1/11/2020 |
Chris |
Imbriglio |
Mr. |
Dartmouth |
Massachusetts |
Everyone thought Columbus was nuts when he claimed the world was round. They told him he would fall off the edge of the earth. The world is flat. Co2 does not cause global warming. Proof? Watch... read more Everyone thought Columbus was nuts when he claimed the world was round. They told him he would fall off the edge of the earth. The world is flat. Co2 does not cause global warming. Proof? Watch the great global warming swindle on you tube. GAS TAX INCREASE WILL JUST BANKRUPT THE WORKING CLASS. I TRAVEL 120 MILES A DAY. BECAUSE I WORK. THIS GOES TOO FAR. PLEASE NOTE THE YOU TUBE VIDEO HAS 2 MIT PROFESSORS EXPLAINING HOW IT ISNT POSSIBLE. BASED ON SCIENCE. TAX IS NOT THE WAY. |
- |
1/12/2020 |
Chris |
Tremblay |
Independent |
North Adams |
Massachusetts |
Could someone please explain how giving the Government more money is going to stop Climate Change.
Id ask the dinosaurs but they don’t seem to be talking anymore. Could someone please explain how giving the Government more money is going to stop Climate Change.
Id ask the dinosaurs but they don’t seem to be talking anymore. |
- |
1/16/2020 |
Chris |
Hazynski |
Environmental |
Burlington |
New Jersey |
|
- |
1/16/2020 |
chris |
ness |
none |
new york |
New York |
please do your best to reduce emissions and invest in the newest, most environmental technology as possible please do your best to reduce emissions and invest in the newest, most environmental technology as possible |
- |
1/18/2020 |
Chris |
Ayers |
Tax Payer |
Saint Albans |
Vermont |
So is the bill going to increase gas, electric and heating oil based monthly bills for Americans? What is this new technology that will cap certain vehicles emissions? What about my 2010 Dodge... read more So is the bill going to increase gas, electric and heating oil based monthly bills for Americans? What is this new technology that will cap certain vehicles emissions? What about my 2010 Dodge Cummins and will I have to pay a seperate tax for having a bigger truck? Just how much is this program going to cost everyday tax paying New Englanders and please respond without political banter, I've had enough of that. Vermont is already one of the most expensive states to live in and it's only going up. It's very hard for a hard working father of 3 to pay all these taxes without a truthful relevant explanation. I give half my paycheck for taxes now so you can see why someone like me is hesistant.
Thanks for your time, |
- |
1/21/2020 |
Chris |
Jones |
Voter |
Abington |
Massachusetts |
I feel if the government funded the scientists that disagree with the "carbon caused climate change" we would have a true explanation of what is going on with the climate, but that will... read more I feel if the government funded the scientists that disagree with the "carbon caused climate change" we would have a true explanation of what is going on with the climate, but that will not be done, as it is the government elected and bureaucracy who is pushing this for additional tax revenue, and that is what it really is. This would not change anything, just cost citizens more money. I reviewed some of the responses and this is the best explanation of reality:
First, the economic side: A "carbon tax" or "gas tax" is extremely regressive and hurts low-income individual, small business, and rural communities disproportionately. The relatively MINOR emission reductions gained by this approach will do nothing to curve "climate change" and only place an unnecessary burden on low income, rural Mainers. We do not have the ability in this state not to drive. Taxes without representation is a socialist concept, not one of a free society.
Second, the scientific side. To argue that ANY reductions in emissions from the transportation sector will "reverse" climate change is silly and unscientific. To think that if the world were to stop emitting carbon tomorrow (every living organism on the planet would need to stop breathing) and then believing the climate would return to 1800's levels, is farcical. Think about it. Can humans really control the climate? Ridiculous. The biggest fraud on the American public is when the courts ruled that CO2 was an air pollutant! How can that be, when CO2 is merely part of an organism's life cycle. CO2 is not and never should be considered a pollutant. This is a manufactured crisis. If the climate changes, for whatever reason, we adapt. Has happened over the millennium. Humans adapt to their environment, they cannot control it.
