DC Council Needs to Stop Environmental Budget Raids and Clean Energy Law Rollbacks

Testimony of Lara Levison
Sierra Club District of Columbia Chapter
Oversight Hearing on the Department of Energy and the Environment
Committee on Transportation and the Environment
Friday, February 20, 2026

Introduction

Councilmember Allen, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this oversight hearing on the Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE), and thank you for your strong leadership on environment and sustainability issues. My name is Lara Levison, and I’m the Energy Committee Chair for 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, including 7,000 DC residents. We are proud members of the Fair Budget Coalition.

We are offering testimony today on several aspects of DOEE’s portfolio that are also areas of concern and focused work for the Sierra Club.  They are the following: programs to move to clean energy, achieving zero waste, clean and efficient transportation, protection of our water and natural places, and cumulative impacts.

ENERGY

Energy affordability

Across the country, electric and gas utility bills are increasing much faster than the rate of inflation.^[i] There are a number of reasons for this, and they vary in different areas of the U.S.^[ii] But much of the news coverage about rising utility bills fails to mention a central problem: the willingness of state utility regulators to give investor-owned electric and gas companies whatever rate increases they ask for, allowing these companies to make bigger profits.^[iii] We see this phenomenon reflected in utility costs right here in DC. From 2020 to 2025, electricity prices in DC increased 93%, a larger increase than anywhere else in the United States.^[iv] Gas bills have increased about 6% each year since 2014, although the typical DC residential gas customer uses 30% less gas today than in 2014.^[v] Gas prices in DC will skyrocket if WGL is allowed to spend additional billions in ratepayer dollars to replace gas pipelines rather than phasing out the gas system in a timely manner. While Washington Gas fights efforts to expand non-fossil heating in DC, Maryland now requires utilities to build networked geothermal heating systems under a 2024 law, and Massachusetts has already deployed a utility-owned geothermal network in Framingham.

Healthy Homes Act and the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund (SETF)

At the same time as utility costs are rising steeply in DC, the mayor keeps trying to dismantle the programs that the DC Council has created and placed within DOEE to assist low- and moderate-income DC residents to transition to clean, affordable energy.

Councilmember Allen, thank you for your leadership in enacting the Healthy Homes Act, which established a DOEE program to provide 30,000 low- and moderate-income households in the District with no-cost electrification home retrofits. This law provides economic justice for families struggling to stay in DC as costs continue to rise. A family’s finances can be crushed by the failure of old heating and cooling systems, and the Healthy Homes Act provides a pathway to replace those failing systems with efficient, electric equipment at no cost to the family. Home electrification also benefits public health by eliminating hazardous indoor air pollution from combustion of fossil fuels. Electrification reduces outdoor air pollution as well, including greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. 

The main source of revenue for home electrification and other DOEE clean energy programs is the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund (the SETF), which is funded by small surcharges on gas and electricity bills. Over the past two years, the mayor’s  budgets have diverted much of the revenue in the SETF to pay the District government’s utility bills, rather than delivering it to DOEE, as intended, to fund programs to assist DC residents and promote green jobs directly or through the DC Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU). 

Last year, the Sierra Club supported this committee’s amendment that renamed the portion of the SETF that the mayor raided as the “Mayor’s Energy Surcharge Fund.” We want customers to see on their bills that the mayor is using these funds for other purposes than sustainable energy. I checked my Washington Gas and Pepco bills a few days ago, and I regret to report that on my gas bill, the Mayor’s Energy Surcharge Fund is abbreviated as “MESF.” On my Pepco bill, I see only “Sustain Energy Trust Fund.”^[vi] We urge this committee and the Council to reject any new proposals by the mayor to siphon funds from the SETF, and we ask you to restore SETF funding to its intended uses to the best of your ability. 

Net zero energy buildings

Again this year, we expect the mayor will attempt to delay or repeal DC’s climate commitments and net zero energy requirements for new and substantially renovated buildings. We urge the Council to stand firm against harmful changes to the Climate Commitment Act (B24-0267), the Greener Government Buildings Act (B24-0785), and the Clean Energy DC Building Code Amendment Act. The clean energy building code law requires the mayor to issue final regulations by the end of 2026 to ensure that net zero energy standards are required for all new construction or substantial renovation of commercial buildings. If the new building code is not in place, then the voluntary net-zero Appendix Z that is in the current building code will become required.

