11/5/2019 |
Bill |
Smith |
VT Truck and Bus Assoc |
Northfield |
Vermont |
The trucking industry is very concerned about TCI increasing the cost of delivering goods to Vermonters without any means of reducing the cost. Unlike pleasure cars, heavy trucks do not have a... read more The trucking industry is very concerned about TCI increasing the cost of delivering goods to Vermonters without any means of reducing the cost. Unlike pleasure cars, heavy trucks do not have a viable alternative such as electric vehicles, alternate fuel vehicles, riding the bus, or combining trips. Class 8 heavy truck production is several years out, at least, and when available will cost significantly more. In addition, the infrastructure to charge those trucks does not exist. Some trucks can run on LNG or CNG, but that is a very specific type of trucking (garbage hauling or bus, for example), and has a significant infrastructure cost for each business.
Our trips are determined by the location of the customer, and as such cannot be avoided. Combining deliveries is something which is already done--- efficient logistics of truck deliveries and bus trips is already at the forefront of the industry's focus.
Without any viable alternative the costs of funding TCI--- presumably from a charge on diesel fuel--- will be borne by this industry and its customers, putting Vermont businesses at a competitive disadvantage with companies in non-TCI states, and increasing costs without the ability to mitigate them.
Thank you for considering our concerns,
William S Smith, Esq.
VT Truck and Bus Association
|
- |
11/5/2019 |
John |
McClaughry |
Ethan Allen Institute |
Kirby |
Vermont |
The TCI is a “reactionary liberalism” dream: extract millions of dollars from people who can’t figure out why their motor fuel bills are steadily creeping up, and spread the revenues around to pay... read more The TCI is a “reactionary liberalism” dream: extract millions of dollars from people who can’t figure out why their motor fuel bills are steadily creeping up, and spread the revenues around to pay for “carbon reduction investments”.
The TCI is astoundingly, one might even say diabolically, complex. The details, not yet finalized, will emerge in a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) scheduled to appear in December. After public input, the MOU will go to Gov. Phil Scott. His signature would put Vermont into the 12-state deal.
Then either the Regulated Terminals that supply motor fuel to eighty Vermont distributors, or the distributors themselves, will have to purchase “allowances”, the cost of which will be inconspicuously added into the price paid by consumers.
The TCI’s administrative body will decide how many allowances must be issued to sufficiently drive up the price of motor fuel, thus reducing the amount of motor fuel consumed, thus reducing to below an arbitrary TCI-set cap those awful carbon dioxide emissions that are driving the planet toward Al Gore’s heat death.
Did I mention that no legislator will ever vote on this stealth carbon tax? Governor Phil Scott, alone, can plunge Vermont into this mega-scheme to sock Vermonters with a carbon tax that the TCI backers hope they’ll never figure out.
But Gov. Scott has repeatedly voiced his opposition to a carbon tax. What if he refuses to sign on to the MOU? Here’s another diabolical feature. If he doesn’t sign the MOU, Vermont motorists will still be forced to pay for the cost of the allowances hidden back up the supply chain in Massachusetts and New York. But Vermont would not be eligible to receive its assigned share of the net revenues (after enormous enforcement and legal costs) from the TCI allowance sales.
Here’s the short takeaway. The TCI MOU is designed to make Vermont consumers pay a steadily increasing carbon tax on their gasoline and diesel fuel. No legislator will ever vote on imposing this tax. It will just happen, courtesy of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the climate change warriors like VPIRG who extol its benefits. After ten years of increasing motor fuel prices, the TCI will have produced no detectable effect whatever on climate change.
|
- |
11/5/2019 |
George |
Gross |
private citizen, as an energy policy public advocate |
Shoreham |
Vermont |
Please refer to the uploaded comments document, entitled "The Transportation Climate Initiative Consortium Must Achieve Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050". Supporting technical and... read more Please refer to the uploaded comments document, entitled "The Transportation Climate Initiative Consortium Must Achieve Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050". Supporting technical and economic data is available upon request. Although I have participated in TCI stakeholder workshops conducted by Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources as in my role as the Chairperson of the Town of Shoreham Planning Commission, this is an individual submission and it has not been approved or disapproved for publication by our Planning Commission. |
gmgross_comments_on_TCI_framework_final_v2019_1105.pdf |
11/5/2019 |
William |
Driscoll |
Associated Industries of Vermont |
Montpelier |
Vermont |
As currently proposed, TCI would result in a potentially significant effective tax on highway gasoline and diesel. This would increase costs for manufacturers, retailers, dairy, forestry, mineral... read more As currently proposed, TCI would result in a potentially significant effective tax on highway gasoline and diesel. This would increase costs for manufacturers, retailers, dairy, forestry, mineral, and other businesses dependent on highway transportation for moving supplies and goods, as well as construction and other contractors dependent on vehicles, both through direct costs and the cost of transportation service providers.
