Good morning, everyone.

My name is Charles Allen.

I'm the Ward 6 Council Member and Chair of the Council's Committee on Transportation and the Environment.

Today is Monday, May 1st, 2026, and we are convening in person in room 500 of the John A.

Wilson Building as well as virtually over the Zoom platform.

The time is now 9 43 a.m.

and I'm calling to order this budget oversight hearing of the committee.

This is the fourth budget oversight hearing of the committee.

Today we will be hearing from public witnesses regarding the mayor's FY 2027 proposed budget for the Department of Energy and the Environment and the DC Sustainable Energy Utility.

DUEEE FIRST.

Department of Energy and Environment is the district's leading agency for energy and environmental issues.

The agency's mission is to improve the quality of life for residents of the district by protecting and restoring the environment, conserving natural resources, mitigating pollution, increasing access to clean energy, and educating the public on achieving a sustainable future.

DOEE has a wide ranging set of responsibilities, including enforcing environmental regulations, wildlife management, developing energy policies, issuing permits, and providing funding, technical assistance and information to residents and businesses in the district.

The mayor's proposed FY27 operating budget for DOEE is about 181 million dollars, representing a 28.6% decrease from the FY26 approved budget of 254 million.

Much of today's hearing will be trying to understand the impact of that incredibly harmful and large cut to the agency's operating budget and how the reduction in both federal and local funding will both harm DC residents, prevent our ability to lower utility costs, hurt efforts to deliver clean water and air, and affect our ability to receive federal dollars.

And I want to put this in perspective of the cumulative impact in the damage being inflicted.

Combined with the mayor's cuts last year to DOEE.

The mayor has defunded the city's energy and environment efforts by nearly 50%.

These are choices and priorities that the mayor is making.

While DC SEU's funding is contingent on how DOE manages their contract and sustainable energy trust fund, it is highly likely DC SEU's capacity will be significantly reduced now based on the cuts to the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund this year.

I want to note the committee will be accepting written testimony from the public until the close of business on May 15th, 2026.

We encourage individuals to submit testimony to the council's hearing management system, which can be found at Limbs.dc Council backslash hearings.

So we will do our best to accommodate all changes that are being requested.

If you are looking at a witness list and you have any questions, if you'll go over to the table to where Anthony is, he'll do his very best to accommodate as many people as we can.

But if you came here and maybe didn't sign up, just please make sure you check in with my staff over on that side of the table, and we'll make sure we do our very best to get everybody lined up and work our way through.

We're gonna have a combination of folks that are both in person as well as online.

So when I call a panel, we'll fill this table, but we'll also have some people online, so bear with us as we toggle back and forth between folks that are online and here.

I'm gonna do my very best never to cut anybody off, but recognizing that we have a full impact house here, and I have a lot of witnesses.

We'll ask everybody to please hit your time as best you can so that we can respect people who maybe are witness number 60 or 70 or 80 later today as well.

With that, I'm going to move to our first panel of public witnesses.

I do expect that we'll be joined by some of my colleagues, either in person or online.

And so when they're here, we'll make sure that we call them up as well so they have a chance to make an opening statement and ask questions.

But for our first panel of witnesses, let me call my friend and former colleague, or former Ward 3 counselor, Mary Che.

Chris Weiss, executive director, the DC Environmental Network.

My danger now is since I said Mary is my friend.

Everyone's my friend.

Kate Delusky, public witness.

Ann Lewis with City Wildlife.

All right, and here's where we get into a little trouble of who's here in person and who's online.

Jimoni Overby, are you here?

All right.

I don't have enough chairs, though.

So hold tight.

Max Broad.

Max is here too.

Okay.

Hold on, Max and Jamoni.

I'm going to have to pull you to the next panel.

Jamal Lewis.

I think is online.

Laura Nunn.

I didn't see Lori here, so I think she's online.

All right.

So Jamal Lewis, we're going to move over onto the panel online.

And Maritza Mendoza.

In person.

She's online.

Online.

Okay.

All right.

So Maritza, we have you online, so I'm going to move you over to the panel as well.

All right.

So that means Jimmy Overby and Max, we're going to turn to you in the next panel, just so we have enough people at the table.

All right.

My friend and Council Merche, let me let you kick us off.

Thank you very much.

And thank you for the opportunity to testify.

And I'm delighted to see people I haven't seen in a while in person.

And thank you for having me here.

I'm here to speak on behalf of the wildlife of the District of Columbia and to plead with you, please, to restore the $200,000 cut in the mayor's budget, which supports the incomparable work of City Wildlife.

Before doing that directly, I have some general comments, though, about this administration's appalling disregard for the environment.

And as a supporting appendix to my testimony, I've included my testimony of last year because it recounts as you have, Mr.

Chairman, some of the cuts of the past that cumulatively have really made a devastating uh dent in the Department of the Environment.

Again, this year, the mayor proposes to sweep funds from the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Act, which we affectionately refer to as the DC Bag Bill, and divert funds from the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund, SETF.

These are special purpose funds to be used for the purposes that the council directs.

But with the mayor's sweeps and division and diversions, not only are the important intended benefits lost, but the council's intent is thwarted.

The public is hoodwinked, and we actually wind up losing money.

Just as an example, so people understand, with the SETF, the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund, we stand to lose significant amount of federal matching funds because we didn't provide our local share.

We forsake millions of dollars, and as one person observed, and I'm quoting, leaving free money on the table is negligent.

Unquote.

I would go further.

It's reckless.

It's disgraceful.

This has to stop.

Now, to the issue at hand for my testimony, which is city wildlife funding.

Urban wildlife immeasurably enriches our lives, especially our children's lives, even as it faces daunting odds for survival.

It faces naturally occurring dangers such as weather and other animals, but there are so many more harms created by humans.

We poison wildlife, destroy their habitats, run them down with our cars, pollute rivers and streams, disorient them with so much light that it's like 24 hours of daytime and so much more.

One modest bright spot in all of this is City Wildlife.

With its facility staff and wonderful veterinarian, City Wildlife takes in over 2,000 injured or abandoned animals every year, 121 different species, many of whom are designated as species of greatest conservation need.

And City Wildlife answers public calls for help.

More than 3,000 calls every year to assist animals who are hurt or in danger.

And City Wildlife educates the public, especially children, on what they can do to help wildlife.

My first appeal is to your sense of morality.

Given all that we do to harm wildlife, it's unforgivable not to help them in this modest way.

But I know that some may be indifferent and may not care about wildlife.

So let me tell you why, beyond morality, they should.

Protecting wildlife protects people, even those who would harm them.

Many of the hazards faced by urban wildlife also affect humans, things like lead exposure, rodenticide poisoning, and zoonotic diseases such as West Nile virus infection.

For example, City Wildlife with our Department of Health work together to inform health care providers about the recent detections of zoonotic diseases in wildlife.

Protecting wildlife and preserving the operations of city wildlife is also good politics.

The thousands of people who relied on and will rely on city wildlife appreciate that city wildlife exists, and they appreciate that their government leaders support it.

These are your constituents.

Supporting city wildlife also saves money.

City wildlife is essentially performing a government function and does so in the most efficient way.

I know, I know we all know that we have serious budget constraints, but by my calculation, and I'm not good at math, so if I'm corrected, fine.001 percent of the budget.001 percent of the budget, and you will not find a better investment of this taxpayer money.

Forgive me a small boast, okay.

When I was on the council, if I couldn't find $200,000 in excess spending, waste or bloat, I would be deeply embarrassed.

And I know you can do it too, as you have time and time before.

So thank you, Chairman Allen, members of the committee, and council chair Phil Mendelson.

We appreciate your commitment to the environment and to the animals who grace our lives.

Thank you.

Wait, there's more.

Oh no, this is this is where I feel obligated to say we can have no demonstrations in the 500.

Um thank you, Councilmember.

I appreciate that.

And um I will just say quickly, um, as this committee has had to do before, 200,000 of a cut makes no sense whatsoever.

Um, and this will be something that we restore.

Um I don't want to take any wind out of sales in my testimony.

This is going to be something that we are going to work on to restore it.

We've done it before, unfortunately, but I have confidence that we will do it again.

Um I do I don't want to have your uh what was the way you framed it?

If we can't find 200,000 dollars, you should be ashamed.

I don't want that shame, but I promise it's also the right thing to do.

So we're gonna make sure that we get that done.

Um Chris Weiss, let me turn to you.

Thank you.

Good job.

Good morning, environmental colleagues, chairperson Allen and other council members and staff.

My name is Chris Weiss.

I direct the activities of the DC Environmental Network.

I want to thank DOE Director Jackson for being here today to listen to advocates.

Decent and the DC Department of Energy and Environment have been focused on coordinating a number of fiscal year 27 budget briefings with over 200 participants.

We work together to sort through the budget documents, and we ended up with a better understanding of the future of district sustainability programs.

Regardless, the news is not good.

The last three years have been hard.

The DC Environmental Network and hundreds of advocates have come to this hearing each year to try and share meaningful recommendations.

The cuts are so damaging and hard to fix that advocates have been forced to expect that many of our recommendations to the council will not be enacted on.

And even if we restore some funds, we will have little ability to make sure DOE spends the way spends the way we want them to.

Mara Bowser's cuts to DOE last year were massive at about 24 percent.

This year the mayor has cut DOE programs to another 12 percent.

Next Monday at the DOE government witness budget hearing, DUE Director Jackson will testify to DOE's proposed operating budget of around 181 million dollars, which by the way includes only 17.4 million in local funds.

This 180 million dollars is only 0.01425 percent of the 12.7 billion general funds budget.

This 181 million dollars is primarily made up of special purpose revenue funds and federal grants, represents just 0.00853 percent of the proposed 21.2 billion gross operating budget for the district.

During better times when DOE had closer to $350 million budget, still a tiny part of the district's gross operating budget, and was primarily financed by SPRFs and federal grants with a little local dollars.

DOE was still described as the best bank for DC residents buck serving the district in so many meaningful and substantive ways.

For a number of years, DC has noted that Mayor Bowser is using DOEE as an ATM to help pay, for example, for a $3 billion football stadium in a city that already has seven professional sports teams.

That idea is supported again this year as the 12% cuts to DOEE contrast to the 3% average budget cuts of all the other district agencies.

The mayor does not value DOE's work, even with comparatively small budget and is willing to sweep millions of dollars away from critical environmental programs.

These actions by the mayor threaten the survival of quality sustainability programs.

Within DOE, you can argue that the National Resources Administration is experiencing the biggest budget hit.

Whole programs have been shut down, green infrastructure maintenance program, community stormwater solutions, Anacosta River Explorers, Kingman Boat Green Boats, Park Maintenance Grants, watershed education grants, river corpse job training, volunteer water quality monitoring grant, and the wildlife rehabilitation grant that Councilmember Che just talked about.

Many more programs and functions are reduced to meet budgetary constraints, river smart landscaping, permeal surface grant, river smart communities, trash-free communities, and many others.

These same budget pressures force DOE to not fill 24 important positions within the NRA, having to do with water quality standards, clean water construction projects, water quality programs, and MS4 programs.

Many of these positions are extremely important to protect and improve water quality and support compliance with environmental laws that keep our families and natural areas healthy and safe.

Over the course of this hearing, you will hear many of the district's most talented advocates making the case to the council to try to restore key programs.

Chris Williams from Anacosta Water Society will be asking that the bag law and Anacosta River Fund and Protection Fund should be left alone to function as intended as a self-funding program to engage DC adults and youth in environmental education and river restoration.

Cliff Majerzik for Institute for Market Transformation will advocate against the deep proposed diversion of funds from the SETF that breaks faith with DC utility rate bears and would result in derailing the retrofit accelerator and building innovation hub, leaving affordable housing buildings in the cold, forcing deep layoffs at DCSEU, and preventing DC from achieving its climate.

Lastly, Mayor Bowser talks about driving growth in our economy to fund services and programs residents can count on, keeping families in DC and attracting new residents and creating business environment that draws new investment and creates new jobs.

If she really understood her own environmental sustainability agency, she would see how DOE has been engaged in growing the economy, promoting affordability, and creating the environmental jobs of the future for quite some time now.

While the mayor creates low-paying jobs at her stadium, the environmental movement is creating solar, energy efficiency, green infrastructure, and other job opportunities that are far more sustainable than stadium jobs.

She just does not get that.

She is looking to the 1950s and a fossil fuel future like Trump, when she should be looking at DOE to drive the economy of the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Weiss.

Now I will say, if we applaud for everybody's testimony, we're going to be here until the evening.

All right.

Next, Kate Dyluski.

And did I get that right?

You did.

Okay.

Well done.

Thank you, Councilmember.

My name is Kate Delewski.

I'm a longtime D.C.

resident, currently in Ward 4, but formerly in Ward 6, had a had a good long stint in Ward 6.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I'm here today in strong opposition to cutting the funding for DC City Wildlife, which would undermine this critical safety net for native wildlife and also the people who value that wildlife in our city.

This organization provides rehabilitation services for injured and orphaned wildlife, of which there are many photos around this room right now.

It also helps control the spread of disease through proper handling and treatment of that wildlife.

And it provides guidance to city residents on coexistence with our native wildlife.

Without this support, the animals in our region would suffer needlessly.

And residents would also be left to manage complex and potentially dangerous situations without that support, which would undermine animal welfare and public safety in the district.

And beyond its immediate rescue work, DC City Wildlife also provides long-term environmental stewardship and education.

They have outreach programs that teach communities how to reduce conflicts with wildlife, how to coexist, how to reduce unnecessary interventions, and how to protect local ecosystems.

And if we cut the funding that allows those programs to exist, then we could potentially be looking at greater downstream costs in terms of animal control, public health services, environmental damage.

These preventative measures are so important and are so cost effective when you look at those possible later costs that could be incurred.

Maintaining strong support ensures not only humane treatment of wildlife in the district, but also a healthier and more informed community overall.

The DC that I want to live in is one that takes care of all of its residents, even its smallest ones.

And so I strongly encourage the DC Council to make sure that DC City Wildlife is fully funded.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I know there's enthusiastic applause for all for everybody.

Ann Lewis, let me turn to you next.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Allen and Council members.

My name is Ann Lewis, and I'm the founding president of City Wildlife.

Let's look back for a moment at why we started City Wildlife in 2013 and what things were like in before times.

In before times, DC Animal Care and Control was charged with picking up sick, injured, and orphaned wildlife, but they weren't qualified to tweak treat them and had nowhere to bring them.

As a result, most were euthanized.

But migratory birds and a few others were transported to second chance in Gathersburg, which was an hour's drive away.

Many did not survive the trip.

It was also time consuming for staff and wasteful of animal control's resources.

And since wildlife are not permitted to be brought across state lines by private citizens, DC residents who took wildlife to second chance because there was nowhere to bring them in DC, were violating the law each time.

For these reasons, as well as the public health and safety concerns when people would try to raise injured and orphaned wildlife in their homes, the DC government determined to help city wildlife.

It was a new day.

Today, City Wildlife offers state-of-the-art treatment of 1,500 to 2,000 animals each year and answers thousands of calls from the public about wildlife issues.

Duckwatch alone handles the growing number of cases of and of duck and goose nests on amenity roofs of our many new high-rise residential buildings, relocating these broods to suitable water humanely.

Without city wildlife, these cases would have to be handled by animal control officers who do not have the training or the time to resolve them successfully, and who would justifiably want to increase their contract fee if they were asked to do so.

I urge that we not go backward.

Essential wildlife services, including disease monitoring and alerts now are being performed by City Wildlife using mostly private funding efficiently and at very little cost to the district government.

We're proud of our stellar public-private partnership with DOE and want it to continue.

Please consider this and restore DOEE's 200,000 grant for wildlife services.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

So let me turn who do I have first.

I think Mr.

Lewis, let me turn to you.

All right, there we go.

Yes, we can.

All right.

Uh good morning, uh Chairman Allen and members of the Committee on Transportation and Environment.

I am Jamal Lewis, Chair of the DC Sustainable Energy Utility Advisory Board.

The board is charged with providing advice, comments, and recommendations to DOEE and council regarding the procurement and administration of the DCSU and monitor the DCSU under its contract.

In fiscal year 25, the DCSU continued to deliver measurable benefits to district residents and businesses despite significant financial headwinds.

The organization supported over 3,000 kilowatt hours of renewable energy deployment, created 93 grain-collar jobs, invested nearly six million in low-income communities, and achieved over 48,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions reductions.

Solar for all, the affordable housing retrofit accelerator and the affordable home electrification program provided tangible relief to residents facing high energy burdens while also advancing electrification and renewable energy deployment.

Unlike traditional bill assistance programs that provide short-term relief, the DCSU delivers permanent affordability through energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency is cost effective and protects constituents from future rate increases.

The best type of kilowatt hour is the kilowatt hour not being used.

These efforts have resulted and continue to result in milli millions in lifetime energy cost savings and improved living conditions for hundreds of households in the district.

The DCSU has supported uh projects in all eight wards.

In Ward 1, uh the DCSU achieved over 11 million in total lifetime savings through uh over 10 million in incentives.

Ward two generated over 700 million in total lifetime savings with over 28 million in incentives.

Ward three, uh over 126 million in total lifetime savings uh through over six million in incentives, ward four, over sixty-six million in total lifetime savings through over 10 million in incentives, ward five, uh over 156 million in total lifetime savings with uh over 21 million in incentives, ward six, uh over 335 million in total lifetime savings through over 18 million in incentives, ward seven, over uh 110 million in total lifetime savings through over 40 million in incentives, and ward eight, over 188 million in total lifetime savings through over 36 uh million in incentives.

Uh the payback uh of these per of these programs is incredible.

The DCSU's ability to sustain and scale these impacts is threatened by recent budget budget reductions and policy changes.

The diversion of the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund resources and the plan reduction of the DCSU's base contract to at least 10 million, starting in FY27, will jeopardize long-term planning and program continuity.

This reduction is far greater than a 50% cut to the contract, as the DCSU has historically operated with funding above the 20 million dollar base contract.

This this year, the DCSU receives over 27 million in SETF resources, so dropping to 10 million represents a cut of more than 60% from current funding levels.

The DCSU's uh affordable AHAP program and AHRA programs are currently being supplemented by inflation reduction act funding through the federal home energy rebates program.

Under AHEP, the DCSU covers 100% of electrification costs with IRA funding capped at $14,000 per dwelling.

For AHRA, federal funding is capped at $15,000 per unit for buildings that can achieve 20% energy savings.

But the federal funds cannot be provided to upfront uh to upfront to cover the cost of engineering of the engineering and design work that is critical for deep energy retrofits and electrification of multifamily buildings.

While these federal dollars are extremely helpful, they are time limited and not guaranteed beyond the current fiscal year.

Electrification and deep retrofits often exceed the federal caps, requiring local funding to bridge gaps and complete projects.

The DCSU can maintain momentum this year uh thanks to IRA support, but without substantial and consistent local funding, deployment will slow, and public trust in these programs will erode.

The DCSU remains one of the district's most effective tools for reducing energy costs, creating jobs, and advancing climate resilience.

Continued council support is essential to preserve and expand these benefits for all DC residents.

Now is not the time to cut this contract.

The investments made today are going to save us money in the future.

Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions uh the committee may have.

Thank you very much.

And let me turn to Maritza Mendoza, uh, who's the last witness on this panel?

Um Thank you, Chairperson Allen and committee members and staff for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Marit Samandals, and I'm the environmental justice manager at Empower DC, a citywide grassroots organization.

Today I'm testifying to encourage the district to appropriately fund and prioritize communities most impacted by climate change.

Communities in Ward 5, specifically Ivy City and Brentwood need to be prioritized for climate funding as the district has allowed for the concentration of industrial uses right next to people's homes.

I believe you are aware, so I won't go into the toxins and harms caused by the plethora of industrial uses in this area.

Yet it is important to reiterate that residents are tired of living in a sacrifice zone day after day without seeing adequate enforcement of environmental laws and implementation of the plans meant to support communities and being climate ready, and which speak to the importance of prioritizing those most vulnerable to climate hazards.

So I have two main questions for this committee and DOEE today.

What is the current number of air quality inspectors that address illegal idling?

Has there been any thought in allocating funds so that there are air quality inspectors available after uh business hours?

When residents in Brentwood are woken up in the middle of the night because of industrial trucks idling, how can DOEE work to protect the health and welfare of district residents when it cannot respond in the moment to polluters?

What if there were inspectors focused in areas that are hot spots for illegal idling or areas that we already know experience high levels of air pollution?

The district must take more aggressive steps to protect the health of its residents.

DC recently received a grade of F for ozone in this year's state of the air report.

A common talking point I hear is that much of the air pollution seen in the district is from people coming into DC.

But that should only serve as further incentive for the district to reduce the emissions that it can control.

Ozone is a harmful pollutant that is caused by emissions from vehicles reacting with sunlight and extreme heat.

Thus, areas that are heavier and vehicular traffic have higher environmental burdens.

This makes it an even higher priority for the district to reduce emissions coming from district-owned facilities in neighborhoods like Ivy City and Brentwood, which are situated amidst major transportation corridors with little tree cover to offset the harm.

Two, what is DOEE's plan for the five million dollars of non-point source federal grant funding from the EPA?

Which neighborhoods are being prioritized for this funding?

And can this funding be used to implement the Lewis Crow Park redesign laid out in the Ivy City Climate Resilience Strategy?

Ivy City is 11% tree and 80% of the land is paved or impervious.

This means residents face historic flooding, which will worsen due to climate change.

Ivy City is also partially on the combined sewer overflow system, which means all this flooding and stormwater runoffs run straight into local waterways.

Funding the Lewis Crow Park redesign from the resilience strategy would be a critical way to not just clean and restore our waterways and water bodies, but also make sure investments in green infrastructure projects across the district do not further embed environmental injustices and inequities.

Also, this strategy and redesign is receiving awards across the country.

It would be incredibly frustrating and disappointing if this plan isn't fast-tracked for implementation.

Finally, I have to urge this committee to prioritize passing the Ivy City Resilience Hub Eminent Domain Authority Act out of committee and urge you to include it in the Budget Support Act.

Ivy City residents should not have to keep advocating for the solutions they have been voicing for generations.

This community deserves clear investments to not just remove harm, but create opportunities to thrive and succeed, like creating a resilience hub or creating a neighborhood park that mitigates pollution and provides refuge and peace.

I in my testimony urging this committee to work closely with your colleagues to ensure that the funding allocated to agencies like DOEE, which are providing critical services, are not creating further harm.

Creating an interagency council on environmental justice that works in coordination with impacted communities and DC agencies like DOEE and DDOT will be one way to create a third space for the coordination required to achieve racial and environmental justice and fund the written policies and goals dictated by multiple pieces of legislation.

I encourage DOEE to do its part in creating an equitable district where no one community bears the burden of environmental harms.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, everybody on this panel.

We have about 80 witnesses today, so I'm not going to ask tons of questions, but you have a couple.

Don't get up yet.

Don't get up yet.

To uh Ms.

Lewis, you made a comment about if City Wildlife doesn't have the funding to be able to operate.

The call kind of reverts to animal control.

I'll be able to the complaints I'm getting right now about animal control is that even when there is a uh a dog in crisis and they're needing help from animal control, uh they can't they can't even respond in a timely way now.

So I think that animal control as the default would be a disaster because they can't even do what they're supposed to do right now in a timely way.

But what all does that mean?

I mean, do they even have the capacity?

Like do they have the relationships to be able to when most people think animal control, they think about you know, maybe a dog that's in crisis, and that's who they're calling animal control for.

We think about wildlife.

I don't frankly think animal control at all when I think about that.

If you could push the buttons of the road lights, it depends on the training of the personnel, but wildlife rehabilitation is a specialty that requires a special training and special license.