Net-zero energy buildings have three main characteristics. First, they do not burn any fossil fuels on site; they are all-electric and do not contain methane gas equipment for space heating, water heating, or cooking. Second, they are highly energy efficient. Third, they maximize their use of electricity from renewable energy resources, including solar, ground-source geothermal, and wind power.

Of these three characteristics, the all-electric requirement is the most crucial. A new building with methane gas equipment will continue to burn polluting fossil fuels for decades to come. Construction and operation of all-electric government buildings saves money now and in the future since electric heat pumps are so much more efficient than methane gas equipment.^[vii] According to the International Energy Agency, heat pumps for space heating are three to five times more energy efficient than gas boilers.^[viii]

Also, as more customers leave the gas distribution system, gas will become increasingly expensive for the customers remaining on the gas system. Last but not least, eliminating fossil fuel combustion removes harmful combustion fumes from inside the building, eliminates outdoor air pollution from venting of exhaust fumes to the outdoors, and reduces carbon dioxide emissions that are causing climate change. 

The building code law relating to net-zero energy went into effect in September 2022, but the mayor has done nothing to implement this law. In fact, the mayor has actively impeded it by leaving the draft building code on the shelf after the technical work was completed. And then, a few days ago (in mid February), the mayor dissolved the Construction Codes Coordination Board (CCCB) and killed the pending building code update.^[ix] The update process had involved approximately 6,000 hours of time devoted by members of the CCCB and their technical advisory group members. We estimate that over $1 million dollars worth of time that experts have committed to developing the building code has been wasted.^[x] This includes taxpayer dollars, because both DOEE and Department of Buildings employees spent many hours working on the code. 

The dissolution of the CCCB represents a brazen disregard for the work of the code experts, design professionals, and industry stakeholders who contributed to updating the code. DC is required by law to update its green building code every three years, but six years have now passed since the last code update. According to the recent announcement, the mayor plans to start from scratch and finalize a new code by the end of 2027. The mayor could adopt a new construction code based on the 2024 model code by the end of this year - assuming there would be no or only minimal changes to the nationwide model code. But if changes were made with the usual stakeholder input, the proposed 2027 timeline is unrealistic and suggests the mayor intends to delay or ignore the deadline for the net-zero energy requirement for commercial buildings. 

The Greener Government Buildings Act (GGBA) requires net-zero energy standards for new and substantially renovated DC government buildings. Oversight of the GGBA lies primarily in the Facilities Committee, but we are touching on it here because of DOEE’s role of reviewing and potentially granting exemptions from green building requirements through the Green Building Advisory Council. We are frankly appalled that the mayor has basically said that the DC government will ignore the net-zero requirements for government buildings. We understand but regret that the Council felt compelled through recent emergency legislation to weaken the GGBA.

It may be necessary to make changes to some of the more challenging requirements of the GGBA law, such as the requirement for all electricity used by a building to come from on-site renewable sources or renewable energy power purchase agreements. Such changes should be considered and made through regular order in the committees of jurisdiction. Challenges in meeting net-zero energy requirements do not necessitate rolling back the entire law and all the monetary, health, and climate benefits of net-zero buildings.

Building Energy Performance Standards

Enacted in 2018 through the Clean Energy DC Omnibus Amendment Act, Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) are a cornerstone of the District’s climate strategy. Because buildings are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in DC, improving the efficiency of existing buildings is essential to meeting our climate commitments. BEPS provides a clear, predictable framework that drives emissions reductions, lowers long-term operating costs, and supports local clean energy jobs. After thoughtful updates recommended by an advisory task force and adopted by the Council in 2024, the program is already calibrated to move forward effectively.

We urge DOEE to continue full implementation and ask the Council to reject any proposals from the mayor to weaken, repeal, or delay BEPS, as has been attempted in prior budget cycles. Further delay is unnecessary and unfair to building owners who are already working to comply. Importantly, the law already includes flexibility for buildings with unique circumstances, called alternative compliance pathways, or for buildings facing financial distress. Financially distressed buildings may choose to delay their compliance up to three years by seeking approval from the Department. For these reasons, the District should stay the course and uphold BEPS as a critical tool for achieving our climate goals.