Unlike residential drivers, who might respond to higher costs by adjusting driving habits and potentially converting to more efficient vehicles, and for whom states could fund programs supporting such changes with revenues allocated from TCI, the commercial transportation noted above is already driven to be as efficient as possible in terms of both logistical planning and transportation technology owing to regulatory requirements and the high costs of transportation generally, compounded by the competitive pressures businesses already face.
Without meaningful options to reduce exposure to the effective tax impact of TCI through behavioral or technology changes, or options for states to fund programs supporting such changes with revenues allocated from TCI, this cost impact could only be mitigated by moving production or operations out of the impacted region, or businesses would be left facing the consequences of trying to absorb or pass on costs to consumers.
TCI would therefore appear to promise little if any change in commercial transportation carbon emissions unless produced by reduced business operations, with resulting loss of employment and economic activity. This would be both fundamentally inequitable and highly cost ineffective.
The most efficient way to address the concerns outlined above while proceeding with TCI would be to exclude diesel from the program and focus on highway gasoline and related transportation issues and opportunities. This would protect the overwhelming majority of commercial transportation, and states could still work to assist businesses with smaller, gasoline fueled vehicle options.
Nevertheless, even focusing on highway gasoline could still lead to other economic and social consequences, particularly in rural areas. These potential consequences should be fully explored, explained, and opened to public review and comment before states take formal steps forward on the TCI proposal.
|
- |
11/5/2019 |
Alex |
DePillis |
Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets |
Montpelier |
Vermont |
Attached please find the joint comments of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture and the Vermont Clean Cities Coalition (https://vtccc.w3.uvm.edu/).
These comments were developed in... read more Attached please find the joint comments of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture and the Vermont Clean Cities Coalition (https://vtccc.w3.uvm.edu/).
These comments were developed in coordination and consultation with Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, Dairy Farmers of America, Agrimark Coop, Vermont Department of Public Service, and Energy Vision. We have also shared a draft with the Agency of Natural Resources, and had the benefit of their assistance to understand how the eventual rules might work.
|
Comments on framework final.docx |
11/5/2019 |
Johanna |
Miller |
Vermont Natural Resources Council |
Montpelier |
Vermont |
Transportation & Climate Initiative Regional Policy Workgroup,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the “Framework for a Draft Regional Policy Proposal” released on... read more Transportation & Climate Initiative Regional Policy Workgroup,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the “Framework for a Draft Regional Policy Proposal” released on October 1, 2019. We – the undersigned organizations – view the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) as an important opportunity for regional collaboration on a pressing problem. We also believe that robust public input into both the regional and state decision-making process is essential to ensure an equitable policy design and the best program possible.
We face an existential crisis when it comes to climate change. Our collective greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – largely from the combustion of fossil fuels and, in our region, largely coming from the transportation sector – are putting our economies, public health, and quality of life at great risk. Strategies that are carefully designed to reduce carbon pollution as swiftly as possible, in an equitable manner, are essential. TCI offers one of those opportunities. Getting it right, but getting it done, is essential. And, then we will need to do more.
Vermont is far from meeting its long-standing climate goals, with most of our GHG emissions increases coming from our most carbon-intensive sector: transportation. A strong program – including a strong cap – will be important to put Vermont and the region on track to start meeting our carbon pollution reduction commitments.
In these comments we offer some high-level input on our hopes for a strong program that could take our states, and our region collectively, one big step forward to reducing carbon pollution and, importantly, helping to create a cleaner, more diverse, more accessible 21st century transportation system. We appreciate the direction it appears TCI states are moving on several fronts and the opportunity to highlight some of the key characteristics we believe are essential to a strong, equitable program.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this input and, more so, for your hard work to date – and the important work to come – to shape the design of a program that works for our planet and all people.