SAY NO to this ill-conceived plan. NO TAXES without representation, and CO2 is NOT a pollutant. |
- |
2/4/2020 |
Chris |
Sims |
none |
Jericho |
Vermont |
As transportation is a primary emitter of fossil fuels, a focus on reducing that is imperative. Localizing economies is a start. Food is a good start to the start. Everyone needs to eat two or... read more As transportation is a primary emitter of fossil fuels, a focus on reducing that is imperative. Localizing economies is a start. Food is a good start to the start. Everyone needs to eat two or three times a day, and food has to get from farm to plate. Human beings do not need bananas from Ecuador or lettuce from California in order to survive! Re-educating people on how to get needed nutrients from things that grow locally can be of enormous help in reducing the hidden costs to the climate. Growing one's own food is best. Ten paces from garden to plate, freshness assured! Next would be a system of community gardens, then farmers markets, then grocery stores carrying local food at prices that reflect its true cost. Adding a carbon quotient to all transported foods would make local foods look a lot better.
Another educational effort could be put into edible weeds, seeds, flowers, and even insects. (80% of the world enjoys insect protein. Why can't we, in the West?) It might make people think twice about spraying dandelions with poison if they knew how nutritious they are. Unsprayed lawns abound in other foods and even medicines that are far more valuable than the aesthetics of a monoculture of Kentucky bluegrass. Think about how many homeowners rake up annoying acorns into garbage bags for the dump, when a couple hundred years ago acorns provided up to 50% of winter calories for some Native American populations. Going back to such useful local foodstuffs can eclipse the need for trucking in food from far away. This educational effort on local foods we already have could be enhanced and encouraged by having community based classes on cooking and preservation.
In Vermont, we have a lot of large lawns that are rarely used except from the seat of a riding mower on weekend afternoons. Grass, a perennial, grows on its own with little input needed. Put grazing animals on those lawns and they get fertilized nicely. Hoof action makes pockets that hold water rather than letting it run off. Hoof action also presses manure into the soil, sequestering that carbon. Grassland thus grows protein in the form of meat--a sustainable form. At the same time, any form of factory farming of animals should be transitioned as quickly as possible to grass-based. Grain is not a natural part of any ruminant's diet! They'll eat it, but it's bad for them in the long run. Valuable corn and soybean fields could then be converted to carbon-sequestering grasslands or some form of permaculture including fruit and nut trees, with some open land being kept for annual fruits and vegetables as needed.
Thanks for listening. |
- |
2/7/2020 |
Chris |
Hall |
Greater Portland Council of Governments |
Portland |
Maine |
The Greater Portland Council of Governments (GPCOG) represents 25 municipalities in southern Maine from Sebago Lake to Casco Bay. GPCOG also staffs and supports the Portland Area Comprehensive... read more The Greater Portland Council of Governments (GPCOG) represents 25 municipalities in southern Maine from Sebago Lake to Casco Bay. GPCOG also staffs and supports the Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS), a federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization representing 18 municipalities from Biddeford to Windham and Freeport Maine.
GPCOG and PACTS leadership have met and approved the following comments on the Transportation Climate Initiative. These comments will also be shared with Governor Mills and her administration.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our comments on TCI.
1. TCI needs to work. The benefits of TCI should be adequately articulated, as should the costs. TCI’s investments should successfully result in co-benefits, such as enhancing our residents’ access to economic opportunity or expanding mobility services for our aging population.
2. TCI must treat our region fairly. Our region must get enough benefit to justify the costs in our region.
3. TCI must meet the fairness test in both urban and rural communities. Both urban and rural communities should receive transportation investments tailored to a community’s social, economic and carbon emission profiles. Strategies in every community should be fair and cost effective.
