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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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?

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.