And you know, we were involved in when I was with Washington, Maine, we were running animal control, so I'm well familiar with the issues, which is in fact why we started City Wildlife.

So I don't think the current um administration of animal control would either be interested or have the capacity at present, and certainly under the contract fee to get that training and get those licenses.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thanks.

One of the things that, like when I think about wildlife in our city, there is the need that I think City Wildlife uniquely provides to be able to help the rehabilitation or an injured uh animal.

I think about our wildlife in a city, they're a little bit bigger than that too, is having a healthy wildlife in an urban environment in a city is a really great thing for our city, not just about for that animal, it is very good for all of us.

The awe that I see from our kids.

Um I'll just give one example.

I wear many hats.

One of them is I I help coach my kids' little league team.

Uh when we're out at RFK at the fields having our little league game, the number of times that a bald eagle has flown over the Anacostra River has become increasingly common now.

Um, but it inspires awe every single time.

Literally, the baseball game stops as the kids all start shouting and yelling and pointing like it's a bald eagle.

Um you see an Osprey, when you when you start to see the wildlife in the air, in the water, on the ground, it is something that you want your kids growing up in the city to be able to see and experience, and without a city wildlife, those opportunities become more and more rare.

So that to me is why we invest in this.

Um 200,000 is not in the grand scope of the budget, and I think you gave us a great percentage.0s.

I don't doubt your mouth at all.

Um it's not a huge budget item, but it has a very significant impact on the lives of us, in addition to, of course, the wildlife itself.

Customer Che?

You want to jump in there?

I I just wanted to say something to underline something I said previously and to make sure it's perfectly clear on the record.

You, Mr.

Chairman, have been our hero.

Every year, you've made sure that the money is there.

And so I just want to amplify our gratitude and say thank you, thank you, thank you.

And you're so right about the kids.

There was a woman who held a live crab once, and she looked at it.

You know, she's eaten crab, I guess, banged it with the hammer or whatever they do.

Um, but she sounded like you have not eaten a lot of crab.

She looked into its eyes and realized this is a living thing, and it was transformative.

So even that little example shows how important it is for us to maintain healthy uh wildlife, especially in an urban area.

But my point is, and now is time for folks to clap.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

I won't stop that demonstration.

Um thank you.

I I very much appreciate that.

I I also want to paint the picture for everybody in this room and for anybody who's listening as well as to like what we're up against.

So years ago, DC created, we live in a world of acronyms, but the SETF, Sustainable Energy Trust Fund.

That fund is intended, what we call a special purpose revenue, but it is intentionally designed to come in and be able to help fund a lot of the programs, be it City Wildlife, be it SEU, and Mr.

Lewis talked about all the incredible work that's happening there, the millions and millions and millions of dollars of savings that that creates.

Our SETF comes in and then is used for making it so you can afford your power bills, making it so that you can be more sustainable and reduce the amount of energy you use, be able to fund excellent programs like City of Wildlife, do all of this work.

With this budget that was sent to us, if it were to pass as is 80%, 80% of the SETF is now redirected simply to pay your government's light bills.

The mayor has swept this fund repeatedly just to pay the energy costs of the city, which means we have very little left to be able to do all the work that it was intended to do, which as you will hear throughout the day makes a significant impact for the better for our city.

Last year, we said stop hiding the ball.

Let's at least call what the thing that you keep sweeping, let's just call it the mayor's energy surcharge.

So your SETF is something you see on your bill.

So everybody who pays a bill, you see it and you think you're chipping into this good thing.

Instead is getting taken away.

I just don't think it's very honest to the ratepayers, to the residents, to the businesses of what they're paying for.

So we said, all right, if you're going to continue to do this, mayor's energy surcharge.

We had some other clever acronyms that people suggested, but we went with that one.

Um this budget, apparently, I think the mayor is trying to rename it again to maybe have her name not be uh or it's not even her name, mayor's energy surcharge.

Any mayor will have the choice if that's what they want to be able to use.

Um but it is a systematic dismantling of good efforts that make a positive impact at our city, but I also find it just offensive that it's it's hiding it.

It's hiding it from you, and that's not fair.

Um if we need to say, listen, our power bills are going off in the city, and so we've got to pay that bill.

Be transparent about it.

Tell people what the costs are.

I don't think anybody here will deny that the government has to keep the lights on the building or their energy costs to that.

Um you want those energy costs to be as low as you can, but I don't think you deny there are.

Let's be transparent about it.

Let's call it what it is.

But I don't think I should be sneaking a bill past you for the SETF, and then actually I'm just using on something else, and I'm just paying the bills.

Um, and so I think there's a fairness issue as well that we are trying to get to while we also save all these incredible investments.

Mr.

Weiss, you want to jump in real fast?

Just real quick.

Last year, I you did not get enough help from your colleagues.

They were struggling with their own budget issues.

We uh yeah, they're not here.

Hopefully they're listening.

But we need to get them to help you this year.

And because you can't do it by yourself to fix a lot of the there's so many problems.

And so we have to make the case to all the other many of the other council members to get them to do more.

That's my problem.

I really appreciate that.

I have um noted to my colleagues that there's not a single agency in government over the last two years that is facing a nearly 50% cut.

50%.

Um that did get some attention uh from my colleagues.

So I appreciate that.

I know that when I talk to my colleagues, they care about this.

It's getting everybody on board with working toward the solutions.

So I appreciate that.

Um again, I know we have about 80 witnesses today, so uh to respect everybody's time.

I want to keep us moving.

I want to thank everybody for your testimony and for your action and advocacy on this.

Um, and I look forward to partnering with all of you, so thank you.

So let me turn to our next panel of witnesses.

So I had already called up, but we didn't have enough chairs.

Jamone Overby, DC conservation advocate with Nature Forward.

Max Broad, executive director of DC Voters for Animals.

Laura Nunn, public witness.

Flora online or no.

Okay.

Kimberly De Jesus Alfonso with City Wildlife.

Is Kathleen Groff here?

Oh, all right, there we go.

All right.

Come on up.

All right, good morning, everybody.

Uh Ms.

Overby, we'll start with you.

Good morning.

Thank you for your time this morning and an opportunity to testify.

My name is Shimani Overby, and I serve as the DC conservation advocate for Nature Forward, formerly known as Audubon Naturalist Society, an organization that has been helping residents of the DMV join, enjoy, learn about, and protect nature for 129 years.

We thank you for your constant support and leadership on climate and environmental justice focused issues in the district.

On behalf of our 28,000 members in support, as we would like to express our frustration with another year of underfunded and defunded programs in the Department of Energy and Environment and the mayor's proposed FY27 budget.

And this budget, the DC mayor proposed cutting DOEE by 28%.

Much of this cut stems from the reductions in federal grants, but even setting aside those losses, those cuts is still a hefty 8% from last year's 24%.

As you said, it's been about 50% over the last few years.

In my comments today, I will highlight some of the concerns and impacts on people, livelihoods, and families associated with the budget cuts for FY27.

My extended comments will be submitted for the record for your review and consideration.

Funding the Healthy Homes Act is an economic justice issue for DC families racing rising costs, and it relieves households from expensive HVAC and appliance replacements while reducing pollution and lowering utility bills at no costs.

Cutting this funding harms low-income residents and undermines housing affordability goals.

Meanwhile, costly fossil fuel investments would burden households instead of improving those homes.

Gas appliances worsen, indoor air quality, increasing asthma and health risks, especially for black and low-income communities.

Transitioning to clean and efficient electric systems reduces pollution, improves public health, and supports DC's climate goals while lowering energy costs and creating local jobs.

Nature Ford is the leading organization of the DC work group of the Choose Clean Water Coalition, a regional coalition working to ensure clean water for people, communities, and wildlife throughout the Chesapeake Bay.

Our DC work group is built of over 20 organizations, and we will submit those comments for the FY27 budget.

But I want to emphasize some of the same budget acts here today.

We ask for the restoration of funding for the Natural Resources Administration across programs that protect and clean up green spaces and waterways in DC.

As we know, the Potomac Sewage Bill has posed serious long-term impacts on DC's only water on DC's only water, and it is responsible.

It is irresponsible to move four million from federal, federally mandated stormwater fund to DC street sweeping, putting DC at risk for these federal funds once again.

Water in DC is sacred and should be treated as such.

We ask for full funding to be restored to DOEE for these programs that impact the agency's ability internally and external community support.

River Smart Landscaping Grant, Permeable Surface Grant, River Smart Communities, Trash Free Communities, Pollution Source Tracking Grant, Overnight and Nature News Near Schools, other known as Mealys, invasive plant management, water quality standard support, water quality data management, MS4 permit, and TMDL implementation planning support, SGS database support, stormwater plan review and technical support, stormwater retention credit, trading program support, and waterways advisory plan, just to name a few.

Lead exposure is an issue of child development, public health, and infrastructure.

To deprioritize this program is deprioritizing the future of DC's youth and the health of its residents.

As a fifth generation Washingtonian community advocate, I've personally seen how each of these programs that I have listed have positively impacted the lives of district residents, especially in the city's disregarded areas.

The ability to save money on energy, address issues and hazards within homes, improve air quality and health outcomes, or protect your home and family from displacement after severe weather events, serve as DC residents in their everyday challenges.

In this difficult budget season, I ask you again that you protect the people in DC and hope that we can continue to work together cohesively with other agencies, organizations, and leaders to ensure that intersectional environmental issues in DC are address and sustain support for many years to come.

Thank you for the opportunity again.

Thank you very much.

Next, let's go to Max Broad.

Hello, Councilmember, committee staff and DOEE staff.

It's good to be here with you.

I'm going to jump right into it.

I'm here to talk about three things today around climate, food systems, wildlife, starting with green food.

So just Director Jackson, I want to let you know you have a really special employee in Alyssa Wooden.

I want to thank her for her work on food procurement to fight climate change.

Her work ethic and commitment to the district are emblematic of the interactions I've had with many of the DOEE staff.

I'll say that we're now halfway to the 2030 deadline set by the Green Food Purchasing Amendment Act passed with the leadership of Council Member Che.

And this law requires DC agencies to reduce the carbon footprint of the food they buy 25%.

As I shared during performance oversight, citywide food emissions are not going down.

In fact, they're going up.

Now that the green food position needs to be filled with Ms.

Wood's transition to another role, I urge DOEE to move quickly.

The climate crisis warrants it.

Food systems emissions are moving in the wrong direction.

And as DC DOEE considers who to hire, I encourage you to consider this new phase of the law.

In my mind, the first phase was about data awareness.

DOE did a great job of collecting procurement data, alerting agencies to the requirements of the law, developing standards, and a community of practice.

But agencies that serve food are still behind on the law.

And from the assessment that we conducted, which is attached to my written testimony, they are far behind.

In this next phase, what qualities would be most impactful?

Qualities that may help an agency with procurement expertise, including familiarity with institutional dining, how to shift purchasing, and who is familiar with behavioral psychology tools to promote sustainability.

In transitioning to city wildlife, I'll talk about my work with them on last year.

We brought together people concerned about pets, public health, and community to start a coalition called DC responsible rat management.

With City Wildlife, I saw how serious this issue is for urban animals with the increased use of rodenticides.

This is a race against time as the poisons decimate wildlife.

Uh I'll let you know possum intakes at the rehab facility have declined precipitously from 82 opossums who came in in 2016 to just 14 in 2024.

At the same time, City Wildlife has increased their use of the medicine used to treat non-target animals who have rodenticides in their system precipitously.

Uh redenticides are sending shockwaves through the ecosystem, and city wildlife is rising to the occasion.

They've been instrumental partners in raising awareness around safe alternatives to rodent control.

This is in addition to their lights out campaign to protect migrating birds, their wildlife rehab services, and their amazing duck watch program to look after the district's amazing duck population.

You cannot watch a video with City Wildlife volunteers helping ducklings and not have it improve your day.

Um and then I'm gonna talk about the Food Policy Council, which the mayor proposed not only permanent permanently cutting the Office of Food Policy, but um uh the Office of Planning also decided to dispense with the Food Policy Council director.

From day one, uh, the director leapt into this role with enthusiasm, bringing together community business opportunities and outside funding to better our community and broader food system.

It would be unstrategic and counterproductive to dissolve our food policy council as the mayor is proposing.

The opposite food policy intersects deeply with DOE programs.

I encourage the council to reverse the mayor's proposal and to restore the Office of Food Policy in a new agency.

Given DOE's relevant work, urban agriculture, sustainability and food waste, green food.

It's worthy of consideration to house the Food Policy Council as the agency.

It would be great to see the Office of Food Policy work alongside the good people Department of Energy Environment, especially the cases DC Council considers the Food Policy Council Procurement Act of 2025, a bill that would centralize DC food procurement work and align well with the green food rule.

The existing food policy analyst is already partly backed by federal funding and the continuity to bring food procurement under the sage umbrella of people with food systems expertise would reap exponential benefits for our local farms, food systems workers, district sustainability and climate goals, and cost savings on contracts.

Thank you so much for your time and I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to you.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Kimberly de Jesus.

I am an ESL teacher here in Washington, DC, an animal visual artist and an animal lover.

I volunteered at City Wildlife 10 plus years ago.

During my time there, I got to witness firsthand how that how the dedicated staff tends to animals with professionalism, love, and respect from the smallest creature to the largest.

City Wildlife is the only wildlife rehabilitation center in Washington, DC, and they help many injured and orphaned native species, including migratory birds and vulnerable species like Eastern Box turtles and alligator snapping turtles.

They also educate the public on how to cohabitate successfully with wildlife in the city.

One of my most memorable moments volunteering at City Wildlife was when they brought an injured woodpecker.

Unfortunately, he was too injured to be safe.

Safe.

They made the difficult decision to put it to sleep.

I didn't have the emotional strength to witness it, so I left the room.

Excuse me.

But I remember the young vet working there at the time, they did it in such a dignified manner.

I asked her how she had the strength to do it.

She told me it saddened me deeply, but I hate to see animals suffering.

That statement stayed with me.

They do everything in their power to help animals.

And when it's not possible to save them, they take them out of their misery in a dignified way.

If city wildlife did not exist due to lack of funding, where would injured and orphaned animals in DC go?

We already take enough away from animals.

We build structures in their habitats, and we unintentionally hurt them with our vehicles and pesticides.

The least we can do is have one place where they can go when they need help.

I urged you to keep city wildlife fully funded and stand up for those who can now speak for themselves.

I assure you, this center is worthy is I assure you the center is a worthy use of government funds, and it helps the community.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

And next, Kathleen Goff.

Good morning.

Good morning.

And my husband and I are raising our son here.

One of the things that makes DC a wonderful place to live and raise a family is that we have an abundance of green spaces.

Everything from Rock Creek Park to neighborhood parks, Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens, many small neighborhood parks, everything in between.

We're also fortunate to share the city with an abundance of wildlife because we have those green spaces.

My first interactions with City Wildlife were as a finder of wildlife in need.

I felt helpless not knowing what to do.

I called City Wildlife, got advice, and even received updates telling me that the animals were recovering.

It was such a positive experience as a citizen.

In fact, City Wildlife feels 3,000 calls and over 2,000 emails per year from members of the public.

Some of these contacts lead to animals being treated, but many more lead to educational opportunities about better ways to interact with animals that share our city.

Sometimes it's possible to reunite a baby with its parents.

And sometimes this is advice on getting an animal to move out of an attic.

These calls involve explaining safe interactions with wildlife too, teaching residents not to pick up a bat from the sidewalk with bare hands, for example.

Having a wildlife center that residents can access for animal care and advice provides a great sense of interconnectedness and responsibility for our shared environment.

I can tell you from my personal experience that residents are just relieved to be able to hand over a bird after a window collision or a turtle that's been hit by a car to trained professionals.

They feel invested in the outcomes and are interested in learning about these animals.

Having access to wildlife center also helps to limit people from attempting their own rehabilitation, which causes all kinds of problems.

And it has it has people running afoul of federal and local laws.

Two and a half years ago, I started to volunteer at City Wildlife.

The skilled professional animal care and vet staff handles everything from feeding the tiniest baby bird to triaging injured raptors.

As a volunteer, I support this vital work in a variety of ways.

We have a large team of volunteers which receives training, and as a result, it allows the center to operate for 365 days per year, eight to twelve hours per day, depending on the season.

Approximately 30 volunteers work at the center on a weekly basis with another 20 or so that fill in as needed.

We also have volunteers on the Duck Watch program and Lights Out DC, which are important wildlife monitoring programs.

This volunteer work is incredibly fulfilling and eye-opening.

I could talk about it for hours.

It's amazing.

We're truly in this together.

I have seen the value and impact of city wildlife both from the perspective of a member of the public in need of this vital service, and as a volunteer, seeing the incredible work performed from the inside.

As a 32-year DC taxpayer and voter, I strongly support fully funding City Wildlife.

City Wildlife is a $548 per day investment in animal care, environmental protection, and human health outcomes.

By supporting city wildlife, the council advir advances its own priorities, protecting public health, strengthening environmental safety, and building a city where people and wildlife can thrive together.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Appreciate everybody's testimony.

Yeah, Ms.

Overby, you tend to talk about like the frustration across the board, right?

I I hope everybody is frustrated.

Um I would amp it up.

I hope you're a little bit outraged.

Um when we think about so many of these programs, DC SEU, City Wildlife, others.

Um I kind of want to just make sure everybody has this as like a big take-home, right?

The SETF.

You pay into it.

It's your money.

You were told we're creating the SETF for a certain purpose.

You you pay it.

And then, as Council Burchase said, we're all being hoodwinked.

80% of the dollars are being taken.

Your dollars are being taken and spent on just the city's power bills.

Not city like energy and efficiency improvements, not even that.

Just paying the energy bills.

I just want to make sure everybody understands what's going on and what has been going on of just taking this money.

Because in essence, you're you're paying for it two to three times now.

Um because not only are you paying for it on your bills, but the lack of efficiencies or the lack of programmatic uh support or the lack of investment in SEIU or SEU, too many acronyms in my world.

SEU.

Um, you heard earlier, Mr.

Jewish talk about the millions of dollars in savings being generated by this.

So if we don't fund that, that's millions more that's now being spent that couldn't it didn't have to be.

So I hear your frustration, I share it.

Um I want us to amp it up to the outrage level because it's your money uh and it's being taken.

So we will continue to work on how we restore it.

Um and you outlined a whole set uh of recommendations and the effectiveness um that is taking place.

So it it we have a lot of work in front of us.

Um I appreciate Mr.

Weiss's testimony that we've got to get a full dais full of people feeling that same outreach, right?

Um Ms.

Broad, uh I appreciate your testimony as well.

And you mentioned the Food Policy Council, which isn't in this committee, but it is deeply concerning.

And I've heard from a lot of folks about just eliminating the Food Policy Council, which also doesn't seem to make much sense.

Um I know that was the subject of a hearing earlier this week with the Committee on Health, and so I know that'll continue to be uh priority as well.

Um so we'll keep pushing there.

Umfonso, thank you very much.

I think can I again you talked about why again in the grand scheme of things, 200,000 is not a huge budget line in a 22 billion dollar budget.

Um the impact and benefit is definitely much more than what we put into it, right?

Um and you really share that quite well.

Um, Ms.

Goff, I appreciated your conversation and kind of what you've seen in terms of what that impact looks like and that return that we get back.

Um again, I think I have a hunch I will hear several more folks throughout the day too, but that interconnection that we have between ourselves and our national environment.

Um, even when you might think you live in the middle of a dense urban city, the national environment is everywhere around us.

Um and it's awe-inspiring as it should be, and we have a responsibility to help protect that.

So I appreciate everybody's testimony today.

Um we'll continue the hard work.

So thank you.

All right, let me call our third panel.

I have Lorraine Doherty, executive director with City Wildlife.

There we go.

Dr.

Sarah Surika, I'm gonna pronounce that correctly, clinical director with City Wildlife.

I have Amina Tariq Sabidi, manager with Earth Day.org.

And let me also see if Kelly Whittier, Director of Public Affairs of the Humane Rescue Alliance is here.

Do I have Kelly here?

I think I see Kelly here.

Um how about Lara Levison?

I think I saw you.

Um Energy Committee Chair of a Sierra Club, DC chapter.

All right.

And if you'll note for everyone following along at home, uh we're already off kind of some of our panels.

So if you have any questions, Anthony Thomas Davis over here can help us.

We're gonna do our best to navigate, but also just make sure we're trying to move our panels through as we have a great number of folks that are here in person and some folks that are online.

Um so bear with us as we do our very best.

All right.

So let me turn back then.

Um Lorraine Doherty, let me turn it over to you for your testimony.

Um if you can push the buttons the red light comes on.

Hi.

Um good afternoon, Chairperson Allen, council members, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is uh Lorraine Docker Team.

I'm the executive director of City Wildlife.

As we know, DC's only wildlife rescue and rehabilitation center.

And I'm here today to urge you to restore our 200,000 dollars in funding.

That is critical to maintaining our wildlife rescue rehabilitation and response services in DC.

Ensuring that residents can continue to ensure we can continue responding to thousands of wildlife emergencies each year.

City Wildlife provides critical first response services to DC residents through our wildlife hotline, which is available 365 days a year.

Each year we respond to, as we've heard before, 3,000 calls, 2,000 emails from the DC community seeking urgent advice about injured or distressed animals.

For many for many residents, we're the first and often the only place they can turn to a moments of uncertainty.

We provide immediate expert advice for from highly trained team that helps the public to safely and humanely resolve wildlife situations, whether that means reuniting a baby animal with its parent, preventing unnecessary rescues or what we call kidnaps, or guiding someone through how to safely contain and transport an injured animal for care at the center.

Without this support, many situations would result in unnecessary suffering for the animals, as we've heard before, public safety, as we've heard before, and well-intentioned but harmful harmful actions by by the public.

Our hotline is not just an important service, it's a critical, it's a critical community resource that reduces strain on animal control services, supports public health efforts, as we've said, ensures that wildlife receives appropriate professional care.

Through this direct real-time support, we empower also thousands, many thousands of DC residents to navigate complex wildlife situations.

We give them the confidence to help them deal with the situations with compassion.

So we also talk to people on the phone, and we we hear that they're desperate, they're in a difficult situation, and we can feel we can feel them calming down when we talk them through how to deal with this safely.

So this is amazing.

And when we share the news with our partners, our friends and our supporters that our 200,000 grant, nearly a quarter of our budget was not included in the FY27 budget and asked them to provide evidence.

So I asked our supporters to provide evidence on how essential city wildlife is to the community.

The response was immediate, heartfelt overwhelming, and as we see today, everyone's turned up today to support us, and it's it's amazing.

It's fantastic.

So here's a few quotes from some people that I asked to sort of uh to talk about as.

So Tom Witt, sorry, Tom Pitt, a Washington DC resident wrote City Wildlife is there for our citizens when wildlife needs help.

I consider this funding as important as any of my tax money going forward.

Caroline Boom shared last year I brought in a bird that had hit window.

Without their care, I don't believe that bird would have survived.

City wildlife provides an essential service to both animals and the community.

Christine Klingabel told us, I turned to City Wildlife every spring and summer to help with baby birds, multiple box turtles, baby squirrels, and once uninjured bat.

I would not have been able to help many animals.

Um I would, I wouldn't, I would not have been able to help many animals that would suffer and die without city wildlife.

Mitte Figueroa ward for residents said, I have brought in several several animals to City Wildlife.

Without their help, so many animals would suffer and die.

I'm asking you to please restore this modest funding.

Katrina Weitzman, a DC resident.

City Wildlife was who I called when I found a baby pigeon who was suffering in pain and bleeding from broken bones.

City Wildlife took him in, tried to save his life, and I'm extremely grateful that we're there to ease his pain and give him comfort.

And then we've got testimony, actually, a quote from Anne Armstrong, who is a board member, DC resident, and she emphasized the broader impact.