Clean Energy DC 2.0 Plan

As we did last year, the Sierra Club calls on DOEE and the mayor to finalize and release the Clean Energy DC 2.0 plan, which is the District’s climate and energy action plan. The DC government released the first version in 2018, with the intention of updating it in five years, and it is now three years overdue. The last action on this plan that we are aware of, a public comment period, occurred in late 2023.

TRANSPORTATION

First, we want to thank you for your leadership in introducing and passing the Comprehensive Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Access, Readiness, and Sustainability Act (B25-0106). Transitioning to a zero-emission vehicle future, coupled with reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), will require electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure to meet the District’s goal under the Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act of 2018 that calls for at least 25% of DC registered vehicles in DC to be zero-emission by 2030.

To meet this goal, the Sierra Club urges full funding of this law to accelerate the installation of more EV charging stations across the District. More specifically, DOEE should be equipped with funding so it can fully implement the parts of the law it is responsible for, including maintaining an EV charger deployment plan and providing incentives for charger installation.

Beyond EV infrastructure, our testimony for this year’s DDOT Performance Oversight Hearing includes our other priorities for a sustainable transportation system, such as:

• Improved transit service, including Bus Priority projects; 

• Protected bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure, including the timely clearing of snow and ice;

• Traffic safety enforcement, including removal of dangerous cars from our streets; and 

• Demand management to reflect the true costs of car use, including congestion pricing and parking reform.

WATER AND NATURAL PLACES

We ask the DC Council to protect the Anacostia River Cleanup Fund that supports watershed protection and stormwater management. Water utility ratepayers have spent billions of dollars over the past 10 years to improve our river water quality. Cutting funds again in the coming fiscal year cripples environmental programs for education, trash removal, and ecological restoration. Sweeping and repurposing these funds dedicated for environmental protection wastes DC’s investments in water quality protection and is financial mismanagement. The budget for green infrastructure should be restored. Budget cuts in FY26 undermined the clean-up of stormwater from sewer system overflows. The Committee should ensure that the green infrastructure budget is adequate to maintain stormwater management service, required by the federal Clean Water Act.

The diminished budget for lead service line remediation means that ending lead exposure to children is a low priority in the mayor’s budget. Lead is a neurotoxin that can severely diminish mental ability in children. We call on the Council to protect the Lead Poisoning Prevention Fund, a special purpose fund created by the Council and purposed to advance public health by reducing lead hazards. 

The Council needs to reject the mayor’s attempt to turn all environmental special purpose funds into lapsing funds. Her rewrite of District law allows her to continue to raid environmental programs funded by fees we residents have paid into for specific environmental and public health programs, such as lead pipe remediation. Environmental health is not a special interest; it is a core component of public health and an important part of DC residents’ quality of life.

ZERO WASTE

We also wish to thank you, Councilmember Allen, for co-introducing the bottle bill. We greatly appreciate your efforts in steering this landmark legislation through COTE. Once in effect, the bottle bill will cut pollution by eliminating waste from the 337 million plastic bottles sold in the District each year. 

Given growing concerns over microplastics and harmful chemicals used in plastic production, it’s clear the District needs to reduce its plastic pollution. There are three additional steps we can take. 

1. First, the District must increase compliance with existing plastic pollution laws. DOEE should increase its education, outreach and enforcement of existing plastic pollution requirements, which today are widely ignored due to limited enforcement. 
2. Council should act to update our bag fee law to drive adoption of reusable bags by banning single-use plastic bags and charging for paper bags as successfully implemented in Prince George’s County.
3. Council should adopt a policy of requiring reusable cups in sports and entertainment venues of all sizes. 

DOEE needs a small annual budget allocation for outreach and education on plastic pollution requirements

The District’s restaurant sector is marked by high turnover of staff, management and ownership. As a result, restaurants require continual education about the District’s bans on expanded polystyrene, plastic straws and stirrers, and the requirement to only provide single-use utensils, condiment packets and other food-service “accessories” upon request. We understand, however, that DOEE has no budget allocation to send an annual mailer to all food service entities to ensure they know they must comply with these requirements. Instead, it appears that DOEE only receives funds for education and outreach when a new law or requirement comes into effect – not on an on-going basis. Given the dynamic nature of staffing the District’s restaurants, we call upon this Committee to ensure that DOEE can conduct much-needed annual education and outreach on the District’s plastic pollution requirements. We believe a small amount of money ($10,000-$15000) will allow DOEE to significantly reduce plastic pollution. 

