Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fuel Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witness explains how cross‑border supply and tariff threats can raise Vermont fuel prices
Summary
An industry witness told the transportation committee that tariff threats and the state's reliance on Canadian refineries and rail deliveries can push up wholesale and retail fuel prices, with disproportionate effects in northern Vermont.
At a March 13 meeting of the Vermont House Transportation Committee, industry witness Matt Coda outlined how fuel supply routes and the threat of tariffs could increase wholesale and retail prices for gasoline and diesel in Vermont, especially in the northern part of the state.
“For the Northeast part of the state,” Matt Coda said, “tariffs are bad from our perspective because they will increase costs, and it will disproportionately affect people in the Northern part of the state.” Coda testified for the Vermont Retail Grocers Association Motor Fuels Division and the Vermont Vehicle and Automotive Distributors Association and detailed how roughly one‑third of Vermont’s fuel supply can originate from Canadian refineries such as Suncor (Montreal), Valero (Levis) and Irving (Saint John), while other volumes arrive by barge to U.S. terminals in Portland, Boston and Providence.
Coda explained delivery differences: Canadian fuel often arrives in rail cars (about 24,000 gallons per car) or by tanker truck (8,000–10,000 gallons). He said tariff threats from the United States could create an economic incentive for distributors to source from U.S. terminals (for example Albany or Springfield) rather than Montreal, increasing transportation costs and reducing how many daily “turns” a distributor can make on some northern routes.
Using available figures, Coda said Vermont sells about 275,000,000 gallons of gasoline annually and roughly 60,000,000 gallons of on‑road diesel. He explained components of pump price: crude oil is roughly 56% of the retail cost, refining about 13%, distribution and marketing about 16%, and taxes about 15%. He also noted credit‑card fees (2–3% of the transaction) contribute a small per‑gallon cost at retail.
Committee members asked whether other U.S. refineries and terminals (Albany, New York; Springfield, Massachusetts) could absorb volumes should Canadian supply be reduced. Coda said rail logistics and ordering lead times (rail cars must often be ordered seven days in advance) limit rapid re‑routing and that northern Vermont locations would face the biggest operational and cost disruptions if supply patterns changed.
Coda also showed weekly pricing sources, including U.S. Energy Information Administration district data, and told the committee that retail tools like GasBuddy are useful for consumers but are survey‑based and less precise than EIA data.
No formal committee action followed this testimony. Committee members asked staff to consider the implications for northern and rural markets when evaluating transportation funding and for additional data on distribution capacity if tariffs or other trade disruptions reoccur.