4. TCI revenues should help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition the region to lower-carbon transportation, which will reduce costs to residents over time. Examples of these types of investments include improving intersection traffic flow, encouraging trade ins of less fuel-efficient vehicles and reducing the purchase price of electric vehicles, enhancing public transportation, encouraging compact development, and supporting mobility management for older adults and rural residents.
5. TCI revenues should also help the region shore up the resiliency of its infrastructure, which will reduce public expenditures over time. Examples of these types of investments include retrofitting culverts, reinforcing bridges, and preparing rails for overheating.
6. We should not get stuck in TCI. TCI should be periodically evaluated as to its effectiveness and its impacts. It should be flexible enough to respond to problems that arise during implementation.
Respectfully submitted by;
Belinda Ray, GPCOG President
Nat Tupper, GPCOG Vice President
Matthew Sturgis, PACTS Chair
Hope Cahan, PACTS Vice Chair
|
- |
2/19/2020 |
Chris |
McGhee |
N/A |
Scarborough |
Maine |
Do whatever you can to lower emissions. Pennies today aren’t worth destroying our planet tomorrow. Do whatever you can to lower emissions. Pennies today aren’t worth destroying our planet tomorrow. |
- |
2/21/2020 |
Chris |
Gassman |
Resident |
Loveland |
Colorado |
Transportation is the largest source of air pollution in the region, and we need to build a modern, clean, safe, and accessible transportation system for the 21st century. The more we limit... read more Transportation is the largest source of air pollution in the region, and we need to build a modern, clean, safe, and accessible transportation system for the 21st century. The more we limit pollution from motor fuels, the more jobs we create, the more the economy grows, the healthier our air becomes, and the more lives we save. Colorado should join TCI to fund better transportation infrastructure, reduce traffic, and make my community a cleaner, safer place to live. |
- |
2/21/2020 |
Chris |
Lomaka |
Voter |
Portland |
Maine |
We should update our transportation availability to include electric vehicles everywhere including rail transportation that goes to smaller towns which is then linked with electric vehicles to get... read more We should update our transportation availability to include electric vehicles everywhere including rail transportation that goes to smaller towns which is then linked with electric vehicles to get around those towns. Have transportation hubs in city centers so we can stop our car owning culture by making mass transit more desirable to those who are hesitant to walk. Plow sidewalks so peop Use smaller electric busses that run more routes more often so mass transit is more desirable. Do not have times when fewer busses and trains run so that we can use them all day, every day. Replace lanes with trees. Have covered stops with trash cans so we are comfortable while waiting. Invest in this so we can turn climate change around. |
- |
2/21/2020 |
chris |
ness |
none |
new york |
New York |
we need to do everything in our power to lower carbon emissions. please do the right thing for our future we need to do everything in our power to lower carbon emissions. please do the right thing for our future |
- |
2/25/2020 |
Chris |
Stanton |
Human being |
Rutledge |
Pennsylvania |
Money we invest should be in reducing use of carbon fuels, not in producing carbon fuels. Transportation is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gasses. Give people ways to get themselves and... read more Money we invest should be in reducing use of carbon fuels, not in producing carbon fuels. Transportation is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gasses. Give people ways to get themselves and their stuff around without driving cars. |
- |
2/28/2020 |
Chris |
Yoder |
self |
Baltimore |
Maryland |
I write asking you to take action so that the people of Maryland and the Mid-Atlantic states can gain the benefits of a free-market economy. Greenhouse gas pollution is an economic externality.... read more I write asking you to take action so that the people of Maryland and the Mid-Atlantic states can gain the benefits of a free-market economy. Greenhouse gas pollution is an economic externality. When I chose to turn the key in my car I do so knowing that my decision to do so will not impose on me anywhere near the full cost of the decision I make. The costs of the pollution I create are borne in part by society as a whole rather than me. Such a subsidy prevents our society from enjoying the benefits of a free-market economy where by scarce resources (including pure air and a stable climate) are allocated efficiently and equitably. The option of a solution through regulation is both inefficient and ineffective. Let the invisible hand of the market work its' magic. |
- |
11/2/2019 |
Chris & Dorothy |
Beeuwkes |
None |
Mercer |
Maine |
Just another family extremely concerned about global warming and the necessity of adapting to a less fossil fueled based and a more efficient lifestyle...