The Sierra Club asks this committee to confirm if DOEE lacks funding to send an annual mailer, e.g. a 8.5” x 11" multilingual flyer, explaining the rules to all District food service entities? If it does lack such funds, how much would be needed? 

This annual mailer should be accompanied by regular DOEE social media posts, and emailing the flyer to restaurants, business improvement districts (BIDS), Main Street organizations, the Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington, and other groups and platforms that can support increased awareness. We recall that DOEE has engaged in such outreach and education practices in the past, and encourage DOEE to resume them moving forward. 

 Greater enforcement is required: more inspections and regulations

In addition to continuous education and outreach, greater enforcement of our existing plastic pollution laws is needed. More funding should be allocated to DOEE to conduct inspections. For years, despite calls from the Sierra Club and other groups, DOEE has only been given enough funding to conduct 300 restaurant inspections a year, relying on tips to 311 to identify at least some of the restaurants it inspects. We call upon this Committee to fund DOEE so that it can increase its number of annual inspections to at least 600 inspections per year.

We also call on DOEE to be strategic in conducting inspections. DOEE could consider high-visibility enforcement of these requirements to send the message that failure to comply carries consequences. DOEE could inspect large chain fast food restaurants or food delivery platforms headquartered outside of the District. The press would more likely report on enforcement efforts at national chains, which would again help raise awareness among our local businesses. Of course, such a system should be fair, so everyone knows the rules, with enforcement following reasonable awareness.

We are also concerned that DOEE may not have enforcement regulations for the utensils on request requirements. The DOEE website includes webpages and/or frequently asked questions documents posted for the polystyrene ban, the straw and stirrer ban, the plastic bag ban and utensils on request; the webpages for the first three plastic reduction requirements include a link to their respective enforcement mechanisms or regulations. Regulations for the polystyrene and bag bans are also found on DOEE’s Laws & Regulation page here. Despite our search, we could not find a link to any enforcement mechanism or regulations for the utensils on request requirements. We would also appreciate it if this committee could clarify what DOEE's enforcement regulations and practices for the utensils on request requirements are, and, if there are no enforcement regulations, why not? Enforcement is necessary for compliance with utensils on request. Can this committee ensure that enforcement mechanisms are in place and implemented?   

Update the bag fee requirement: ban plastic bags, charge for paper bags and drive reusable bag adoption just like in Prince George’s County.

The District’s five-cent bag fee just celebrated its 16th birthday. The bag fee was considered a cutting edge policy when it went into effect on January 1, 2010. Today, we can no longer say that the District is a leader in reducing single-use plastic bag pollution. It’s time to update the bag fee policy.

The current policy has created an unhealthy cycle: stores and restaurants charge five-cents for each single-use plastic bag their customers take. The majority of those fees are deposited into a special purpose revenue fund dedicated to Anacostia River cleanup and protection. In recent years, the mayor has tried to sweep those funds into the general fund, and Council has stepped up to save them, which we greatly appreciate. But bottom line, the District is selling polluting plastic to generate cleanup funds, and then, both advocates and Council have to invest countless hours to save the funds from the chopping block. Last year, we heard from our partners that even after this exhausting dance that saved some of the funding, some of their grants were cancelled. 

Meanwhile,our neighbors in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties have joined twelve other states (CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, ME, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT and WA) to ban single-use plastic bags outright and to move residents to adopt reusable bags. In Prince George’s county, retailers are prohibited from providing plastic carryout bags that are not reusable.Their law, enacted in 2024, the Bag it Right Bill, requires reusable bags to include stitched handles, be designed for multiple reuse, and made of cloth, washable fabric or a durable material not made of plastic film. Retailers can provide paper and reusable bags for a ten-cent fee. Beneficiaries of nutrition programs like SNAP are exempt from fees.   