The grant the city provides us allows us to contribute not only to the local community, but the safety and science and also to other communities.

And then lastly, Cassandra, Ward 8, City Wildlife is a vital service.

Without them, animals would suffer.

Residents would be left without support.

These are these voices reflect what we hear every day.

Thankful residents across the district are relying on City Wild Dev where they need help most.

I respectfully urge the council to restore the funding and ensure the essential service remains available to the people of DC.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Dr.

Sarika, is that correct?

Close.

Close.

You'll correct me.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairperson and Council members.

My name is Dr.

Sarah Sarica, and I'm the clinic director of City Wildlife.

I came to City Wildlife with extensive training in wildlife medicine and public health.

The collaborative nature between our rehabilitation center and DOEE has been the most productive, integrated process I've ever been involved with.

And we see the fruits of this collaboration regularly.

We have examples almost daily, such as a few photos this week from a biologist who was able to protect a kill deer nest after a caller reported an injured bird.

We knew this bird was likely not injured, but a mother protecting the territory of her planned nest, and we're able to alert the right people before the callers made a less informed decision that would have destroyed this bird's breeding opportunity.

In addition, we provide services such as performing animal autopsies for DOEE routinely and troubleshooting wildlife issues harmoniously.

This has compounding effects for the human and wild citizens of DC.

Study after study has now conclusively demonstrated that access to nature has significant and unique benefits to people's physical, mental, and social health.

Biologists and the public have been counting and absorbing migratory birds as an example for enjoyment and science for a very long time.

And we know conclusively that there have been massive declines in their numbers.

Approximately half of the migratory birds brought to our doors after hitting windows survive thanks to the medical and rehabilitation care we provide at City Wildlife.

Without this care, most would otherwise succumb to their injuries.

We are treating these small patients who often weigh less than a triple A battery for corneal ulcers, soft tissue injuries, fractures, head and respiratory trauma.

There's another equally compelling reason to fund city wildlife.

By taking in sick animals and having them carefully examined by a veterinarian and licensed wildlife rehabilitators, city wildlife is poised to raise the alarm about any new diseases that show up, as many of the pathogens we are looking for in our wild patients also affect humans.

In 2025, there was a medical alert sent out to all clinicians in DC based on an increase in our West Nile virus cases in CORVIDS.

This work we do has tangible differences in the health of humans and animals in the district, and we are open every day of the year.

Dozens of people have developed clinical signs of bird flu over the past three years in the United States.

When we detect it, which we have twice in the last six months, we alert public health authorities, DOEE, animal control, and places like the Smithsonian Zoo, so that we can all make collective changes, as well as being a reliable source of information for the general public.

I would submit that the wildlife rehabilitation grant is a very good deal for the city and a very worthwhile investment in our future and our current quality of life.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Amina Tariq Cividi.

Yes.

Good morning, Chair and Councilmember.

My name is Amina Tyrix City Bay, and I'm a manager of the N Plastics Initiative at EarthDay.org.

I live in Ward 1, and I'm here on behalf of myself and my organization, which is also headquartered here in Washington, D.C.

This budget proposes cuts across the board at DOEE.

Clean energy, lead pipe replacement, stormwater compliance, city wildlife, zero waste enforcement, and the food policy council.

Individually, each cut may seem manageable, but together they represent a systemic divestment from the infrastructure that keeps this city livable, equitable, and healthy.

DC has made commitments to the carbon neutrality, to lead-free water, to clean waterways, and to food access.

Those commitments shouldn't disappear with the funding.

The obligation remains because the cost remains.

They just get deferred, compounded, and eventually paid by the people who can least afford them from the start.

Environmental programs are not abstract.

They determine whether the air in our home is safe to breathe, whether the water from our taps contain lead, and whether our streets and waterways are clean.

Also, whether families under financial pressure can have any support in it all.

Again, when we cut these programs, we do not eliminate those needs.

We leave them unmet.

The unmet needs become a crisis, and the crisis costs far more to fix than the programs we cut to avoid them.

The communities most affected by these cuts are not the ones with the most resources to absorb them.

Their health has become compromised.

Children in DC's lower income wards are already 10 times more likely to be hospitalized for asthma and have more than 20 more emergency department visits than children in wealthier communities.

Residents in those same communities are more likely to have lead pipes, are less likely to have green spaces, and more likely to bear the cost of the city that has stopped investing in their environment.

This budget cut does not make social, economic, or environmental sense.

The council has pushed back on cuts like this before, and we're asking you to do it again.

Restore funding for DOEE, hold the line on the commitments the city has made to its residents.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And next, Laura Levinson.

Councilmember Allen, thank you for the opportunity to testify and thank you for your strong leadership on environment and sustainability issues.

My name is Lara Levison, and I am testifying 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 also proud members of the Fair Budget Coalition.

We are offering testimony today on several aspects of DOEE's portfolio that are also areas of focused work for the Sierra Club, including clean and affordable energy, achieving zero waste, clean and efficient transportation, and protection of our water and natural places.

And there are three other people, four other people who are going to help deliver parts of this testimony kind of spread out over the next few panels.

So I'll start with part of our energy testimony.

Rising electric and gas bills have made energy affordability a central issue.

It is the hottest issue in the mayor's race.

Low-income households and people of color are disproportionately impacted.

The in the percent of income they pay is steep, and the compromises they must make to lower their costs are beyond uncomfortable.

Fortuitously in a world of very a world very short of wind-winds, addressing energy affordability moves us toward greater sustainability.

Well insulated homes with efficient HVAC systems use less energy.

Renewable energy is cheaper energy.

Diversity in energy sources drives down costs.

And distributed energy, meaning energy that is generated and managed at the place of consumption, e.g.

geothermal solar and batteries, also reduces costs and increases reliability.

The proposed budget for DOEE shows a 28% decrease in funds and over a 6% cut in staff.

This will be devastating to clean energy programs, as we've already been discussing.

By far, the largest share of the decrease comes from loss of federal funding.

If the federal share had remained the same, the budget cut would be about 8%, still a steep cut.

Instead of compensating for federal cuts, the mayor is compounding the program by cutting DC local funding as well.

Last year, the council acquiesced to the mayor's proposal to transfer more than 70 million dollars from the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund, the SETF, to pay the district government's utility bills.

In the proposed FY27 budget, the mayor increases the rate on the SETF by another 10.5 million dollars.

We urge this committee to reject this transfer and restore the 10.5 million and more if possible to the SETF.

As you know, the council established this provision, the SETF, and funded it with small surcharges on our gas and electricity bills to promote sustainable energy programs in the district.

These include home electrification, rooftop solar, green jobs, and rebates for efficient appliances.

It makes absolutely no sense to cut these programs when DC residents are struggling with high energy costs.

And as we've also been discussing, these programs are largely implemented by the DCSEU.

For low and moderate income homeowners, the DCSU provides free solar systems and home electrifications.

And for anyone living in DC, rebates for purchasing more efficient appliances and equipment.

For building owners and developers, the DC SEO provides a variety of services and programs to improve energy efficiency, increase access to solar power.

The additional sweep of funds from the SETF will cause additional deep cuts to the DCSU, likely causing staff layoffs.

The DCSU is vital to providing utility relief and home retrofits for DC families.

Slashing it at any time is backwards, but doing it now at this time of sky high utility bills is really unthinkable.

Even if funding for the DCSU goes up again in future years, it will take a lot of time to rebuild the knowledge and expertise lost with those staff if they are laid off.

Currently, DC has access to 60 million in federal matching funds for energy programs, as others have described.

These will expire.

We have over woefully underspent them because of the lack of local funding.

I won't go over those again because others have.

And this is oh, I have a few more minute moments.

So my colleague Mark is going to talk more about the um the mayor's uh energy surcharge, but I just want to note that on my utility bills, which I brought with me today, you you still can't see, it's not spelled, still not spelled out the SETF and the mayor's energy, you know, ME, whatever, whatever, it's just an acronym.

And on my PEPCO bill, actually, I actually don't see it at all.

They don't break out the distribution charges at all, which they really are supposed to, so I don't know what's going on there.

So thank you for your time, and uh my Sierra Club colleagues will cover other parts of energy, zero waste transportation and and water and natural places.

Thank you.

Um it's almost as if the public service commission isn't making sure the utility companies are listing it correctly on their bills.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think don't know where that pressure could be coming from.

Exactly.

Um thank you very much.

Um I'm gonna start um Amina Tariq Sabiday.

Okay, closer.

All right.

Um I really appreciated the way you framed your testimony as well, though.

It's around choices, right?

Um certainly in this room right now, we're hearing a lot from city wildlife.

It's that's one choice.

Um I want to make sure that everyone, of course, knows that the SETF and the cuts and the damage in this proposed budget is much larger than just city wildlife.

It's a great example of the damage that can be done.

But you talked also about um lead pipes, stormwater, food policy council.

Like all each of these are choices that we make.

And as you talked, it reminded me um of Glenn Hall, who I had the pleasure to go visit his home a couple of months ago.

And Glenn lives in Ward 8.

He's a caregiver for uh uh an older parent.

Um his home had dangerously high levels of gas inside from poor infrastructure, leaky pipes, um, bills just go with uns could not even afford the bills.

Um, but probably most of the energy because it was so inefficient, just going right out the window and the door, but it was unhealthy.

And again, as a caregiver, it was maintaining a home that was unhealthy for an aging parent, but there wasn't much he could do about it, except for the SETF was funding our healthy homes effort, and he was able to switch from a gas to an electric stove and oven, which reduced the toxic gases inside his house.

He was able to install solar on his roof, which is cutting and reducing his energy bills.

And he I was able to walk in and he shared his home with me for a little bit and was able to show like the impact of the choices we make.

And this is just one house, one example.

But for somebody who is trying hard to afford to live here in our city, trying very hard to help take care of uh an aging parent who is compromised from a health perspective, so toxic gases are gonna be bad for anybody, uh, but in particular for somebody who's already vulnerable.

These are the choices that this proposed budget is saying we're not going to prioritize.

And that's not right.

It is wrong.

Um, and that is part of what I and this committee are going to work to reverse.

And your voices are really helpful and important.

I just want to kind of thank you for really framing that around.

These are choices we're making.

And the proposed budget is a bad choice.

But we have the opportunity to repair that choice.

And that's what we're trying to work on today.

Um Ms.

Doherty, I was going to ask you, you talked about the $200,000 is uh is roughly about a quarter of the total budget.

Yes, exactly.

So can you just lay out a little more specifically if it's not repaired, if that 200,000 goes away?

Is that a reduction in staff?

Do you have to let people go?

I it obviously is going to be a reduction of capacity, but can you talk more about if that 200,000, a quarter of your budget just disappears, what's the impact on your operations?

It's a huge impact because it's across it's across staffing, uh, is treatment, veterinary treatment.

So it's across the board.

It's a quarter of our budget.

A lot of our budget is staffed because we have specially skilled teams that are there every day to look after the animals.

So it is across the board from you know, the staffing medications, it has a huge impact on our daily wildlife care.

Okay.

And then to Dr.

Sarica.

Got that right.

Um from your staffing perspective, from your ability to deliver that care.

Just it's do you just kind of shave a quarter of it off?

Like how do you how would you meet a 25% reduction in the support to be able to, I mean, you can't just ignore 25% of the animal.

Um what what ends up happening?

Um it's hard to say because we're already working on, you know, with a nonprofit force.

So we're already working at minimum crew.

We're already working at as many volunteers filling in roles as possible.

Um so thinking of finding ways to cut that, or finding ways to, you know, maybe we don't get that upgrade we really needed, or maybe um, you know, we have, you know, we I used to have shorter hours.

I've expanded my hours because that's what the animals' medical needs are.

Um, you know, maybe we cut back on those hours.

Again, it's it's hard to say.

Um it's hard to imagine changing it because we know that there would be immediate impacts on the animals.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Um, again, it just help highlights the problems um and the challenges that are in this budget and kind of the challenge that we have to accept to make a lot of changes.

Um and I appreciated uh Ms.

Levinson, you talked through a wide variety.

I know you're you're part of other testimony we'll hear as well, but um you really laid out quite well what the SETF is and what it's supposed to be doing and how this budget will walk away from that.

So thank you all very much.

I appreciate your testimony.

All right, let's move to our next panel.

I've got Susan Shore, who's a zero waste committee chair with Sierra Club, DC Chapter, who I saw was here.

David Whitehead, executive director of Sierra Club, DC Chapter, who I saw was here.

Claire Mills, DC campaign manager for CCAN, who's here.

Nathan Harrington with Ward 8 Woods Conservancy.

I don't think is here yet, but might be joining us later.

Vondre Walston, outreach coordinator with Ward 8 Woods Conservancy.

Vondre's here.

Oh, wait.

There's Nathan, he's in person.

All right, perfect.

I was looking for you online, Nathan.

All right.

Perfect.

All right then.

We've got our panel then.

So Susan Shore, why don't we turn to you?

Good morning.

Councilmember Allen, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this fiscal year 27 DOE budget hearing.

My name is Susan Shore, and I'm the co-chair of the Zero Waste Committee of the Sierra Club BC chapter.

I'm gonna be talking about plastic pollution today.

Um and I wanted to start by thanking you and other members of this committee for co-introducing the bottle bill.

We greatly appreciate your efforts in steering this landmark legislation through the Committee on Transportation and the Environment.

Once in effect, the bottle bill will cut pollution by eliminating waste from the 345 million plastic bottles sold in the district each year, in addition to the hundreds of millions of cans and glass bottles.

While the bottle bill represents an important new strategy for reducing beverage container waste, the district must also ensure implementation and enforcement of the plastic pollution laws already on the books, including the plastic straw ban and utensils on request requirement that was established under the leadership of former Councilmember Mary Che.

Implementing our plastic pollution laws requires annual outreach and education as well as funding for meaningful enforcement.

But for years, DOEE has only been given funding for to conduct 300 restaurant inspections a year, relying mostly on tips from 311 to identify some of the restaurants it inspects.

So we call on this committee to ensure that DOEE receives at least 1.5 additional FTEs for the enforcement of our existing plastic pollution laws so we can double the number of food service inspections from 300 to 600.

Likewise, we request this committee to ask DOEE why enforcement regulations for utensils on request requirements do not yet exist.

The Office of Attorney General recently announced that it seeks to step up enforcement of environmental issues, but the OAG and DOEE can only enforce the district's utensils on request requirements if DOEE publishes enforcement regulations.

Without such an enforcement, it's no wonder that most people receiving takeout orders with lots of single-use plastic items they either didn't request were affirmatively indicated they didn't want.

The fiscal year 26 Local Budget Act of 2025 introduced on April 20th, 2026, if left untouched, will sweep some $535 million from the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Fund, also known as the Bag Fee Fund.

Regrettably, we are again forced to request counsel to prevent the sweep.

Through the amount, although the amount the mayor is proposing to sweep is less than last year, the need to protect these funds remains the same as last year's green budget battle.

We do, of course, continue to advocate for council to adopt a ban on plastic bags and drive uptake of reusable bags as neighboring jurisdictions in Maryland have done.

But until the bag fee law is updated, these fees should be reserved exclusively for Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Activities and not swept into the general fund.

This sweep represents the worst of both worlds.

We are generating unnecessary sales of harmful single-use plastic bags instead of encouraging the use of reusable bags and eliminating funds earmarked for a safe, swimmable Anacostia River.

We're tired, the environmental community is tired of fighting this battle year after year, and we sure were sure the council shares our fatigue.

Nevertheless, we are compelled to urge Council to once again step up to protect this harmful sweep.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen, for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Shore.

Next let me turn to you, David Whitehead.

Councilmember Allen, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

My name is David Whitehead, and I am the chapter director of the DC chapter of the Sierra Club.

Today I'm presenting our chapter's testimony on behalf of the Water and Natural Places Committee.

The mayor spent much of 2025 giving the Washington Commanders over $1 billion of DC taxpayer money to help them build a stadium and neighborhood along the banks of the Anacostia River.

Then in early 2026, the Potomac River experienced the largest sewage disaster in U.S.

history.

If there was ever a time to invest in the cleanliness and health of D.C.'s rivers, it is right now.

We are making a bet as a district that the value of our riverfront property will help us grow out of our economic woes.

This is impossible to square with the divestment and redirection of river river related funds we see proposed in the Mayor's FY27 budget.

The Natural Resources Administration within DOEE is facing severe cuts, including cuts that imperil DC's compliance with federal permits.

The NRA is forced to cut entire stormwater and green space programs this year.

These programs help keep DC in compliance with MS4 compliant keep DC and MS4 compliance and also engage a network of local community groups and partners in that work.

Another compliance issue is that Mayor Bowser yet again simply unilaterally takes money from DOE to fund the district's street sweeping without offering details of how it will be used.

Right now, much of DC's street sweeping happens in the downtown core.

While that might make tourists and Donald Trump happy, it does little to protect our rivers.

Where street sweeping needs to happen is in specific MS4 zones to protect against stormwater runoff.

There is a right way to use MS4 monies for sweet sweeping.

This is not it.

In fact, sweeping this money for the second year in a row puts DC at compliance risk.

Compliance risk on our MS4 permit is a serious issue.

The EPA can file enforcement fines of over $50,000 a day.

Being out of compliance opens the doors to possible lawsuits against the district.

It is critical that the DC Council work to restore money to DOE to help us stay in compliance with our MS4 permit.

We would even recommend asking the commanders to pitch in so they can enjoy the enormous benefit of a clean and a costure river next to their new stadium home.

On lead pipes, as of writing, it is our understanding that DC Water has allocated zero dollars for the lead pipe replacement assistant program.

Zero.

There is some hope among agency leaders that is in fact a mistake or that DC Water hasn't gotten their documents in on time, but we haven't received any clarification so far.

DOEE's own funding for lead pipe replacement programs was cut by $43,000.

If the budget remains as it is, agency leaders say that at least $650 DC homes next year will not have their lead pipes replaced and will continue to be exposed to toxic lead.

The nearly 30,000 lead pipes that remain in DC homes were installed by government institutions.

They should be removed and replaced, and the government should pay.

The fact that DC continues to cut funding for these programs is unconscionable.

This is an area where the district needs to invest in consistent progress, in particular in neighborhoods most vulnerable to lead exposure.

Pulling back from this funding is unacceptable.

This concludes our chapter's testimony.

We have more in our written testimony both on transportation and on other issues.

This budget season, the mayor has again forced a series of brutal cuts to district's environmental and climate programs.

This committee, under your leadership, Councilmember Allen, has the opportunity to problem solve and roll back many of these harmful changes.

Our chapter hopes to be a resource to you as you find solutions, and we are happy to follow up with any questions you might have.

Thank you very much.

Next, let's turn to Claire Mills.

Good morning, Chairperson Allen.

I am Claire Mills, the DC campaigns manager at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action Fund.

Thanks for the opportunity to testify this morning.

The mayor's proposed budget makes devastating cuts to the district's Department of Energy and Environment at least 24% and potentially up to 40% with the potential loss of federal funding.

That's an exact quote from my testimony last year, the smallest adjustment, and the sentence will be true again today, because the mayor has not changed her playbook at all.

She continues to stall on the development of the net zero code and underfund facility maintenance of district buildings, so government building utility costs stay high, ever increasing, it seems.

And she again swipes from the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund to cover her bills.

Meanwhile, DC residents are stuck in our own spiral.

The mayor's picks for public service commissioners approve rate hike after rate hike, and our bills go up.

To lower them, we need programs that help us switch to efficient appliances and install solar, but of course, those programs are at risk of being defunded completely out of existence and waiting lists are long if programs are running at all.

This erodes the public's trust in the DC sustainable energy utility and our government as a whole, limiting the success of these programs, even if funding is someday restored in the future.

Our public service commission should be tackling this issue as part of a larger effort to address overspending by DC's utilities that's driving up our bills.

And I'm once again asking for the restoration of the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund and the funding of the Affordable Home Electrification Program and electrification retrofit rebates run by the DC Sustainable Energy Utility and supplemented by federal funding.

The current budget proposal not only hamstrings our ability to lower utility bills for residents, it will surely mean staffing cuts at DC SEU that will have lasting impacts on our capacity to carry out programs in the future, even if future budgets prioritize green funding.

We have a real and unique opportunity with the federal funds available to us for DCSEU's programs, and we are squandering it, falling further and further behind on implementing these programs and inching ever closer to the 2029 deadline to spend them.

To miss this opportunity and leave district families and residents stuck paying high bills for dirty fossil fuels is unacceptable.

We cannot continue to operate as if we have time.

The clock is not just ticking, the alarm is ringing.

When I was in high school, climate change meant melting ice caps and starving polar bears.

When I studied it in college, it was about resource scarcity and extreme clients.

Now, when CCAN runs workshops with high school students here in DC about climate change, they talk about heat in their own classrooms or the unpredictable storms they're caught in on the way home from school.

Climate change isn't coming in the future, it's here.

It already means that DC residents are less safe, less healthy, and less free to enjoy our lives as extreme weather constrains us.

So DC must respond now, in this budget, in this fiscal year.

We need to make smart decisions with the money that we have.

We know programs like the Affordable Home Electrification Program work, and so we must fund them, especially with the funding that is already set aside specifically for those programs.

And we need far more funding to actually tackle the climate change problem at scale.

So I urge you and this committee to fund the greenhouse gas emissions study in the fiscal year 27 budget.

Just 200,000 in the next next fiscal year will set us up for responsible budgeting for years to come.

As the study maps how extreme weather will impact the district, it is going to reveal essential information for families, homeowners, business owners, developers, and the district government to actually plan and prepare for crises and disasters so that we can budget in advance rather than dealing with the crisis that will become more expensive after the fact.

And if we complete this study in the next year, we will be doing our study concurrently with Maryland's Renew Act study, unlocking the ability to coordinate and get deeper results with the money that we are spending.

This is an opportunity that we cannot miss.

So again, I encourage this committee to pass and fund the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Act in this year's budget.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And then next, Nathan Harrington.

Good morning.

I'm Nathan Harrington, founder and director of Ward 8 Woods Conservancy.

Um I want to send greetings to Council members Henderson, Crawford, Parker, and Lewis George, who sit on this committee.

It's a shame they're not here today to hear all this powerful testimony.

I hope they are there uh in the coming weeks when it's time to vote to undo some of these terrible cuts.

I want to start by just stepping back a minute and staying out loud for the record, what we all know to be true, which is that for the last 15 months, this president and his administration have systematically sabotaged our beloved city and its economy.

They've gutted the civil service that's the heart and soul of DC.

They've undermined our budget and our autonomy.

Um they've terrorized our immigrants, they've scared away tourists with these National Guard troops everywhere, and it's because of them that the Mayor and Council are in this terrible situation of having to manage um scarcity and decline.

So we just got to put that out there.

Um today's hearing, you're gonna have a bunch of uh advocates begging you uh not to cut these programs, and we're gonna hear that we need to make it's tough times, we've got to make tough choices.

Of course, we need to block the sweeping of these special purpose funds.

That's uh a no-brainer, and I trust that the the council will do that.

But we also need to realize that a lot of these cuts could be in the budget as a whole, not just the environment, could be avoided just by slightly increasing the taxes and fees paid by the wealthiest Washingtonians.

We have an obscene racial wealth gap.

We have this notion that uh wealthy people somehow are gonna leave if you make them pay a little more.

That's been proven again and again to be a myth.

Um and yet we we you know, we say that uh raising taxes is a tough choice.

Well, cutting programs that uh make for a livable environment and support our vulnerable residents is also a tough choice.

And when we keep making one type of tough choice and not the other, that says a lot about our values.

I would say, you know, it seems like this Marine Council have just taken the whole revenue side off the table almost preemptively.

And um I would say it's because they lack political courage, but honestly, I don't even think it takes courage.

I think if you were to poll DC residents, most of them uh would support um tax cuts on the most fortunate.

