TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I agree with the Transpiration Climate Initiative in concept, but not with the timing of it. Vermont is one of the most environmentally clean states already and will struggle to meet the goals set by this plan. I include the following comments:
I. In Rural Vermont, this tax (that you say is not a tax) is discriminatory and will place an undue burden upon most lower and middle class citizens who are already working two jobs to make ends meet and pay their taxes. This initiative will drive more businesses and people out of Vermont.
II. Even with the incentive that Governor Scott has added to his budget to enable Vermonters to purchase an electric or hybrid vehicle, most Vermonters will not be able to afford to get out of their current car payment (usually a car with 150K miles on it that they are working another job to pay for) and purchase a new, electric vehicle. Also, there are no used electric or hybrid vehicles on the market now.
III. There is not an adequate mass transportation system available to enable people to get to Rutland to work an off shift. Even if there were, if someone was required to work an additional shift to provide additional funding support for their family, the current system doesn’t operate after 8:00 PM.
IV. Now that NH has dropped out of the regional initiative and NY has not committed to it, when the price of gasoline and diesel goes up because of TCI, Vermonters will simply go to those states to buy their fuels. You are naive to think that you will be able to force people to comply with your initiative. You probably haven’t noticed that fuel stations in the states along the Vermont border have been adding more gasoline pumps in anticipation of this CARBON TAX!
V. I understand that there is a plan for Vermont to sell carbon credits for businesses who don’t comply with this initiative. I also understand that the forests of our state which sequester the carbon will be used to calculate this carbon off-set. 89% of Vermont forest land is privately owned. You can’t sell carbon credits from trees that you don’t own. I own 250 acres of timber land. I asked the question last night; “Will the state pay me for my trees and the carbon they sequester” and was told that I didn’t own enough to be considered. I was also told that maybe if I joined with adjacent property owners to combine our acreage, that maybe the initiative would provide some offset to me. This seizure of property rights in unconstitutional and will not be allowed.

In 35 years we will run out of fossil fuel and we will have developed the technology to be mobile and competitive in a new world economy. Why do we have to comply with an unreasonable, futuristic standard now? We have already cut emissions and found alternative methods of going to meeting through advances of the internet. Workers are now able to telecommute to work and stay at home, work and care for their young children in the process.
Why don’t we develop a plan for phasing out the internal combustion engine over the next 10 years and let technology advance along the way so that when we get to the point of no fossil fuel, we can have everyone on board with the new plan? We can do this for the next 10 years as technology advance and our forests continue to sequester carbon from the other pollution sources in the world.

I have problems with my property here Vt. Ticks, poison ivy, 7 invasive species of plants, 4 invasive species of bugs. And my state is going to loose much more now this coming spring to more things caused by climate change .
Also we lose ski and our maple syrup industry’s and tourism because people don’t want to go outside to get ticks and poison ivy. Try fly fishing near those areas lots of times the better the fishing the worse those two problems are ( ticks and poison ivy google the facts please) Fly poles and reels go for thousands of dollars and well to do tourists that own them want to stay in nice bed and and breakfasts and hotels. That bring money to this state along with restaurants.
We simply most charge as much as we can for gas and oil from fossil fuels. Those companies that sell gas and propane can start selling electricity and hydrogen to make up for the lost sales . In the end the private sector will thank us all , for saving their businesses and jobs.
If Killington sky area can have 51 EV charging stations. So can other private sector businesses it will bring more money in then lose money.
It’s simple math . Let’s use simple math

Many countries with less resources than the USA are able to clean up their act; hence, so can the USA.
I have four young grandchildren. I want to to have clean lungs and live a long life.

I have a set amount of miles it takes me to drive to and from work. Those miles cannot be changed. I go shopping on weekends and we do entertainment for the family. If gas goes up. The first things cut are dinner out, movies, bowling etc. This will hurt the economy. Also, I don't have the money for a new vehicle. And with the issues an electric car has, I wouldn't get one anyway. Instead of charging the people more. Stay within a budget and get real people to help. Not ones that don't know the issues of a regular working family.

We've known for decades that the current climate crisis was coming, but lacked the public will to act. Now we have our backs to the wall and must take bold, decisive action if we are to have a fighting chance at reversing our current trajectory. Modest measures won't do. Leaders must lead and communicate to their constituents the financial costs of doing too little or nothing, which will be in the billions or trillions of dollars. We CAN shape the future to correct for our past short-sightedness.

Thanks,
Thom Adorney

I strongly oppose the proposed plan of cap and trade in Pennsylvania. This is an unfair burden to Pennsylvania taxpayers and businesses especially since we already pay a substantially larger amount of fuel taxes over other surrounding states.