TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

The TCI appears to be a reasonable way to hold states, local governments, and companies who work in fuel industries, accountable for the damage they are doing to the environment. The plan has effects that can reach many people; approximately 72 million with 52 million vehicles across 12 states. The scope of this project is what makes it difficult to implement but also what makes it a potentially revolutionary plan.
Some detractors of the plan argue that the claim the TCI is based on is of dubious scientific standing: namely that climate change is increasing the number of extreme weather events, and that these weather events are dangerous threats to the states in the region. It will perhaps take more than good data to convince people of the escalating danger of these storms, in both an economic and public health sense, but in Vermont alone average yearly precipitation has increased nearly six inches, and extreme weather events are having an increased impact on Vermont (https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/vt/).
The TCI plans to use funds generated from the allowances to invest in programs that will enable residents to transition from single-occupancy vehicles (SOV’s) to environmentally friendly and low cost alternatives. Others have claimed that the funds will be invested into “most favored lobbyist’s industry coffers” as well as “administration costs.” The TCI memorandum of understanding specifically states that must address TCI project goals, such as carbon dioxide reduction, cleaner air, and more access to sustainable transportation. To claim that the government would do otherwise is baseless, especially if we can hold our leaders accountable.
It is likely true that higher gas prices will disproportionately affect rural Vermonters.
It is also true that many businesses rely on reasonable gas prices to operate their business and maneuver through their daily lives. This is primarily owed to the fact that our society has built itself around the combustion engine: to move goods and people all over the world in a relatively short amount of time is a pillar of our modern world. Yet it is also something of a crutch.
The current system, using personal cars and chauffeuring family members (children, the elderly, and those unable to drive) grants a sense of independence that public transportation will have a hard time replicating. However, this not only places a strain on members of the community that can drive, but also those that constantly must ask for rides: to the grocery store or doctor appointments. I think for the proposed plan to be truly effective in bringing transportation equity, a system would have to be added to ensure that these rural Vermonters are given compensation in some form. Even though the payoff in investments to clean and accessible public transportation will eventually reach them, there will be a lag time. During this time, these Vermonters will still be paying higher prices for gas for cars that they don’t have reasonable alternatives to, with nothing to show for the higher prices they paid.
This is an obvious flaw in the current memorandum, but it is also somewhat barebones, and more of document to give states an idea of what to expect. Thus, there is room for public pressure on our representatives concerning these critical issues left out. Despite this incomplete structure, in the public webinar, the TCI used an investment modeling tool and REMI model economic inputs and outputs to estimate the reductions in carbon dioxide and overall effect on the economy. It was found that there would be reduced overall fuel expenditures, lower congestion, and lower vehicle operating and maintenance costs across all levels of caps (20, 22, and 25 percent).Though the initial wait for the investments in clean energy to become tangible to rural Vermonters, I believe that with a support mechanism for these more vulnerable groups, the TCI is a plan with too many positive benefits, for the economy and more importantly, the environment, to ignore.