Your efforts to develop clean... read more Just another family extremely concerned about global warming and the necessity of adapting to a less fossil fueled based and a more efficient lifestyle...
Your efforts to develop clean regional transportation solutions are vital!
Thank you, Chris & Dorothy |
- |
10/28/2019 |
chrissy |
adamowicz |
NRCM |
Brunswick |
Maine |
I support making our communities far safer for bicyclists and pedestrians. Walkability and bikeability should be high priorities. I support making our communities far safer for bicyclists and pedestrians. Walkability and bikeability should be high priorities. |
- |
10/25/2019 |
Christiaan |
Beeuwkes |
Citizens Climare Lobby |
Mercer |
Maine |
Electric vehicles offer many advantages:
*No polluting emissions of CO2 (and CO!), no oxides of Nitrogen, carbon soot or oily “blow-by.”
*Less maintenance: fewer moving parts... read more Electric vehicles offer many advantages:
*No polluting emissions of CO2 (and CO!), no oxides of Nitrogen, carbon soot or oily “blow-by.”
*Less maintenance: fewer moving parts, no oil changes or tune-ups
*Inherently quiet; no muffler necessary or catalytic converter
*Lower energy cost per mile
*Charging rates now faster than you can consume a sandwich or visit a restroom.
*Charging often can be integrated with the vagaries of solar and wind.
**I’ll repeat the greatest value: EVs can make a significant contribution to mitigating climate warming.
In short What’s not to like!
We trust you folks to make the decisions that will leave a livable world for your grandchildren.
Thank you.
|
- |
11/5/2019 |
Christian |
Herb |
Connecticut Energy Marketers Association |
Cromwell |
Connecticut |
I am submitting comments for you to consider as a resident and taxpayer in Connecticut to express my concern about the potential that a cap and trade program will have on our customers, employees... read more I am submitting comments for you to consider as a resident and taxpayer in Connecticut to express my concern about the potential that a cap and trade program will have on our customers, employees, business and the environment.
The plan seems to be geared toward converting millions of gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs).
While EVs may be an apparently attractive way to lower emissions, we urge that greater consideration needs to be given to a number of factors that will have an impact on jobs, the economy, property values, electric reliability, emissions and family-owned businesses.
Please consider the following points and recommendations so that they can be incorporated into the final draft of the TCI:
•TCI needs to be very cautious about advantaging regulated electric monopolies that already benefit from antitrust protection and a guaranteed rate of return. According to the website Utility Dive (https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-new-england-will-significantly-miss-2050-carbon-targets-at-curr/564726/), "Just to meet this load that comes from electrifying transportation and buildings, you have to add an electricity sector that's equal to the current electricity sector" – which is a huge gift to utility investors. Are utilities doing such a great job that they deserve these government handouts (Eversource is rated below California’s PG&E in 2019 by the American Customer Satisfaction Index)? Our business cannot compete with utilities coddled and protected by government unless, we get equivalent protection and subsidies to create a level, competitive playing field.
•With the goal of putting million’s EVs on the road, TCI should have ISO New England and the other grid operators fully evaluate the impact that this would have on the electric grid. An article published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) indicates that one EV can consume as much electricity as a home does. And as noted, we need to double power generation to meet the state’s carbon goals, an unlikely feat that will result only in supply shortages. The unintended consequence of the government heedlessly jumping onto the EV bandwagon will be rolling blackouts, with power loss to critical infrastructure such as schools, businesses, emergency responders, hospitals and nursing homes.
•The ISO’s should add to their evaluation the impact of state policies promoting electric heat pumps on the electric grid, which could require an additional 17 million MWH of power annually. TCI must understand the impact that their program has on other initiatives also looking to utilize more electricity. TCI is not operating in isolation and has the responsibility not to operate in the dark either, and ensure that electric reliability is not compromised.
