Testimony of Lara Levison
Sierra Club District of Columbia Chapter
Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Hearing
Committee of the Whole
June 18, 2025
Chairman Mendelson, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing on the Fiscal Year 2026 budget. My name is Lara Levison, and I am representing the Sierra Club District of Columbia Chapter. The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with millions of members and supporters. In DC, we represent about 7,000 residents across all eight wards.
Overview
Mayor Bowser has presented the Council with a trickle-down economics budget. Her budget embodies the false concept that favoring the wealthy and corporations with tax breaks and subsidies will eventually benefit people on the lower end of the economic spectrum. The mayor’s proposal to slash the budget for the Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE) by close to a quarter (24%) reflects this trickle-down economics mindset, since many of the programs targeted for reduction or elimination benefit lower-income residents and small community-based enterprises.
Mayor Bowser also proposes to delay or eliminate many of the climate and clean energy laws passed in recent years by the DC Council. The Sierra Club strongly condemns these sweeping and destructive rollbacks of the District’s environmental policies and funding, and we urge you to reverse them to the greatest extent possible.
We have these main requests for the Department of Energy and the Environment:
- Restore funding to the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund, as much as possible but at least $18 million
- Drop the proposals in Title V of the Budget Support Act that roll back our climate and clean energy laws
- Restore funding for river cleanup and related programs, and
- Restore funding for lead water pipe replacement.
And we have several requests relating to the Department of Transportation budget.
Mayor Bowser’s budget eviscerates the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund.
We vehemently object to the Mayor’s plan to sweep more than $70 million ($70.1 million) from the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund (SETF) to pay the DC government’s utility bills in FY26. That amount is close to three-quarters of the fund. She also proposes to transfer another $3.2 million from the SETF to the General Fund in FY26, and to raid any remaining fund balances at the end of each year into the General Fund.
The mayor’s evisceration of the SETF violates the purpose of the fund, which derives its revenue from small charges paid by each electricity and gas customer on our utility bills. As the name indicates, the DC Council created the “Sustainable Energy Trust Fund” to bring the benefits of clean and affordable energy to District residents. The SETF programs are administered by DOEE, and many of them specifically benefit low- and moderate income residents. They play an important role in keeping Black families in their homes and sustaining DC’s historic racial diversity.
The mayor’s budget would leave only $24.7 million in the SETF, resulting in steep funding reductions or elimination of programs, including the Breathe Easy program, which was authorized in the Healthy Homes Act. This program is intended to electrify the homes of 30,000 low- and moderate income residents to lower their utility bills, improve indoor air quality, and cut climate pollution.
We realize it will be challenging to return $70 million to the DOEE budget, but we encourage the Council to return as much as possible. At least $18 million needs to be restored to DOEE to match federal funds that DC has in hand to fund residential electrification and energy efficiency projects.
To make it clear to electricity and gas customers that the mayor is placing a tax on our utility bills, specifically to pay the District government’s utility bills, we propose that the SETF fee on utility bills be split into two separate line items on utility bills. We recommend that the Council label only the portion of the SETF going to sustainable energy uses as the “Sustainable Energy Trust Fund.” For the larger portion that the mayor raids for general fund purposes, we recommend renaming it “Mayor Bowser’s Energy Tax.”
Mayor Bowser’s Budget Support Act rolls back our climate and clean energy laws.
We ask the Council to drop the provisions in Title V of the Budget Support Act that roll back the District's landmark climate and clean energy laws. The Mayor wants to weaken, delay, or repeal the following policies that were enacted by the DC Council under your leadership:
- Net-zero energy building codes for commercial buildings as required by the Clean Energy DC Building Code Act;
- The Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) to increase the energy efficiency of large buildings; and
- The Greener Government Buildings Act requiring net zero energy standards for DC government buildings;
Most of these provisions do not have a fiscal impact and can simply be dropped. If and when there is a need to amend these laws, any changes should be considered under regular order with hearings and so forth.
We also ask the Council to drop the year-end sweeps of the special purpose revenue funds relating to energy and the environment.
Mayor Bowser’s budget slashes funding for river cleanup and underfunds composting services
The Mayor’s budget raids about $1.9 million from the Anacostia River Cleanup Fund, which is funded by the fee on plastic bags. This cut causes enormous damage to a range of community-based programs, including environmental education, boat tours, trash traps, and workforce training. The budget also slashes funding for green infrastructure and stormwater management. We ask for these funds to be restored.
The mayor's proposal to expand composting services adds a mere 3,000 households. It's time to double the DPW curbside compost program to 18,000 households ($4.5million) and for DGS to revive the pre-pandemic composting program in public schools.
The Lead Pipe Replacement Assistance Program is underfunded.
The mayor’s proposal to fund lead pipe replacement with only $356,000 in FY26 is grossly insufficient to meet DC’s commitment for removing all lead drinking water service lines from private property. With a commitment to remove all lead service lines by 2034, DC Water has projected the need for $5 million per year to address those on private property. DC Water currently relies on federal funds to help pay for these replacements, but the future of that funding is in doubt. Especially for low- and moderate-income residents, it is grossly unfair to charge them for removal of the lines that endanger their health through no fault of their own. The lead lines were installed by government institutions and should be removed and replaced at no cost to the residents.
Sustainable Transportation
Transportation is the District’s second-leading source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, accounting for 21% of total emissions. Investments in transit service, traffic safety, reducing car use, electrification, and tree canopy restoration are critical to meeting the District’s climate goals, as required by the Climate Commitment Act. To better align the proposed FY26 budget with these goals and ensure a sustainable transportation future for all, we have recommended a number of changes and highlighted the funding of priorities in our DDOT and DPW budget testimonies. Key priorities include:
- The Vision Zero Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Fund should not be converted into a lapsing fund. It must remain fully available for traffic calming and safety projects. Traffic fatalities are down significantly this year so far. The proposed 52% increase to the Vision Zero operating budget is a step in the right direction. But to maintain progress, we have to protect dedicated safety funding.
- If the Commanders return to the RFK site, the District must not overdevelop parking facilities. Instead, we should prioritize Metro access, bike infrastructure, and amenities like a bike valet, as seen at Nats Park. And we urge the Council not to waive parking-related revenue, such as sales tax on stadium parking.
- The District should not delay its zero-emission fleet transition by a year, as proposed in the Budget Support Act. The mayor’s proposed budget for fleet vehicle procurement over the next six years raises particular concerns. Compared to the 6-year capital budget passed last year, spending has been roughly doubled for FY26 but cut roughly in half for subsequent years. We fear this could indicate an attempt to frontload purchases and leases of non-electric vehicles over the next year. To ensure accountability we would like to know how much of the proposed budget is currently planned for procurement of EVs in FY26 and how many will be procured through FY31.
- We also urge the Council to reverse the proposal to make the Tree Fund a lapsing fund.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.