Equity
The prioritization of equity in the design of this program is key to its success, and we commend your recognition of it as a top priority. This program must – and, we believe, can – be designed to begin to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also improving access, mobility, and public health for vulnerable and disproportionately impacted populations in particular. Ensuring this outcome will require an ongoing, inclusive, and strong public process, in particular for getting input on where any revenues would best be directed. Considering the differences among and within each state, utilizing potential TCI proceeds to address and prioritize equity, mobility, and access for more rural, low income, vulnerable and disproportionately impacted populations is essential.
In rural Vermont, transportation is a huge equity issue. It is a barrier to accessing and retaining a job and meeting basic needs such as getting to medical appointments, the grocery store and the pharmacy. The lack of transportation options leave many Vermonters isolated and alone, specifically the 1/3 of Vermonters who do not drive (this includes one in five adults over 65 years of age, people with a disability, children and those who choose not to drive). It is also a tremendous economic burden for low income households, where transportation accounts for approximately 50 percent of their energy bills. Strategies that serve a rural region well and enable Vermonters access to more clean, diverse transportation solutions are needed, and TCI revenues could serve as an important means to spur the investments required to make this transition.
Affected Fuels and Emissions
We support the TCI states’ proposal to cap carbon emissions from the combustion of motor gasoline and on-road diesel fuel in the region, as these fuels account for the vast majority of emissions from the transportation sector. We also urge that in the future other fossil fuels, such as Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), be considered for coverage as well, to avoid them being falsely viewed as a solution to transportation sector emissions.
Program Design: Auctions, Allocation, Regional Caps and Allowance Budgets
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that we have about a decade to substantially reduce emissions if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate
disruption. As such, it is essential that states set a regional emissions cap at the outset of the program that is sufficiently ambitious to align both with states’ climate targets and with scientific imperatives. To ensure TCI serves as the strongest tool possible to reduce emissions, the cap should start low and drop as quickly as possible, in line with the latest climate science. Further, to achieve the GHG outcomes needed, states should also auction all allowances.
Investment of Proceeds
For the TCI program to succeed – and for states and the region to begin to reduce emissions in our most intensive sector – how revenues are invested is critical. Any TCI revenues must be reinvested in solutions that reduce pollution – as quickly as possible in the short term – as well as set the stage for avoided emissions in the long term, by giving people options for getting where they need to go by walking, biking, and taking transit, and well as the option to live in compact communities close to jobs, services, and amenities.
We believe parameters around the use of these proceeds are essential. These dollars should go to transportation-related solutions or solutions that reduce the need for transportation. TCI proceeds should not be spent to backfill budgets for roads, bridges, general funds, or, even, other needed climate solutions like weatherization or thermal fuel switching. We must find other means to meet these needs, but TCI proceeds should be harnessed to reduce carbon pollution from transportation and help to create a more connected, diverse, resilient, clean, and affordable transportation system.
Specifically, we believe any TCI revenues should prioritize low- and moderate-income and rural Vermonters without access to public transportation. The types of solutions we’d like to see prioritized include electrification of cars, buses, and bikes; transit; transportation demand management strategies like carpool, vanpool, and other creative ride-sharing techniques; safe walking and biking infrastructure; smart growth land use solutions; housing in downtowns and community centers and more.
We appreciate and support the flexibility envisioned for states to identify the best strategies and investments to meet their unique needs. We also hope to see in Vermont – but also potentially to help drive innovation more broadly – the ability for all states to spend some TCI proceeds to fund innovative pilots such as micro-transit, high-efficiency vehicle incentive programs (especially to serve low income earners), or other creative strategies that could drive reductions, enable access, and help to fill in the gaps where more traditional strategies might fall short. This includes enabling the flexibility for geo-targeted investment strategies that could serve specific regions well, considering that the best solutions for bigger cities and towns might not be the best or most-needed strategies to serve smaller communities and rural areas.
Complementary Policies
No one climate policy, including TCI, will accomplish all of the climate pollution reductions we need. We will need a diverse suite of significant, complementary policies to get the job done. We look forward to working with other TCI states, with diverse constituencies in Vermont and beyond and with policy makers to identify and advance that suite of other strategies to complement TCI, finally putting us on the path to meet science-based reduction targets we so desperately need to meet.
