 Hello there, welcome to Town Meeting TV's ongoing coverage of Town Meeting Day 2023. My name is Bobby Lucia and I'll be your host for the program today, where we'll be looking at the carbon pollution impact fee ballot question in Burlington. Before we get started I'll mention that this program is one in a series of forums that we're hosting in advance of Town Meeting Day, which is coming up in March 7th. In our forum series, Town Meeting TV invites candidates, municipal officials, and community members to unpack the races and questions that you'll see up and down your ballot this year. Before we get started, just a reminder that if you're tuning in live we welcome your questions anytime at 802-862-3966, that's 802-862-3966, if you give us a call we'll be sure to put your question on the air promptly. You can also watch Town Meeting TV on Comcast Channel 1087 as well as Burlington Telecom Channels 17 and 217 and on YouTube.com slash Town Meeting TV. So with that we can now dive into this question about the carbon pollution impact fee in Burlington. I'm joined by Jennifer Green and Darren Springer, who are with us from the Burlington Electric Department. Thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having us. My pleasure. Awesome. So I'll give you both just, actually first we'll look at the language that is on the ballot for voters this year. It is number two on the ballot I believe and we'll just read it off here. It's implementation of a carbon pollution impact fee for new construction and large existing commercial and industrial buildings, 50,000 square feet or larger, shall the city council in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the city be authorized starting January 1st, 2024 to implement a carbon pollution impact fee in the permitting process with the fee to be set by resolution starting up to $150 per ton, that's a ton of carbon. And rising annually at the rate of regional inflation but capped at no more than 5% annual increasing for new construction buildings that install fossil fuel thermal energy systems instead of using renewable energy systems or renewable fuels with the exception that the fee would not be implemented until January 1st, 2026 for domestic water heating systems and new construction multifamily residential buildings with more than four units and for existing commercial and industrial buildings 50,000 square feet or larger where the building is installing fossil fuel thermal energy space conditioning or domestic water heating systems instead of using renewable systems or renewable fuels. The fee process could support one or more of the following, could support capital investments in converting the city's vehicle fleet to electric vehicles, could support a new city fund to support clean heating technology installations for low income Burlington households and renters and or in the case of existing building payers greenhouse gas emissions reductions projects at their buildings or facilities in Burlington. So that's what voters will be weighing in on March 7th and I'll invite both of you to just introduce yourselves and share why you're here to talk about this item and I'll start with you, Darren. Great. Well, thanks for having us. I'm Darren Springer, General Manager with Burlington Electric Department. Our department and the Department of Permitting and Inspections have been involved for a number of years now in developing policy recommendations for the city to consider to help reduce fossil fuel use in the building sector, which happens to be the sector that's the biggest focal point of our net zero energy roadmap in Burlington. And so our work on this has really kind of gone back a few years dating to the charter change that was voted on Town Meeting Day 2021 and then continuing with the most recent report that recommended a number of steps including the carbon pollution impact fee, which is the subject of ballot question two for 2023. Yeah, maybe I would just add, Darren, for folks that even taking it a step back, you know, back in 2014, Burlington became the first city in the country to source 100% of our electricity from renewables. That was a very exciting sort of monumental opportunity. So then we said, you know, what's next, what's the next big thing we can do? Well, as Darren said, you know, let's transition us away from fossil fuels in the heating sector, in the building sector, and in ground transportation. So up until this point, BED has been offering technical support, incentives, rebates, everything we can sort of from a carrot standpoint to help move us away from fossil fuels. But we also know that we need policy to do that. And that's where sort of the carbon fee that you read about and that Darren explained a little bit more about comes into play. It's really an opportunity to take policy, combine it with the carrots and come up with a way that we can truly begin to reduce fossil fuel usage and our carbon impact in the built environment and then coincidentally the ground transportation sector as well. Great. Thank you both. So let's talk a little bit about the mechanics of this ballot question. If this item passes, what happens next and what will be the impact on residents, businesses and others in the city, and what will happen also if the item does not pass? So we can start either, if either one of you want to jump in, but. Sure. So if the item passes, what happens next is the city council would work to develop an ordinance that could implement this policy recommendation. And for context, we have policy already on buildings in the city that have been developed over the last couple of years. We have standards for rental properties to weatherize to be more efficient. So that's being implemented. We have new construction, primary