•Although EVs are considered a low- or zero-emission vehicles, they are only as clean as the electricity that charges them. Connecticut is heavily reliant on natural gas to generate electricity and becoming more dependent on it as nuclear generation in the region is retired. Natural gas (methane) is more than seventy times as potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and combusting natural gas also emits carbon dioxide. According to the Department of Energy, an EV produces 4,362 lbs of CO2e per year (https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html)– that’s almost two tons – hardly emissions-free, and that doesn’t even consider the CO2 resulting from their manufacture. TCI needs to fully understand the lifecycle impact of EVs and the source of the fuel that electricity is being generated from before EVs are designated as “clean”. It is intellectually and environmentally dishonest to claim that electricity is clean when ISO New England today (10/29/19) reports that just 8% of electric generation is renewable and 53% is generated with natural gas. Methane’s impact on climate change is an inconvenient truth. A recent study commissioned by the Connecticut Chapter of the Sierra Club (https://issuu.com/ctsierraclub/docs/hartford__ct_mobile_methane_leak_su) found that in Hartford, CT alone, gas pipelines leak approximately 43,000 cubic feet per day, or 313 metric tons per year. That is equivalent spilling and not cleaning up 320 gallons of diesel per day (or 117,000 gallons per year). Just because you can’t see natural gas leaks, it doesn’t mean that they are not there and that they are not doing environmental damage. According to Gale Ridge, PhD, a scientist and researcher on the Sierra Club study, “In a one month period, we found about 700 leaks in Hartford. Over a one-year period covering the same area, PURA reported 139 leaks. Even recognizing that some of the leaks we found are known to PURA, that’s about a 5-fold difference. We believe that CNG may be missing a large percentage of its leaks.”
•Connecticut motorists are already paying the highest gasoline taxes in New England and the 11th highest tax in America. Connecticut also has the highest diesel tax in New England and the 9th highest tax in America. Any proposal that increases the cost of fuel in our state will disproportionally harm low-income motorists and businesses when compared to states that do not participate in TCI. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council "Low-income, households of color, multifamily and renting households spend a much larger percentage of their income on energy bills than the average family." An across-the-board energy tax is therefore "regressive," i.e. "African-American and Latino households and renters in multifamily buildings who pay a disproportionate amount of their income for energy" will be greater impacted by such a tax than average- or high-income earners. Moreover, low-income families will have less means to change their energy use to lower-taxed fuels, which are prohibitively expensive to convert to. TCI needs to consider the impact of their program on low- and fixed-income families who will not be able convert to EV’s.
•Presumably, the purpose of TCI is to change consumption behavior in Connecticut and the region. But we’ve seen huge variations in energy commodity prices that haven’t affected consumption. EIA, for example, shows that gasoline consumption in Connecticut in 2015 was the same as in 2011, despite prices being more than $1/gallon less. Energy consumption is inelastic. Even if TCI is successful in increasing cost of fuel, the data clearly demonstrate that people will be paying higher prices for fuel and not curb consumption. Further inflation will result as the price of every product sold in Connecticut increases as merchants and manufacturers increase prices to account for TCI. Either that, or people will vote with their feet and leave the state or region.
Finally, even if TCI resulted in changes in consumption behavior in Connecticut, such changes will have no impact on climate change. As reported in U.S. News & World Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report claims that even if the U.S. as a whole stopped emitting all carbon dioxide emissions immediately, the ultimate impact on projected global temperature rise would be a reduction of only about 0.08°C by the year 2050. China and India will dominate global carbon emissions for the next century, and there’s little the U.S., let alone Connecticut can do, to affect this. A Princeton University study likewise predicted that even if all countries stopped emitting CO2 entirely, the Earth would continue to gradually warm, before cooling off.
