooftop solar installations. RE mandates are no longer needed because solar is now so cheap there is no need to provide government subsidies.

Production and distribution are two separate markets. The mandate applies to distribution not production. This manuever also negatively impacts large scale producers.

You were enjoying unearned economic rent.

All states have locally produced requirements. It's also not unearned because it's the exact same production just at a lower scales.

Yes, the mandate does increase costs BUT the mandate is not being removed. The only thing her move does is increase costs an additional 10-15%.

How is it unearned? You purchased a panel and the state mandated someone to pay you. Is this serious?

I have solar panels, and I think this proposal is ridiculous, but I also think it's sort of hard to argue that the SRECs aren't basically unearned economic rent. The fact that we paid for the panels doesn't make the rent unearned. Quite the opposite; typically, you need some capital to enjoy unearned rent. SRECs are like the definition of passive income.

You purchased solar panels that produce electricity. Credits for that production have value. If instead of buying solar panels, you had bought an oil well, the oil produced would have value. Both are passive income, but neither is unearned because you earned it as a result of your investment.

On the other hand, it could be argued that SRECs only have value because of mandated renewable energy mandates and that the mandates should not exist. But it is important to remember that the goal of those mandates is to encourage renewable energy which has environmental benefits. I think that there is strong support for the government having a real in promoting renewable energy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not seeing the problem here. Solar paneled people needed to think about the long term and understand there was no way the US or DC was going to be able to implement this long term. We just don't have the infrastructure and moreover, there is a looming recession so logically the city's needs come before a few dozen people.

Huh? People made very substantial long term investments, the economics of which only work because of these credits. Credits which do not cost the City or its taxpayers anything.

If the proposal was to eliminate the solar % mandate then you might have a point. But that is not the proposal. All the indirect costs of the locally produced energy mandate remain. She's just screwing over the people that relied on the law.

They cost the ratepayers who can't afford / get solar.

Yes and no. The law mandating a percentage of local/renewable supply does indeed increase costs. However that requirement isn't being taken away and the credits make that compliance cost cheaper.

Cheaper as opposed to building your own PV solar plant? The whole point of the law was to create a cross subsidy mechanism for ratepayers to subsidize home rooftop solar installations. RE mandates are no longer needed because solar is now so cheap there is no need to provide government subsidies.

Production and distribution are two separate markets. The mandate applies to distribution not production. This manuever also negatively impacts large scale producers.

You were enjoying unearned economic rent.

All states have locally produced requirements. It's also not unearned because it's the exact same production just at a lower scales.

Yes, the mandate does increase costs BUT the mandate is not being removed. The only thing her move does is increase costs an additional 10-15%.

How is it unearned? You purchased a panel and the state mandated someone to pay you. Is this serious?

I have solar panels, and I think this proposal is ridiculous, but I also think it's sort of hard to argue that the SRECs aren't basically unearned economic rent. The fact that we paid for the panels doesn't make the rent unearned. Quite the opposite; typically, you need some capital to enjoy unearned rent. SRECs are like the definition of passive income.

That's all true but it is no different, except for scale, than what a big company does. Exelon doesn't build power plants itself. It pays for someone else to build them and then operates the finished products. Engineering companies do all the real work and PJM does the rest. Heck, some of the distributors do absolutely nothing but paper transactions. The entire for profit side of the electricity market is rent taking. I see nothing wrong with letting small scale generators have equal footing.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not seeing the problem here. Solar paneled people needed to think about the long term and understand there was no way the US or DC was going to be able to implement this long term. We just don't have the infrastructure and moreover, there is a looming recession so logically the city's needs come before a few dozen people.

Huh? People made very substantial long term investments, the economics of which only work because of these credits. Credits which do not cost the City or its taxpayers anything.

If the proposal was to eliminate the solar % mandate then you might have a point. But that is not the proposal. All the indirect costs of the locally produced energy mandate remain. She's just screwing over the people that relied on the law.

They cost the ratepayers who can't afford / get solar.

Yes and no. The law mandating a percentage of local/renewable supply does indeed increase costs. However that requirement isn't being taken away and the credits make that compliance cost cheaper.

Cheaper as opposed to building your own PV solar plant? The whole point of the law was to create a cross subsidy mechanism for ratepayers to subsidize home rooftop solar installations. RE mandates are no longer needed because solar is now so cheap there is no need to provide government subsidies.

Production and distribution are two separate markets. The mandate applies to distribution not production. This manuever also negatively impacts large scale producers.

You were enjoying unearned economic rent.

All states have locally produced requirements. It's also not unearned because it's the exact same production just at a lower scales.