But unless we do that, we're left with this situation of sort of managing scarcity and um and manage decline.

I want to commend uh DOE leadership for their remarkable transparency in this budget process.

It's thanks to that that we as advocates have a really clear picture of what's being cut, the the decisions that they were forced to make because they got this smaller pot of money from the mayor and why they made those decisions.

Um in some cases that that criteria um led them to restore things that we really appreciate.

Um there was some unexpected good news about the um trap trap maintenance and the Kingman Rangers and a few other things.

Uh but of course we have devastating cuts, and I'm obligated to speak specifically on behalf of the ones that are going to affect the organization of the ability of Ward 8 Woods to provide uh jobs to seven Ward A residents and really fill the gap in maintenance of our precious public lands that have been neglected for decades.

Uh park maintenance grants, also known as restoring the district's natural areas, uh, were created actually at the initiative of Council Member Che in 2022.

They were funded at the level of $300,000 in fiscal 2020 uh two, three, and four.

Um it was in the last fiscal year it was cut to 150,000.

Um but then I'm sorry, that was in fiscal 224.

And the current fiscal year was actually one of the few programs to escape additional cuts.

Um so we're disappointed that it's being targeted for elimination now.

Um, as our community stormwater solutions grants, that's Ward 8 Woods actually started in 2018 with one of that grants that allowed us to create our Parks Road program.

And since then, uh the those park maintenance grants have been a major source of funding to a program that provides fair pay, meaningful work, and green job trainings to east of the river residents who face barriers to employment.

Many of them they faced a whole host of challenges, but we were able to bring them in and get them working.

So I urge you to restore funding for that program and the many others, including Anacostia River boat tours.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate everyone's testimony.

The question specifically for Claire Mills.

Amongst the many things we don't like, you did highlight one thing that you did say you support, so I want to kind of pull that a little bit.

You talked about the there's a BSA subtitle related to third party retail suppliers.

Could you tell say a little bit more about why that stands out to you amidst the things that we don't like and support here?

If there is one thing that we do support or like, kind of tell me why you think that's a good idea and support that.

Yeah, so uh right now in the district, uh, ratepayers can make the choice to source their electricity from a party other than PEPCO.

Um a lot of times these companies come in um, they say that it's cleaner energy or they give other other reasons that it's going to be better, and they're not transparent about the way that it will increase bills over time.

A lot there uh was a study out by DOEE revealing the extent to which this is driving up folks' bills.

So people will get into these um alternate programs for energy supply, and then they'll see their electric bills go up double or triple.

Um oftentimes, you know, then they'll go back and they'll apply for utility assistance programs, um, which are funded by all ratepayers.

So it's not just the folks signing up for these programs getting scammed, it's everybody that's paying uh a bill is getting scammed by these programs.

Um and obviously right now with uh electric bills as high as they are uh just coming from PEPCO as well.

Um we really don't have room for this extra uh uh cost on our electric bills.

So um this BSA subtitle directs the public service commission to uh regulate this further.

Um it's really directing something them to do something that is within their power to do already, but it is um not something that they are electing to do.

So we are going to uh we are supportive of directing them to do so.

Um and uh it will encourage them to still leave some flexibility.

So if there are providers that are um actually genuinely giving people the opportunity to get greener electricity from cleaner sources, there's still flexibility in there to allow that to happen if folks are are willing and able to pay extra for that.

Um so we appreciate that flexibility and a little bit of extra rim on the cap that's in the BSA for that reason for for potential innovation.

Um but we do think it's necessary to make sure that there is a cap in there and that overall the the public service commission is taking a look at at what is scamming district residents right now.

Got it.

Okay, that's helpful context.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Harrington, for for Ward 8 Woods, when I think back to last year, did you face any reduced capacity because of the reductions of the grants in last year's budget?

Can you just share a little more about the impact, maybe yourself or fellow kind of uh nonprofit service providers?

Yes.

So you know, we had to go to our donors and tell them we are losing about 60,000 in DC government funding.

You need to help us uh we we need you right now to help us make up for that.

Um they responded positively, so we were able to mitigate some of that damage.

Uh but for much of the year we had uh four park stewards instead of five because there was uh we just we we didn't know if we were gonna be able to make payroll, we had to cut back.

And um that's unfortunate because almost every day that we are out working, people are stopping and asking us, are you hiring?

Are you hiring?

And it's frustrating to have to turn people away, and it's even worse when you uh can't even keep the people that you already have because the work to do is endless.

We've removed 1.6 million tons of trash in the last eight years.

We've saved uh 10,000 trees from invasive lines, but there is so much more to do.

And uh I would posit that that uh 150,000 for the whole grant program.

Our share that we were awarded this year, current fiscal year was 66,000.

I think that's a bargain when you look at what what the taxpayer is getting for it.

Oh, undoubtedly, it's a bargain.

Um and that philanthropy dollar is not endless.

So while it's great that you were able to have some of that private support and philanthropy that was able to help cover and mitigate, as you said, some of the damage.

Um, it is not a bottomless source.

And uh there's a there's a limit to what you'll be able to do there.

Okay.

Um I appreciate again.

I know everyone's testimony is really consistent with what we're seeing in this budget.

This committee is gonna be working hard to uh undo and reverse so much of the damage that we've seen.

Um I do appreciate highlighting one thing that we do like uh in that BSA, so we'll make sure we pay close attention to that as that as the BSA budget support act is part of what we work on as well.

Um but I really appreciate everybody's testimony today and your ongoing advocacy.

Thank you.

All right, next, let me turn to our next panel of public witnesses.

I have Isla Frost, public witness.

So there we go.

I saw her here earlier.

Mark Rodifer.

Karen Shivon Robinson, public witness.

Javier.

Uh, who's a student at Munda Verde?

But I think maybe Stephanie for a little bit and may come back.

Let's see.

Is Javier here?

Maybe not.

Okay.

Javier is a student, so I'm just checking to see.

All right.

Um Javier is ready.

We'll come bring him back later.

Um Oscar Bilar uh Vila Lobos, I think I saw here.

Yep.

And why don't we also add Trey Sherard, the river keeper with Anakasha River Keeper, who's joining us online.

Why don't we bring Trey in for this panel as well?

So Trey will send you a panel request and you can accept there.

Uh but while we do that, Ms.

Frost, let me turn to you to kick us off.

Thank you.

Um good morning, Councilmember Allen and staff.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Isla Frost, and I'm an organizer with the CAN Action Fund, an award-won resident testifying today as a public witness.

I'm here to voice my concerns about the major cuts to the Department of Energy and Environment's budget and the broader pattern of defunding that this proposal represents.

In the mayor's proposed budget, DOEE's overall funding would be reduced by 28%.

That is a massive cut with wide ranging impacts.

I am concerned about the impact of many cuts from cuts to the lead pipe replacement um program, implementation of the building energy performance standards, the proposed pause to the net zero building code, and much more that have been mentioned today.

I'm especially concerned that the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund has been rated with $10 million redirected into the mayor's energy surcharge fund to pay the district's energy bills.

As a result of these cuts, the DC sustainable energy utility, which which implements the affordable home electrification program and solar for all in DC will face deep cuts and layoffs.

These are programs that low-income residents rely on to switch off of gas and reduce energy bills at a time when rising utility costs and the risk of gas leaks are very real in DC and we need to take them seriously.

DC has clearly entered a dangerous cycle of serious cuts to DOE's budget.

What's what makes these cuts even more frustrating is that we're leaving money on the table.

Money that I'm sure everyone in this room agrees that DC needs.

Through the Inflation Reduction Act, DC is eligible for 60 million in federal funding to support electrification, funds that are designed to match the local investment.

Yet we're not funding the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund locally at the level required to fully use this money.

We need to restore 13 to 17 million to the SETF this year to stay on track to access the full 60 million by 2029.

If we fail to meet that, we are not only leaving money on the table, we are leaving people behind who could have benefited from these programs.

And it's not just federal funds.

We're also leaving money on the table from billionaire fossil fuel corporations.

There are giant oil and gas companies that have profited from burning fossil fuels and climate damages while putting our communities at risk from climate change.

And they profited a lot.

Um Exxon Mobile to the tune of $55,000 per minute, which means at that rate, it would take about three hours of profits for them to make the 10 million dollars that has been swiped from SETF.

These companies can afford to help DC prepare and respond to the problem that they created.

And they should.

And the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Act would help us get there.

Instead of cutting the programs that keep residents safe, we should be securing new revenue by requiring fossil fuel fuel companies to help clean up the damage that they caused.

Councilmember, I urge you to fund the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act so we can stop fighting over crumbs in the DOEE's limited budget.

This is a key step towards establishing a climate superfund that can help secure a reliable source of funding to protect DC while reducing the burden on taxpayers.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Rodifer, ring to you next.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen.

I'm uh continuing with the Sierra Club's uh testimony on energy issues, and I'll um pick up where Lara left off.

I want to start by um saying that it was because of your leadership, Councilmember Allen, that the DC Council passed the Healthy Homes Act in 2024.

It empowers 30,000 low and moderate income families to receive no cost energy efficiency and electrification upgrades.

Uh it's funded by the SETF, and of course, we've heard about what the mayor proposes to do to that.

The Sierra Club urges you to include at least 10 million dollars for healthy homes in the DOEE budget.

Uh, this groundbreaking law brings substantial public health and financial benefits to residents who are struggling to pay utility bills or to replace old appliances on the verge of breaking down.

The mayor's proposed cuts to the SETF could result in few or no energy efficiency and electrification upgrades for these families in the coming year, raising bills when people can least afford it.

To make matters worse, the mayor proposes to raid $4 million from the Renewable Energy Development Fund, which comes from fees paid by electric providers who fail to comply with requirements for local solar.

The REDF funds solar for all, which brings the benefits of solar to low-income families, reducing their electricity bills by up to 50%.

This includes homeowners, renters, and residents of multifamily buildings.

The proposed REDF raid will greatly reduce the solar for all program, hurting vulnerable families facing rising energy bills.

The SAR Club opposes the mayor's proposal to delay the net zero building code for a year.

The council passed the law requiring the net zero code in 2022, five years before it would take effect.

The mayor has done nothing to implement it and is now seeking a delay.

Her inaction should not be an excuse for moving back the deadline.

The net zero code is essential to cutting utility bills, reducing local air pollution, and cutting climate pollution from fossil fuels.

Net zero buildings are all electric and do not burn fossil fuels.

They're highly energy efficient, reducing energy costs, and they maximize the use of electricity from renewable sources.

Of these uh features of net zero buildings, the all-electric requirement is most crucial.

A new building built today with methane gas equipment will continue polluting with fossil fuels for decades to come.

Uh, this has also been touched on, but I want to talk about uh the mayor's energy surcharge, which uh the council renamed last year to make clear that these funds are not being used for sustainable energy.

Uh, seeking to evade responsibility for her misuse of this fee, the mayor now proposes to change the name to the District Energy Fund.

The Sierra Club opposes this name change, and we request a statutory mandate that gas and electric utilities be required to print on utility bills the full name of the two funds, the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund and the Mayor's Energy Surcharge Fund, rather than using acronyms that people do not know.

Uh, thank you again uh for the opportunity to testify today, and uh please fix the DOEE budget.

Easy.

All right, thank you.

Uh next let me turn to Karen Schoben Robinson.

Good morning.

My name is Karen Chivon Robinson, and I submitted uh testimony uh through your portal.

I don't have my testimony with me because I cannot pull it up in the council chambers, but I wanted to speak to you from the heart.

As a former ANC commissioner, I know that every voice that comes in front of me or in front of you, no matter how inarticulate or whatever, is a voice that you all listen to.

So I am here to support city wildlife and the important work that they do.

Um other people, way more knowledgeable than I have, have um have testified about the good work that they do, but I want to talk to you about me as a regular citizen who just sees what they do on my Instagram account and how inspiring it is.

Um I saw a bird that it hit a window and had uh corneal injuries.

And they did their DC Wildlife magic, and I saw them go out, they had a video and they had the bird wrapped up in a little towel, and they went outside somewhere and they never tell you where, which is smart.

And they went outside and they released the bird, and I saw this bird just fly off.

And it's first thing in the morning, and I'm sitting in my bed grinning like an idiot.

Like, wow.

And I contribute a little bit to them every month.

But knowing that that little bit contributed to that living things being able to survive meant so much to me.

So I really 200,000.

That number that that dude gave earlier, like point zero.

There were like tons of zeros.

It was like, that's all.

Give them the freaking 200,000 dollars.

Like that's gonna help them.

They're gonna help the animals and everything.

And while I'm here, I heard two other things that I wanted to speak to.

One of which my dear friend Um Mike Tidwell runs C CAN.

So I find it so odd that I'm sitting next to you, but I would like to also encourage that they get the funding they need.

I've supported that organization for a really long time.

And the final and uh two other things.

One, I got hoodwinked by that Pepco thing.

I switched my energy bill, and I'm like, oh my gosh, I'm gonna do a really great thing.

I'm gonna go to sustainable energy.

My bills went up, and I didn't realize it was a scam until I started looking into it, and I was like, oh my gosh, how can they do this in the city?

So whatever that lady was saying you should do, I think you should do to save people like me.

If you can.

And then the last thing I wanted to say, that SETF thing, that I everybody needs to know about that.

Like, why isn't the press covering this?

I actually plan to drop a dime to 51st news and tell them about it because I didn't realize that fund that our money went to was being rated for something else.

And we know it can happen, but it shouldn't.

So I hope my inarticulate uh testimony here has helped you make some decisions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And uh your testimony was perfect.

Um we certainly have the written testimony and record included, but your From the Heart testimony was excellent.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Oscar Villa Lobos.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen uh and members of the committee.

My name is Oscar Bialobos, and I'm the Green New Deal organizer at DC Jobs of Justice.

And in my testimony uh today, I mainly want to talk about how these cuts will affect working class people because the climate crisis affects all of us, right?

Uh, this is not something that is theoretical anymore.

We see it every day uh in the district specifically.

Frankly, it is unacceptable, these cuts to the budget.

Um, year after year, um we have to fight back to clause some funding to protect programs that actually help uh district residents overall.

And the 28% cut to a 50% cut to the agency is frankly unacceptable.

We cannot, we cannot have this.

DC Council should fight to restore funding to programs that help low-income families transition away from harmful powerful gas, reduce waste in DC, and have safe options other than driving.

You champion transport transportation a lot, which we thank you for.

Um, and help clean our clean up our waterways.

I'm gonna list some concerns that we are DC Jobs Justice as an organization that we advocate for working class people in the city worry about uh for the cuts to this budget, especially specifically to do the OEE.

Um the first is the lack of healthy homes funding.

You've talked about it, many advocates here in the room has talked about it, but the head scratcher of not funding a measure that would lower utility bills for more than three thousand uh 30,000 homes in the city.

Uh they would receive electrification.

You talked about the resident in Ward 8, uh how impactful that that was.

And it's uh it's a head scratch for why wouldn't we fund this?

It would help the economy, it would help district residents uh for the argument that you know those who say that would they want to grow the economy.

I think that this is something that would help district residents a lot.

Um another one is utilities.

Um Pepco has uh been mentioned here, but also I want to reference Washington Gas wants to charge DC residents billions of dollars just to maintain its growing fossil fuel infrastructure.

It's more expensive and it's harmful for the health for our residents.

So it's economically bad and health-wise is even more so bad for the district.

Um, which again, I trying to scratch my head about the logic of all this in trying to understand the latest budget cuts in the proposals.

Um DC water, and I know that's sort of separate, but again, the lead pipes and the fact that we um as a city are doing uh not a good job of removing those lead pipes um fast enough so our district residents can have clean and drinking water, and I want to reference transportation.

Not only is this an economic justice measure for working folks in the district to move around the city and go to their jobs, but also it helps the environment.

The more folks use transportation, that lets there's drive their you know, folks drive cars.

Um and so this is again from a working people standpoint standpoint.

It's frankly disappointing to see all these cuts and like again, the argument is we want to grow the economy.

Well, this makes everything expensive for district residents, it's environmentally more bad for our city, and health-wise, it affects those most vulnerable in the city.

I think many folks testified about Ivy City and Brentwood and how district residents have to deal with heat light islands, for example.

Um these are the many concerns that adjustable justice we want to highlight in this testimony.

I want to thank the members of the committee, yourself, Chairperson Allen for the hearing today, and I'm happy to answer any questions and for a future panel and any considerations we have from.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

And then last of this panel, we're gonna turn to Trey Schardt who's joining us on Zoom.

So, Trey, let me turn to you now.

It is still morning.

Good morning, Councilmember and everyone else.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this.

Um I feel like we were just here a year ago, and that's because we were here a couple times, not actually a year ago.

The cuts to District Department of Energy and Environment are being phrased as you know, the agency needs to tighten its belt.

The agency is sharing the pain, and that that is not our understanding.

So, first and foremost, we understand that DOEE as an agency seems to be taking structural, massive cuts, multiple years in a row that are not reflective of what other agencies are taking.

Um, last year's budget, we saw a lot of agencies stay flat or close to flat, which in these kinds of inflation is taking a cut.

Um, but they didn't see the the overthird cut that DOE saw.

And that was not the first time, right?

Two years ago for this meeting, the energy parts of DOE took enormous cuts.

So when we talk about an agency-wide 35% cut last year, that was of an already smaller budget.

And when we talk about 28% cut this year, that is of an already smaller budget.

We're looking at a the Department of Energy and Environment right now that is well under half of the budget it was just three years ago.

A lot of that 28% cut for DOE this year, just like last year, has focused on the natural resources administration.

And that means that they have focused on things that impact the Anacostia River.

They impact the public's ability to be educated about the Anacostia River, and they impact people's enjoyment of that public resource.

There have been attacks again this year, just like last year on special purpose revenue funds.

We applaud the work being done.

We also need to look at structural problems beyond these cuts.

Um of the biggest sources of funding for natural resource administration is the stormwater fee.

And that stormwater fee was not intended when it was implemented over a decade ago to be static.

Um given the way prices have changed, given the fact that people need to get paid more now, given the fact that it's been that long.

That fee needs to come up, and we've seen it come up in neighboring jurisdictions.

Um for the the average home, we understand that fee to come out right now to about $32.

We see that fee being massively more in Montgomery County and even significantly higher in Prince George's County for similar sized homes.

We're also seeing another sweep this year of the Anacastria River Cleanup and Protection Fund.

And it was buried this year.

Um it was hard to find that.

A lot of advocates work together to find where those numbers were.

Uh, 535 or 542,000, over half a million dollars is being pulled from that fund.

At the same time as we're seeing these massive cuts, the cuts from last year have already done damage.

So just as we raised in this room a little under a year ago, the district's ability to meet its municipal separate stormwater sewer project permit has been compromised.

Um the district failed to meet some of those permit requirements last year.

We understand a big one of those was outside of DUAE, but within DPW's street sweeping program.

The district department of energy and environment on this latest report about last year's MS4 progress was not able to certify that the district is financially and structurally able to guarantee that it will meet the permit next year.

That's the first time they've had to say that in a very long time.

The district used to be the shining star.

We need the district to take back its role as a leader on stormwater.

That fund, the bag fee fund also funds boat tours.

We see once again there is no funding for boat tours this year.

Boat tours aren't just fun, right?

Boat tours are education.

Boat tours are a way to heal decades deep.

Societal splits where we have prevented people from engaging with their Anacostia River.

People were told not to go anywhere near that dirty dangerous river.

The boat tour program was a really forward-thinking, really effective way to introduce people back to their own asset, their own treasure in their own backyard with the Anacostia River, and to let that come back up from the bottom up through the populace of the public about the way that they want to protect that river and see it be improved.

We are thankful to see restoration of the trash trap grant, although that's at two years ago dollars despite inflation.

We are grateful to see the restoration of some money for a hickey run cleanup.

But there's a lot of other work that needs to be put back in boat tours, water quality, especially after the spills that we've seen lately.

Thank you for the time.

We'll add the rest of our testimony, and I'll be here for questions.

All right, thank you very much.

Um thanks to everybody on this panel.

Um I appreciate the testimony.

We're all hitting the same theme.

Um the cuts are unacceptable, it's a walk away, it's a choice.

Um I think, you know, Trey, you talked about this as being framed as belt tightening.

I I don't know who's even trying to say that it's belt tightening.

Um, because there's there's just no way that a 50%, nearly 50% reduction over two years is belt tightening.

This is a intentional disassembling of an agency that does incredible work for our city.

Um they are structural massive cuts that are coming.

I think you you hit that.

So I think that's really important.

The hard part in this is uh, and because we are all in agreement.

Asking you questions about certain like how bad is it gonna be?

Like I think we all agree, like it will be very bad if this budget is proposed uh as is.

Um, we talked about uh Trey, you mentioned the uh bag bill funding, Anacosha River Fund.

It's 542,000.

They tried it last year, they've tried it before.

We have to keep trying to put it back together again.

I think the bigger theme that uh our very first witness um kind of kept highlighting was trying to hoodwink people.

I mean, that's it.

So let's think through uh what is that Anacosia River Fund?

Where does it come from?

It comes from a five cent fee on bags.

When that law was passed, it's very clearly communicated to the city, to businesses, to residents.

We are trying to discourage single-use plastic bags, which it did very significantly.

But for the bags that are used, this fee is going to get reinvested back into our river.

And that was a deal we made.

This is a broken deal.

People are being hoodwinked.

We talked about the SETF.

We said, all right, everybody's gonna uh chip in.

People, businesses, you're gonna see this fee.

We're gonna reinvest it back into your city, reinvest it back into these programs.

It's all being swept.

You're being hoodwinked.

Um, I'll say it's not just this committee.

Um, if I look out at this proposed budget in other ways, uh for anybody who's familiar with the paid family leave program.

Um, businesses pay uh small payroll tax um to help cover that fund.

This proposed budget cuts all your paid family leave benefits and reduces them significantly, doesn't change the tax rate.

So for your businesses, you're paying the exact same tax rate.

You've been hoodwinked just over and over and over again in this budget.

It is hurting our businesses, it's hurting our residences, and then it is hurting the way that we invest back into the growth of our city of taking care of our people, of our small businesses, of our river, all of it.

So you're gonna continue to hear a voice of frustration from me in terms of just the overall themes of this budget, but you'll also hear a commitment from me of working with you and working with others to try to figure out how do we help repair this.

Um, no one's gonna pretend this is an easy budget.

I hope nobody's gonna pretend that.

This is a challenging budget.

What the Trump effect has had across the district and our region is devastating.

We have tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs.

We have a massive impact.

One of our witnesses earlier talked about what what all has happened in terms of the ability to uh to hurt our city, they've they've done it.

So we shouldn't, we should all be clear-eyed.

We shouldn't pretend it's not a difficult budget, but back to choices.

We have choices to make.

And the proposed budget makes choices that I don't support.

And that is why we're here at the council to try to think about what those choices are, and not just in the narrow context of, hey, can I go find some more money within this to figure it out?

We're gonna have to think about big choices in our city and what it is that we are gonna look at to help repair some of this, not just for this year, but frankly, to set ourselves up for the next several years to come.

Um I don't have any specific questions because you all did so beautifully uh helped highlight what the problems are.

You have my support of trying to fix what we're seeing in this budget.

Um, I think uh Mr.

Villalobos, you kind of said it like we're here every year.

Like the we're having the same conversation roughly that we had last year, which was a version of the conversation we had the year before that, which is a version of the conversation we had a year before that.

Um it is it is a we need a wholesale change of the approach to how we fund and sustain our Department of Energy and Environment and the work that we're trying to do with that.

Um there's no version of this as built tightening.

It's a dismantling.

So I appreciate all your testimony, and I look forward to working with you in the weeks uh ahead as we move towards what we can do in our committee markup and then to the full council when I know I will have more colleagues on board with that too.