I ask that TCI take all of these issues into consideration before they decide to move forward. |
- |
2/28/2020 |
Christian |
Herb |
Connecticut Energy Marketers Association |
Naugatuck |
Connecticut |
February 28, 2020
The Connecticut Energy Marketers Association’s (CEMA) motor fuels members own, operate and distribute gasoline to approximately 1,000 convenience stores in the... read more February 28, 2020
The Connecticut Energy Marketers Association’s (CEMA) motor fuels members own, operate and distribute gasoline to approximately 1,000 convenience stores in the state. Our members own property in virtually every municipality, pay local and state taxes, employ thousands of people, and play a vital role in Connecticut’s economy.
While electric vehicles (EV’s) may be an attractive way to lower emissions, it appears that more consideration needs to be given to several factors that will have an impact on jobs, the economy, property values, electric reliability, emissions and family owned businesses. But, it is essential that TCI does not pick winners and losers by allowing regulated utilities to unfairly use their monopolistic status to overpower private businesses that depend on free market forces to support economically viable alternatives to electricity. Allowing massive (and in some cases foreign owned) utilities to do this would be unfair, it would destroy competition, and drive local family owned companies out of business taking with them thousands of jobs.
Allowing monopolies with a guaranteed rate of return to control EV charging would not only discourage private companies from investing in future alternative fuels, but it would also have a detrimental effect on their ability to maintain the current infrastructure that motorists depend on.
Over the past decade, federal policies such as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the Biodiesel Blenders Tax Credit, and others, have created incentives for fuel retailers to invest in infrastructure necessary to bring cleaner burning fuels to the market. Our members support policies that encourage a vibrant and competitive market that will deliver the most efficient prices to the public, but if electric utilities are allowed to exercise TCI and government granted power in the motor fueling space, private businesses will not be able to compete.
TCI needs to examine a regulatory landscape which encourages fuel retailers to invest in alternative fuels before generations of investment in thousands of locations throughout the state are irreparably harmed. We have one chance to get this right, or a major segment of the economy will be decimated.
While utilities need to play a role as EV’s enter the market, they should be focused on grid enhancements, distribution upgrades (ie. line extensions), cyber security and other issues to ensure that the “lights stay on” as demand for electricity grows - these are fundamental to the reason that they have been granted monopoly status. TCI should seek and support pathways that leverage the current fueling
network that has been privately developed to bring alternative fuels to consumers - not tip the scale in favor of electricity.
TCI also needs to be cognizant of the impact that the “electrify everything” policy that the state is pursuing will have on grid reliability, the cost electricity, and emissions.
Attached is a spreadsheet the looks at the need to add electricity supply if EV’s replace gasoline and diesel fuel for transportation purposes and the replacement of heating oil and natural gas for heating. In Connecticut, Governor Lamont’s Executive Order number three seeks to achieve zero emissions in the electric sector by 2040, coupled with the need for additional electricity capacity to meet the demand that EV’s and electric heat pumps will add to the grid is going to place immense pressure on the need for renewable energy generation.
To do that we need to look at what it would take for wind and solar to meet this goal. It is a fact that solar and wind electric power farms are much more land intensive than oil, gas, or nuclear power plants. For example: “Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found. Solar photovoltaic (PV) facilities require up to 75 times the land area.” https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants. It’s simply the nature of the science and engineering behind wind and solar plants that they are land intensive.
Given TCI goals and that the state of Connecticut wants to move entirely to renewable power plants, specifically wind and solar, for electricity generation, it’s reasonable to ask how much land such plants would consume.
SOLAR
Let’s look at solar first. Connecticut has a large solar farm currently in Somers, CT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somers_Solar_Center It has a capacity of 5 MW of electricity, and covers 50 acres of land. According to ISO-New England, Connecticut power plants have a nameplate capacity of 8,700 MW https://iso-ne.com › grid_mkts › key_facts › final_ct_profile_2013_14
Doing the math, Connecticut would require some 1,740 solar farms the size of the one in Somers to replace all existing electric power capacity in the state, and doing another calculation, this would require some 87,000 of land use. This land area is equivalent to the total sum of all the land taken up by the cities of Hartford (11,490 acres), Bridgeport (12,400 acres), New Haven (12,870 acres), Waterbury (18,530 acres), New Britain (8,576 acres), New London (6,886 acres) and Meriden (15,440 acres).