Yes, the mandate does increase costs BUT the mandate is not being removed. The only thing her move does is increase costs an additional 10-15%.

How is it unearned? You purchased a panel and the state mandated someone to pay you. Is this serious?

I have solar panels, and I think this proposal is ridiculous, but I also think it's sort of hard to argue that the SRECs aren't basically unearned economic rent. The fact that we paid for the panels doesn't make the rent unearned. Quite the opposite; typically, you need some capital to enjoy unearned rent. SRECs are like the definition of passive income.

You purchased solar panels that produce electricity. Credits for that production have value. If instead of buying solar panels, you had bought an oil well, the oil produced would have value. Both are passive income, but neither is unearned because you earned it as a result of your investment.

On the other hand, it could be argued that SRECs only have value because of mandated renewable energy mandates and that the mandates should not exist. But it is important to remember that the goal of those mandates is to encourage renewable energy which has environmental benefits. I think that there is strong support for the government having a real in promoting renewable energy.

Yeah, I think the second point is exactly right — SRECs only have value because of the government mandates, which means buying the panels is essentially rent-seeking behavior on our part: The government set up a system where energy companies are compelled to pay those of us who installed them.

I agree with the policy goals of the mandate, so I'm fine with that, but it is definitely economic rent.

(FWIW, I don't think the fact that there's strong public support for the policy really makes any difference on the rent vs. not rent question.)

[Anonymous]

This is what every one of the environmental schemes are like. Carbon credits, ethanol, etc. The only difference is that DC's geographic limitations make it worthwhile for small scale. I don't particularly like the schemes thenselves but I appreciate that the common individual can take part in this one.

It should be mentioned that there is a secondary purpose. Rooftop solar has helped pay for some of PEPCO's needed infrastructure modernizations.

[Anonymous]

A lot of renewable energy companies are one big farce. I cannot wait for a really good expose on this👈

Secondly, what are the long term health effects of solar panels, many of which contain toxic materials in encased in plastic/glass atop of homes and corporate offices?

Many solar panels end up in landfills.
Good for Bowser. I support this initiative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of renewable energy companies are one big farce. I cannot wait for a really good expose on this👈

Secondly, what are the long term health effects of solar panels, many of which contain toxic materials in encased in plastic/glass atop of homes and corporate offices?

Many solar panels end up in landfills.
Good for Bowser. I support this initiative.

Bowser isn't trying to stop solar installations at all. She's just raiding the fund that pays the SRECs to support an unrelated budget maneuver. The "initiative" you're supporting has nothing to do with renewable energy, it's just financial gimmickry.

As for your underlying point, there are no known long-term health effects of solar panels, which don't really contain large enough amounts of any toxic materials to be a problem (and anyway, if they're encased, and on the roof, why would they cause any health problems for people inside the buildings?). You know what does cause known long-term health effects, though? Burning fossil fuels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of renewable energy companies are one big farce. I cannot wait for a really good expose on this👈

Secondly, what are the long term health effects of solar panels, many of which contain toxic materials in encased in plastic/glass atop of homes and corporate offices?

Many solar panels end up in landfills.
Good for Bowser. I support this initiative.

Bowser isn't trying to stop solar installations at all. She's just raiding the fund that pays the SRECs to support an unrelated budget maneuver. The "initiative" you're supporting has nothing to do with renewable energy, it's just financial gimmickry.

As for your underlying point, there are no known long-term health effects of solar panels, which don't really contain large enough amounts of any toxic materials to be a problem (and anyway, if they're encased, and on the roof, why would they cause any health problems for people inside the buildings?). You know what does cause known long-term health effects, though? Burning fossil fuels.

+1

[Anonymous]

Frumin is saying the Council's first pass of the budget drops this gimmick, fwiw: https://myemail-api.constantcontact.com/-Council-takes-first-vote-on-budget.html?soid=1139742522800&aid=qtKW472-Yrg

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Frumin is saying the Council's first pass of the budget drops this gimmick, fwiw: https://myemail-api.constantcontact.com/-Council-takes-first-vote-on-budget.html?soid=1139742522800&aid=qtKW472-Yrg

That's good news.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frumin is saying the Council's first pass of the budget drops this gimmick, fwiw: https://myemail-api.constantcontact.com/-Council-takes-first-vote-on-budget.html?soid=1139742522800&aid=qtKW472-Yrg

That's good news.

Yes, also kept me from going to try to sign a quick 15-year contract on my SRECs at prices that, while lower than the current market price, would certainly be higher than the credits would be worth if Bowser successfully tanked the market...