Conclusion
This regional effort presents the most promising opportunity at this time to tackle emissions reductions in our heavily carbon-intensive transportation sector. Shaping a strong program in line with the climate science, while also prioritizing strategies and solutions to serve low-income, rural, and disproportionately impacted communities is imperative.
As noted above, even a strong TCI will not be sufficient to do all that we must to reduce pollution. That is why we also strongly encourage you to design an equitable TCI program that could, one day, potentially link to other carbon markets – if that made sense. We know that reducing carbon pollution in our heating sector is also a climate imperative. The ability for a well-structured TCI program to link to successful programs like California and Quebec’s Western Climate Initiative would provide the flexibility for the region (or states in the region) to participate in this economy-wide market. We urge you to enable that kind of design and flexibility in the program.
Thank you again for your hard work, your ongoing commitment to designing a science-based, equitable, and flexible program, and for your consideration of our input.
Sincerely,
Audubon Vermont
Capstone Community Action
Transportation for Vermonters
Vermont Conservation Voters
VEIC
Vermont Natural Resources Council
Vermont Public Interest Research Group
CC:
Julie Moore, Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources
Peter Walke, Deputy Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources
Michelle Boomhauer, Director of Policy and Planning, Vermont Agency of Transportation
Curt McCormack, Chair, Vermont House Transportation Committee
Dick Mazza, Chair, Vermont Senate Transportation Committee
Vermont Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe
Vermont Speaker of the House Mitzi Johnson
|
Joint Comments-TCI-Nov. 5.docx |
11/5/2019 |
Patrick |
Wood |
Ag Methane Advisors |
Montpelier |
Vermont |
The world is facing a climate emergency. TCI has the potential to have a very large and beneficial impact in reducing GHG emissions from a highly populated region of the US. The Cap and Invest... read more The world is facing a climate emergency. TCI has the potential to have a very large and beneficial impact in reducing GHG emissions from a highly populated region of the US. The Cap and Invest model is a proven and effective model to achieve these reductions but only if it’s done right. The cap must be set at a level that creates financial incentives to reduce emissions. In simple terms it means the price of carbon should be high. This will translate to higher fuel costs and incentivize use of lower carbon fuels. If the cost of carbon is high TCI will generate substantial funds to invest in GHG reductions. That basic framework is well thought out and sound.
However, TCI is based on the model of RGGI. A historical look at RGGI shows that it has not been nearly ambitious enough. RGGI has accomplished a lot but could have accomplished much more. The targets of TCI should be ambitious. The cap should be set aggressively low. As the US is pulling out of the Paris climate accord it is up to subnational jurisdictions like the TCI states to create policies that will lead to the emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. California has been aggressive about this for more than 10 years. New York recently passed S.6599 which has aggressive climate targets. Other TCI states should follow suit to be at least as aggressive.
My firm helps dairy farms with methane digesters generate revenue by selling environmental commodities like carbon offsets, RINs and LCFS credits. Over the past several years the price of carbon in California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) has been ~$190/mtCO2e. Dairy digester projects that are connected to common carrier pipelines around the US can sell renewable natural gas into California’s LCFS market. This market provides substantial incentives to digester projects and many are being built to access this market. These projects provide a very low carbon fuel. By avoiding methane emissions that would otherwise be released to the atmosphere and turning that methane into RNG the projects create substantial climate benefits and can have co-benefits that help dairy farms improve water quality and nutrient utilization. In addition, RNG can be used in heavy duty vehicle fleets (trucks, buses, etc) for which electrification is not as viable as it is for passenger cars. TCI should provide incentives for methane digesters to produce renewable low carbon fuels in the TCI states.
At a recent TCI workshop state staff leading the TCI process said that they were considering biofuels but that they have limited resources, and developing TCI at all is “a very heavy lift”. TCI states should commit more employees to development of TCI. This is a prudent investment in the long term health and viability of the people and ecosystems of TCI states. State staff should not be stretched so thin that they cannot devote the time required to thoroughly develop such a necessary program. Of course the vast majority of TCI auction revenues should go to investments in the states, but states will also need staff to manage and implement the program. Speaking from 10+ years in carbon markets we encourage TCI states to make sure that their programs are well staffed with enough highly trained people. This is crucial to having the markets function well to achieve their goals.