WIND
Wind power plants come in two forms, onshore and offshore.
- Onshore
For our onshore example, we look at the Sheperds Flat wind farm in Oregon, the world’s fifth largest onshore wind farm. https://www.power-technology.com/projects/shepherds-flat-wind-farm-oregon/
This wind farm has a capacity of 845 MW and covers some 80 square kilometers. We calculate that 10.3 such wind farms would be needed to replace CT’s 8,700 nameplate capacity, and these would span some 823.7 square kilometers. As Connecticut consists of 14,360 km in area, more than twice the area of the solar plant described above.
- Offshore
Since solar and onshore wind power plants take up so much land space, perhaps an offshore wind plant in Long Island Sound would be preferable. After all, there are no homes or businesses to disrupt out in the Sound.
The world’s largest offshore wind power plant is the Walney Extension wind farm off the coast of England. https://www.power-technology.com/features/largest-offshore-windfarm-world/ Unfortunately, as we shall see, the news isn’t good. The British wind farm has a capacity of 659 MW and is spread over 145 sq. kilometers in the North Sea. To replace CT’s 8,700 nameplate capacity, we’d need some 13.2 Walney-sized windfarms which would cover an expanse of 1,914 sq km of Long Island Sound. But the Sound only covers 3,056 sq km. In other words, this huge wind farm would choke off Long Island Sound, covering 62.6% of its entire surface area. This would mean a wind farm covering every square meter of Long Island Sound from the New York border to Rhode Island, and penetrating from a few miles into the sound at its narrowest point, to over 100 miles at its widest point.
Connecticut and TCI should be cautious before committing to entirely replacing Connecticut’s current power capacity with wind and solar power plants to accommodate EV’s. There are physical constraints to making such wholesale conversion possible. In the meantime, Connecticut can transition to a net-carbon zero energy source in the heating sector, elevating the need to put any additional burden on the existing electric power grid, through the use of biodiesel. Why further burden the grid by adding electric heat pumps, when electrons can be saved with liquid fuels that can deliver on emissions reductions that help the state comply with the greenhouse gas reductions required under the Global Warming Solutions Act? Since biodiesel and renewable diesel can be used as a transportation fuel (along with other low carbon fuels), the state can significantly reduce demand on the grid and significantly lowering emissions by utilizing the potential of local businesses to sell low/net zero liquid fuel to the public.
We know that Connecticut is concerned about increasing what are already the highest electricity rates in America, and as business owners we are troubled about the impact that potentially billions of dollars in ratepayer investment that will be needed to upgrade the grid to accommodate TCI goals, subsidizing new clean electric generation sources to accommodate those goals, the subsidization of EV infrastructure, and EV incentives will have on rates. We believe that TCI should put as much effort into finding low carbon/zero carbon liquid fuels, that utilize existing infrastructure that has been privately developed, as they are into electrification of the transportation sector.
Before Connecticut has even adopted any of the costly suggestions that have been made by EV industry advocates, Eversource customers will pay 15.8% more for electricity in 2020 and United Illuminating (UI) customers will realize 26.4% increase (which equates to average customer using 750 kilowatt hours a month paying $9.65 and $16.55 more per month with Eversource and UI respectively)! Connecticut needs to factor costs in and “right size” their electrification plans before fixed income and low-income families are disproportionally affected by the proliferation of EV’s and the infrastructure that comes with TCI’s plans. TCI needs to address the question of who benefits from all the costs that go into creating an EV future for Connecticut and the region, and needs to avoid the mistakes that have advantaged the wealthy over low and middle income families.