heating that has to be renewable now. That's a new ordinance as of 2021. So if you're building a new building, you already have to use a primary heating system that's renewable. What this would give us the opportunity to look at as a city is for new construction, can all the thermal uses in a building, heating, water heating, appliances, cooking, can those be renewable as well? Can we set some requirements around that for large existing buildings when they're going to pull a permit to do a new heating system or a new water heating system? A similar requirement could be in place that you have to use renewable fuels or technologies, or as an alternative compliance, you could pay the carbon pollution impact fee and also city buildings are we're looking at moving in the same direction as well. So that would be the next step if this was to move forward. Important to mention that the carbon pollution impact fee proposal, it does not affect existing residential properties, single family homes, rental units, condos, affordable housing. And it does not affect small businesses or really any building that's under 50,000 square feet space conditioned. Anything to add about? Yeah, Darren covered it. I think what's important again is it's larger buildings, 50,000 square feet or more of conditioned space and new construction. So I know folks have asked about my own home. Will I have to comply or I'm a small business? Well, I have to comply. Well, no, that's not the case. Again, we're looking at large buildings, 50,000 feet or more square feet or new construction. Right. And you say large 50,000 square feet. What are like a couple examples of buildings in Brallington? Really, it's really about 80 buildings that we're talking about that would fit that definition. And largely they're going to be, you know, University of Vermont, University of Vermont Medical Center, the city itself, the school district, Champlain College, a lot of, you know, institutions, organizations that have multiple buildings within that footprint, and then some larger commercial and industrial properties as well. And what happens if this ballot item does not pass? What's the next step for BED? Well, really for the city, if it doesn't pass, the city would not have authority to implement the carbon pollution impact fee, would still have authority to move forward with policy, but wouldn't be able to give this option to buildings in order to comply and wouldn't really be able to price carbon. And that's been one of the things that I think a number of scientific groups, environmental groups, over the course of the last couple of decades as looking at climate change and saying, what are some tools that are effective? Pricing carbon pollution is one of the tools that really has drawn a lot of support as being a very rational economic tool for helping to level the playing field for renewable sources and fossil fuels. So that wouldn't be on the table. Anything to add there, Jane? No, only that it's a tool that we can use to help us meet our climate goals, our GHG reduction goals. And again, as Darren said, I mean, this is, it's not a new idea, but it is, it's a dynamic idea really to be actually pricing carbon to capture the social and environmental costs that are otherwise not accounted for. You mentioned this a little bit, Darren, but what is the problem that this impact fee is attempting to fix? Sure, I mean, you know, plain and simple, we know from all the best science that the reason that we are dealing with climate change is human activity, and in particular, the burning of fossil fuels. That's what's driving climate change. In Burlington, we are 100 percent renewable with electricity, but we know we have an opportunity to do more and our city's committed to doing more in terms of reducing fossil fuel use for heating and ground transportation. Those are the two largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, not only in the city, but in the state. So similarly, the state is looking at acting in those areas as well. And this gives us an opportunity in Burlington to continue our leadership, but to do so in a practical way that's going to yield benefits in terms of fossil fuel reduction and also supporting clean energy technologies. And so that's really, I think what this is aimed at, is really a continuation of Burlington's climate leadership. And you also touched on this a little bit, but how does this fee fit into the city's climate action plan and broader statewide level initiatives to address climate change? Maybe I turned to Jen, but one of the things that I think we haven't touched on yet is how the fee proceeds would be used. And that's also kind of a critical piece to maybe. Sure. Yeah. So if people are asking, all right, so we're going to have this, this, this fee from which to draw theoretically, there are a couple of things we can do. Darren mentioned them in the beginning of the show, but the first from an equity standpoint is helping to ensure that some of our low income Burlingtonians and renters in particular can transition their own homes or units to to fossil fuel free entities. So that will be part of that bucket. The second part of that bucket is taking some of the funds and using them to transition our own vehicle fleet. The city's fleet to electric. We're doing that slowly, but this would really add some momentum to that effort. And then thirdly, and I'll let Darren explain a little bit more if it's not completely clear as I attempt to do so. But if you are indeed a payer, you've paid into you've been you've opted to pay the fee. You can do other things that aren't necessarily part of the of the policy, i.e. you can electrify your own fleet. You can switch out your long care equipment to be electric. You can actually