Predictions, Projections and Assumptions - Opposing views showing the amount of destruction of Vermont Mountain Vista's, 30,000 Acres of Solar Panel Farms while raising the COST of Living Affordability while only having 18,800 Jobs in Vermont's present Job landscape with a #50 Vermont NEGATIVE -0.9% Job growth. $15,500,000,000 or $15.5 Billion "Climate Change", "Carbon Taxes", "Carbon Offsets" $500,000,000 Million a year X 31 years = $15.5 Billion Dollars, Wake Up Vermonters $15,500,000,000 Billion Dollars to reach 90% Renewable 2050 Goals in #50 Vermont Smallest Carbon Footprint State. It's All About the Money, Public Service Board $500,000,000 Million a year, 30,000 Acres, 200 Miles of Industrial Wind Turbines in 154 Mile North to South Vermont Borders. "New Green Deal" for Vermont Legislature, Public Service Board Goals 75% 2032, 90% 2050 Renewable Energy Goals. Presently 3 Industrial Wind Turbine Developments with 200 Miles of Industrial Wind Turbines needed to reach those Goals. State of Vermont, Public Service Board Goals Industrial Wind Turbine Developments x2 by 2018, x3 by 2019, x4 by 2021, x5 by 2027, x6 by 2030, x8 by 2032 That is A LOT of Ridge Destruction in 31 short years in #50 Vermont Smallest Carbon Footprint State in the Country. 2004 State of Vermont National Treasure status for the whole State of Vermont. 31 Short years the DESTRUCTION of 200 Miles of Industrial Wind Turbines, 30,000 Acres Solar Panel Plans. $500,000,000 Million a year need "Carbon Taxes", "Carbon Pollution Fees", "Carbon Offsets" x 31 years = $15,500,000,000 Billion Dollars. https://youtu.be/_IoZrzYUq_c Website www.greenmountainrepublicans.org updates coming with new data. #GreenMountainRepublicans #ClimateChange #CarbonTaxes #VTHouse #VTSenate #VermontDepartmentOfTaxes #Research #NoCarbonTaxesVermont #NewGreenDealPlan #PublicServiceBoardVermont #JustSayNoToTheCarbonsTaxes

1. 1
An Analysis of Decarbonization
Methods in Vermont
Marc Hafstead and Wesley Look
Resources for the Future
Montpelier, VT
January 2019
An Analysis of Decarbonization Methods in Vermont
Marc Hafstead and Wesley Look
Montpelier, VT
January 2019

2. An Analysis of Decarbonization Methods in Vermont
2
As requested by the Vermont General Assembly in Act 11 (June 2018),
this report provides information on policies to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions in Vermont
Our study aims to inform the policy dialogue, but it is not intended to
address the complete universe of policy options.
We do not offer specific policy recommendations.

3. About Resources For the Future (RFF)
Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit research institution
in Washington, DC. Its mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural
resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement.
RFF is committed to being the most widely trusted source of research insights
and policy solutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy.
3

4. VT emissions have been increasing since 2011…
4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
GHGEmissions(MMTCO2e)
Year
2012 statutory target:
6.45 MMTCO2e
2028 statutory target: 4.30 MMTCO2e
2050 statutory target: 2.15 MMTCO2e
2028 US Climate Alliance:
7.46 MMTCO2e
2050 Under2 MOU: 1.07 MMTCO2e
2030 NEG/ECP:
5.15 MMTCO2e

5. and are not expected to meet any of the state’s targets
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
GHGEmissions(MMTCO2e)
Year
2012 statutory target:
6.45 MMTCO2e
2028 statutory target: 4.30 MMTCO2e
2050 statutory target: 2.15 MMTCO2e
2028 US Climate Alliance:
7.46 MMTCO2e
2050 Under2 MOU: 1.07 MMTCO2e
2030 NEG/ECP:
5.15 MMTCO2e

6. The Vermont context is important
6
Res/Com Fuel
Use
24%
Electric
Generation
10%
Agriculture
11%
Waste
2%
Industrial
Processes
6%
Fossil Fuel
Industry
0%
Transportation
43%
Industrial Fuel
Use
4%
VERMONT GHG EMISSIONS
Res/Com Fuel
Use
10%
Electric
Generation
30%
Agriculture
8%
Waste
2%
Industrial
Processes
4%
Fossil Fuel
Industry
3%
Transportation
29%
Industrial Fuel
Use
14%
U.S. GHG EMISSIONS
Transportation and Residential/Commercial Fuel Use for Heating are difficult to
decarbonize (because close noncarbon substitutes are very expensive)

7. Policy Options Considered in this Report
• Carbon Pricing Policies
• Carbon Tax or Cap-and-Trade Programs
• A quantitative analysis of costs and benefits across a range of policy
designs
• Nonpricing Policies
• Including, but not limited to, electric vehicle (EV) and energy efficiency
incentives, weatherization programs, investments in low-carbon
agriculture
• A qualitative review of emission reduction potential of Vermont
Climate Action Commission (VCAC) recommendations and 100
percent Renewable Energy Standard
7

