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=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][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]

Production and distribution are two separate markets.  The mandate applies to distribution not production.  This manuever also negatively impacts large scale producers.[/quote]
You were enjoying unearned economic rent.[/quote]

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%.[/quote]
How is it unearned? You [b]purchased[/b] a panel and the state mandated someone to pay you. Is this serious? [/quote]

[/quote]

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.[/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