TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

The "Framework for a Draft Regional Policy Proposal" released on Oct 1st does not include natural gas / methane in affected fossil fuels that will be included in the cap-and-invest program. --- "The proposed program would cap emissions of carbon dioxide from the combustion of the fossil component of finished motor gasoline and on-road diesel fuel in the region."

Natural gas / methane used as a motor vehicle fuel is not sustainable and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions from on-road use.
The methane leaks from transmission pipelines, well heads, and fueling must be considered and is a significant greenhouse gas emission in addition to on-road tailpipe emissions. Environmental impacts from fracked gas wells and wastewater disposal (including earthquakes) are problematic and create widespread rural environmental justice issues. Natural gas / methane transportation fuels are already in use and may increase if they are given a lower cost of operation from being excluded from the Transportation Climate Initiative framework.

It smells funny that methane / natural gas utilized for transportation fuel was not included in this draft framework document. An outside observer might think that the natural gas industry is influencing the process to give themselves a competitive benefit despite negative environmental and ghg emissions impacts.

https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/natural-gas-industry-has-methane-problem

For most Mainers we depend on the forestry industry, we have to travel to work, not just a 5 minute drive, more like an hour plus. My wife has to drive her and our son for appointments over an hour and 4 hours away. We are a 1 income family because my wife is disabled. For us to get any decent health care we have to go way out of town..

It's adding tax on me a guy who owns a small business which uses a vehicle to get around this isn't helping anyone except janet Mills feel warm and fuzzy follow the money she is lining her pockets enough is enough we are already in the worst business climate !!

Are you folks crazy. We voted a gas tax down, you people are not listening. Your driving us into New Hampshire again.

It is critical that Massachusetts addresses its climate emissions! Transportation emissions are 40% of the state’s overall climate emissions. Thus, it is important that we tackle them and I am glad there is an effort to do this. Whatever we do, though, has to be effective and based on science, has to be equitable and must require an honest assessment of the challenges ahead.

Honesty
Starting with honest assessments, the current proposals are described as cutting transportation emissions by 25%. A quick look at supporting TCI analysis documents shows that the state’s business-as-usual transportation emissions are expected to drop 19% over a decade. But this is actually the rosiest possibility. It might only be 6%. On top a very optimistic expectation of business-as-usual transportation emissions, if the TCI process reduces emissions an additional 6%, then, we would get 25% reductions. But states are being asked if they want to reduce emissions 6%, 3% or only 1% over business-as-usual transportation emissions. So, 25% reductions over a decade is based on totally rosy numbers (business-as-usual reductions of 19% and the states all choose bold(?) action to get an additional 6% reductions. Actually, the results might, with equal probability, only be 7% reductions over a decade, or less!

How can have an honest conversation in the state about TCI if TCI proponents are providing misleading information about emissions reductions? Information must be transparent and honest. In this era of misinformation and given the seriousness of the effects of climate change, we cannot afford to be less than honest with ourselves about the potential results of different efforts to address climate change.

Effectiveness
The TCI process must provide policy options that address science-based requirements for climate mitigation which limits global warming to 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. That will require emissions reductions around the globe and in Massachusetts on the order of 40% of current emissions levels per decade. The TCI process is only considering efforts to reduce transportation climate emissions by 1%, 3% or 6% over business-as-usual emissions reductions, over a decade. And we have no assurance at all that business-as-usual emissions reductions will be significant. This is totally unacceptable! We need much steeper emissions reductions than those TCI is considering!

Equity
The TCI process must assure that policy options that address transportation needs in each state are equitable in the sense that they address the impacts policies on low-income communities, environmental justice communities and other disproportionately affects groups. Policies must address equity regarding access to public transportation, cost-effectiveness of public transportation, traffic congestion and its effects, the reduction of transportation climate emissions and related health impacts, impacts on access to new jobs, access to greener transportation options, and access to greener automobile technologies.

We need to be honest about the magnitude of the problem, the effort needed to solve it and the impact that our policies are having. That TCI has created a consortium of states trying to act in concert to address climate emissions from transportation is laudable. Now it needs to step up to the challenge and design effective and equitable policies to address it.

The time has passed to do something and take credit for it. It is time to stand up for our children and do what is needed.

Stop the madness! Foisting a 17 cent per gallon tax on gasoline will do absolutely nothing in the greater scheme. Is it your intent to further pauperise the residents of an already poor state, many of whom are forced to travel distances for employment. Shame on you. Get out of the TCI now! Your profligate spending and disguised taxation will be remembered on election day.

An increase in gas taxes will hurt middle-income Americans the most. Middle-income families make up roughly one-third of Americans. By increasing the gas tax, not only are you lessening the amount of money in their pockets, but the amount of money being pumped into the economy is being lessened too.In fact spending on side projects has increased 38% since 2008 while spending on core highway projects has remained flat. This solution would only support and encourage more wasteful spending. The transportation of goods is primarily done via highways. This will cost drivers more to fuel their way to deliver goods, meaning a higher cost on goods, which reduce the discretionary income of millions of Americans, and often correspond with diminished economic growth. In fact, analysts at Goldman Sachs predict “lower gas prices could add as much as half a percentage point to GDP growth this year.”

Extra tax on gas to support biking and public transportation is really needed. We don't have neither bike lanes not public transportation. We deserve to breathe clean air. I wholeheartedly support any gas tax as long as its revenue is spent on independence from passenger cars, especially those powered by internal combination engines.
Also, spend some of that tax revenue on ev insentives and don't charge electric cars with the proposed 250$ annual registration fee. Ev owners already pay tax on their expensive car and their electric bill. I am planning to purchase an ev in 2020 but won't do so if I have to if you force me to pay an extra 250$ registration tax every year. Ev owners should be motivated, not punished.