8. Carbon pricing policies vary by
• Price (directly through tax or indirectly through cap-and-
trade)
• Sectors Covered
• Revenue Use
• Geographical Scope
$20 carbon price is equivalent to tax of 0.18 cents per gallon
on gasoline
8

9. We consider four alternative carbon price paths
9
ESSEX Price Path:
$5 per ton in 2020,
rising at $5 each year
until the price reaches
$40 and stays
constant (in 2015$).
WCI Price Path:
$15.22 per ton in
2020, rising at 5
percent (above
inflation) annually.
This implies $19.43 in
2025 and $24.79 in
2030 (in 2015$).
High Price Path: $60
per ton in 2020, rising
at 5 percent (above
inflation) annually.
The price reaches
$76.58 in 2025 and
$97.73 in 2030 (in
2015$).
Medium Price Path:
$30 per ton in 2020,
rising at 5 percent
(above inflation)
annually. The price
reaches $38.29 in
2025 and $48.87 in
2030 (in 2015$).

10. We consider three alternative revenue-uses
10
• Lump-Sum Rebates: Net revenue is returned equally through equal per household
payments to all Vermont households.
• Tax Cuts on Wage Income: Net revenue is used to finance reductions in state taxes on
wage income.
• Electricity Rebates: Net revenue is used to finance reductions in electricity rates for
residential, commercial, and industrial customers.
Note: we do not quantitatively model the use of revenue to invest in nonpricing policies, due
to time and budget constraints

11. We consider three alternative sectoral scopes
11
• Economy-Wide (electricity exempt): transportation, residential, commercial, and
industrial sectors
• Transportation and Heating: Residential & commercial use of heating fuels, and
transportation (transportation emissions include emissions from household purchases of
motor vehicle fuels and the transportation sector’s purchase of refined petroleum
products)
• Transportation Only: Transportation carbon dioxide emissions only.

12. We consider two alternative regional scopes
12
• Vermont-only: Vermont acts on its own to implement additional carbon pricing policies.
• Regional: All New England states act together under one unified carbon pricing policy.

13. Key Finding: Carbon pricing-only unlikely to meet US
Climate Alliance targets (26-28% below 2005)
13
Projected GHG emissions in 2025 relative to 2005
Carbon Price Policy
TCI WCI ESSEX
High
Price
Carbon Pricing-Only -12.9% -13.6% -14.3% -19.3%

14. Key Finding: Carbon pricing-only unlikely to meet US
Climate Alliance targets (26-28% below 2005)
14
Projected GHG emissions in 2025 relative to 2005
Carbon Price Policy
TCI WCI ESSEX
High
Price
Carbon Pricing-Only -12.9% -13.6% -14.3% -19.3%
TCI: Cap-and-Trade Program on Transportation Emissions Only , $19.42 in 2025 (in 2015$)
WCI: Cap-and-Trade Program on Transportation and Heating Emissions, $19.42 in 2025 (in 2015$)
ESSEX: Economy-wide Carbon Tax (Electricity Exempt), $30 in 2025 (in 2015$)
High Price: Economy-wide Carbon Tax (Electricity Exempt), $76.58 in 2025 (in 2015$)

15. Nonpricing Policies
• Electric Vehicle (EV) incentives
• Weatherization programs
• Energy efficiency programs
• 100 percent Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
• Relied on estimates from the Vermont Climate Action
Commission (VCAC) – over 50 individual policy
recommendations
15

16. Key Finding: Combined approaches consistent with 2025
US Climate Alliance targets (26-28% below 2005)
16
Projected GHG emissions in 2025 relative to 2005
Carbon Price Policy
TCI WCI ESSEX
High
Price
Carbon Pricing-Only -12.9% -13.6% -14.3% -19.3%
Combined Pricing and Nonpricing
approach -31.6% -32.5% -33.7% -38.0%

17. Key Finding: Combined approaches consistent with 2025
US Climate Alliance targets (26-28% below 2005)
17
Projected GHG emissions in 2025 relative to 2005
Carbon Price Policy
TCI WCI ESSEX
High
Price
Carbon Pricing-Only -12.9% -13.6% -14.3% -19.3%
Combined Pricing and Nonpricing
approach -31.6% -32.5% -33.7% -38.0%
TCI: Cap-and-Trade Program on Transportation Emissions Only , $19.42 in 2025 (in 2015$)
WCI: Cap-and-Trade Program on Transportation and Heating Emissions, $19.42 in 2025 (in 2015$)
ESSEX: Economy-wide Carbon Tax (Electricity Exempt), $30 in 2025 (in 2015$)
High Price: Economy-wide Carbon Tax (Electricity Exempt), $76.58 in 2025 (in 2015$)
Nonpricing: Implementation of all VCAC recommendations; 100% RES; median estimates of reductions