So thank you all very much.

All right, for our next panel.

If Javier is ready.

Javier, would you like to take a seat right there on the corner?

And then if your mom wants to join you, that's fine, or if she just wants to stay right there, you're good to go.

Let me see if MJ Gray, who's with Appleseed, is here.

I thought I saw MJ here.

All right, there we go.

Andrew Schichtel with Casey Trees.

I saw Andrew here.

And Christopher Williams, President CEO of the Anacostia Watershed Society.

I saw Chris here.

And then I believe we have uh Mateus Costian online.

So, Mateus, I'm gonna you'll get a panel request, and if you can come on and we'll have you virtually.

All right, Javier, all you gotta do, you push that button, the red light comes on, and that's how we can hear you, and you're gonna do great.

Are you ready, Javier?

Okay.

It is all yours whenever you're ready.

Good morning.

I am Javier R.

I am almost eight years old and I go to school at Mundo Vete.

I am in second grade.

I learned in school that humans can change the world and protect the environment.

That is why I'm here to testify on the budget for the Department of Energy and Environment.

This is important to me because when I hear about endangered animals, I want to help.

I learned that DC has endangered animals that live here, like the spotted turtle and the red-headed woodpecker.

The Department of Energy and Environment, Natural Resources Administration protects and cleans up green spaces and waterways.

When our environment is healthier, endangered animals have a better chance at repopulate, and the Department of Energy and Environment doesn't have enough money in the mayor's budget.

The department's budget has been cut by 20 28%.

This will hurt the department's work and the environment.

Adults need to protect the environment before it's too late.

Pollution, climate change, and aging pipes are threatening our environment right now.

It's not too late.

You can help protect the environment.

Please restore the budget of the Department of Energy and Environment.

The Natural Resources Administration and the Stormwater Fund.

Kids are counting on you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Javier.

Great job.

Javier, was that your first time testifying at the council?

Yeah?

You seem like a pro.

All right.

We did a great job.

All right, I'm gonna come back.

If you're if you're okay with it, stay there.

We're gonna let the other people do their testimony.

I'm gonna come back and ask some questions, and I have a question for you at that point, okay?

All right.

Okay.

MJ Gray, let me turn to you.

Chairman Allen, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the proposed fiscal year 2027 budget for the DC Department of Energy and Environment.

My name's MJ Gray, and I'm a policy fellow at the DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice.

DC Appleseed has championed the restoration of the Anacostia River for over 20 years, during which time the district has made major advancements from trash traps to the plastic bag fee.

But Mayor Bowser's proposed 2027 budget continues a concerning trend towards cutting critical environmental investments.

Today we asked this committee to reverse the proposed sweep of the Anacostia River Cleanup Fund and cuts to the Natural Resources Administration that will threaten progress on the Anacostia by reducing key staff and cutting watershed investments.

The fiscal year 2026 revised Local Budget Emergency Act, which was just introduced on April 14th as part of the 2027 budget proposal, diverts more than 540,000 from the Anacostia River Cleanup Fund or the Bag Fund into the general fund.

Last year, the mayor proposed converting the bag fund into a lapsing fund that would automatically sweep its balance at the end of each fiscal year.

We are immensely grateful for the council's acting to preserve the fund as non-lapsing, but the current proposal effectively achieves the same outcome by sweeping funds on the back end, along with other critical funds like the stormwater fees and renewable energy development funds.

District consumers pay the five cent bag fee with the understanding that it will support the Anacostia River.

Diverting those funds undermines that commitment, erodes public trust, and weakens DC's leadership in the environmental reinvestment.

The district government should not rely on special purpose revenue funds to balance the budget, and we urge the council again to uphold its original commitment to the bag fund.

Next, I want to highlight two proposed cuts to DOEE's natural resources administration.

First, the mayor's proposed budget eliminates 24 full-time equivalent positions.

These include roles in the water quality and watershed protection divisions responsible for stormwater compliance, green infrastructure maintenance, and river smart programs.

DUEEE staff are among the district's most valuable assets in advancing environmental protection, climate resilience, and public health.

This decision comes amid unprecedented federal staffing cuts at the EPA, which is down 24% in the last year.

As federal capacity shrinks, DUEEE must serve as the district's primary line of defense for our environment, and cuts at the local level only deepen the gap and leave our waterways more vulnerable.

Second, the budget eliminates necessary funds for the Office of District Waterways Management.

The DC Council created this office to plan, coordinate, and manage the use of district waterways, balancing diverse considerations from safety to economic development.

Newly appointed members of the Waterways Advisory Commission stand ready to advise the Office of District Waterways, but the proposed budget eliminates key consultant support needed to gather stakeholder input, conduct technical analysis, and produce a comprehensive plan.

Without this support, progress will likely slow and coordination will suffer.

This comes at a critical moment.

The district is preparing for major waterfront development along the Anacostia, including the RFK Stadium site and Poplar Point.

These projects represent billions of dollars in investment, and waterways are central to their success.

Cutting funds designated for careful planning is a false economy, and the district has only one chance at getting these major investments right.

The Office of District Waterways Management furthers the work of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative of 2003, which remains embedded in district law and establishes a framework for development to balance economic growth, environmental restoration, and equitable access.

The Office of District Waterways Management can continue the work of the AWI by convening agencies and stakeholders, producing detailed planning analysis, and ensuring that development decisions reflect the district's long-standing commitments.

But it can do those things only if sufficiently resourced.

Taken together with cuts throughout the Natural Resources Administration, these changes significantly weaken the district's overall approach to protecting its rivers and streams.

We urge the council to consider the mayor's proposed cuts in the context of recent events, specifically the Potomac River Interceptor Lake, which has already triggered legal action by the U.S.

Department of Justice against DCF water.

This incident highlights the importance of strong water quality oversight and infrastructure management.

Now is the time to strengthen investment, not reduce it.

In closing, we urge the council to reverse the sweep of the bag fund, staffing cuts within the watershed protection and water quality programs, and funding for the Office of District Waterways Management.

Short-term savings achieved through these cuts will not offset the long-term costs of inadequate planning, environmental degradation, and missed opportunities for sustainable development.

Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Gray.

Next, let me turn to Andrew Shuttle.

Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairperson Allen, for your commitment to environmentalism in Washington, D.C.

We appreciate your interest in our programs and their efficacy in the district.

My name is Andrew Schickdoll.

I'm the executive director at Casey Trees and a resident of Historic Anacostia in Ward 8.

Washington, DC is known for its vibrant parks, lush green tree canopy, and commitment to sustainability.

Qualities that make our city healthy and resilient.

This placement and position of our city as a green oasis happened because the district has been proactive and consistent with our investments and environmental priorities.

Assets that now make DC an exceptional place to live, do business, and visit.

The proposed budget threatens to undermine decades of progress by making dramatic cuts to the very programs that protect our environment, support public health, ensure green jobs, and build climate resilience.

The Department of Energy and the Environment is facing a 28% budget reduction, compounded by the fact that many federal funds will be left unspent because there are no local commitments of funds to match.

This means many DOEE programs are said to be abandoned or severely underfunded.

These programs are critical to our communities, particularly, particularly those disproportionately experiencing climate change impacts.

Pulling back now and redirecting special purpose funds is going to make our city less sustainable, our most vulnerable residents less resilient, and our city's children less knowledgeable about their environment.

While we want to see all DOE's funding restored, we are particularly concerned about the future of the following green investments.

DOE is the only agency funding applied environmental education for our city's children.

The Nature Near Schools grant helps fourth and fifth grade students outside get outside and learning about our environment.

This programming takes place at Title I schools with the assistance of over seven nonprofits, including Casey Trees.

These funds are once again set to be slashed from a funding high two years ago, reducing the number of children served.

We ask the council to support our most vulnerable kids and fully restore these funds in 2027.

DOEE is also the primary agency task with managing the city's natural spaces.

This includes the remaining woodlands, wetlands, and meadows that function as urban sanctuaries for biodiversity and connecting our residents to nearby nature.

They manage invasive species and train partners in this work, building green jobs and funding them through park maintenance grants.

This year, park maintenance grants are set to be eliminated and invasive plant management funds cut in half.

In addition, DOEE's green infrastructure maintenance program is also zeroed out for a second year in a row, effectively undermining the investments the district has already made in stormwater management by reducing our capacity to meet MS4 permit requirements.

Putting into jeopardy federal funding that requires local match and reducing green jobs and training of our residents most in need.

The district has dedicated years of work and investment in the green fabric of our city.

Our green infrastructure requires ongoing care and maintenance, just like our gray infrastructure.

Collectively, these cuts send the message we are abandoning that work.

Historically, DOED's budget has largely been funded by fees accrued in special purpose uh revenue funds, as well as federal funds.

Unlike many agencies, GOE programs are largely self-funding.

Many of these SPRs, such as the stormwater fee, are meant to fund mitigation activities to offset environmental impacts.

However, as with the cost of living, these mitigation activities have faced increased costs, and the fee should be updated to reflect those rising costs.

Otherwise, we are shortchanging our environmental mitigation programs incrementally until they are rendered ineffective.

Protecting our environment, clean air, and clean water is paramount.

The investments we make today will pay dividends in public health, community, and climate resilience for generations to come.

Without acting now, we risk losing the progress we've made in leaving future generations with a less healthy, less resilient city.

Let's not leave our city's future behind.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any questions.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Williams.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you for this opportunity, uh Chairman and members of the committee, Connor.

Hello.

Yeah, it's good to see you all here this morning.

I'm Chris Williams.

I'm the president and CEO of the Anacostia Watershed Society, an organization that's dedicated to the uh protection and restoration of the Anacostia watershed for all who live here and for future generations.

It's a well-known saying amongst performers that you never want to follow kids or animals.

Uh and today I've followed uh a lot of cute wildlife in the wake of the arguments about city wildlife, and of course, we've all been put to shame by HeavyR's talent as a as a witness.

So I'll do my best.

I also don't want to repeat a bunch of things that have already been said.

Um I join the remarks of um DC Appleseed and Casey Trees, excuse me, not Casey Trees.

Yes, Casey Trees.

Uh, and the um uh Anacostia River keeper about the bag law fees.

Um so I just want to make a several quick points because we've sort of gotten to the we've heard a lot of this already portion of the of the hearing.

I just want to make one additional point about the um the special purpose funds, um, particularly those that are generated by the bag law.

As has been pointed out, these the bag law was in part a promise to district residents that they give a nickel for a bag and that nickel goes to fund these really important programs.

There are almost yearly attempts to sweep these funds, which last year, for example, the attempt was basically to sweep the entire fund, and thanks to the efforts of you, Chair Allen and this committee and the council, that effort was turned back.

However, then those funds were taken in by DOEE and just used to pay for regular operating expenses because DOE's budget had been so dramatically cut.

So in effect, many of those bag law programs weren't funded anyway, despite the fact that the bag law fees were sent to DOEE.

This year we're seeing a sweep of about half a million $540,000 or so.

That sweep should be turned back.

But in addition, there should also be language in the budget directing DOEE to spend these bag law funds on the programs they were they were intended to be spent upon, which are all clearly laid out in the 2009 bag law.

So it's sort of a two-step process.

One, prevent the sweep, two, make sure the money goes where it was intended to go by the 2009 law.

So I would urge uh this committee and the council to take that issue up as well.

Second point I would like to make excuse me.

It's really imperative that DOEE be adequately funded to fund its MS4 programs.

Not only are these programs incredibly important for water quality and for the health of the rivers and streams of the district, the green infrastructure programs, community stormwater solutions, both of which have been completely cut out of this budget.

Um River Smart programs, which have been not been completely cut, but they have been reduced, environmental education's program, as was mentioned before, that have been significantly reduced.

All these need to be fully funded from their various funding sources in order to support MS4 compliance.

Lack of MS4 compliance could put the district in significant legal and financial jeopardy going forward.

I warned about this in my testimony last year in another one of our groundhogs day moments.

Since then, there was a report at the end of 2005 which confirmed that DOEE is not bringing in enough funding through its its uh various funding sources to maintain compliance on the MS4 permit.

And here in 2026, there won't be a final report, of course, until the end of 2026.

But we're already seeing some pretty clear indications that the district is not meeting its requirements under the MS4 permit this year.

Again, so that legal and financial jeopardy that I warned about last year is becoming more and more real.

And when I say legal jeopardy, I mean subject to legal action.

When I say financial jeopardy, I mean if that legal action is successful, it could cost the district tens of thousands of dollars every day for every infraction of the MS4 permit.

So this is a really important issue that I think this committee and the council really needs to look to as it looks to the future of these conservation programs.

The last thing I want to mention is we've talked a lot about restoring funding.

We need to start talking a little bit about maybe finding some additional funding, because we all know what a difficult time, what a difficult budget time the district is in right now, due to a lot of factors, some of which are beyond the district's control.

One of them has already been mentioned earlier today, the stormwater fee.

Our stormwater fee here in DC is very much outdated.

It hasn't been changed in a decade.

It has fallen significantly behind stormwater fees in jurisdictions like Baltimore and Arlington.

I'm not suggesting that we adopt their fee structure, but there's clearly a lot of room for a new fee structure in DC that is more compatible with what others around the country are doing and can raise the necessary funds to continue these programs and keep us in compliance with our MS4 permit.

My testimony goes into many of these issues in a lot more detail, my written testimony.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Um next, let me turn to Mateus Pausyan, who is online and joining us virtually.

Good morning, um Chair Allen.

I hope you can hear me.

Yes, we can.

Great, wonderful.

So good morning, um good afternoon.

My name is Matthias Bostian.

I live in Ward 4.

I'll be commenting today on the district's implementation of the Federal IRA grant programs for home energy efficiency and home electrification measures.

So that program isn't working, and it's not working for two reasons.

First, um, as you know, uh the executive in this budget is once again defunding the local um matching dollars that we need to make um services under this program available at no cost to low-income residents.

And second, and perhaps is less well known, um, the way DUE currently implements the grant program is it it's it's currently excluding middle income households from access to those IRA rebates for which they are in principle eligible.

So let me uh expand on the second point.

Um federal IRA grant uh guidelines, a moderate income household can receive up to 50% of project costs for things like installations of a heat pump up to a maximum of $8,000.

That means a homeowner installing a heat pump for say 16 grand could receive $8,000 from federal IRA money and could pay another $8,000 out of pockets.

Obviously, low-income residents can't do that.

That's why we try to come up with local money, but moderate income foot uh people can't.

And to the best of my uh knowledge, currently there is no way that a moderate income household can access this IRA benefit because DOE has not set up the IRA home electrification uh program to serve moderate income residents at all.

So they're effectively locked out.

So you put these two things together, and we're in a shocking situation.

On paper, we have $58 million available to spend, but we're not providing local matching dollars so that low-income folks can actually use that, and we're not allowing moderate income homeowners to come up with their own co-payment and get the 50% benefit.

So effectively, we're currently not being able to spend the money properly.

We've only spend, as best as I can tell, around $3 million out of a total of $58 million.

So my concern is that we're gonna run through the eligibility period of this grant money and not being able to spend all of it.

In fact, we may not even spend a majority of it.

So to conclude, I urge um this committee to restore money to the SETF so that we have local matching funds to allow low-income residents to get 100% paid for services.

And I urge DOEE to immediately make these uh funds, at least part of them, available to moderate income homeowners as the IRA program uh intended.

And I appreciate all the work that you committee and everybody at DUE is doing.

Thank you so much for your time and attention.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Pastian.

Um, thank you everybody for your testimony.

Javier, I'm gonna start with you if you're okay with that.

So if you push the buttons, the red light comes on, that way we can hear your answer.

First off, you did a phenomenal job of testifying, so thank you very much.

It's important that you know not everybody can come down and testify in the middle of the day at the Wilson building, especially our younger voices.

So thank you very much for taking the time to do that.

Um you mentioned a couple of animals specifically, actually.

Um have you seen a red-headed woodpecker?

Um, have you heard?

Can you hear them sometimes?

Yeah.

Yeah.

I there's one that lives around my house too, and so we've we can hear it for sure.

And then my kids like to go out and we try to see if we can find it.

Um they're a little elusive, but they're good.

Um excellent.

So I appreciate your testimony, and as you probably have heard a little bit of some of the other folks throughout the day, they kind of share a lot of the same concerns you have that when this much money is being taken away from an agency, they have a harder, harder time being able to protect that red woodpecker or create an opportunity for your school to go out on the river.

Um you heard Trey talk earlier about some of the trips that they take.

So all those educational opportunities that really support our students also get impacted.

Um I really appreciate your testimony because I think it helps us and reminds us a real impact, because if this budget passes as is, you and your friends won't be able to go out on the river as much.

Uh if this passes, um, we don't have the protections for that woodpecker you might hear in the neighborhood.

That's why we're trying to fix this.

And so I really appreciate you taking the time to come out and testify.

So thank you very much, Javier.

Um to our other panelists, you also did well.

But I mean, you had a tough act to follow.

Um, you know, one of the things that I was listening, Mr.

Williams, is you were talking about um special purpose revenue.

What one of the reasons why DOEE has so much what we call special purpose revenue, meaning that we have certain types of ways in which revenue gets generated and then it comes back into the agency.

Frankly, is because we did not see this administration funding the agency just out of general revenue.

And so when we said, all right, you're not going to make it a priority for your general revenue like you would other agencies, then let's figure out different ways so that an agency can do what it needs to do.

So great example is the bag bill, trying to think through how could this be used in a way to make sure that resources came back in.

We had to protect that.

Um's another example.

What are other ways that we try to raise revenue to then be able to do the things we want to do?

It is frustrating that even with that effort, we see those things just get eliminated and get swept.

And it's year after year.

We will the challenge you you kind of talked about.

Is able to also put in what we call Budget Support Act language, which basically they can change the law in a proposal and they build the budget around that.

And it's a two step that we have to do to repair.

Yeah, I appreciate that point, Mr.

Chairman, and thank you for sharing that with us.

And I think that I think that point's embedded in a point you made earlier, which is that we're not seeing belt tightening around this agency.

What we're seeing is the dismantling of this agency.

And it's and this 50% cumulative cut over the last couple of years is the example of that.

And it's and it is it is illustrative of the fact that there is a there's kind of a debate going on between the past and the future.

Between, you know, are we gonna go back to the dirty Anacostia River and the uh polluted DC air, or are we gonna keep moving forward in the way that DOEE has led us to do so in the last few years?

But you also uh shared a story about seeing eagles and osprey on the ball field near Anacosu River.

Uh and I can't remember the context in which you said that, but as you said that I was thinking about well, the reason that we're seeing more eagles, we're seeing more ospreys, and we're seeing more beavers, and we're seeing more otters in the Anacosti River, is because of these very programs we're talking about today.

And they are having an impact.

That's just one example of the impact that these programs are having on the environment in DC.

So again, this is a larger conversation about do we want to turn back from all that progress, or do we want to keep moving forward?

Um it's a larger conversation than the the bag law fund.

So while while I see your point, um we need to keep pushing this issue at all scales, whether it's the bag law or whether it's environmental protection in general in the district.

Right.

And well, and I'll I'll go one further as well as we think about our MS4 requirements, not just goals or aspirations, but legal requirements.

Um we heard last year in the budget that the budget last year meant that when I asked the question of the director, will we be able to meet our side of MS4 requirements?

No.

So how a budget that cuts another 25 to 30 percent is gonna somehow we're gonna be able to.

We are exposing ourselves, we are choosing to expose ourselves to a massive legal liability.

You may not think that this federal EPA cares all that much uh about these issues, but they have demonstrated that they care about the district, and I wouldn't put it past them to say I got a chance to kind of put my finger in the eye of DC.

It may not really be because of environmental protection, but they see an opportunity to come in and mess with DC.

So we're we're opening the door for that, which makes no sense strategically with a federal administration, but it's also the wrong thing to do for our river and for our environment and for the communities around it.

So I appreciate you mentioned that I know the MS4 can get a little wonky for some folks, but it's it is a legal requirement, and we're not upholding our end of the bargain.

Um I want to thank everybody for your testimony today.

I really appreciate it.

Um and again, we're gonna continue to count on you in the weeks to come uh to continue the advocacy and the work that we have.

So thank you all very much.

I'm gonna turn to our next panel.

Um I'll just gonna do as a reminder, because I know some people have kind of come in and out along the way.

Uh we had some people who had signed up virtual that actually showed up in person, which is great.

Uh, but we've shuffled around the panels a little bit and the best we can.

So if you feel like you're unclear about where we are exactly in the panel, just check in with my team over here to my left.

Um if you had signed up to be joining us virtually and you're actually here in person, that's lovely.

Just let us know.

So we'll try to make sure we get the panels set up since I only have four chairs at a time.

Um we'll work our way through this.

All right, our next panel, I'm gonna turn to I have Amanda Obisneko, Stormwater Manage, Stormwater Program Manager with the Nature Conservancy.

Alana Mintz, founder and executive director of Urban Adventure Squad.

Ann Du Boy, public witness.

I think Ann is joining us online.

So Ann, look out for a panel promotion.

We're gonna move you over right now.

Stephanie Miller, public witness.

Right.

Uh Evan's joining us virtually, so we've got you.

All right.

Do we have Teresa Martin here?

Yep.

With Living Classrooms, National Capital Region.

All right, excellent.

Um, Amanda, we'll start with you.

Good afternoon.

Hello.

Um, I'm Amanda Omisenko.

I'm here on behalf of the Nature Conservancy.

Um, I feel like I have big shoes to fill sitting in the seat, but it is also my first time testifying, even though I may be a little bit older.

Javier, give me the bravery.

You don't know.

I'll try to fill the shoes.

We don't have any certificates or anything for your first time.

But you're gonna do great.

Well, I just want to start by saying first and foremost, I am a scientist at heart.

I am here on behalf of the nature conservancy, and we have much more qualified policy people who know all of the ins and outs that have helped me build this testimony.

Um, but from my personal experience, I have worked in water quality in places all over the world that have they don't have the privilege of taking advantage of their water resources the way that we do.

And so that is why I've dedicated my life to protecting water quality and am now here in the district with the Nature Conservancy.

We are a global organization working in DC to advance cost-effective solutions that improve water quality, reduce flooding, and build a more resilient city.

We have worked closely with DWE for many years to do just that, and we're involved in the beginning of the district's stormwater retention credit program, or SRC for short.

I know we have a lot of jargons, so that's what SRC means, which started back in 2013.

The SRC program is a national model that turns stormwater compliance into a market, leveraging millions in private investment to build green infrastructure that reduces flooding, cleans our rivers, and creates local jobs.

This is important because stormwater runoff is the largest source of pollution in the Anna Costia and the Potomac, and DC is required, as we've mentioned a couple times now, through the MS4 permit to capture millions of gallons annually.

SRC projects help do just that faster and at a lower cost to the city.

And right now, with all these budget issues, we need it more now than ever.

DOE's budget has been cut 43% since FY25, with about 137 million dollar reduction.

Even without federal impacts, it's still down 12%.

And every year more gets taken.

Stormwater funding was significantly reduced last year, leaving the stormwater enterprise fund well below what's needed.

The once 24 million dollar fund is now down to 13, with 4.5 of it being diverted to the DPW for street sweeping, which we have also covered at length today.

As a result, DOEE is about 70% below the funding needed to meet MS4 requirements, and they had to report to the EPA, as Trey and Chris have mentioned as well, that we are not able to meet those regulations.

Putting DC at risk of enforcement and higher costs, which you also said.

This is why the SRC program is so critical.

It lowers long-term infrastructure costs, accelerates compliance, and delivers real results.

And despite these constraints, this program is growing.

Just this October, a ruling was passed that prioritizes high-impact projects, driving more efficient projects that deliver greater stormwater benefits per dollar invested.

