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?

Small scale production (generation) is no different than large scale production. The good is still being produced and there are still capital costs associated with that production. SRECs don't discriminate against the size of production.

Yes, the mandate is protectionist and subsidizes local production of all sizes. But, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the mandate is not being removed. The only thing being taken away is the alternative, and cheaper, means of compliance.

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.

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?

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 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%.

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.

Everyone benefits from increased solar use: reduced emissions, increasing demand to lower solar panel prices, and showing political support exists for green energy.

The people who bought solar panels took on a financial liability to help everyone. Many, like me, relied on SRECs to help off set the cost.

You have a narrow-minded mayor raiding a green energy fund while adding fluff elsewhere in the budget.

You are claiming that your economic rent was providing broader societal value. Maybe true, maybe not. But still economic rent nonetheless.

Also, your panel purchases did not lower consumer prices. I am sorry that you think this is true. A larger impact on panel assembly prices would be Chinese slave labor.

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.

Everyone benefits from increased solar use: reduced emissions, increasing demand to lower solar panel prices, and showing political support exists for green energy.

The people who bought solar panels took on a financial liability to help everyone. Many, like me, relied on SRECs to help off set the cost.

You have a narrow-minded mayor raiding a green energy fund while adding fluff elsewhere in the budget.

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.

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.

She just can't leave anything alone that might benefit a non-developer. She is corrupt and ineffective and I can't believe we are stuck with her for another 3 years. I never voted for her.

I'm pretty confused about the logistics here but this is the part I think I understand: Bowser wants to raid a renewable energy fund to pay city electric costs because the city has a budget shortfall.

I think that's where position should focus, because it's a simpler story. This is a classic case of a politician scuttling long term municipal improvement (increased renewable energy investment) in order to solve a short term political problem (addressing the revenue shortfalls).

If you contact the Council and/mayors office, focus on that. And also demand a plan from the mayor to address the revenue shortfalls. That's where the focus should be anyway. This short sighted plan won't help at all, and could ultimately hurt by driving people and businesses out if the city.

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.

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.

The threat of an action like this (i.e., disruption of the SREC market) is part of the reason why I took a reduced maximum payout and sold my SRECs upfront.

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.

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.