Of the 57,066 households that received the federal EV tax credit in 2016, 78% had at least a six-figure income and 7% reported more than $1 million in income, while less than 1% of all EV credits went to households earning less than $50,000 in 2014, meaning that about half of Americans receive virtually no benefit from the credit. EV manufactures data shows that EV’s are overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. Tesla’s customers have an average household income of $293,200 while even the buyers of the more modestly-priced electric Ford Focus have an average income of $199,000. On top of the EV tax credit, electric cars owners don’t pay gas taxes to help support the roads they use, shifting more of the burden onto other drivers, contributing to a funding deficit that support our roads and bridges. PURA should not create incentives to purchase EV that will only benefit citizens who would be able to afford them without it.
TCI also, has to ask the question are we trading one type of pollution for another? Much of the literature noted that EV’s emit less CO2 than traditional internal combustion powered engines (ICE). However, the makeup of the electric grid plays a role in the release of other gaseous pollutants and particulates. According to Weeberb J.Requia’s “How Clean Are Electric Vehicles? Evidence-based Review of the Effects of Electric Mobility on Air Pollutants, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Human Health”, in China, even with an electric grid largely powered by coal, EV’s decrease CO2 emissions by 20% compared to ICE’s. However, in the same study, emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, and SO2 emissions increased 360%, 250%, 120% and 370%, respectively.
The environmental impact of EV batteries cannot be ignored and needs to be a part of PURA plan. Li-ion battery production primarily occurs in China and South Korea, whose electricity mix is generally carbon-
intensive. Han Hao’s “GHG Emissions from the Production of Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles in China.” (April 4, 2017) showed that the GHG emissions were nearly 30% higher than those for comparable ICE’s. EV battery materials impact the environment in different ways. Batteries that use large amounts of aluminum LiMnO2 and LiFePO4, for instance, have a greater impact on ozone depletion. At the end of the day, TCI needs to factor in the environmental impact of EV batteries and their disposal. A lifecycle analysis of EV and the infrastructure needed to support them needs to be done comparing them to low emissions liquid fuels before ratepayers are burdened with more costs and environmental issues.
Finally, the current electric grid is not clean and adding EV’s (and electric heat pumps) to it will only exacerbate the need for natural gas to ensure that we have enough power to support current demand and the additional demand that EV’s will create. According to Gale Ridge, PhD, a scientist and researcher, “In a one month period, we found about 700 [natural gas] leaks in Hartford. Over a one year period covering the same area, PURA reported 139 leaks. Even recognizing that some of the leaks we found are known to PURA, that’s about a 5 fold difference. We believe that CNG may be missing a large percentage of its leaks.” Current overreliance on natural gas is clearly causing greater methane and CO2 emissions and a massive expansion of EV’s in Connecticut will only drive more emissions for a grid that depends on natural gas to power the state. PURA should not move forward with any plan to electrify the transportation sector until they can verify that the electricity that is being use to power EV is truly emissions free.
We urge TCI to address all of these issues before a final plan is proposed to Connecticut.
Respectfully,
Christian A. Herb
President
|
TCI Final Comments 2_28_20.pdf |
2/26/2020 |
Christiane |
Graham |
Member, Environmental Justice Ministry, Cedar Lane Unitarian UniversalistChurch |
Kensington |
Maryland |
As a person of faith, I believe that we have to support life on Earth and stop the 6th Extinction.
To that end we have to reduce our deadly carbon emissions. Transportation is responsible... read more As a person of faith, I believe that we have to support life on Earth and stop the 6th Extinction.
To that end we have to reduce our deadly carbon emissions. Transportation is responsible for about 1/3-1/4 of our daily CO2 emissions.
I have vowed to speak up and support life on Earth in many ways. From planting pollinator gardens, educating others, using public transportation, biking, and advocating for environmental legislations.
You are my elected official and I demand that you support investments in public transportation.
Warm regards and I’m counting on you
There is no time better than today, tomorrow and the day after. |
- |