Biomethane (aka RNG produced from methane digesters) is a unique form of biofuel. Unlike most ethanol and some forms of biodiesel it is produced from a waste and it’s production does not lead to land use change or impacts to the food supply. Biomethane is produced by dairy, swine and poultry farms of which there are many in TCI states. These segments of the livestock agriculture industry have a major impact on the rural communities (human and environmental) in TCI states. TCI’s model rule should provide specific incentives for production of biomethane from livestock manure. This would help achieve the necessary GHG reductions while supporting a growing industry in TCI states that provides economic benefits to the people and ecosystem service benefits to the environment in the TCI region.
NY S.6599 is an ambitious cap and trade program that will exclude “biofuels” but include livestock anaerobic digestion projects. Since TCI states are home to many dairy and other types of livestock farms they can support their communities and achieve GHG reductions by providing specific incentives for production of biomethane.
TCI can draw on the model of the US EPA Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) or the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard to develop mechanisms to incentivize production of biomethane from livestock manure digesters. EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have worked through many of the complications of providing incentives for low carbon fuels including the life cycle accounting that is the global standard for GHG accounting of fuels. TCI doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel on these subjects. In addition, using “standard EPA emissions factors” to assess the impact of different fuels doesn’t sounds like it would allow individual producers to benefit from innovations in reducing emissions. The RFS has multiple “buckets” of RIN credits which allow the producers of the lowest carbon fuels to benefit in the market. CARB’s LCFS has simplified Tier 1 fuel pathways for efficiency, but also allows producers to apply for a Tier 2 pathway when they think their production process provides additional GHG benefits. Both models could be adopted by TCI.
|
- |
11/6/2019 |
Linda |
Sukop |
Concerned Vermont citizen |
BURLINGTON |
Vermont |
Please prioritize equity. Low- and moderate-income and people in rural areas without access to public transportation should be the primary beneficiaries of the low-carbon transportation... read more Please prioritize equity. Low- and moderate-income and people in rural areas without access to public transportation should be the primary beneficiaries of the low-carbon transportation investments.
Polluters should pay. In this case, the fossil fuel companies that are buying permits at auction should be required to pay for the environmental and health damages associated with their products.
The cap should start low and drop quickly, in line with the latest science on the necessary pace of climate pollution reductions. |
- |
11/6/2019 |
Kieran |
Edraney |
Vermont Resident |
Burlington |
Vermont |
It's important that the policies we enact on climate change make sure that the big polluters pay the most money, and we need to ensure that we do everything we can to make sure that the... read more It's important that the policies we enact on climate change make sure that the big polluters pay the most money, and we need to ensure that we do everything we can to make sure that the people living in more rural areas (I know there are many in Vermont) are not dealt a horrendous blow in terms of rising costs they can't handle. Finally, we need to make sure that when we institute a cap that it's done to keep us on track to address climate change. |
- |
11/6/2019 |
Karen |
Wagner |
Northfield Energy Group |
Northfield |
Vermont |
Having a number of north-eastern states work together to deal with Climate Change related to transportation sounds like an excellent idea. Infrastructure such as fast electric rail, park and... read more Having a number of north-eastern states work together to deal with Climate Change related to transportation sounds like an excellent idea. Infrastructure such as fast electric rail, park and rides, electric buses and other public options plus fast charging stations for electric cars and policies to help low income people switch to electric cars could all be implemented better if we co-operate together. |
- |
11/6/2019 |
Jack |
Widness |
None |
Wilmington |
Vermont |
I support the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI). This is both a regional and national problem. How can anyone think otherwise. Duh! As one measure, I would like to see government begin... read more I support the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI). This is both a regional and national problem. How can anyone think otherwise. Duh! As one measure, I would like to see government begin raising—by a large margin—the costs of fossil fuels over a period of years as advocated in the attached letter published this past September by the Ithaca Journal (NY) by my friend, Richard "Dick" Booth. Dick is an environmental lawyer who teaches in Cornell University’s Department of City and Regional Planning. In recommending this, I recognize that doing this will not be easy—particularly for low income, margin households, but it needs to somehow begun ASAP and with some sort of accommodations for households that will mitigate, or soften, the impact on them. |
ITH JOUR LETTER, September 22.docx |
11/6/2019 |
Barbara |
Wynroth |
none |
Burlington |
Vermont |
My two major concerns are Lake Champlain and other bodies of water, and air quality - particularly in Burlington.