And the Pathways Mentorship Grant Program kicked off at the beginning of this year, which is actively building a pipeline of local developers, contractors, and small businesses who will be trained and benefit from this work.

DC has built a model other cities are trying to replicate, and it's working.

With heavier rainfall and increased flooding risks, this is the moment to lead, not to step back.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

All right, next let me turn to Ms.

Mince.

My name is Ilana Mince, and I'm the founder and executive director of Urban Adventure Squad, a nonprofit education organization that partners with DC schools and communities to provide equitable curriculum-aligned outdoor learning programs during and outside the school day, particularly in underserved neighborhoods.

A few years ago, I was in a meeting for grantees of the Department of Energy and Environment.

One of the topics was the difficulty in recruiting homeowners for free upgrades to their property that would help reduce the effects of stormwater, which causes flooding and carries trash and debris into sewers and local waterways.

I didn't learn about the effects of stormwater on pollution and floods as a child.

But thanks to DOE grants, children in DC elementary and middle schools are.

This work brings them outside, where they can move their bodies, take deep breaths, and reap the many well-documented benefits of learning outside, including higher levels of engagement, attention and retention, and reduced levels of stress.

As environmental education is integrated into the DCPS curriculum in ways that give students hands-on neighborhood connected outdoor learning experiences, children are more likely to become adults who are part of the solution through policy, engineering, construction, and advocacy that protect DC from the harmful effects of pollution and flooding.

Today, Urban Adventure Squad, in partnership with four other local nonprofits, Casey Trees, Living Classrooms, Nature Forward, and the Anacostia Watershed Society brings our Nature Near Schools environmental literacy program to 1,200 fourth graders and 28 Title I DC public schools.

An additional 700 fifth graders in 27 Title I DC schools experience overnight programming with Nature Bridge and the Alice Ferguson Foundation.

Many people passing through this room today spend their time ensuring that the various parts of our ecosystem, water, wildlife, green space, help keep DC residents and visitors safe and healthy.

They monitor water quality, clean up trash, build infrastructure that reduces the flow of stormwater, plant trees, and rehabilitate wildlife.

Can we do without them?

Like any ecosystem struggling to remain in balance, removing one species can have significant damaging effects.

For example, DC, like most cities, has a rat problem.

Do you know who's part of the pest control squad?

Hawks, eagles, owls.

But when these raptors eat a rat that's eaten rat poison, they can die.

If they're lucky, the people at City Wildlife will save them, along with hundreds of birds, squirrels, turtles, and other wildlife wild species we identify with students on our urban adventures on and near school grounds.

If you want to see high levels of engagement among middle schoolers, ask them to think through the issue of how to control the rat population without using rat poison so that we can support wildlife and also manage our rat problem.

But the hits keep coming for our delicate ecosystem.

Despite the successes of low budget, high impact programs.

In this budget, City Wildlife's funding of about 200,000 has been completely wiped out, as has funding for the volunteer water quality monitoring program and free boat rides on the Anacostia River, which provide life-changing opportunities for thousands of students to experience their local majestic waterway.

DOE has had to absorb the largest cuts to any city agency.

And these cuts include unbelievably the only source of money for sustained environmental education, including Nature Near Schools and the Overnights, which actually support the district's own environmental literacy plan issued every three years by the Office of the State Superintendent for Education or Aussie.

Why these draconian cuts to so many services that affect the education of children in Title I public schools and the health and safety of DC residents.

There are many possibilities, but the one I keep coming back to is the fact that environmental initiatives like equitable outdoor learning initiatives are viewed as budget expendable.

They're nice to have, but they're not urgent.

So let's take environmental education because that's what we bring to this vulnerable ecosystem.

Without the modest funding that we and our partners need to safely and sustainably support equitable outdoor learning, those programs are disappearing.

Wealthier schools continue to provide opportunities with money raised through PTAs or other volunteer efforts, while poorer schools remain inside, and teachers invent new ways to address shrinking attention spans and the detriments of excessive screen time.

The current budget suggests that our basic needs as a functioning capital city will somehow be met without supporting the people and organizations who do that work, while at the same time somehow finding over a billion dollars in taxpayer funds to support a football stadium.

The money exists.

The question is, where will the money go and who will it benefit?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, I think we're going to turn online.

I think Ann, you're there.

I am.

Yes, there you go.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Allen and Council staff.

My name is Anne De Boys, and I'm a resident of Ward 3.

I'm here to advocate strongly for funding the critical expertise and vital efforts of the Department of Energy and Environment in supporting clean renewable energy in the district.

If someone my age can be called a poster child for all electric buildings, that would be me.

We had a serious natural gas leak in my multifamily building 51 days ago.

A team of plumbers continues working to fully restore gas service, and we think this effort has about another two weeks to go, followed by more weeks of other associated repairs.

The lead plumber showed me where a large leak has been sending gas into a confined space above ceiling panels for who knows how long.

This is an experienced plumber, and he was alarmed.

And that wasn't the leak that caused Washington gas to shut us down on March 12th.

That same day, a building in Woodley Park had to be fully evacuated for a potentially explosive gas leak.

Before this experience, I was passionate.

Now I am vehement.

I assert that it is high time to stop using this dangerous fuel for building heat and hot water and to accelerate the district's transition to clean and renewable energy.

I commend the DOEE, the DOEE's energy department in promoting electrification at neighborhood scale.

The recently announced efficient affordable resilient neighborhoods planning grant is intended to launch just the kind of program the district needs.

We cannot afford to treat solar and other distributed energy resources as aspirational.

The DOEE needs funding in order to hire external experts.

The hours required for participation by DOEE's excellent staff with the DC Public Service Commission to inform clean energy planning and regulation are essential, not optional.

We cannot allow the depletion of the Renewable Energy Development Fund.

The allocation for the DC SEU's base contract will be slashed in half and half by the constraints on the SETF.

The mayor does not like DOEE getting in the way of her development targets, and her hostility toward the agency shows up clearly at budget time.

DOEE faces another severe cut, over 28%.

This was already discussed in the last panel.

The DOE needs and deserves ample resources, not leftovers, and needs the support of council legislation to implement the development of third-party distributed energy resources that can power the districts, residents, homes, and businesses equitably and affordably into the future.

I salute you, Chair Allen, for being a clean renewable energy champion on the council, and I know you will not stop.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Stephanie Miller.

Councilmember Allen and staff, uh, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I'm Stephanie Miller.

I'm a long-time Ward 4 resident before that Ward 6 resident, a volunteer with the Sierra Club DC chapter, and a small business owner focused on sustainable living.

I want to give my personal perspective and then be a little additive to the Sierra Club testimony.

I love DC, but I hate the pollution I see all around this beautiful city.

I notice it when I take walks and bike rides in nearby Rock Creek Park, when I drive along the streets, and of course, when I do river and park cleanups, such as the one I participated in a couple of weeks ago, where a group of us picked up over 200 bottles and cans in one tiny part of the Anacostia River tributary over the space of about an hour.

200.

Besides the visual pollution and harm to wildlife, I'm increasingly concerned about the health impacts of microplastics in our waterways, in the air we breathe, and in the food and beverages we ingest.

It is alarming to learn from recent medical studies that microplastics and the harmful chemicals used in plastic production are having a harmful effect on human health.

For this reason, I am proud of the work Sierra Club has done to advocate for a bottle deposit bill in D.C.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen and other committee members for your leadership in co-introducing the bottle bill, and I eagerly await its passage this year.

In addition, I'm heartened by the fact that DC has passed important laws aimed at addressing our plastic pollution problem.

However, without education, outreach, and compliance, the goals these laws seek to advance risk becoming aspirational.

I urge the DC Council to require DOEE to fund annual outreach to all restaurants and food service entities to educate them about the district's existing laws.

This includes district bans on expanded polystyrene, plastic straws and stirs, and the requirement to only provide single-use utensils, condiment packets, and other food service accessories if a customer requests them.

This outreach is critical due to high staff turnover in restaurants and food service entities.

I understand that at DOE's recent budget briefing, the agency indicated it is exploring outreach mechanisms that could be effective, including social media and business improvement, district bid information sharing.

This kind of education and outreach should not require a large budget allocation.

I urge this committee to hold DOEE accountable for conducting annual outreach to all restaurant and food service entities.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, we're going to turn to Evan Raskin, who I think is joining us online.

So, Evan, uh when you're ready.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Yes, my name is Evan Raskin.

I am a Ward II resident here in DC and the national campaign manager for Earthday.org, which is also a headquartered here in Washington, D.C.

This is not a routine budget year.

The district faces real trade-offs.

And the question really is whether cuts to environmental programs reduce costs or simply create larger costs later through public health burdens, legal exposure, and deferred infrastructure needs.

Healthy homes, for instance, should be funded through the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund as a cost-saving measure.

Electrification retrofits reduce indoor air pollution linked to asthma and respiratory illness, lowering health costs, while also helping vulnerable residents manage utility bills, which is something of heightened importance with DC's near-term economic outlook.

Protecting these funds reduces downstream fiscal pressure.

We must also continue implementing the building energy performance standards and the net zero building code.

Energy efficiency lowers bills.

Lead service line remediation is a direct public health necessity as well.

The district has already seen the consequences of delay during the 2001 lead crisis, which exposed residents to lead levels 83 times higher than accepted safety limits and left thousands of children with lifelong health risks.

The long-term costs associated with reduced educational attainment, increased health care utilization, and workforce impacts substantially exceed the upfront cost of pipe replacement.

We cannot let this happen again.

The long-term cost of inaction exceed the upfront cost of replacement.

Maintaining the lead poisoning prevention fund is both prudent and necessary.

Stormwater management is also a compliance obligation.

Moving $4 million from a federally mandated stormwater fund to street sweeping risks fines and costly enforcement actions.

And in a year when the Potomac River has been named the number one most endangered river in America, preserving these funds is more important than ever.

And as we've heard from other people testifying today, there are also options to be able to use stormwater management fund towards street sweeping in a way that is responsible and additive towards the goals of those funds rather than diverting them away from their cause.

This budget would also eliminate the district's $200,000 support for city wildlife.

This modest investment supports wildlife rescue rehabilitation and responsible responses to human wildlife conflicts.

Removing it weakens an important part of the city's environmental stewardship and brings us further away from the values that we have as a community.

Zero waste enforcement and composting are similarly practical investments.

Better enforcement reduces cleanup costs, and composting lowers landfill fees and muffin emissions.

There are many ways in which we are taking great actions towards zero waste DC, such as the bottle bill.

But there are many existing plastics and zero waste regulations regulations that are currently in place that are underutilized and underenforced.

And it's really up to us to be able to create the funding mechanisms and the staffing required in order to carry out these programs effectively.

Cuts to core environmental functions do not eliminate these obligations.

They defer them, compound them, and make them more expensive.

The council should also restore funding, of course, to the Food Policy Council as well, which has promoted food access and sustainability in the district for the last 10 years.

With affordability pressures growing for DC residents, this capacity is becoming more important, not less.

Overall, the dedicated special purpose funds should not be swept in ways that create legal, programmatic, or financial instability.

Programs that reduce long-term liability, protect public health, and preserve federal compliance should be sustained because cuts would shift costs into more expensive systems.

Reductions in core environmental functions, again, do not eliminate these obligations.

They defer them, they compound them, and they make them more expensive.

We must preserve these programs that keep the city healthy and fiscally responsible.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Raskin.

And then let me turn to Teresa Martin.

Good afternoon.

My name is Teresa Martin and the managing director of Living Classrooms National Capital Region.

Councilmember Allen, Mr.

Feagan, I want to start my testimony with gratitude for the leadership of this committee and the incredible staff at DOEE.

We know that the last two years have been full of hard choices for everyone.

And when we start looking at dollars and policies in the budget process, it can be easy to lose sight of the real humans who are doing the good work under ever more challenging circumstances.

Thank you.

When we sat before you last year, many of our organizations warned of potentially dire consequences in defunding long-standing programs that restored and had maintained the Anacastia River.

We argued that the budget would take revenue from the Anacostia Cleanup and Protection Funds, revenue that continues to be generated through district bag fees and moves it into the general fund instead of rendering the intended services through grants that serve the river and the community.

With the council's technical restoration of those bag fee funds to the 26 budget, some things did stay the same for us and the community since then.

The Kingman Rangers program supports the valuable work of conservation, education, and community recreation on Kingman and Heritage Islands and on the river.

We are grateful that DOEE and the council value this public green space maintenance and workforce development program as much as we do as it continues to support residents and job growth, community access to the river, hands-on education for thousands of students, and protection of natural resources.

Some of our programs, though, were taken or reduced and later returned.

Nature and your schools program funding was decreased this year, and I am profoundly grateful to be part of a coalition of educators who know the power of hands-on outdoor place-based project-based learning to activate a generation of young environmentalists.

Our fearless leaders at Casey Trees took on the challenge of filling some of the gap that the district left for us this year, and the team got creative in changing systems to maximize impact.

We are grateful to see that in the 27 budget, the district is planning to restore some, though not all, of the support that allows us to reach nearly 2,000 students this year with the message that they can impact their watershed positively.

We all need that message.

Similarly, the Green Zone Environmental Program, a summer youth employment program, was slated by this year's budget to be shuttered in 26.

But we received notification very recently that this program providing direction, inspiration, and wages to hundreds of district youth in the critical of vulnerable summer months will be funded this summer.

We are grateful and confused, especially since this program already appears to be off the budget table again for 27.

When already awarded funds are terminated, we are of course happy when they are restored, but the whiplash leads a lasting impact as we pick back up neglected work and scramble to effectively plan budget, staffing, and programming.

We are also grateful and whiplashed about the proposed restoration of the trash chat funding.

We hope to return to supporting this critical piece of watershed infrastructure, and we're still baffled that it could ever been taken out of the budget to begin with.

Our organizations will go on or not.

But the thing that kept me up at night was that this critical work of caring for our river is just not happening, destroying the work that many of us have devoted our lives to.

We have to stop meeting like this.

Each year, we take time from the real work to come back to the council to fight to maintain our progress.

And every year it gets harder to believe that we'll ever reverse these cuts.

If we didn't have to be here, I might have asked you to come to meet us at Kingman Island to go paddling with students and community members, like we would have in olden times.

But that program is defunded too.

Green boats, like the Anacashia Boat Tours, the community storm motor solutions programs, have not been funded for FY26, and it's not in the FY27 budget.

Since the 26th voting season is just beginning, we haven't even felt the consequences of this year's budget limiting voting access to community and community programs to only the people who can pay for it.

And putting this responsibility of creating river stewards back on the nonprofits.

We'll do it.

We always have.

But fundraising these resources when we know the anacostic cleanup and protection funds still exist, that is still gathering funds through bag fees and enforcement, but is not being used for its intended purpose, depletes our time, effectiveness, and resolve.

It's demoralizing, but we persist.

Last year, many of us showed up to advocate for those anacology cleanup funds to be returned to the budget.

The funds were later returned, but the programs were not restored because the city had so dramatically slashed DOE's overall budget.

Again, DOE's overall budget is decreased more than almost any other agency.

And some of the bag fees are going to unknown parts of the district budget.

When a colleague asked a DOE forum recently, where the rest of those bad fee funds go, the answer was simply I don't know.

If we think of budgets as moral documents and we don't know where the money is going, the city's lack of values on sustainability and the environment become very clear.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And thanks to everybody on this panel for your testimony.

Um Ms.

Obas Ninko, uh, you did a great job in Javier's place, so congrats.

Um last year when they moved a bunch of funds over to street sweeping, and then tried to say that's all part of our grand MS4 uh compliance.

Technically, street sweeping can impact stormwater a bit.

I don't think it's what most of us would say that's that's gonna be the biggest uh impact.

If we are in a constrained budget environment and we're having to prioritize, so I'm kind of asking your science hat on here.

If we're prioritizing what has the biggest bang for the buck, what has cut what can have the most impact?

Do you have recommendations for us to think about if I'm in a I can't do everything, but I'm I'm constrained.

What would you be what would you recommend are some of the most impactful ways that we can um meet our MS4 requirements and have an impact on the stormwater management?

That's a great question.

Um yeah, I mean, that's that's a tall order to pick and choose.

I know that's where you guys have to deal with.

So um I have a special place in my heart for green infrastructure.

I think in our city, especially with the mayor pushing for more development in the city constantly and just the world as a general doing more development.

Green infrastructure is where is our best bet for where money should go, stormwater-wise, because it offsets and balances that kind of push that we're experiencing in the city.

Um otherwise, where's the water gonna go?

Um I've worked in other countries where they haven't prioritized protecting green space at all, and they find themselves in these gray islands, and their water just becomes completely unusable.

Um Cape Town being one of those areas they in South Africa, they they really struggled with that.

So to answer your question, I would say green infrastructure is the most important.

And however you guys are able to find a way to do that if it's through the stormwater enterprise fund um or another avenue.

That's what I would say.

Okay, that's helpful.

Thank you.

Ums Mintz, uh I love your expansive definition of a rat control squad.

Agree 100%.

Uh you just like that I got squad in there.

Yeah, I like that too.

But um, but no, I like that a lot.

Um there's uh it my alley has a handful of rats, just like uh a lot of DC, and um we've we've noticed a hawk not too long ago.

Yes.

All right, get to work.

Uh we like it.

Um, but we also want that hawk to survive and be there for us.

Um I had a constituent in a different part of award six not too long ago who found unfortunately um uh dead hawk in their backyard, and they were fairly certain it was um the poison from the rat that then we lost our bird.

So um it absolutely has an impact, and this can be part of the strategy, so thank you.

Um the budget, you I remember I think I know you were here at our hearing last year, and we were talking about many of the same things.

Did you end up having like talk about what the cut was to you last year and then a little bit more about the impact?

You you kind of heard me asking that to Mr.

Harrington and others.

Is it a reduction in staffing, reduction in programs?

I mean, obviously we had Javier here.

I want him and his friends to be able to go out and you know enjoy um what you provide.

Like what are some of the the things that were reduced or unpredictable?

So just the looking at just the the large line item that includes nature near schools, fourth grade environmental literacy on a near school grounds and the overnights.

The line item from a couple of years ago that was covering all those numbers was 700,000.

The line item from a couple of years ago that was covering all those numbers was 700,000, and it's a big bucket, and we all come together and figure all that out about how it's divided among the programs.

Then it was cut down to 245,000.

Uh I think that the motivation was that the was DOE had to legally serve 450 students.

That was the minimum under the Chesapeake Bay agreement.

I'm I hope that's correct the way I'm saying it.

So now it's going up a little bit to 490.

The great thing about having a grant coalition that includes the Nature Schools and Nature Bridge and Alice Ferguson is we try as hard as possible to come together and figure out what is under our control in terms of figuring out how the budget goes.

And then Casey Trees had really stepped up so that we did not have to back out of schools last year, which we would have had to.

So there we have to talk through all of that.

Are we going to reduce the number of classes per school?

Are we gonna back out of a particular school?

Um, I only just heard this week that some of this money was going to be restored, but we don't yet know how it's going to be divided among us.

Um but we are just like Teresa expressed a lot of gratitude.

We're extremely grateful for our partnerships because we have to have honest, sometimes hard conversations, but the aim is always how can we serve first of all the same number of students and how can we scale up?

Scaling up is like impossible now.

We're just really trying not to cut and back out of schools.

Um for urban adventure squad, we're small enough that we don't anticipate any immediate layoffs.

Um you know, it's it's like Teresa said it's whiplash because we were thinking of this as a in a very different way.

Some money is restored, so how is that going to affect our 26 to 27 school year partnerships?

And so, you know, I guess the long way of saying it's all part of a larger conversation because it is a bucket of money, and that bucket of money was almost empty, and then it's a little bit more, but we're nowhere near where we are to actually fund serving those numbers of students.

We're all each of our nonprofits are scrambling to figure out what other money can we plug in to make up for this giant hole.

Well, thank you, because uh you kind of answered what I was gonna ask Ms.

Martin, and I'll I'll give you a chance to talk about this as well.

Because part of the frustration I think for a lot of our providers and relationships is that whiplash is that you're funded, no, you're not funded.

Might get some of it back, not sure.

Oh, wait, we restored it.

You it's it's not just a transaction.

You have to hire staff, you have to have the relationships, you have to prove to those partners that you're working with, be at a school that you can deliver, otherwise you're an unreliable partner and they're not gonna partner with you.

Um, Ms.

Martin, if you want to talk, you kind of hinted at that, and and I think Miss Mint's kind of outlined what sounds like what I thought would happen, but is that what you're experiencing as well?

How's it how do you manage staff expectations, or even if you can hire somebody?

Right.

I mean, a few years ago we had more rangers than we do now, more full-time rangers than we do now, more educators than we do now, and we've not filled those positions because of uncertainty.

We're we're able to meet what we need to do, but it's under everyone's working harder, and everyone is much more exhausted doing the work because it's important.

We need to do this work, but um, we're doing it with much less resources, and that doesn't allow us to do the work that we were able to do just even a couple years ago.

Yeah.

Um you mentioned about Kingman Island the the other day, my son and I went over to Cayman Island and fished um for a little bit in the river, um, didn't catch anything, but it's okay.

Um but um as we walked out, the the place where we would have the canoes that would put in, you know, just it was palpable how inactive it was.

Um there were people out enjoying the island, enjoying the river, uh, a couple of the folks fishing, but you could feel that a couple of years ago we just had a lot more activity going on.

We had those canoes going out, we had folks that were able to kind of get out into the water and enjoy a really great part of our city, and it's getting whittled away.

Uh and it's you can feel it uh when you go out there.

So the budget as proposed, we'll continue whittling it away, but we're gonna do everything we can to restore and put it back together again and try to set it up so that we get back to growing it, because I think that's a really great place where you create jobs, you create opportunities.

Um this isn't just an environmental effort, like it it is workforce, it is educational, it is many, many things, and so we're gonna continue to push on that.

So I appreciate it.

Um to our online witnesses, thank you very much, Mr.

Raskin, for your testimony.

Um, and Ann, um, I appreciated your testimony.

I'll give you a chance if you'd like to kind of add to this.

You talked about it being essential, not optional.

Anything you want to just add about?

The risks of not investing in a cleaner energy grid and energy sources.

Um what do you think is at stake if we if we don't do it or if we slow walk?

Well, I'll I'll speak specifically to the DOEE because they have a very active role with formal case 1182, which is the uh integrated distribution system planning uh docket, and that's going on right now.

We need them.

Uh they are a very, very significant stakeholder in this process.

I would say more significant than the consultants themselves.

If we don't have a clean energy grid, uh, we're just we're facing these astronaut astronomical costs.

We need we really need third-party distributed energy resources, so we can we can wean ourselves off PJM.

Uh we can be more self-reliant.

The idea of micro-grid projects uh proliferating.

This is, you know, this is a dream, I recognize, but throughout the district uh to serve neighborhoods is is something we really really need to pursue.

And DOEE is critical as as a partner in this development, along with the council to legislate.

Does that answer the question?

Yep.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

All right.

Um I know we got a lot more witnesses to get to, so I'm gonna keep moving, but thank you all very much for your testimony today.

Appreciate it.

All right, let me move to our next panel of witnesses.

I have Lauren Crost, Director of Living Classrooms.

Brendan Shane, Climate Director for Trust for Public Land.

Annie Acosta, DC Environmental Network.

Jim Mansma, public witness.

All right, and then we'll see.

Holly Pollinger is here.

Okay.

All right, Holly.

I'll be on the next panel, so I'm just I'm I'm filling up my seats here.

So you're you're on deck, so be ready.

But let me see if I've got a couple of folks that are online as well.

Jamie Alberti with the Alliance for Chesapeake Bay.

All right, Jamie, we're gonna send you a panelist invite so you can move over.

Patrick Cawthern, policy attorney with Children's Law Center, also online, so we're gonna put you on there.

