TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Dear Governor Scott,
Our nation has neglected climate change to the point of imminent crisis proportions. Our "brave little state" and every one of us needs to step up and change the things we can. The TCI addresses 40% of our emissions and is a perfect place for you to start. Please, please, please do not follow Sununu's and trump's anti-environmental examples. Do not be just another spineless, Republican lackey. Vermont and Vermonters are counting on you.
Sincerely,
Deborah Martin
Norwich, Vermont

Transportation uses are the predominant contributor to air pollution in north east USA. Deliberate, effective and immediate actions are needed by Federal, State an local bodies to reduce pollution from all means of transportation. Some of the steps to be taken/continued include demanding increased miles per gallon for automobiles and trucks, trending towards electric vehicles as well as increased research and implementation for employing alternative energy approaches for transportation plus expanding public transportation (e.g. high speed trains).

I support the TCI proposal. Carbon-based fuels are accelerating the climate crisis and their use must be curtailed. Increasing the costs of fossil fuels will help reduce their use and is an appropriate method of raising money for investments in better transportation. Since Vermont is a mostly-rural state our primary need is to replace gasoline and diesel vehicles with electric vehicles. Our distribution of houses and patterns of travel are not easily handled by mass transit except in a few regions. Incentives for individuals and companies to switch from fossil fuel cars to electric cars, more investments in charging stations and more investments in electric school and commuter buses are all needed. Commuter rail should be considered as an option on existing tracks. More bicycle paths should be created as a transportation option and also for recreation by both residents and our economically important visitors.

I am in favor of Vermont's participation in the regional Transportation and Climate Initiative. It makes sense for Vermont to join other states in the region in developing policies to address carbon emissions from transportation fuels because those policies will impact Vermont even if it does not join the TCI: it might as well have a say in them before they take effect. Vermont needs to become clearer and more emphatic about meeting its goals for the reduction of its carbon emissions in general The public needs help in doing this: lots of education, of course, and policies which encourage and/or require taking actual steps towards lowering emissions numbers in different areas of our day-to-day life. The cap and invest approach to transportation fuels gives the public a chance to a) see that long-term steps to reduce emissions from transportation fuels can indeed be taken on a regional scale and b) engage in considering how to invest in our own communities-- always a profound opportunity! The conversations which will happen around investing monies from a cap-and-invest program will build our community as different types of people come together to consider what is important to them, worth investing in, in this state we all love so much.

In efforts to combat our climate crisis, I support more public transit and electric vehicle infrastructure in rural areas and the expansion of commuter rail, electric vehicles and streets in the suburbs that are safe, walkable, and bikeable. As well as sustainable and equitable housing near transit and electric bus fleets in urban suburban and rural communities.

VT Buses need to be electric, and there are a lot of areas they don't go. Expand the routes by sending out questionnaires to all residents. We VTers need better access to commercial bus-lines, rail (e.g., Montrealer, etc.), and airlines. There needs to be transportation to Burlington and Montpelier (the East side of the state is woefully neglected). How about bus lines, etc. accepting debit/credit cards instead of change? How about interstate transportation (e.g., St. Johnsbury to Littleton, Hanover, Lebanon, NH). In France they have a rapid/quiet train system which rides on opposing magnetic fields -- this would be a wonderful update for some of the U.S. rail systems (esp. the Montrealer).

Dear governor Scott: I strongly urge you to support the Transportation Climate Initiative. Thank you. Paul Markowitz

Here are twelve questions and answers that will explain what TCI is and expects to do.
Q: What is TCI? TCI is a multistate regional agreement to drive up the price of motor fuel (gasoline and on-road diesel). It proposes to start at five, nine or seventeen cents per gallon, and escalate upward from that, with no declared maximum.
Q: Why do the TCI backers want to drive up the price of motor fuel? Because they are convinced that “climate change poses a clear, present, and increasingly dangerous threat to the communities and economic security of each [participating state].” The MOU says that the participating states will “need to implement bold initiatives to mitigate the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector,” which produce 40% of human-caused emissions.
Q: How will TCI drive down those emissions? By driving up the price of gasoline and diesel fuel so you will drive less, drive smaller cars, use electric vehicles, walk, ride bicycles, use public transportation, move closer to school and work, and so on.
Q: How does TCI drive up motor fuel prices? It creates what it calls a “cap and invest” system. TCI sets a cap, or limit, on carbon dioxide emissions from burning motor fuel. Every distributor of motor fuel – of which there are eighty in Vermont – will be required to purchase “allowances” to match the motor fuel sold in each reporting period.
Q: So motorists, including passenger cars, pickups, SUVs, vans, school buses, delivery trucks, contractor vehicles, milk tankers, ambulances, and motorcycles will end up paying for the allowances? Yes, of course they will.
Q: What does the state get for imposing these costs on motorists? TCI will distribute among the participating states some fraction of the revenue from its sale of “allowances”, according to an as yet undetermined formula. The states are supposed to use these revenues to further drive down gasoline and on-road diesel use, and “help their residents transition to affordable, low-carbon transportation options”. Paying people to buy electric cars, and building charging stations for them, is a recommended use of the funds. However, the states can use what they receive for anything their legislature desires.
Q: How many “allowances” will TCI issue? As many it sees fit. TCI will invent them out of thin air, and motor fuel distributors will be required to go into TCI’s auction market to buy enough of them with real money to match their motor fuel deliveries over a preceding reporting period. The cost of these “allowances” will be included in the price you pay at the pump.
Q: Won’t this plan hit hardest on working people and the poor, especially in Vermont’s rural areas? Of course. It’s regressive.
Q: How much will the preferred TCI scenario reduce carbon dioxide emissions from motor fuel? Drew Cline of New Hampshire’s Josiah Bartlett Center analyzed the TCI economic model. He found that the “reference case” used by the Georgetown Climate Center to project what would happen from 2022 to 2032 if states did not implement the TCI would likely be a 19% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. If TCI is implemented, emissions are projected to fall by between 20% and 25% over that decade. So TCI will produce an additional emissions reduction of between 1 and 6 percentage points on top of a presumed reduction of 19 percent. In short, TCI would extract $56 billion from motor fuel users to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a little more than 5 percent over ten years.
Q: Will that reduction of emissions actually reduce “climate change”? Certainly not measurably. Probably not at all.
Q: Wait a minute. Isn’t this TCI “cap and invest” scheme just another carbon tax in a fancy package , designed to make it look like it’s not a carbon tax? Yes, of course.
Q: Gov. Phil Scott has steadfastly promised to veto a carbon tax. Won’t he reject the MOU, as New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu has already done, and veto any legislation to force Vermont fuel dealers to buy those funny money TCI allowances that will drive up the price of gasoline and diesel fuel for all Vermonters? As of now he won’t say, so if you don’t want to see the TCI drive up your fuel prices year after year, it wouldn’t hurt to encourage him to strengthen his resolve.