Testimony of
Mark Rodeffer, Sierra Club DC Chapter Chair
before the
DC Council Committee on Business & Economic Development
on the
Clean Energy DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2018 (B22-0904)
October 29, 2018
Councilmember McDuffie, thank you for holding this hearing today on this important bill to reduce DC’s greenhouse gas emissions, protect our climate and create jobs in DC.
My name is Mark Rodeffer. I'm the chair of the DC chapter of the Sierra Club. We are the nation's oldest and largest environmental advocacy group. We are a grassroots organization with more than 3,000 dues-paying members and more than 10,000 supporters in DC. We work to shift away from the dirty fossil fuels that cause climate change and instead move toward a clean energy economy.
It is appropriate that the Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act of 2018 was referred to the Committee on Business and Economic Development, because this legislation is as much about jobs and economic development as it is about the climate.
Renewable energy & energy efficiency protect the climate & DC jobs
The legislation before you today must pass two important tests. It must reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change so that we meet DC’s standard of cutting our emissions in half by 2032. And it must expand economic development in DC by creating jobs – the very mission of this committee. We do not get jobs in DC through mining coal in Wyoming, fracking gas in Oklahoma or bailing out nuclear plants in Illinois.
On the first test – a meaningful reduction of the greenhouse gas pollution that’s causing our climate to heat up – the DC Department of Energy and Environment says this bill would cut our emissions in half – through transitioning to clean energy, using less energy by upgrading efficiency in our buildings and by expanding solar energy in DC.
On the second test – jobs and economic development – this bill is a bonanza bigger than any oil or coal deposit we’ve ever seen. DC has more than 12,000 energy efficiency jobs, according to the U.S. Energy and Employment Report. Most of those jobs are in areas such as high-efficiency heating, ventilation and air conditioning, renewable heating and cooling, and energy efficient lighting. The building performance standards in this bill will create thousands of DC jobs in construction, HVAC upgrades, and installing efficient lighting and appliances.
Renewable energy also creates jobs. Right now, 75 percent of energy generation jobs in DC – more than 1,500 jobs – are in wind and solar. Dirty fossil fuels account for just 270 jobs in DC. That means for every one dirty energy job in DC, there are six clean energy jobs. More clean energy in DC means more jobs in DC.
So: on these two tests – reducing climate pollution and creating jobs – this bill gets a grade of A-plus.
Nuclear bailouts do not protect the climate & DC jobs
Some people, including some powerful lobbies in this room today, say the answer is a bailout of the nuclear industry. Illinois, where Exelon is headquartered, has done it. So has New York, a state with four nuclear power plants.
So let’s apply our two tests – the climate and jobs – to a potential nuclear bailout.
When it comes to the climate, the idea behind a nuclear bailout is that if we pay extra money to divert that nuclear electricity from wherever it was going before and instead send it to DC, we reduce climate pollution. The problem is: that’s not true. These nuclear power plants are in operation today, and they will be in operation tomorrow, regardless of any law passed by the DC Council. It’s true these nuclear plants don’t emit greenhouse gases. It's also true that they still won’t even if DC doesn’t bail them out.
Bailing out nuclear fails the test of protecting our climate.
So let’s move to the second test: economic development and job creation in DC. The nuclear lobby is asking that we take money directly out of the pockets of DC ratepayers and send it directly into their pockets. Illinois and New York decided to subsidize their nuclear plants because those nuclear plants were located in their states and they wanted their ratepayers to subsidize those jobs. In DC, we have no nuclear plants. If we bailout nuclear, we would be the first jurisdiction in the country to spend money to support nuclear jobs in other states, hundreds of miles away.
Bailing out nuclear fails the test of economic development in DC and creating jobs in DC.
Affordable renewables vs. high-priced nuclear
Opponents of clean energy say it costs too much. The fact of the matter is, the Clean Energy bill will have a negligible effect on ratepayers. Analysis by the Center for Climate Strategies shows this legislation would increase the average household’s bill by 1.6 percent in 2020 – or about $3 a month – and by 2.3% in 2032 – or about $5. The analysis shows these costs would be largely, if not entirely, offset by decreased energy use from efficiency programs.
The reason the cost is so low is because wind and solar energy are inexpensive. According to the DC Public Service Commission, in 2017, one megawatt hour of wind in DC costs $2.89 and one megawatt hour of solar in DC costs $3.03. In Maryland and New Jersey – states that require renewable energy from within the PJM regional interconnection, as this bill would do – the cost of clean energy is about $6 per megawatt hour, according to S&P Global. Nuclear is far different. According to the Illinois Power Agency, the Illinois bailout of Exelon’s nuclear plants cost ratepayers a minimum of $16.50 per megawatt hour.
Those are the numbers: wind and solar for $3 to $6 an hour versus $16 nuclear. If anyone tells you nuclear is better for the bottomline, they’re talking about profits for nuclear companies in places like Chicago, not lowering costs for ratepayers in places like DC.
Trump vs. DC residents
Earlier this year, the Trump administration asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve a bailout of coal and nuclear plants. Now, Trump has nominated another bailout supporter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That agency is on First Street NE, about a mile and a half from where we sit. But because of the injustice that DC is not a state, we have no say in what they do. But we do have a say in what we do.
The question before the Council is: if Trump wants to bailout nuclear and coal, should the DC Council help him do it? Or should we stand up to Trump, stand up for DC and create clean energy jobs in DC?