Bowser flew to COP28 in Dubai last December on the taxpayer’s dime to tout her climate credentials. Since getting back, she has scuttled plans for protected bike lanes and is now destroying incentives for renewable energy generation. How in the world did we find ourselves such an awful mayor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to wonder if the mayor fully understood that or if she was bamboozled by lobbyists for the oil and gas industry.

This is completely backwards for DC policy.

It doesn't benefit the oil or gas industry either. This really benefits nobody.

A few years ago DC passed a law mandating that a certain percentage of electricity sold in DC be locally produced and renewable. Since there is no large scale electricity produced in DC, and will never be to be honest, this mandate can be fulfilled by either buying production credits from small scale local producers (ie: rooftop solar) or by paying a set non-compliance fee. Because of this dynamic the cost of a local producer credit (SREC) is usually around 10% less than the non-compliance cost.

What Bowser is trying to do is force the electricity distribution companies to pay the non-compliance fee instead of buying producer credits. Since the producer credits are cheaper this raises electricity costs for everyone.

The purpose of this legislation, which is not unique to DC, is to incentivize electricity distributors to utilize locally generated and/or renewable electricity. This mandate itself raises local electricity costs. She is notably not removing the mandate but instead preventing the cheaper form of compliance from functioning. In effect it's a double whammy. Extra costs for not having a locally generated product plus extra costs for non-renewable sources while not having any way to utilize local and renewable sources.

There are actually a number of 1MW+ solar farms in the District, with opportunity for plenty more.

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.

This is true. But those folks will pay even more under the mayor's plan. Instead of paying for SRECs, they will be paying for “alternative compliance fees" which cost more.

BTW, there are many free solar options in DC. Everyone should be able to afford it. Whether they have a suitable roof to put it on is another matter.

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.

Anonymous wrote:What is the status of this now in the budget? Still there?

As far as I know but there was a Council meeting about the budget today. I am trying to find out if anything changed.

What is the status of this now in the budget? Still there?

Anonymous wrote:I have to wonder if the mayor fully understood that or if she was bamboozled by lobbyists for the oil and gas industry.

This is completely backwards for DC policy.

It doesn't benefit the oil or gas industry either. This really benefits nobody.

A few years ago DC passed a law mandating that a certain percentage of electricity sold in DC be locally produced and renewable. Since there is no large scale electricity produced in DC, and will never be to be honest, this mandate can be fulfilled by either buying production credits from small scale local producers (ie: rooftop solar) or by paying a set non-compliance fee. Because of this dynamic the cost of a local producer credit (SREC) is usually around 10% less than the non-compliance cost.

What Bowser is trying to do is force the electricity distribution companies to pay the non-compliance fee instead of buying producer credits. Since the producer credits are cheaper this raises electricity costs for everyone.

The purpose of this legislation, which is not unique to DC, is to incentivize electricity distributors to utilize locally generated and/or renewable electricity. This mandate itself raises local electricity costs. She is notably not removing the mandate but instead preventing the cheaper form of compliance from functioning. In effect it's a double whammy. Extra costs for not having a locally generated product plus extra costs for non-renewable sources while not having any way to utilize local and renewable sources.

I have to wonder if the mayor fully understood that or if she was bamboozled by lobbyists for the oil and gas industry.

This is completely backwards for DC policy.

The gimmick in which the Mayor is planning to engage is complicated and difficult to explain. But the Sierra Club DC did a good job here:

The mayor’s proposed statutory changes to the SETF and REDF are a money-laundering gimmick that does not genuinely raise revenue but causes real harm to DC residents and businesses. Here is how the gimmick would work. Starting this year, the Department of General Services (DGS) would direct its electricity supplier to pay alternative compliance payments (ACP) for electricity obtained from non-renewable energy sources, rather than buying renewable energy credits, which on the whole cost less than the ACP. The funds from the ACP would then be siphoned from the REDF to the General Fund to be spent on a myriad of unrelated uses. DGS would be allowed to use the SETF to pay the energy supplier for its services, including the additional cost of paying the ACP instead of buying renewable energy credits.

https://www.sierraclub.org/dc/blog/2024/04/proposed-dc-budget-includes-devastating-cuts-and-short-sighted-attempts-undo

The upshot is that renewable energy funds will be raided to pay the District's electricity bill. Energy suppliers will stop buying SRECs and, instead, make "alternative compliance payments", giving suppliers credit for meeting sustainable energy goals without actually supporting sustainable energy. The District, instead of supporting renewable energy, will be paying more money for non-renewable energy.

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.

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.

If you don't see a problem you either don't understand what the Mayor is intending or you don't care about renewable energy. The Mayor is essentially raiding a fund that is meant to support renewable energy in DC. Therefore, that fund will not be able to support such projects. She is using that money to pay the District's energy bill. She is then redirecting funds that are now used to incentivize private renewable energy projects such as home solar panels to the fund that she is raiding. The damage to renewable energy is multifaceted:

1) it halts the District's support for green energy;
2) removes incentives for private solar which is being installed by homes, churches, businesses, etc.
3) allows energy suppliers to meet their renewable energy commitments without actually supporting renewable energy.
4) the District will actually end up paying more for electricity. But it will just be funded by the energy suppliers themselves.

This is well beyond "a few dozen people". I have no idea where you arrived at that number. It will do tremendous damage to the entire renewable energy landscape in DC.

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.

Anonymous wrote:That sucks. I wouldn't have gone solar if I knew the SRECs were being taken away.

Please contact your Council Member, the At-Large Members, and Chairman Mendelson to tell them how important preventing the Mayor's proposed changes is to solar energy projects.

That sucks. I wouldn't have gone solar if I knew the SRECs were being taken away.

Mayor Bowser's budget apparently contains a complex gimmick that will result in the market for Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) plummeting. It is very complex, but involves using money meant for renewable energy projects being shifted to pay the District's own electricity bills. One way Bowser intends to raise money is to instruct energy producers to pay “alternative compliance fees" which will allow them to meet their sustainable energy requirements. Energy suppliers have been meeting these requirements by purchasing renewable energy credits, especially, solar renewable energy credits. If the energy suppliers do as the Mayor directs, the there will be an oversupply of SRECs and prices will tank.

This is very bad news for anyone who purchased solar energy panels with the expectation that SRECs would help pay for their cost.

Here is an article that explains the Mayor's budget changes:

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/694421/bowsers-budget-gimmicks-could-cripple-d-c-s-clean-energy-programs-can-the-council-block-them/

And a short video that goes over the topic.



The DC Council is trying to undo the proposed changes, but it is very convoluted and not easy to do. So, the Council may benefit from some encouragement from voters.