And Mary Thomas, director of the Building Innovation Hub Institute for Market Transformation.

Okay.

And then I have Commissioner Abel Amene, who I think is online.

All right, so if you can accept the panelist, we'll put you on there.

All right.

Lauren Cross.

We have you up first.

Good morning.

Lauren Crossed, director of Kingman Island for Living Classrooms.

Um, I want to thank you for allowing us to testify.

And I am immensely grateful that the Kingman Rangers grant is fully funded, and that the trash traps are uh included in this budget cycle.

This is critical work, and we see firsthand the damage that losing that trash cage funding caused the watershed, and there is currently no organization pulling garbage uh from the water.

The Kingman Rangers, among other groups, helped the district meet its MS4 permit requirements through trash collection and data submission.

We continued that work even during the period when the trash interceptor we had previously maintained was removed and stopped collecting debris that was entering the Anacostia River.

It's disappointing that it takes a federal violation, a threat of a violation, uh, to compel the mayor to do the right thing, uh, but whatever means necessary, I suppose.

Um, but I do want to address some of the proposed cuts to other programs.

Uh eliminating funding for the invasive plant removal program would roll back thousands of hours of work, removing species that suffocate and kill our native tree canopy and destroy habitat that our native wildlife depends on all over the city, but especially in Ward 7 and 8, where that canopy is scarce to begin with.

Kingman and Heritage Islands sit on a major migratory bird flight path, and both migratory visitors and year-round residents depend on that native vegetation.

The consequences of losing that progress are not abstract, they are measurable and lasting.

Which brings me to my deepest concern, which is the proposed elimination of city wildlife's funding.

Before joining living classrooms, I spent years in animal welfare.

I began my career in animal control in the district in the year 2000 when there was no city wildlife.

As an officer, I responded to calls across the city involving sick, injured, and orphan animals.

The outcomes were poor.

The watershed was degraded, concern for urban wildlife was minimal.

And the nearest rehabilitation center, which would only accept certain species was in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and that's an hour away on a good day.

When City Wildlife opened, outcomes for those same animals, many of them species of greatest conservation need, as identified by Department of Energy and Environment, improved dramatically.

The public finally had a place to call with real experts who could answer questions, ease concerns, and receive animals that needed care.

I'm also a licensed wildlife rehabilitator.

I completed my apprenticeship with City Wildlife and hold license number eight, meaning I was the eighth person in the district to legally authorized to care for wildlife, whether at City Wildlife or at a licensed animal care facility.

I say that to make a point.

In DC, unlike surrounding jurisdictions, wildlife rehabilitation cannot be done in a private home.

It requires a brick and mortar facility.

Becoming a licensed rehabilitator requires a four-season, two-year apprenticeship under an existing licensed rehabilitator.

Without city wildlife, that pipeline disappears.

Anyone seeking like licensure would need to apprentice in Virginia or Maryland and navigate a licensed transfer process.

It's a significant barrier that would effectively eliminate rehabilitation capacity in the district.

City wildlife cared for more than 1,500 animals last year, roughly 125 animals per month, many requiring around the clock care.

They have done this on minimal district funding, and they have not merely maintained their work, they expanded the species that they are able to serve.

To eliminate their funding entirely is not a cut.

It is a collapse of the only wildlife rehabilitation infrastructure the city has.

During my time as wildlife program manager with DC Animal Control, I worked alongside City Wildlife on hundreds of calls, balancing public concern with animal welfare.

I still call on them today, and I bring the Kigman Rangers to their facility to train, learning about native wildlife, the challenges these animals face, and how to respond to the concerns on the the public brings to us.

The wide range of species city wildlife serves is worth naming.

Over the years I've personally brought to them Virginia rails, wood ducks, lesser scops, whip poor, American Binnairn, Little Blue Heron, Great Blue Heron, a great egret, least bittern, purple marten, palated woodpecker, bald eagles, wood thrushes, chimney swifts, common night hawks, woodcocks, kingfishers, American kestrels, pegrin falcons, and eastern worm snake, decays brown snakes, snapping turtles, box turtles, big brown bats, little brown bats, flying squirrels, beavers, groundhogs, possums, cottontails, chipmunks, and more.

These are not exotic animals.

They are our neighbors, the wildlife, the annual of the Anacostia watershed, and they have nowhere else to go.

I urge the council to restore City Wildlife's funding and to protect the invasive plant removal program.

The district has made real progress in the budget should not undo it.

Thank you very much.

And I'll note you also named uh the district's state mammal in that list.

So very good.

Um Do you know what the state mammal is?

Uh wood thrush is the bird.

State mammal is gonna it's a trick question.

Because it's a marsupial and it's a possum.

Yeah, it's the it's the bat.

Oh, it's the Oh, that's right.

The girl scouts named it the bat.

Girl scouts did it.

I forgot.

Yep.

So that is most people don't know that a bat's a mammal, so they think it's something different.

Yes.

Excellent.

Well, thank you very much for testimony.

All right, Brendan Shane, we'll turn to you.

Yeah, thank you.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, council members and staff.

My name is Brendan Shane.

I'm the I'm a Ward 3 resident, but also fortunate to be working across the district in my role with uh Trust for Public Land.

I'm also a former DDOE, now DOEE employee, so speaking with that experience top of mind.

Uh DOE, as many people here have recognized, is an amazing group of people who are driven by the mission of improving the quality of our natural environment that in turn protects the health and welfare of district residents.

They are a unique resource for our city.

Their experience should be valued and protected in the budget, and they should be given the resources to complete their mission.

Once again, that's not what we see in the mayor's budget.

The cuts are drastic, and as you've said today, Chairman, we'll have lasting impacts on our environment and services to residents.

There are a few uh sensible tweaks from last year, but I would characterize those as recognition that last year's cuts were ridiculous and put out us out of compliance with federal requirements like MS4, and they risk the loss of matching federal funds.

A few positive notes don't make up for the fact that dozens of staff positions are being eliminated, grants for community organizations that create jobs and expose district students to nature and special revenue purpose funds are all being rated.

These all these cuts undercut the benefits residents deserve.

As I and many others have said this year and that we said last year, these cuts and fund sweeps also undercut the Council's very clear intent that these funds were to deliver a cleaner and healthier district and bigger picture to make an important contribution to a cleaner and healthier region, nation, and planet.

I want to emphasize a point highlighted today by Councilmember Che that cuts to local funding, including special purpose revenues also put at risk federal funding, such as the clean water construction grants from APA and other programs where district funding counts as a match to federal funding.

Risking the loss of these freely available funds to benefit benefit our environment is uh is just crazy.

The Council needs to ask DD to identify any place where we may be leaving Federal funds on the table in this current budget proposal.

In my work at TPL, we continue to compile more and more evidence that people need access to nature and vibrant green spaces to live healthy and successful lives.

Investing in our environment is not a nice to have.

It's central to people's physical and mental health and people's social connections at the time when Americans are feeling increasingly isolated.

These investments also build the resilience of our neighborhoods and natural areas to rising heat, intense storms, and the other impacts of changing climate.

TPL is very pleased to be working with DOEE's River Smart Schools program to deliver these benefits with our first community schoolyard at the Maya Angelou and E.W.

Stokes campus in Ward 7.

The River Smart program is just one of the many examples of DOEE providing direct and positive services to district residents.

With all this in mind, now is not the time to reverse, or now is, sorry, now is the time to reverse the trends we're seeing.

Special purpose revenues should be fully available to meet their intended purpose.

No funds should be lapsing and swept into the general fund.

We lost hundreds of millions of dollars last year, so we should make this year the time we stop the losses and ensure district residents and businesses reap the benefits they deserve.

I want to echo comments from folks, including Chris Weiss earlier today.

As the district charts a new path for economic stability in this challenging time, the natural beauty of our city, vibrant parks and natural areas, and clean air and water will be critical to keep current residents and businesses happy and prosperous and to attract investment from new residents, businesses, and tourism.

Restoring DOE funding is a critical investment in our economic prosperity and a healthier and more prosperous future.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Annie Acosta.

Thank you, Chairman Allen, for the opportunity to testify, and of course, for your great leadership.

My name is Annie Acosta, and I am leading the update for the DC Environmental Network policy agenda, which we will deliver to the incoming new mayor and the council in January.

I'd like to start by expressing my appreciation for the Department of Energy and the Environment's long-time partnership with the advocacy community.

DOE staff continue to be accessible and transparent, which is particularly important as they are again facing drastic funding cuts in the mayor's new budget.

Within the last week alone, DOEE co-hosted with DCEN three stakeholder meetings to walk through the budget, explain division and line item funding changes, and to provide rationales for each change.

But while you know, without a doubt, a significant amount of these cuts have been forced by the loss of federal grants from the current administration, many others are of our own making.

Specifically, the mayor's failure to utilize the tens of millions of federal matching funds for energy programs that will not be available a year from now.

The limited local dollars and the continuation of major sweeps of these special purpose revenue funds that we've heard from a lot of people about today.

So where does this leave us and what can we do?

Fortunately, you know, DC is a pretty amazing city.

Our residents are very well informed and deeply concerned about climate change, the systems that drive it, and its direct effect on our well-being.

From this summer's predicted record heat to the probable collapse of global ocean currents in the next generation, we faced a constant drumbeat of this existential threat.

But surely we have the will and imagination to fund our environmental priorities.

Two basic approaches come to mind.

And we've heard about these from several people today already.

But um cost shifting and modest revenue increases.

I'll provide just a few examples given my time limitation.

Climate and budget realities call for a shift from public only costs to shared responsibility with those involved in causing the damage.

The campaign to make polluters pay is aimed at holding large fossil fuel companies financially responsible.

Our first step towards the school is passing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Act that will determine the total financial cost of climate change to the city.

Similarly, the bottle bill, and thank you for that, appropriately shifts costs to beverage distributors that profit from their polluting products.

Fee-based programs are also a core pillar of DOEE funding, accounting for between 15 to 30 percent of their budget.

These include stormwater fees, stormwater retention credit fees, and permitting and regulatory fees, among others.

Case in point.

DC households pay a very modest monthly stormwater fee, currently about $2.67 per standard residence, with exact amounts based on how much hard surface a property has.

This dedicated funding is used to manage polluted runoff and to maintain green infrastructure.

Fortunately, the key the fee can be increased through a public rulemaking process if local maintenance needs outpace revenues as they clearly do now.

Thank you for your time and attention.

I'll include my appreciation for a number of positive elements that are also in D in DOE's budget in my written testimony.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

All right, let me turn to Jim Mansla.

Yes, thank you.

Um Jim Monsma, I'm with City Wildlife too, and so many people have spoken so eloquently in support of our work that um I've kind of ditched my testimony that I prepare.

But I do have a few points to make.

Um first, this is interesting.

In 1947, a man named Lewis Hale wrote a book that's now a classic among nature lovers called Spring in Washington, and it included this observation.

I quote, the Kentucky warbler is as common as it can be during the breeding season in Washington, for I think that every square foot of its habitat belongs to the territory of one pair or another.

You hear Kentucky warblers continually in the woods about the city.

That was only 47 years ago, or 75 years ago, but just after the second world war.

But in contrast, eBird lists a mere 131 sightings of Kentucky warblers in the district during the last 24 years.

And those are of migrant birds that are passing through on their way to somewhere else to breed.

Have we lost this bird forever?

And how many more species will we lose?

It's later than we think.

The second point I'd like to make is that City Wildlife is well aware that the work we do for wildlife, we don't do alone.

And I want to put a shout out in and to express our support for Ward 8 Woods and Casey Trees, who maintain these parks, for all the people at the Sierra Club that are fighting for the bottle bill and for plastic reductions, for Lauren Crossett and her work with the kids, for all the people that are doing what they can for climate change.

A colleague of ours who testified earlier by the name of Javier made this point very well that it's not just a clean environment for humans, but that in fact we fix up animals as everybody now knows at City Wildlife and let them go.

Once we let them go, they need a clean environment.

Um we're all working together, and um uh yes, we'd like our funding, but that alone will not do everything we need done.

We have to support all our colleagues in um in this network of environmental groups.

Um and you yourself um told the story very eloquently about what happens to a little league game when a bald eagle flies over.

Well, City Wildlife is glad to have played some small role in making sure that that bald eagle reserves his right to disrupt little league games.

Um but what happens then when those kids go home and their water is tainted with lead?

What happens when those kids go home and their families cannot replace a gas stove with an electric one?

This is all connected, and uh.

I just want it to be on the record that we support those other groups.

Last thing I want to say in 14 seconds is thank you.

Chairman Allen, Phil Mendelssohn, some of the other council members, particularly um Director Jackson, who has the courtesy to come out here and hear the remarks for himself and Director Jackson.

You run a great team, and you're appreciated every single day by the people on our side of the fund.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Let me turn to some of our online witnesses for this panel too.

So I have next Jamie Alberti.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jamie Alberti, and I am speaking on behalf of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay.

As a core partner with the district for over 15 years, we are deeply concerned that the proposed FY27 budget will slow the implementation of critical stormwater projects that protect our waterways, and in turn put the district at serious risk of failing to meet federal requirements.

Today I want to focus on two critical issues.

The urgent need to increase the stormwater fee, and the very real and growing risk of MS4 noncompliance.

First, the stormwater fee no longer reflects reality.

The district's stormwater management is not optional.

It is a federally mandated responsibility under the Clean Water Act.

Yet the primary funding mechanism supporting this programming, the stormwater fee, has not changed since 2011.

As mentioned before, it remains frozen at $2.67 per ERU.

For 15 years, it has not kept pace with inflation, increased regulatory requirements, or the more intense rainfall driven by climate change.

Meanwhile, nearby Maryland jurisdictions charge 15 to 20 dollars per ERU.

The reality is simple.

We are trying to meet 2027 obligations with funding levels from 2011.

Since FY25, DOEE's gross funding has dropped so significantly that the FY27 budget is now approaching half of FY24 levels.

And this does not even account for the past four years of inflation.

Second, the district is at immediate risk of MS-4 noncompliance.

The district's MS-4 permit is a federally enforceable requirement.

And according to DOEE's own reporting, the district does not have sufficient resources to fully meet MS-4 requirements.

And I know this has been mentioned before.

Green infrastructure maintenance funding was cut in FY26.

We are already hearing from communities such as in Chevy Chase that DDOT is declining to install new green infrastructure because there is no funding to maintain it.

So this creates two immediate compliance failures.

Existing infrastructure is not being properly maintained.

And I know back to your question previously, I think that would be my priority moving forward is maintaining the green infrastructure that it's already been invested in and installed.

And also new installations are not occurring as they were meant to be.

And that means we will not meet required acres managed under the permit.

Street sweeping requirements are also not being met.

Taken together, this means the district is on track for three clear violations by January 2027.

Failure to maintain existing infrastructure, failure to meet green infrastructure installation targets, and failure to meet street sweeping requirements.

And it is critical to understand these are not hypothetical risks.

These are known gaps under a federally enforceable permit.

Failure to meet those requirements does not eliminate the obligation.

It triggers consequences.

With multiple violations, that cost quickly escalates, far exceeding the cost of addressing these issues now through adequate funding.

And we have seen this before.

Just seven years ago, the district was found in violation of pollution prevention requirements, resulting in federal fines, corrective actions, and new oversight requirements that continue to cost the district today.

That situation could have been avoided through proper compliance from the start.

We are now knowingly headed toward the same outcome.

I know no one wants to see increased taxes and fees, but if your roof is leaking now, is it better to invest in fixing it now or waiting until the roof caves in and pay higher costs to fix it then?

In closing the district is at a decision point.

We can continue underfunding a federally mandated system and face escalating penalties, oversight, and long-term costs.

Or we can act.

We must increase the stormwater fee to reflect the true cost of compliance.

Ensure funding supports MS4 requirements, including maintenance and installation of green infrastructure, and restore the capacity needed to meet our legal obligations.

Because at this point, the question is no longer whether we can afford to act.

It is whether we can afford not to.

Thank you for allowing me to testify and for your leadership and community continued commitment to protecting the health environment and communities of the district.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much.

Let me turn to Patrick Cawthern with the Children's Law Center next.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Allen and members of the committee.

My name is Patrick Cawthern.

I am a policy attorney testifying on behalf of Children's Law Center.

We've heard a lot of good testimony today.

Losing heat, electricity, or cooling is an immediate health risk and source of housing instability.

DOEE administers LIHEAP, a federally funded utility assistance program for vulnerable residents.

If the district is leaving federal dollars on the table providing not pursuing available incentive funds, the council should ask DOEE why they are not pursuing the maximum amount of federal funding available and encourage them to do so.

Additionally, DOEE needs to do better to strengthen its lead safety system.

May remember council member.

In respect to lead.

And uh additional resources are needed to ensure that that is something that doesn't happen again.

And I would remind the council that investing in lead mitigation has been shown to be one of the most effective things that a local government can invest in because of the health risks that it addresses.

So DOE's local operating dollars are investments that keep children healthy, reduce school absences, and prevent housing crises before they escalate.

Thank you for the time to speak about these two items and for your attention.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Cawturn.

And then next on this panel, let me turn to ANC Commissioner Abel Amene.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you very much for accommodating me by moving me up the list a little bit.

My name is Abella Menet, and I serve as an advisory neighborhood commissioner for single member district for DO2.

I'm here as I'm here to testify on behalf of the entire AC4D Commission, which has passed a resolution urging the council to address uh utility affordability as well as endorsed a number of bills which I will be talking about.

Uh the resolution has been uploaded into the LIMS system, and I ask for a copy to be included in the committee's report coming out of this hearing.

Uh on behalf of AAC4D, I'm here today to urge this council to include funding for four bills in particular that are being considered by the council in anticipation of their passage.

IAC4D has endorsed the automatic enrollment for utility affordability act, the DC water billing and disconnection moderization act, and the Utility Disconnection and Protection Act and the Grid Act.

We urge the committee to fund all these bills.

In the interest of time, I'll focus my testimony on your bill term, uh Chair Rosen Allen, the automatic enrollment for utility affordability act, uh, which would remove uh duplicative process for income verification processation for residents to qualify for uh utility affordability programs.

I'll be using my personal experience to highlight the need for this bill.

As I mentioned during the hearing on this bill, I undercipian light heap, UDP, SNAP, and Medicaid.

To qualify for SNAP at Medicaid, I'm required to undergo a yearly certification that not only requires me to report my income, but also to attend an interview either in person or over the phone.

During the interview, a DHS agent interrogates me about my income and requires me to provide additional documentation.

I also undergo a mid-year certification, which does not include an interview, but still requires me to again verify my income.

So that means uh certification is uh required every six months for SNAP and by extension for Medicaid, which is automatically through the district direct website.

However, when I go over to the DOE side to file for LIDE B and UDP, I'm required to go to undergo yet another income verification process that is slightly different, just as arduous, but not any more rigorous.

Uh since until now I've been self-employed, the DOE process for LIHEAP requires a self-autestation signed by the notary public.

That has a cost and it's generally cumbersome process.

This duplicative process is completely unnecessary.

In fact, there's no explanation for why LIP and UDP continue to require the verification for people that have qualified for SNAP and Medicaid.

Your bill, the Automatic Enrollment for Utility Affordability Act addresses this issue by requiring DOME to create a system through which it automatically enrolls residents to Lightheap and UDB by using their income verification uh through DHS for SNAP and other programs.

Your committee is already familiar with several programs that work with other district agencies to automatically qualify residents.

D DOT's EBI Consentive program uses qualification for programs like SNAP to prioritize preferred applicants.

Another program this committee is familiar with is uh Metro's 50% reduced fare program, which within 48 hours can verify my recipients in other programs and qualify me for that program.

So I urge this uh to urge this committee to include funding for your bill and the other bills I've mentioned as uh as it would likely save the district money in future years and ensure that we're actually maximizing on the federal funding that we are trying to fully take advantage of.

That we're leaving money on the table.

I I also urge the committee to include funding for the other bills, as I said.

Uh I won't mention them again.

But the remaining time I have since I have to run and I won't be able to stay for the minute for the questions.

I I want to highlight uh something that was mentioned by a previous witness, Claire Mills mentioned the VSA directing the PSC to regulate third-party energy suppliers.

I want to add my support for such a measure.

I haven't read the VSA, so but on behalf of residents of 4DO2, many of whom are people of low income and seniors, several of whom who've told me horror stories of being swindled by unscrupulous energy suppliers who go door to door to convince them to take a variable energy rate for electricity and gas supplies.

This is a practice that really needs regulation, and I'm I want to encourage that.

Uh I also want to highlight that my ANC, my SMD in particular, uh, if you look on the the website for lead pipes, the replacement used to be lots of red everywhere.

And over the past year, by taking advantage of federal programs, we've actually shifted that, and you see a lot more green and a lot more blue, and I want that to continue, and I want to protect uh the work that's being done on that, so I wanted to mention that as well.

So thank you very much for this stuff.

Excellent.

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

And I appreciate you were able to share your testimony.

I know you've got to hop off now, so thank you very much.

Um thanks everybody for your testimony.

Um, a couple of questions I was gonna ask here.

Let me ask um Miss Alberti.

You one of your recommendations is that we should be exploring the stormwater fee and making changes to it.

So I just want to make sure I heard your testimony or if you want to expand on this a little bit.

In essence, that the district stormwater fee has been static for about the last 15 years, correct?

Correct.

Okay, meaning that it's not adjusted for inflation, it's it just we said it and forgot it.

Yeah.

Right.

And I did hear uh previous testimony.

Um, you know, fortunately that is that too and expected to increase over time.

We haven't seen that.

Um, there have been other research and other things, but the storm wire fee um were due uh to increase that fee.

Um, and if you do look into the surrounding jurisdictions, especially if you have over to Virginia, I'll see it significantly higher.

Yeah, I was gonna say that's one way.

Yeah.

Yeah, we often like to look at other jurisdictions.

So what do you see in Virginia when you look at the stormwater fee?

Yeah, I believe I don't remember the country, but I think they're looking at 28 dollars roughly for ERU, and yeah, the district at 267.

Um we're talking significant increases.

Umgarb County and Shortest County, um, I believe are in like the 10 to 20 dollars per ER and range.

Okay.

So all right, that's a helpful comparison.

And I think I remember one previous panelist suggesting we don't necessarily need to go match that, but that we could or need to, I guess your recommendation is to at least match for inflation for the 15 years to help make sure that revenue uh is treated fairly that way.

Okay.

Um yes, and I think the ERU, I'm looking at some information in Alexander, Virginia is much, much, much, much higher than the district.

Okay.

Um you also said you believe we are out of compliance, for example, with MS4.

I I think we I think we are.

I mean, we've when we asked, are do we have the funds necessary to be in compliance?

The answer officially has been no.

So has there been a finding that you're aware of, a violation, or it's just that we believe if someone really pushed us, they'd probably find that we're out of compliance.

Um the thing that that's hard to uh say right now is um you know we're talking uh EPA grants that have like five-year time frames, and we're not at the end, so we have a target number that we need to reach by the end.

We are not on track to meet that.

And we know like based on on the number that we're seeing right now.

There is no chance we will need that, and as soon as that term is up, we are out of compliance.

So officially it's not quite yet, but we know we are because we are not facing uh in accordance with what our requirements are.

And the consequences of not meeting our requirement are financial penalties and fines for every day that we're not meeting it, correct?

That's just one thing.

Um we still have the obligations, so they don't go away, and then there's the increased oversight.

So the study I mentioned last, you know, we had to create um new positions at DOVE to manage the oversight, uh you know, the obligations that we weren't met previously, that was at least another million dollars to create that, you know, and it was it's an ongoing uh compilation of classes and things.

So um when you put it all together, it's it's a lot a lot more than if you just did it the first time when you were uh we're allocated to you.

Right.

Well, and I think that gets to I think it was your point of um, you know, would you rather if you know the rain's coming, you'd rather put the money on in now to fix the leak.

