From: Libby Shaw <elshaw@mit.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:08 AM
To: Energy, DOER (ENE)
Cc: Jonathan Hecht; Will Brownsberger; Jocelyn R Tager
Subject: Re: Proposed regulatory changes to SREC1: Negation of the public's trust in Mass
government
Dear
Commissioner Judson:
I
concur completely with Dr. Tager in her email message below.
It
would be outrageous for the Baker government to negate the SREC I incentive
program. This would be a betrayal of scores of Massachusetts homeowners
who have each invested many thousands of dollars in solar with the
understanding that Massachusetts will back this program to term.
Sincerely,
Libby
Shaw
73
Templeton Parkway
Watertown,
MA 02472
From: Jolly Tager <tagfred@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday,
June 6, 2019 10:34 PM
To: DOER.Energy@Mass.gov
Subject: Proposed
regulatory changes to SREC1: Destruction of the public's trust in Mass
government
Dear
Commissioner Judson,
It
is horrifying to receive the news that the DOER plans to negate the SREC I
incentive program after so many Massachusetts citizens installed solar
believing that they would receive SRECS for the promised time of the
program. This change flies in the face of 225 C.M.R. 14.00, which
unambiguously demonstrates that solar projects retain their SREC I eligibility
through the end of the program. This interpretation of the
regulations is long-standing and has been confirmed by DOER on multiple
occasions.
Changing
this program in anyway makes clear that our current top elected and appointed
officials of our Commonwealth are untrustworthy. Trustworthiness, rather
than greed and duplicity, is the hallmark of a civil, elected government.
If these proposed changes go into effect, Governor Baker and those he has
appointed to “cabinet” positions make clear that reneging on promises, that
citizens have relied on, is permissible. Government acting in bad faith
further erodes the public’s faith in elected leadership.
When
you breach an agreement as you are with these proposed changes, you lose all
credibility with the public: those you are supposed to protect, not the
fossil-fuel utilities.
Jocelyn
R. Tager, Ph.D.