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

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

This is a complex topic and I don't blame you for being confused. But you are really mixing up a lot of things. The government subsidies are not being touched. Those are federal anyway. Neither is the renewable energy mandate being touched. What is happening is that the mandate will be fulfilled through a more expensive method. Instead of the mandate being used to incentivize solar installations, it will be used to pay the District's electricity bill. This will be even more expensive for rate payers. Right now, ratepayers pay a bit more to incentivize renewable energy. I can understand that some people might not be happy about that. But, as a result of Bowser's directive, those same ratepayers will pay even more to cover the District's electrical use. At least in the first case ratepayers had some benefit due to the environmental improvement of increase solar. Now they will have nothing but higher bills.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics