Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in the industry. These are all gimmicks. Honestly, the idea of clean energy in DC only makes people feel good. It has no big effect on anything, but it gives you a talking point.

I find the idea of switch from gas to electricity to be ludicrous. How do you think electricity is made? We don't have enough land for utility scale renewable energy that would have a real impact.

What part of the industry to you work in, the coal or petroleum part? Electricity can be produced from renewable sources. While covering all of DC's needs may not be immediately possible, solar can make a significant impact. Solar is covering over 90% of my home's needs, including charging an electric car. If this experience were repeated all over the city, it would have a very important and noticeable difference.

DP. You *highly subsidized* solar panels cover a *portion* of your home’s during the day time. It is not charging your car in the middle of the night. The other big subsidy for your panels — on top of the SRECS — is that you’re not charged the true cost to the system of keeping a gas or coal plant on standby during the day so it can provide electricity to you at night or when your panels otherwise go off line. Customers who take from the system are cheaper to serve per kWh. Nor do the “emissions savings” usually take into account the operation of those plants during the day on standby or the ramping them up and down, which is much less efficient than producing electricity at a steady state.

My panels don't cover a "portion" of my home' use during the day, they produce a surplus and export electricity to the grid. That is the time of the day in which electricity demand is the highest. Electricity at night is abundant and PEPCO actually offers a special plan that has lower costs at night that is especially aimed at electric car owners. I don't need that plan because I pay so little for electricity that it wouldn't matter. At night I get back the surplus that I sent PEPCO during the day. The grid is like a giant battery for me.

As for subsidies, all kinds of subsidies are available for fossil fuels.

I'm not sure why you are so against solar other than maybe you don't have a south facing roof and can't benefit yourself. If you can benefit you should do it. You keep saying that solar is only for those who can afford it, but I will repeat that there are multiple free solar programs in DC. Everyone can afford it.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in the industry. These are all gimmicks. Honestly, the idea of clean energy in DC only makes people feel good. It has no big effect on anything, but it gives you a talking point.

I find the idea of switch from gas to electricity to be ludicrous. How do you think electricity is made? We don't have enough land for utility scale renewable energy that would have a real impact.

What part of the industry to you work in, the coal or petroleum part? Electricity can be produced from renewable sources. While covering all of DC's needs may not be immediately possible, solar can make a significant impact. Solar is covering over 90% of my home's needs, including charging an electric car. If this experience were repeated all over the city, it would have a very important and noticeable difference.

DP. You *highly subsidized* solar panels cover a *portion* of your home’s during the day time. It is not charging your car in the middle of the night. The other big subsidy for your panels — on top of the SRECS — is that you’re not charged the true cost to the system of keeping a gas or coal plant on standby during the day so it can provide electricity to you at night or when your panels otherwise go off line. Customers who take from the system are cheaper to serve per kWh. Nor do the “emissions savings” usually take into account the operation of those plants during the day on standby or the ramping them up and down, which is much less efficient than producing electricity at a steady state.

Have you heard of batteries?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in the industry. These are all gimmicks. Honestly, the idea of clean energy in DC only makes people feel good. It has no big effect on anything, but it gives you a talking point.

I find the idea of switch from gas to electricity to be ludicrous. How do you think electricity is made? We don't have enough land for utility scale renewable energy that would have a real impact.

What part of the industry to you work in, the coal or petroleum part? Electricity can be produced from renewable sources. While covering all of DC's needs may not be immediately possible, solar can make a significant impact. Solar is covering over 90% of my home's needs, including charging an electric car. If this experience were repeated all over the city, it would have a very important and noticeable difference.

DP. You *highly subsidized* solar panels cover a *portion* of your home’s during the day time. It is not charging your car in the middle of the night. The other big subsidy for your panels — on top of the SRECS — is that you’re not charged the true cost to the system of keeping a gas or coal plant on standby during the day so it can provide electricity to you at night or when your panels otherwise go off line. Customers who take from the system are cheaper to serve per kWh. Nor do the “emissions savings” usually take into account the operation of those plants during the day on standby or the ramping them up and down, which is much less efficient than producing electricity at a steady state.

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.

This is not true. The SRECS always transferred the cost of installing solar panels from the UMC/UC to the MC/poor who can’t afford them by inflating the cost of electricity for everyone else. This was always politically unsustainable, and why CA is backing off credits, as well.

Yes and no.

The renewable energy mandate does increase everyone's costs however rooftop solar is the mechanism to then reduce that increase. It's an overly convulated two-step.