The degradation of Lake Champlain due to road runoff, sewage spill... read more My two major concerns are Lake Champlain and other bodies of water, and air quality - particularly in Burlington.
The degradation of Lake Champlain due to road runoff, sewage spill, algae and farming practices, as well as Vermont's
lakes and rivers, is deeply concerning.
The concentration on roads and parking lots at the expense of solutions such as light rail and rail connecting Vermont is repeating
the past and compounding present problems. |
- |
11/6/2019 |
Richard |
Wissler |
retired, well OLD, craftsman/artist |
Middlebury |
Vermont |
Who collects and decides how to employ the collected funds? This could easily be or devolve into just another layer of misappropriated bureaucracy. Who collects and decides how to employ the collected funds? This could easily be or devolve into just another layer of misappropriated bureaucracy. |
- |
11/6/2019 |
Anne |
Damrosch |
Independant |
Burlington |
Vermont |
Please support the Transportation and Climate Initiative. It is crucial now, more than ever, for states to lead in climate action. We can't afford to wait for a new administration. We must... read more Please support the Transportation and Climate Initiative. It is crucial now, more than ever, for states to lead in climate action. We can't afford to wait for a new administration. We must join other states in solutions that work. |
- |
11/7/2019 |
Gretchen |
Elias |
community member and parent |
MONTPELIER |
Vermont |
I strongly support this initiative. I would like to see TCI revenues invested in an equitable way, so that low and middle income households do not bear the brunt of this necessary transition.... read more I strongly support this initiative. I would like to see TCI revenues invested in an equitable way, so that low and middle income households do not bear the brunt of this necessary transition. Investments should target policies and initiatives that help transform our region from a car-dependent one to one in which gas-powered single occupancy vehicles are no longer the norm. That means significant investment in public transit as well as in alternative transportation options, EV infrastructure and subsidies/incentives for lower income households to purchase EVs, as well as smart growth land use policies, transit-oriented development, and affordable housing that is transit-accessible. |
- |
11/7/2019 |
Wolfger |
Schneider |
Retired engineer |
Charlotte |
Vermont |
I'm told that: TCI is a multi-state plan to cap emissions from the transportation sector, auction off permits to distribute fossil fuels in the participating states and use the auction... read more I'm told that: TCI is a multi-state plan to cap emissions from the transportation sector, auction off permits to distribute fossil fuels in the participating states and use the auction revenues to invest in low-carbon transportation solutions.
This approach, if understood by me, seems to lead to scarcity followed by higher prices (an indirect fuel tax/fee). Where's the equity in this?
I'm also told that: Despite RGGI’s success regionally, carbon pollution is rising in Vermont (as I suspect is so in other states). The increase is driven primarily by an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, our cars and trucks.
As I look around the parking lots, I see larger and larger automobiles and pickup trucks every year with the concomitant worse mileage in most cases. Manufacturers' pursuit of greater profits push for larger vehicles for safety and indirectly for status. Since we wouldn't want to/can't limit vehicle choice, maybe we should have a CO2 mileage levy on each vehicle that is dependent on annual mileage driven, and EPA mileage rating. This levy could be established at the annual inspection from odometer readings and be progressive with the EPA mileage rating, so that unnecessarily large vehicles in effect pay more for the mostly unnecessarily greater CO2 emission. Mileages could be reported to the DMV and car registration renewal would be dependent on the payment of the levy. |
- |
11/7/2019 |
steve |
gagliardone |
Vermont Resident |
Sharon |
Vermont |
To TCI Planners- Thank you for taking the time to listen to my input.
Vermont is bound by law to significantly reduce carbon and increase renewable energy sources. Many critics... read more To TCI Planners- Thank you for taking the time to listen to my input.
