TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Oppose Initiative to Ration and Eventually Ban Fossil Fuels in Virginia
Blossman Gas Inc of Gordonsville VA which employs 14 people is strongly opposed to the "framework for a draft regional policy proposal" which seeks to expropriate the fossil fuel industry. Over time this plan proposes to move Virginia from simple rationing and new taxes to the ultimate prohibition of fossil fuels.
• This plan does not assess the collateral damage it will inflict on state revenue, local tax collections, Virginia's Transportation Trust fund, and consumers.
• Many of the advocates of these policies support regulation to electrify transportation. Those advocates somehow forget to mention that a major component of batteries powering these vehicles is cobalt, 90 percent of which is mined in third world countries under unfavorable working conditions.
• As the number of electric vehicles grows, petroleum marketers will likely have to battle for a share of the electric vehicle charging market with utility companies that see EV charging as a new business opportunity without cost. When utility companies install charging stations, they may seek the ability to include that cost as part of their capital investment. When these costs are approved by governmental regulatory agencies, they can then be passed on to all ratepayers as part of their monthly electric bills.
• Another likely competitor under this scheme is the state government itself. This is not a concept, as just this past session the General Assembly passed legislation to allow the Departments of Conservation and Recreation, General Services, and Transportation to install electric chargers. Fortunately our association was able to narrow this initiative considerably by limiting the number of state agencies involved and mitigating the threat of unfair competition by requiring the state to sell the power at prevailing market rates including taxes.
• As a propane marketer I support a clean environment. There are many ways to achieve this without rationing. Incentivizing the sale of electric vehicles does nothing to meet your stated goals of "equity, environmental justice, and non-discrimination." As one example, the stated goals could be achieved far faster and cheaper via efforts to assist low-income Virginians to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles that meet current and future CAFÉ standards.
• History has proven that rationing followed by prohibition - the ultimate goal of TCI - has led to black markets, unregulated and untaxed sales, and undue burdens on law enforcement.
• The impact of these proposals will not be solely on propane businesses such as mine - what about the auto repair industry, muffler shops, service facilities at new car dealers, quick lubes etc.? What about agriculture, construction and watermen who will be forced to scrap present equipment or pay artificially high prices due to rationing? What about the consumer who will experience not only higher prices to operate their personal vehicles, but higher prices for consumer goods and services?
• Again, we oppose the TCI plan to ration, tax and ultimately eliminate fossil fuels.

• As the number of electric vehicles grows, petroleum marketers will likely have to battle for a share of the electric vehicle charging market with utility companies that see EV charging as a new business opportunity without cost. When utility companies install charging stations, they may seek the ability to include that cost as part of their capital investment. When these costs are approved by governmental regulatory agencies, they can then be passed on to all ratepayers as part of their monthly electric bills. I am against this Bill.

Kathy Small
540.832.0090

I support TCI as a way toward a stronger economy, equity for low-income and rural Vermonters, and a reduction in carbon pollution.

Get serious. The climate Crisis and our infrastructure crisis are not going to fix themselves. It is time to do something that will provide a means to a proactive, positive change for my grandchildren's future.

The proposal outlines a program that will cap the sale of gasoline, tax it, and then require the revenue generated to be spent on new government programs and projects that will further reduce the sale of gasoline. Some of the projects envisioned have ramifications that have not been verified or well thought out. For instance, pushing consumers to electric vehicles has not been shown to lessen environmental impact due to the environmental costs of EV batteries and manufacture of new vehicles. Further, programs such as incentives to EV purchase often favor wealthier individuals while the new taxes on gasoline will disproportionate affect poor and rural communities.

The northeast compact has a greater impact on Maryland and Delaware than the other Northeast states. Geographically, Maryland and Delaware retailers will suffer the most because consumers may more easily choose to go elsewhere for fuel.

Although this proposal has been pitched as a consensus document, in fact, it is not. There have been only three work sessions and less than a handful of webinars to solicit public feedback and comment. The framework is not ready for adoption by the states as too many points have not been clarified and fleshed out. No one really knows the full detail of the proposal. More outreach and public input needs to happen to shift this to a consensus. At the present, the framework appears to be a predisposed outcome.

I reject this framework – and I urge that the participating Governors be required personally to attend and hold public hearings throughout their states. This proposal will not achieve its goals. California enacted a similar program recently, and, by most accounts, their gasoline costs have skyrocketed while the environmental impact has had no true measurable benefit.

The Transportation Climate Initiative sets out a framework that imposes an unfair burden on all vehicle owners and thousands of businesses.

I am opposed to the TCI plan as outlined: Capping sales of gasoline and diesel, requiring suppliers to purchase allowances in order to sell motor fuel, and having consumers pay higher prices at the pump in order to subsidize electric vehicles.

This proposal negatively impacts low income Vermonters, particularly those that live in rural areas of the state. It would only help those who are considering purchasing a new electric vehicle and/or those that live in urban areas with access to public transportation.

Furthermore, while some consumers may be able to choose public transportation or an electric car to avoid the increased cost in gasoline, there is no viable option for businesses that need diesel trucks. In Vermont, 25% of the motor fuel sold is diesel— and we need diesel trucks to haul milk, logs and other products that benefit our agricultural economy. Diesel is also sold with increasing blends of renewable biodiesel, which is critical for Vermont and the Northeast to meet our energy goals.

We ask you to slow down this process, consider taking diesel fuel out of TCI and ensure that renewable liquid fuels such as biodiesel are not taxed in the same manner as petroleum fuel.