Bowser was proposing to refuse to pay the decrease because it gives her an accounting gimmick that for budgetary purposes shows up as revenue even though it costs more.

Rooftop solar only reduces costs for people who can afford them. It is absolutely a transfer from the poor to the wealthy. Again, this is why CA and other states are reducing them. Yes, Bowser should be just eliminating them rather than transferring the $$ to the city, but the alternative to that is higher taxes. From a cynical political standpoint, it works because the pain of higher electricity rates is already baked in, and avoids controversy over raising taxes.

Anonymous wrote:I work in the industry. These are all gimmicks. Honestly, the idea of clean energy in DC only makes people feel good. It has no big effect on anything, but it gives you a talking point.

I find the idea of switch from gas to electricity to be ludicrous. How do you think electricity is made? We don't have enough land for utility scale renewable energy that would have a real impact.

What part of the industry to you work in, the coal or petroleum part? Electricity can be produced from renewable sources. While covering all of DC's needs may not be immediately possible, solar can make a significant impact. Solar is covering over 90% of my home's needs, including charging an electric car. If this experience were repeated all over the city, it would have a very important and noticeable difference.

I work in the industry. These are all gimmicks. Honestly, the idea of clean energy in DC only makes people feel good. It has no big effect on anything, but it gives you a talking point.

I find the idea of switch from gas to electricity to be ludicrous. How do you think electricity is made? We don't have enough land for utility scale renewable energy that would have a real impact.

Anonymous wrote:@Jeff

Was there any update on this after the first read of the budget passage? Is anyone working on getting the Council to change this?

Frumin said that they reversed it. But he’s not reliable. So let’s see what happens next.

@Jeff

Was there any update on this after the first read of the budget passage? Is anyone working on getting the Council to change this?

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.

This is not true. The SRECS always transferred the cost of installing solar panels from the UMC/UC to the MC/poor who can’t afford them by inflating the cost of electricity for everyone else. This was always politically unsustainable, and why CA is backing off credits, as well.

Basically. SRECs are UMC welfare, which is why the posts about their potential demise are so animated.

Hardly welfare. You have to make a significant investment to earn them. We made that investment based on expectations that the Mayor wants to change unilaterally. Her changes don't save ratepayers money. To the contrary, the changes would cost them more.

Whether or not SRECs are good or bad is really not relevant for this discussion. SRECs exist because of the renewable energy mandate and the Mayor didn't propose getting rid of that. She is simply replacing SRECs with ratepayer subsidies for the District's electric bill. Some of you seem happy to see a few of us get screwed over. But the joke is on you as well. If you are a District resident, your electrical bill would up if the Mayor gets her way. Meanwhile, those of us will solar will still get our renewable energy for free.

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.

This is not true. The SRECS always transferred the cost of installing solar panels from the UMC/UC to the MC/poor who can’t afford them by inflating the cost of electricity for everyone else. This was always politically unsustainable, and why CA is backing off credits, as well.

Basically. SRECs are UMC welfare, which is why the posts about their potential demise are so animated.

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.

This is not true. The SRECS always transferred the cost of installing solar panels from the UMC/UC to the MC/poor who can’t afford them by inflating the cost of electricity for everyone else. This was always politically unsustainable, and why CA is backing off credits, as well.

Yes and no.

The renewable energy mandate does increase everyone's costs however rooftop solar is the mechanism to then reduce that increase. It's an overly convulated two-step.

Bowser was proposing to refuse to pay the decrease because it gives her an accounting gimmick that for budgetary purposes shows up as revenue even though it costs 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.

This is not true. The SRECS always transferred the cost of installing solar panels from the UMC/UC to the MC/poor who can’t afford them by inflating the cost of electricity for everyone else. This was always politically unsustainable, and why CA is backing off credits, as well.

Well Bowser's proposal is for those same MC/poor people to pay even more to cover the District's electric bill. Moreover, between District programs that Bowser apparently wants to eliminate and private programs, there are a lot of free solar options for poor people. Many of those programs exist precisely because of SRECs.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because the alternative is increasing taxes to pay the city’s electric bill? Seems like a wash to the non-solar panel owning residents. Bowser seems to have found a way to transfer the cost to the richer people who own solar panels. Pretty clever.

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.

This is not true. The SRECS always transferred the cost of installing solar panels from the UMC/UC to the MC/poor who can’t afford them by inflating the cost of electricity for everyone else. This was always politically unsustainable, and why CA is backing off credits, as well.

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.

Given there are no current known hazards of "green energy" I would not rush to be so snarky.
Things always fail, particularly in a capitalist society.