take back some of the money that is in that bucket. So if you are a payer, we're incentivizing you to do more so you can recoup some of the funds that you paid into the fee. Right. And who decides how that how those funds are used? So that would be a city council decision with the mayor, of course. But the ballot language specifies the purposes for which the funds would be used. So the purposes that Jen just outlined are the purposes that would be permissible under the ballot language. So now let's turn to there has been some public opposition to this question. And opponents of this plan point to the McNeil wood burning plant as a source of carbon emissions and say that this impact fee may allow continued or expanded burning of biomass at the McNeil plant. And these opponents do not see biomass as renewable or sustainable. So what are your sort of thoughts or response to folks who are opposing this this article on that basis? Just on a pure factual basis, this ballot item does not have anything to do with the continued operation of the McNeil plant. This ballot item is about disincentivizing fossil fuel use for heating and use in thermal applications and buildings. So the McNeil plants and electric plant, we are working very, very hard on a long held city goal to make it a combined heat and power facility where we can capture waste heat and additional steam and use it to provide renewable thermal energy and provide that to help reduce fossil fuel use in the city. But this ballot item doesn't have anything to do with whether McNeil continues to operate. McNeil's operations are driven much more by the energy markets regionally than they are by anything going on with district energy. District energy is important from a Burlington renewable standpoint and a climate standpoint. But McNeil is the largest energy producer in the state of Vermont since Vermont Yankee closed back in 2013. It's one of the few in-state resources that's renewable that can also provide energy when we need it. During the cold weather times when prices are high, it insulates our customers from rate impacts and higher costs. So I think that's a conflation that's not accurate. This ballot item is about disincentivizing fossil fuel use. McNeil's operations have more to do with the electric markets than anything else. Jennifer, anything to add there? Yeah, no. Again, just a reminder to people that we're talking about a carbon pollution impact fee, which would allow us to add, you know, cost out the carbon that's emitted if you opt when you're replacing your system as a large building not to do, you know, to not go fossil fuel free and for new construction. That's really what ballot item number two is about. Right. OK. And if I understand opponents correctly, they're sort of citing that biomass if a, you know, a large building were to choose to keep their building through biomass. It's it's determined to be a renewable energy source by the city, and they also point to the carbon pollution that comes from those that from that biomass burning and the impacts of human health on human health of burning biomass. Can you speak a little bit to those impacts and and whether and whether that still qualifies or why it's still qualified as a renewable resource when it has those impacts? Yeah. So in terms of it, local wood is renewable. We know that because McNeil is almost 40 years old and we are continuing to add net carbon storage in the areas where we harvest. So we know that trees regrow. We know if you manage sustainably, it can be a renewable resource. It has to be managed sustainably. That's one of the things we focus on at McNeil. We have four foresters who work to make sure that the lands where we harvest that there are forest management plans in place that we're protecting wildlife habitats. We operate under state permit for these types of things. And we have data that suggests over the last number of years from 2003 to 2020. US Forest Service data says in the areas where we harvest in New York and Vermont that they've added 20 million tons of net live tree carbon storage, even as we've been able to use the wood residue from those areas for energy production in Burlington. So it is renewable. It can be carbon beneficial with wood. You can't just look at the emissions. You have to look at the life cycle. Are we regrowing trees and re sequestering carbon? That's what we call the biogenic or above ground carbon cycle. Very different than taking fossil fuels that have been stored for millions and millions of years, putting them, burning them, putting the carbon up in the atmosphere with no plan to recapture it versus with wood. It can be part of a cycle. And so that's what I think is missing from the conversation. In addition, McNeil has very significant air emissions technology that we've invested in there. So it operates at levels for things like nitrogen oxides that are well below its state permitted level. So we have a number of air emissions technologies that help to reduce emissions at McNeil. So I think I understand that that folks are coming at this concerned about some of these things. And I think we have good data to indicate McNeil operates sustainably. To your other point, most buildings that are building new in the city are using things like heat pumps or geothermal heating and cooling, not wood. We see wood being used in other areas of the state where there may not be other options. And it's a good renewable fuel choice. But really, you know, having more renewable fuels and technologies gives building owners and developers options to cost effectively meet the policy. But by and large, we're seeing electrification being the primary driver at this point. No, that Darren covered it. Great. So we'll move on to what you're