Vermont is bound by law to significantly reduce carbon and increase renewable energy sources. Many critics of carbon reduction proposals have argued that the small state of Vermont cannot do it alone. TCI provides a prime opportunity to take a regional approach to carbon pollution reduction. And it has the data of a similar and very successful RGGI program to back it up. Of course, Vermont needs to do this and much more. We need a suite of complementary policies to help us meet our legal obligation, but TCI is an opportunity that we cannot pass up. In planning the TCI program I hope that you consider these 3 priorities in your design:
1. Prioritize equity so that low income Vermonters without access to public transportation are the primary beneficiaries of low carbon transportation options.
2.Polluters, including fossil fuel companies should pay the real costs for the environmental and health consequences of their product.
3. Start the cap low and drop it rapidly. Vermont is way behind in our obligation to meet the reduced carbon goals, and we need an aggressive approach to get back on track.
Thanks for listening!
Steve Gagliardone
Sharon, VT |
- |
11/7/2019 |
Jennifer |
Holan |
concerned citizen and VPIRG supporter |
Westminster |
Vermont |
It is vital that we take steps to curb emissions from all sectors, but regulation will be needed to control wasteful transportation consumption. The most effective action would be to develop an... read more It is vital that we take steps to curb emissions from all sectors, but regulation will be needed to control wasteful transportation consumption. The most effective action would be to develop an extensive and reliable system of affordable public transport; but until that's done every emitter must pay for the damage. As things are now, people idle their engines with impunity, and it drives me crazy! |
- |
11/12/2019 |
David |
Mulholland |
Vermonter |
Westminster West |
Vermont |
While the purpose and aims are commendable, when it comes to charging money for polluting -- even as offsets -- we make the ability to pollute a sought after prize for those who can afford to... read more While the purpose and aims are commendable, when it comes to charging money for polluting -- even as offsets -- we make the ability to pollute a sought after prize for those who can afford to pollute. We should all work to reduce carbon emissions.
Here are implicit problems with such approaches:
1) Will we provide the poorest individuals with "gas-guzzlers" new, efficient, high mpg cars for free or as low a cost as the vehicles they can inherit from relatives or find on street corners in poorer neighborhoods? Why shift the blame to them?
2) Will you run mass transit on rural back roads where many New Englanders actually live? I would love to use public transit and find myself needing to drive beyond my intended destination to access any. I am not alone in this.
3) How will there be fair and equitable distribution of opportunities for change on a personal level in all ways that reduce a carbon footprint? Massive TCI plans cannot replace individual effort or become a "feel good" surrogate on a social level.
|
- |
11/13/2019 |
Demetrius |
Bolduc |
Rural Citizen |
Fairfield |
Vermont |
TCI costs are a non-solution for rural Vermonters and targets us with unnecessary and unequitable costs. My family has no options but to use our vehicles for obtaining work, school, and basic... read more TCI costs are a non-solution for rural Vermonters and targets us with unnecessary and unequitable costs. My family has no options but to use our vehicles for obtaining work, school, and basic life necessities. Mass transportation is neither effective nor efficient in a rural environment. I cannot walk or bike with my young children along the rural Town roads as a main source of transportation due to having no distinguishable shoulder for safe traversing. When a vehicle approaches as we walk on these roads, we must leave the road and enter the long grass and weeds which are ripe with ticks and yellow or poison parsnip and the occasional used syringe. For as many as 6-7 months of the year the plowed snow debris leaves no options for getting off the road and out of the way of traffic. Vermont’s State roads are no better than the rural roads regarding accessible shoulder space in our area.
I would also like to point out that the State of Vermont is the largest contributor to transportation generated pollution. The State of Vermont is the largest employer in the State, all those State employees have to commute to and from work, increasing transportation generated pollution. Additionally, the State of Vermont by far, has the largest inventory of vehicles of any entity in the State, which are used by the State Employees to perform State functions such as policing, forestry, fish and game enforcement, highway maintenance, parks management, DMV enforcement, and many other entities and purposes. I am not debating the necessity of these transportation assets, my transportation requirements are as necessary to me and my family as they State’s requirements are necessary to the State. My family should not be penalized financially to meet our needs to subsidize the only growing transportation generated pollution caused by the State of Vermont.
If you want to reduce transportation generated pollution in the State of Vermont, you must first look to the largest generator of such pollution, the State’s Government and Agencies.
|
- |