Yeah.

Exactly.

Okay, sounds good.

Um to our other panelists to really appreciate your testimony as you noted highly consistent so far across the day of where our priorities need to be is we're trying to help repair uh the damage of what's being proposed, but it is not been approved yet, it's just proposed.

So we still have time.

So your voices are really important to help really lay out the case of why we've got to tackle this, why we've got to make changes.

Um so I really appreciate that.

And you know, I uh you know, Mr.

Monsma, you know, you've kind of talked about City Wildlife, but then I really appreciated you expanded out that you recognize all these things are interconnected, so I think we've kind of heard that general theme as well from a lot of folks who are recognizing if you're here for City Wildlife.

I'm pretty sure you're here for everything else as well because you understand how important all these things are that go together.

So I appreciate you making sure you explicitly said that.

So thank you.

Um all right, I appreciate everybody's testimony today.

Thank you.

All right, let me call up our next panel of witnesses.

We've got Holly Pollinger, um, who is the co-chair DC chapter of climate reality project.

Marshall Doer Balkin with the DC BEPS Task Force.

So over there.

Randy Marcus, Director of State Relations for Virginia, West Virginia, and DC with CSX.

Laura Miller Brooks with the Federal City Council.

I didn't see Laura here.

And again, some folks are switching back and forth between online and in person, which is fine.

We'll make it work.

Vic Goncalves, project manager and advocacy specialist with Mikasa, I think is online.

Eric Jones, VP of Government Affairs at AOBA, I think is online.

So we'll we'll send you a panelist invite so you can move over.

Brian Gordon, senior VP of Government Affairs at AOBA.

I think we've got you, so we'll move you over to the panel.

And Kelly Whittier, Director of Public Affairs of the Humane Rescue Alliance.

I think I saw you online as well.

Okay.

All right.

I believe we've got this panel set.

We have two in person and four or five online.

So, Ms.

Pollinger, we will start with.

Yeah, you don't have to sit as far apart.

You can definitely move closer if you'd like.

All right, Ms.

Pollinger, we'll start with you.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

My name is Holly Pollinger.

I've lived in Ward 3 for more than 50 years.

Thank you for allowing me to testify today on behalf of the Sierra Club and my organization, the Climate Reality Project, started by Al Gore 20 years ago.

We now have three million members worldwide and dozens of U.S.

chapters.

I'm the co-chair of the DC chapter.

I've lived in my row house here in DC for more than 50 years.

My house is more than a hundred years old, as Barbara Briggs can attest.

It was built in 1924.

I recently requested estimates from companies to see if I can shift my old gas-fired boiler to a new electric system.

They came back with two options.

Either I put in a whole HVAC system or what they call splits.

Splits seemed like the better option since my old house cannot accommodate a whole HVAC system.

But guess how much it would cost me to do this?

$38,000.

Not only am I a widow living alone, but I can assure you I am not one of the infamous one percent.

So I was always counting on help from the federal government and the district to help me do this.

We all know what happened to the federal money, so I turned to the district, my home for decades.

The place I have been working with for years to fight against the coming climate disaster.

So proud that we were leaders in the climate fight.

We were going to lead the country in this effort.

In this budget, the DC mayor has proposed cutting the Department of Energy and Environment budget by 28%.

She also seeks to raid funding for the Healthy Homes Act again.

Now I think it will be a miracle if there's enough money left in the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund to help me switch from gas to electric.

The SETF comes from a fee on my utility bills and funds energy efficiency measures, solar energy, electrification retrofits, et cetera.

And this includes funding for the Healthy Homes Act.

This is my money.

The funds that are being used for other purposes are my funds.

The government here in DC has no right to take them away from me just when I need it.

And once again, this budget does an inordinate disservice to the reputation and capabilities of the district.

DOEE is responsible for implementing this and needs adequate funding to do so.

I urge the council to restore the funding for the Department of Energy and Environment.

It is particularly galling to watch the evisceration of one of our most esteemed departments.

And even more galling to realize that once again, I will be trolling the district in my hybrid electric, searching for a charger that isn't being used, or even one that's working.

We urge full funding for electric vehicle infrastructure access, et cetera, et cetera.

To accelerate the installation of more EV charging stations across the district for obvious reasons.

In fact, fund all available alternatives to driving gas spewing cars.

What is so hard about that when our very lives are at stake?

Now is the moment when gas is at four and five dollars a gallon, right?

The Climate Reality Project, U.S.

headquarters, and the DC chapter work closely together at 555 12th Street.

Our campaigns include the Make Polluters Pay campaign.

How horribly ironic if we ever have to look inward to resolve this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bruce Pollinger.

Next, let me turn.

Excuse me.

Next, let me turn to Marshall Durbalkind.

Good afternoon, uh Chairman Allen.

If you can put the button on to red light, there you go.

All right, can you hear me?

Uh good afternoon, Chairman Allen and members of the committee who I uh do wish were here to hear this.

I also want to know before I begin, um, Mary Thomas from the Building Innovation Hub, I do believe is online now, and I hope we can hear from her on a future panel.

Uh so my name is Marsha Giorbalkand.

I serve as chair of the Building Energy Performance and Standards Task Force half since 2019.

I'm also now the director of policy and codes at the Institute for Market Transformation, and I'm a former DOE employee.

I'm pleased to offer testimony on the budget and budget support act on delays to the BEPS program and funding for energy efficiency and decarbonization.

Uh for each of the past four years, the BSA has proposed delays in the BEPS.

Prior delays were ill-conceived.

This body, thankfully, saw fit to reject them.

This year, the BSA proposes a sensible adjustment, and the task force supports this delay.

The BEPS program operates on regular five-year compliance cycles.

2026, the final year of the current cycle, and next year, buildings that did not meet the BEPS when established will be assessed on whether their energy use has been sufficiently reduced.

An analysis by DOE shows that nearly three quarters of all buildings that are on track to comply this year.

Uh and the buildings that were not required to do anything have in fact not done anything.

I don't know of better evidence of a program working than that.

Um I'm pleased that the BSA does not change the deadline or requirements for the current cycle, and it should not.

Anyone who says it should, um, you should reject that.

However, the proposed one-year delay in future cycles is a good idea by creating a one-year, two-year-long breathing period between this cycle and the next cycle.

And that breathing period will allow DOE to carry out the council's will to increase program flexibility.

They're doing that right now through guidance updates, but they will need to update the regulations and do enforcement.

Doing both of those at the same time is complicated, giving this time break is necessary to do things such as add the trajectory compliance option that you authorized in the BEPS Amendment Act of 2024.

And with that additional time, we could consider more significant changes and lessons from the 15 other BEPS programs that now exist.

And while the BSA is not the place to make major changes, it would be prudent for the council to consider what limited authorizations are needed for program flexibility.

The workload on DOE staff is and will be extreme with ever more extensions, exemptions, alternative compliance options that people request, and we want to discover, discourage frivolous, frivolous, meritless applications that uh waste time.

So we recommend adding language to the BSA to authorize DOE to collect submittal fees for certain applications.

Obviously, where there's a real need for financial distress, those could be waived over funded.

Um, but this is needed for both um adjustments to benchmarking and BEPS compliance, and those fees need to go obviously into a non-lapsing special purpose fund.

Uh, this is a best practice, and DOE has administrative infrastructure to collect such fees.

I'll be happy to follow up with your office with language.

I now turn my attention to the bigger picture of energy affordability in DC, the urgent need to invest in helping struggling residents and businesses.

You've heard a lot about this from a lot of people.

The DCSEU is a national leading model, has invested $360 million in efficiency with savings of $2.2 billion in lifetime cost savings for residence business.

That's a six to one ratio.

That's I don't know of a market investment better than that.

Where are you going to get $6 for every $1 you spend?

And it's worthy of continued investment and support.

And last year, in response to budget shenanigans, that money was split, and we now have this new mayor's energy surcharge.

This is a regressive tax on residents and should be abolished and met the DGS budget should be met through the district's progressive tax code.

And we there was an immediate need to address SEU funding.

An RFP for the SEU contract is due to be issued next year.

If we do not redirect money back into the SETF now, that contract will be locked in at less than 12 million dollars, barely half the base contract value levels not seen in 15 years.

And that will result in job losses, most likely of over 50 jobs for every every year for district residents.

Job training programs that have happened will be abandoned.

Entrepreneurs who have invested in DC small businesses will be forced out and will be losing $60 million a year at that cost benefit ratio.

And that those lot changes to the contract will be locked into the 2030s.

We have to fix this now.

And we have to provide additional money, at least $13 to $17 million per year to fully access the federal uh resources that have the district has secured and not leave that money on the table, which again is a waste.

Um please, in summary, please retain the proposed delay, empower DOE uh to fund its its programs and its fees and uh increase and restore the SETF uh to protect energy affordability.

Thank you and look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much.

Um let's see.

I believe Randy Marcus, we called was not here.

Or Laura Miller Brooks.

Uh Vic Goncalves, I think we have you online.

So we'll turn to you next.

Yes.

Hi.

Um, council member.

Good afternoon.

My name is Vic Goncaves.

I'm a project manager and advocacy specialist at Mikasa.

We are an affordable housing developer dedicated to sustaining diverse neighborhoods and providing affordable housing and technical assistance to low-income residents, the majority of whom are immigrants, Latino, or black.

We own and manage more than 250 units of affordable rental housing, and we provide technical assistance and consulting to more than 10 limited equity cooperatives with nearly 250 units.

We develop resident-centered affordable housing and cooperative housing to ensure it remains a long-term community asset.

We believe that environmental justice, racial justice, and affordable housing are deeply intertwined.

Older buildings in DC represent a huge portion of greenhouse gases that are emitted in the city due to the reliance on gas.

We build and preserve affordable housing.

When we build and preserve affordable housing, we strive to make our buildings as energy efficient and environmentally sustainable as possible.

We utilize DCSEU programs and solar for all to support energy efficient renovations of existing buildings and reduce utility costs for low-income residents.

However, many of our affordable housing projects are on wait lists for programs such as the affordable housing electrification program and the income qualified efficiency fund because there are not enough funds already to meet the needs and the demand that is on these programs.

I urge the council to fully fund the renewable energy development fund and restore funding to the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund, which funds many of the programs that allow us to ensure renovations of affordable housing, prioritize sustainability, energy efficiency, and the health of our residents.

Additionally, affordable housing developments may require less funding from other subsidy programs like the Housing Production Trust Fund when sustainable energy dollars are available.

We've been modeling pairing DCSEU electrification programs with other initiatives like the small buildings program at DHCD to finish small building renovations.

We implore the council to make sure that initiatives like DCSU, Healthy Homes, and Solar for All receive the funding that they need to help vary and extremely low-income tenants and homeowners, pay for sustainability improvements and electrification.

I would like to echo the testimony of others before me and urge you to support community-based stormwater and green infrastructure demonstration sites.

We know how important stormwater management is, and we know how expensive it is.

We comply considerably with strict stormwater management requirements in all of our projects.

In some cases, it can be up to 10% of the total development of a renovation.

The strains on the development budget make it harder to keep rents lower.

In addition to funding community-based stormwater programs, we urge DOEE to make more subsidies available to affordable housing developers who are doing this work on very thin margins to keep the affordability of the project.

Since I have some time on a, you know, my professional capacity is advocating for affordable housing, but on a personal note, um, I would like to urge you to restore funding for city wildlife and also to do more oversight on animal control.

I used to work at Humane Rescue Alliance, and I would often walk over to city wildlife with injured birds, injured turtles, squirrels, all kinds of wildlife that people would bring into the shelter.

Their work is absolutely critical to our ecosystems.

And without them, animals that could be rehabilitated and returned to the wild would be euthanized.

Um, for championing making sure that the sustainable energy um trust fund is not rated for other purposes.

We really appreciate your work on this.

Um, and I am happy to answer any questions if you have.

Fantastic.

Thank you very much.

Uh next we're going to turn to Eric Jones.

Mr.

Jones, before we do that, um, I'm just gonna bring up Patricia Stamper, who I'd called earlier, I think is here now.

So, Ms.

Stamper, if you want to grab a chair at the table, I'll put you at the end of this panel so I can pull you up in just a minute.

But then let me go back to Mr.

Jones, uh, who's joining us online.

Can you hear me?

I can.

Good afternoon.

Good after good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chairman Allen, the members of the committee on transportation and the environment, and council members at large.

I am Eric J.

Jones, the fourth generation from Washington and Karen Award for resident, who serves as the vice president of government affairs DC Commercial for the Apartment Office Building Association Metropolitan Washington.

For over 50 years, the YOBA has represented commercial office and multifamily residential real estate in Washington, D.C.

metropolitan area.

Excuse me.

I'm here today to express our concerns about the reduction in the budget for the DC sustainable energy utility or DC SEU and the transfer of funding from the SETF.

Additionally, I will express a yoga support for the delays in implementing phase two of the building energy performance standards bets and the net zero codes.

DC sustainable energy utility.

Chairman Allen, for the past six years, I have served on the DC Sustainable Energy Utility Advisory Board, which supports the district's climate goals by providing recommendations to DOEE and this council on procurement administration of the SEU contract.

Additionally, we are partially responsible for the monitoring DCS of DC SEU's performance against contractually obligated benchmarks for providing strategic guidance to the DC SEU.

In recent years, the SEU has worked to meet contractual benchmarks despite budget cuts.

As a chief voice of a obest commercial members in the district, as well as a homeowner, I know firsthand the fiscal pressures facing both our commercial and residential property owners and managers in the district due to the rise of utility costs.

This is why it is troubling to see proposed cuts in the FLAT 2020 by the Renewable Energy Development Fund, RDF, and Sustainable Energy Energy Trust Fund, which are sourced from surcharges on all electric and natural gas utility ratepayers in the district as outlined in the Clean Energy DC Onwards Amendment Act of 2018.

Unfortunately, instead of using this funding, which largely comes from commercial ratepayers, which we represent here at the OLBA to improve energy use and provide funding to low and moderate income property owners, the government has pilfered it to cover its utility costs.

This reappropriation of funds intended to support the SEU programs such as Solar for All and the Affordable Housing Metrophyt Accelerator is in stark contrast to the goals laid out over the last several legislative cycles as our industry has worked with the administration via DEMPED and DOEE, this committee, and our members to help achieve our joint short and long-term goals.

Building energy performance standards in net zero.

Chairman Allen is you and your staff would no doubt remember we have appeared before this committee over the last three budget cycles to request a tactical delay in implementing BEPS.

Also BEPS as highlighted in the last three BSAs.

Proposed by this administration, increased costs associated with the management of property following the COVID-19 public health emergency coupled with increasing energy usage and these decreases and the collection of rent have made it difficult for property owners and managers to fully fund the required changes.

Similarly, we have also supported delays in implementing the requirements of the net zero code for various reasons.

The first is a cost associated with implementing these codes, which has been highlighted not just by the private sector, but also by this government as it relates to the public sector.

The second is the recent disbandment of the DC construction codes coordinating board for CCCB.

Which was the apparatus for developing construction codes in the district.

While DOB continues to work through the new internal process to release the next set of proposed construction codes, it doesn't make sense to implement a net zero code that could be in opposition to the code.

This council will be asked to approve.

Finally, requiring the private sector property owners and managers to continue adhering to the current BEPS and net zero timeline extremely hypocritical, given that this council passed D zero modification and preservation emergency amendment act 2026 in February, which provided extensions for government funding and assistive projects and properties for the aforementioned reasons.

In closing that thank you all for the opportunity to share these comments on behalf of the OBA and our members, and I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr.

Jones.

Um your internet cut in and out a little bit.

So I want to make sure we I think I was able to catch everything.

I want to make sure, though, that you have your testimony submitted for the record too, so that way we get the full record in.

We we could hear most of it, but it was cutting in and out a little bit.

So just I want to make sure we have your written testimony as well, so that's a part of the record.

It has been submitted.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you very much.

All right, Mr.

Gordon, let me turn to you.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, my name is Brian Gordon.

I'm the senior vice president of government affairs at AOBA.

Um, I'm here today, uh, like Eric, on behalf of our member companies who own and manage a collective portfolio of more than 75 million square feet of commercial office space and over 12,000 multifamily residential units uh throughout the District of Columbia, excuse me, 120,000.

Um we are grateful for this opportunity uh today to address the committee.

I've submitted my full uh written comments, which I hope you'll have an opportunity to review.

But in my allotted time this afternoon, I wanted to highlight three things.

Firstly, our industry's interactions with DOEE, the importance of the SETF, and thirdly, our support for two items that have been included in the BSA under the purview of the committee.

I'd firstly like to acknowledge the level of proactive outreach and collaboration that we've enjoyed with DOEE over the last year.

Um we've worked with DOEE on items related to BEPS uh that not only impact our membership, but also the broader building community.

Um this has included communications with property owners around benchmarking, BEPS deadlines, articles analyzing benchmarking data, uh outreach for AHRA member properties, as well as as a significant amount of property-specific dialogue and troubleshooting.

Um our members have fully embraced the district's goal of being a global leader in energy efficiency, and most of them have already made tremendous strides towards achieving the targeted efficiency levels.

I think Marshall cited moments ago that about 70% of buildings overall are on track to meet BEPS program requirements.

Um this is substantial progress, uh, but it also means that about 30% of buildings overall still need help to get there.

Um, many of these properties have encountered challenges and scenarios that we simply couldn't have foreseen when we first set out on this journey.

Um, so we have held regular meetings with DOEE staff, uh, and to their great credit, they've demonstrated uh a lot of flexibility, recognizing that the realities of complying with um BEPS can vary substantially from building to building.

We anxiously await the release of the final guidebook regulations as well as the BEPS task force's consideration of proposed delay mechanics for fiscal distress uh and good faith efforts.

And and these we hope will add a further layer of flexibility for property owners who are struggling to meet the assigned deficiency standards in the face of either economic distress or other unique circumstances.

There are two other items that I wanted to very quickly mention.

Eric spoke before me with regard to our opposition to the proposed diversion of funds from the SETF.

Rather than repeating those comments, I'll simply reiterate our ask that those funds be restored.

I'll simply reiterate our ask that those funds be restored.

And then finally, uh, we wanted to express our support for two items included in the BSA.

Um, the BEPS delay.

Uh we believe that that the proposed schedule shift will allow DOEE additional time to thoughtfully consider mechanics along the trajectory pathway, which will impact buildings for another 20 years to come.

Um, additionally, the compliance schedule adjustment we believe will accommodate those buildings who are granted a delay of compliance before immediately transitioning into cycle two.

Uh and then uh the final item was the net zero code adoption, which Eric also mentioned.

We believe that such a monumental policy shift really warrants a thoughtful examination, incorporating stakeholder input and economic impact analysis.

Um, if it shouldn't go into effect by default.

So, in the wake of the dissolution of the CCCB, we await the rollout of a new codes development process and look forward to participating in that.

And I thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Gordon.

Next, let me turn to Kelly Whittier.

Good afternoon, uh, Chairperson Al and his staff.

Um, thank you so much for your flexibility as I had to shift uh virtual for today's hearing.

My name is Kelly Whittier, and I serve as a director of public affairs at the Humane Rescue Alliance.

And I'm also a resident who has on multiple occasions brought an abandoned baby animal or two to the city wildlife team for care.

Um HRA joins the many voices who testified today urging the restoration of City Wildlife's 200,000 dollar grant.

Um, and I like to address an area that hasn't quite been addressed.

Um, and it's one that I think a lot of residents probably don't think about when they think about our wildlife ecosystem.

But City Wildlife is not only the district's only licensed wildlife rehabilitator, but it is also a critical partner in the broader ecosystem of animal protection.

At HRA, our humane law enforcement team responds to all instances of animal cruelty in the district.

While many people probably think that that means response to mostly dogs and cats.

Um, domestic animals are not the only victims of cruelty.

Unfortunately, wildlife, too, are frequently subject to harm.

And that can range from, you know, these are real life circumstances.

Um, you know, a pigeon surviving a blow dart through its neck, um, a larger mammal's douse intentionally with bleach.

In these cases, there is a direct and essential link between the work of our officers and the work of city wildlife.

When wildlife survives acts of cruelty or injury, city wildlife's expertise ensures that these animals have a chance to not just survive, but to recover and when possible, return to their natural habitat.

A cut of this magnitude would have real and immediate consequences.

Insufficient funding risks limiting the capacity to treat injured wildlife in the district, and that means more animals, possibly animals that have endured intentional harm, could face prolonged suffering or death simply due to the necessary necessary response to lost resources.

The district takes pride in being a green forward-thinking city, one that values sustainability and environmental stewardship and coexistence with nature.

But those values must be reflected in our budget investments.

Protecting wildlife is not separate from protecting our communities.

It is part of maintaining a healthy, balanced ecosystem for all who live here.

Restoring this funding is not just about supporting one organization, it's about upholding the district's commitment to humane treatment of all animals, environmental responsibility, and public trust.

I respectfully urge the committee to restore the 200,000 dollar grant so that city wildlife can continue to do their critical life-saving work.

Um, and that I personally have an avenue for every baby squirrel I happen to encounter uh this year.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Mary Thomas, who's also online.

And then after that, Ms.

Stamper will come back to you, then we'll turn to questions.

All right, thank you.

Um thank you, Chairperson Allen, members of the committee and council staff.

My name is Mary Thomas, and I am the director of the Building Innovation Hub, a program of the Institute for Market Transformation.

I've been with the hub for three years and became the director last fall.

I am also a longtime DC resident now in Ward 4 and have had a background in uh commercial real estate.

So I understand both the challenges and solutions that this industry is facing locally.

And while the hub is part of IMT, we heard from Marshall earlier today.

Um, the hub operates as a neutral and trusted third party.

We do not advocate for or against any policy or regulation, as our role is to help building and industry stakeholders mitigate risk by navigating the regulatory landscape and to provide support with implementation.

Our funding comes from a variety of sources, including a DOEE grant for the small building retuning pilot program as a subgrantee to Bauman Consulting, and a subcontract with DCSU, where we provide support to DC residents and businesses working to improve their buildings and comply with steps.

And I've spoken with the hub's numerous partners and stakeholders across the industry to better understand what's working, what's not, and how we can come together, especially in these challenging times to drive greater adoption of high performing buildings to benefit both district residents and businesses.

And here are some of what we're hearing and seeing in the market.

So I'm happy to report, and we've heard heard a little bit about it already, that the data show that building performance is improving across the district.

Buildings subject to bets are making progress against their targets.

Energy star medians are increasing over time.

And I'd really like to highlight that this goes beyond numbers on a chart.

This represents building owners investing in their assets and hiring consultants and contractors to implement improvements.

To make these improvements, buildings need support from technical assistance, incentive programs, and low cost financing.

The hub conducts an annual needs assessment, and we read routinely find that industry stakeholders report that they need financial support to implement retrofit projects.

The industry also needs help with capacity building, with growing the labor force and preparing contractors to meet the demand for high performance buildings.

Our survey last year found that 45% of respondents identified shortage of skilled contractors and tradespeople as a gap in decarbonization implementation.

DCSEU has provided effective support for businesses and residents over the years, including through the Affordable Housing Retrofit Accelerator, Train Green, and more.

Since 2011, DC SEU has invested $360 million in energy efficiency, saving residents and businesses a total of $2.2 billion in lifetime cost savings.

As Marshall noted, that's $6 in savings for every $1 invested.

Affordable Housing Retrofit Accelerator is a model for other jurisdictions, with over 70% 70 projects have completed energy audits and nearly 30 projects have completed implementation projects.

And much of the investment for the other 40 projects will be wasted if the district goes through with cutting funds needed to complete these projects.

In 2025, DCSU invested 9 million in low-income communities and 8.1 million in CDEs.

And DCSCU's workforce programs have proven to be effective.