hearing from the public. What kinds of questions are you hearing about this ballot item and how have you been responding to folks? I think the I think there's just been confusion about the role in McNeil and all of this. And again, I just want to reiterate that we're talking about a fee that would allow us to capture the environmental and social consequences of carbon. It's not a new idea, but it is an exciting idea. And I think it's pretty amazing that Burlington is really out front and is very close to making this happen. And as you know, Darren mentioned, it's the World Resources Institute and the EPA and the Rocky Mountain Institute and others resource economists, carbon economists that have been talking about this for a long time. So it's an exciting opportunity. And right now I sort of take off my BED hat. I put on my my Ward hat, my Burlington hat and think about it from that standpoint. I'm excited as a Burlingtonian. Thank you for anything. Yeah, I mean, one of the things we haven't really touched on, but people have definitely been interested in is, you know, are the technologies there that are cost effective to implement this? And we did work with a group called the Building Electrification Institute. Works with cities around the country. And our analysis showed that in a lot of cases, the, you know, renewable technology like heat pumps or geothermal are now cost competitive from an upfront capital standpoint. And in some cases, even on an operating basis compared to fossil fuels. So it's not that making this transition is is going to be in any way economically detrimental. We think we can do this in a way that really does level the playing field for renewable technologies helps accelerate what's already happening in the market, which is buildings are choosing to go with these new technologies because they can operate efficiently. They can provide efficient heating and cooling. We want to accelerate that trend. And one other piece that's of interest is we're not acting alone in Burlington. You know, South Burlington has a renewable heating requirement as well. The state of Vermont's considering an affordable heat act, which would move in a lot of the same direction in terms of incentivizing renewable technologies. So I think those are important points that have come up in some of the conversations at the NPAs and elsewhere as well. Do you see this if past? Do you see this impact fee impacting growth and development in the city? Yeah, it kind of gets right to that point we were just touching on, I think. I think if there's a concern that it would create kind of a situation where Burlington's acting in a way that's different than our neighbors, I understand that concern. Thankfully, we're not acting alone. We have South Burlington acting as well. We have the whole state of Vermont looking at making a pretty strong move towards renewable heating. So I think this really positions Burlington to be ahead of the game in terms of what we know is coming. We're going to need more carbon reduction to meet the needs of our broader, not only city and community, but our broader national goals. Heating and cooling and using thermal appliances that use fossil fuels is not going to be the way of the future. And so by having these types of requirements in place, we position our buildings and our city to be better prepared for climate mitigation than if we wait and didn't act. Yeah, I might just also add that we did a lot of stakeholder engagement in the drafting of this, and again, in support and with the assistance of the Building Electrification Institute. So lots of time spent with some of our larger building stakeholders, UVM, Medical Center, Champlain College, et cetera. So we've dialogued a lot. And I think we're all on the same page about what this could mean, what this can do, and what BED can do to help from, again, an incentive rebate and technological perspective. Right. I don't think you've also touched on this a bit, but I know that when people hear any sort of fee around carbon or carbon pricing, they think making sure that the impact of that fee does not reach low income folks in the city. So can you just talk a little bit about who you anticipate would be paying this fee if they are paying it and how, if at all, it might have an impact on low income folks in Burlington? Yeah, it's a great point. And an advisory question seven from the town meeting day 2021 touched on this issue and said as we implement these policies, essentially, we want to do so with equity in mind. And so there are a couple pieces here. One is we talked a lot with the affordable housing community and they had a concern that the water heating technologies weren't as far along as they should be so that we have in the ballot language a delay in implementation for that portion of the fee that would touch water heating technologies until 2026, which was with that in mind. Also, as noted earlier, the fee proceeds would help low income Burlingtonians, homeowners, renters be able to access clean heating technology. So that's another way to ensure some equity in this transition. And really by focusing heavily on new construction and where we do focus on existing buildings, not residential buildings, we're avoiding making this a challenge for a low income Burlingtonian, you know, renter or somebody living in a single family home or a condo. We're really trying to make this about new construction first where we know we have cost effective options. And then also with the large existing buildings, as we mentioned, those are largely relatively sophisticated institutions and organizations that do capital planning and can look ahead and say, OK, the city saying when I replace, I need to replace with renewable and I can plan for that. That's