The Prince George’s County bag law has dramatically changed customer behavior, driving them to adopt reusable bags. Our colleagues in the MD Sierra Club have collected data in 2019 and again in May 2024 after the Bring Your Own Bag Bill went into effect. Single-use plastic bag use dropped from nearly 88% of customers to a mere 1.8% and adoption of reusables more than quadrupled.

The Prince George’s County Bring Your Own Bag Bill is a sensible, equitable policy designed to encourage greater uptake of reusable bags which the District should adopt. This is also the same conclusion reached in this analysis prepared for the Anacostia Riverkeeper. As the Anacostia Riverkeeper study points out, retaining a fee for paper bags will also continue a revenue stream for the Anacostia River Protection and Cleanup Fund. Let’s just hope our new mayor will stop raiding this and other special purpose revenue funds. 

Adopt reusable cups in sports and music venues

The Sierra Club would also like to work with Council to reduce single-use plastic cup pollution by requiring all sports and entertainment venues to serve beverages in reusable cups. Reusable cups have a dramatically lower environmental footprint than single-use plastic, compostable, or recyclable aluminum cups, according to our reusable cup fact sheet. We’re confident a reduction in single-use plastic cups can be done in a way that benefits the environment, residents and businesses alike. One option is for sports and entertainment venues to enter into a contract with a turnkey reusable cup service provider that offers cups, collection, washing and sanitization. We have reviewed case studies of turnkey operations at three legendary San Francisco music venues with capacity between 950 and 2250 people, and this article on reusable cups by the Kansas City Current at CPKC Stadium, and the Kansas City Chiefs at Arrowhead Stadium. The results are encouraging. The case studies and article highlight it’s important to compare total costs of reusable and disposable cups over time, not the cost of a reusable cup turnkey service and the price of disposable cups. Many venues realize cost savings because they no longer have to keep purchasing hundreds of thousands of disposable cups or paying for the hauling and disposal of the cups. For stadiums that sell recycled materials, introducing reusables cups can also reduce recycling contamination, potentially saving venues $250,000–$1 million annually in lost recycling revenue and added landfill fees.

As we have testified previously, one of the turnkey reusable cup providers, r.World, is already serving all the I.M.P. music venues in the District. Donna Westmoreland, the Chief Operating Officer of I.M.P., spoke positively of their experience at the DC Commission on Climate Change & Resiliency in 2024, sharing cost information and offsetting costs through a sustainability fee on each transaction. As described in our reusable cup factsheet, stadiums can also operate an in-house reusable cup program or license a third-party system. Reusable cups will move the District beyond waste diversion to waste prevention, and will cut more unnecessary plastic pollution in the District. 

Thank you, Committee Chair Allen, for your vision and agreeing to work with us on ways to reduce plastic pollution.

TOXICS

The Cumulative Impacts Analysis Amendment Act of 2025 (B26-0104) would modernize the District’s environmental review and permitting framework by requiring decision-makers to evaluate cumulative pollution burdens, not just single-source impacts, especially in overburdened communities. The bill would require a Cumulative Impacts Statement (CIS) before certain District permits and approvals move forward for major actions, or for actions at covered facilities in overburdened areas, along with strong provisions for public transparency and meaningful community engagement. Importantly, it would require the District to deny or condition proposals that would create a disproportionate impact, unless those impacts are avoided, mitigated, or a reasonable alternative is pursued.

The Act also establishes a “modified” CIS process for District plans and policies that would increase exposure to significant sources of pollution by strengthening accountability through enforceable compliance tools, requiring public access to CIS documentation, allowing fees to support rigorous review, and potentially creating an Energy and Environmental Justice Division within DOEE to coordinate and track equity-centered implementation in DC. The Sierra Club fully supports passage of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Amendment Act and the fundamental principle that every District resident deserves equal protection from environmental harm. In 2023, when the Environmental Justice Amendment Act was introduced, our Chapter began working in close partnership with environmental justice leaders, including Empower DC and We Power DC, as well as with Council staff, to advance this legislation. We urge the Council to move the bill forward (with consideration for some suggested updates to the current draft from local coalition partners) and to adopt a final version that delivers strong, community-driven protections. 

This concludes our testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns and ideas.  We are happy to answer any questions that you may have.