18. Measuring costs and benefits of carbon pricing
• Costs
• Increased prices for fuels and energy-intensive goods
• Changes in income
• GDP and employment changes
• Benefits
• GHG reductions
• Criteria Air Pollutant Reductions
18

19. Key Finding: Economic impact of carbon pricing is small
• The combined climate and health benefits of the carbon pricing policies would exceed the
economic costs for every carbon pricing scenario considered in this report.
19
2025
TCI* WCI* ESSEX** High Price*
Change in Economic Welfare per
Household (2015$)
-$28 -$47 -$71 -$240
Environmental Benefits per Household
(2015$)
$56 $78 $133 $317
Percentage Change in State GDP -0.01% -0.02% 0.05% -0.08%
Percentage Change in Total Labor
Demand -0.01% -0.02% 0.05% -0.05%
Annual Revenue (Millions 2015$) $75 $121 $183 $434
* Revenues rebated to households. ** Revenues rebated to low-income households and electricity
subsidies

20. Key Finding: Economic impact of carbon pricing is small
• Impacts on state GDP and level of employment would be very small, regardless of policy
design
20
2025
TCI* WCI* ESSEX** High Price*
Change in Economic Welfare per
Household (2015$)
-$28 -$47 -$71 -$240
Environmental Benefits per Household
(2015$)
$56 $78 $133 $317
Percentage Change in State GDP -0.01% -0.02% 0.05% -0.08%
Percentage Change in Total Labor
Demand -0.01% -0.02% 0.05% -0.05%
Annual Revenue (Millions 2015$) $75 $121 $183 $434
* Revenues rebated to households. ** Revenues rebated to low-income households and electricity
subsidies

21. Key Finding: Economic impact of carbon pricing is small
• A carbon pricing policy would generate significant annual revenue for the state, depending on
the carbon price level and the number of sectors covered.
21
2025
TCI* WCI* ESSEX** High Price*
Change in Economic Welfare per
Household (2015$)
-$28 -$47 -$71 -$240
Environmental Benefits per Household
(2015$)
$56 $78 $133 $317
Percentage Change in State GDP -0.01% -0.02% 0.05% -0.08%
Percentage Change in Total Labor
Demand -0.01% -0.02% 0.05% -0.05%
Annual Revenue (Millions 2015$) $75 $121 $183 $434
* Revenues rebated to households. ** Revenues rebated to low-income households and electricity
subsidies

22. Key Finding: Economic impacts are not evenly distributed
22
• Low-income and rural households spend larger fraction of
income on energy
• Carbon-intensive industries affected more than other
industries

23. Key Finding: Policies can be designed to offset impacts
on low-income and rural households
23
Economic Welfare Change in 2020 (2015$ per household)
Carbon Price Policy
TCI* WCI* ESSEX**
High
Price*
Quintile 1 $53 $96 $37 $414
Quintile 2 $18 $35 $24 $171
Quintile 3 -$18 -$38 $5 -$132
Quintile 4 -$22 -$15 -$46 -$82
Quintile 5 -$122 -$251 -$51 -$1,240
Urban (Chittenden County) -$13 -$12 $0 -$122
Rural (Weighted average, all other
counties) -$20 -$42 -$8 -$191
* Revenues rebated to households. ** Revenues rebated to low-income households and electricity
subsidies

24. Key Finding: Policies can be designed to offset impacts
on low-income and rural households
24
Economic Welfare Change in 2020 (2015$ per household)
Carbon Price Policy
TCI* WCI* ESSEX**
High
Price*
Quintile 1 $53 $96 $37 $414
Quintile 2 $18 $35 $24 $171
Quintile 3 -$18 -$38 $5 -$132
Quintile 4 -$22 -$15 -$46 -$82
Quintile 5 -$122 -$251 -$51 -$1,240
Urban (Chittenden County) -$13 -$12 $0 -$122
Rural (Weighted average, all other
counties) -$20 -$42 -$8 -$191
* Revenues rebated to households. ** Revenues rebated to low-income households and electricity
subsidies

25. Key Finding: Revenue use introduces trade-offs
• According to our modeling analysis, per household rebates more than offset
the costs of increased energy prices for the average low-income household.
• Reducing taxes on wage income would lower the overall cost to Vermont’s
economy relative to other options considered, but these cuts would not fully
offset higher energy prices.
• Devoting revenue to finance nonpricing policies would reduce emissions
further, but would also impose higher costs on Vermonters, because this would
reduce funds that could be used to partially or fully offset the economic impacts
on households of carbon pricing.
25

26. Caveats
• We do not model policy-induced innovation
• Average household impacts mask potentially large differences in
impacts for specific households. No two households are the same
and impacts will vary considerably.
• New Hampshire border remains an issue to Vermont-only policies
• Difficult to predict how many drivers would increase gasoline
purchases out of state.
• Further analysis is required to understand the full environmental and
economic impacts of nonpricing policies.
26

27. 27
Thank you!
Thank You