very different than saying to somebody who is a homeowner or a renter that they're going to immediately have some sort of a bill for this. So really those provisions were really meant to address exactly the issue you just mentioned. Thanks, Darren. Anything else? Yeah, Darren covered it. Great. I do want to touch on it because we have a couple minutes left. And I just want to circle back to one thing that I know I've heard a lot about. We talked about biomass, but renewable energy according to the city also includes natural gas. Is that correct? Renewable gas. Renewable natural gas. So can you talk a little bit about what that means? And so that's just to clarify, that's an example of a method of heating that would not be subject to this fee. Is that correct? That's correct. So in designing this potential policy, we're looking at renewable fuels and then we're looking at fossil fuels. So conventional natural gas systems would be subject here to this fee. If a new building puts in a conventional boiler that uses natural gas, that would be subject to the fee. Vermont Gas, which operates in roughly 95% of Burlington, has a program now that is overseen by the Public Utilities Commission that says customers can sign up to buy renewable gas. It's similar in a way to community solar, where you may not be directly connected to the solar, but you can purchase on your electric bill. Same thing. You're not directly connected to the renewable gas system, but it's putting in renewable gas into the pipeline, so to speak. And then a customer can purchase it. So that's one option that both Burlington and the state, I think, are both looking at as renewable. And really, for some customers, that may be what's necessary. It may be that electrification doesn't work in every scenario. So having other compliance options is really important in terms of being practical and being realistic from an economic and technical perspective. So that's why that option is included. Can you explain why renewable, the difference between renewable gas versus just... Certainly. So unlike natural gas is extracted and is a fossil fuel, renewable methane are going to come from things like, could be landfill gas that's being captured and as opposed to going up as methane into the atmosphere is being used for energy. Could be a farm methane project where we have things like digester projects on farms that can capture energy and use it as renewable. In the future, there may be things around green hydrogen where we have renewably produced hydrogen that can be used as a source of potential thermal energy. So these are newer technologies in some cases. In some cases, they've been around for a little while, but they're being used in a new way. And I think the approach is to try to be inclusive of all renewable and beneficial technologies and really put the focus on disincentivizing the fossil fuel extraction technologies. Thanks, Darren. I think we'll move into, as we reach the end of our time here, just some space for each of you to leave a closing statement and maybe comment on what you, from your point of view, would be a good outcome on this ballot item. I can imagine what your answer is, but we can start with you and then we'll wrap up. Thanks so much. Sure. I mean, maybe I'll say, having worked in Burlington now for 10 plus years as the director of sustainability and more recently with the Burlington Electric Department and being connected with cities around the country that are really looking hard at how they're going to address their climate challenges. There has been a lot of talk about carbon impact fees and how they can actually come to fruition. And the fact that Burlington, under BED's guise, has spent so much time, including work with the Building Electrification Institute, to really be thoughtful in how this might, how to craft it, how it might work, how we would coordinate with the Department of Planning inspections on collecting the fee, distributing the fee, et cetera. I'm just pleased with how much due diligence has gone into this and yeah, really feel pleased with the work that's gone into it thus far. Darren? Yeah, so as somebody who also, I've worked my whole career essentially on these topics, on climate change, on renewable energy, and I appreciate that there are a diversity of opinions in terms of what good environmental policy can be. I think we have to look at things like this on balance, you know, policy proposals and look at whether they are helping us to get off of fossil fuels because at the end of the day, that's the source of pollution that the scientific community has said is driving climate change. And so for us, that lens continues to be critical and important. We, at Burlington Electric, we don't take a position on valid items. We've provided information and tried to inform the discussion and provided recommendations. So we'll leave it to voters to make that choice. But I think in our overall city policy, we really are focused on trying to get off of fossil fuels and provide leadership in that direction and we'll continue to work in that way. Great. Thank you, Darren. Thank you, Jennifer, both for joining us today. And thank you for tuning in to Town Meeting TV's ongoing coverage of Town Meeting Day 2023. You can find this forum and many more on our website, ch17.tv. And of course, don't forget to vote. Honor before March 7th. And you can check it. I think in Burlington, ballots have been sent out. That's correct, yeah. So you should have gotten your ballot in the mail. You can send it in the mail or show up to your polling location on March 7th. Thanks so much for watching and sharing Town Meeting TV. If you're not already, please subscribe to our Town Meeting TV YouTube channel. Thanks so much. So long.