TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

The 65 acres of trees cut down in North Smithfield will allow solar panels that generate 12.4MW of electricity.
The now abandoned 40 acre natural gas plant in Burrillville would have provided 900MW of electricity. The difference is that it would take 4,712 acres of forest to generate the same amount of electricity. This is green energy???

https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20191113/ri-celebrates-start-of-largest-community-solar-project-in-north-smithfield

Morning and afternoon rush hour traffic weekdays, turn sections of Interstate 95 in Fairfield and New Haven counties into a virtual parking lot. Yet little is done to make Metro-North and Shoreline East a more attractive option for commuters. The fares have to come way down to get people out of their cars. Also I'd like to see shuttle service from train stations to area commuter parking lots.

I strongly support TCI. It is an investment in the future. Programs like this are needed to slow climate change to allow up to adapt and invent better ways to slow the ever-increasing amount of GHGs. The future costs will be high and will be born not just by us but even more so by our children. Future costs include rising food prices as farms have to adapt to changing weather and temperature, insurance costs as the payouts rise due to more severe weather and flooding, new dikes and roads due to rising sea levels, etc.

Here is the definition of “The tragedy of the commons”: The tragedy of the commons is a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users, acting independently according to their own self-interest, behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling the shared resource through their collective action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

In this case the shared resource is a stable atmospheric chemistry, we all are adding to GHG deficit that we and our children will eventually have to pay back. The longer we wait, the more it is going to cost.

Acting now will save lives and money in the future.

Gasoline and diesel powered vehicles are collectively the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in this country. In as much as our federal government apparently believes that excessive amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere is a good thing, it is incumbent on state governments to take action to reduce the emissions. I am in favor of the TCI states developing a regional transportation policy to address this problem. Responsible government action is desperately needed at the state level in light of the federal government's abysmal environmental record. Thank you.

I travel 60 miles a day just to go to work and I can’t afford any more taxes on gasoline! An electric vehicle is not economical for me !

I support this initiative as an important means to stopping the CO2 gasses causing climate change. Leadership by the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states is heartening to those of us who are keenly concerned by the lack of national effort to address climate change. I would urge the states to consider coordination and consultation with the two U.S. congressional Climate Solutions Caucuses and the Citizens' Climate Lobby. Reconciling the existing bill for an Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act with the TCI seems an important discussion to have at an appropriate point in the process. Even if the two initiatives cannot be reconciled, I want to express my support of the TCI. I also want to applaud our governor, assembly, and state government for its action for climate solutions. Thanks particularly to Gov. Murphy.

Our transportation system is not working well. Though nobody wants higher taxes, I SUPPORT an increase in the gas tax of at least 15 cents/gallon immediately to get better infrastructure in place. PLEASE--end the gridlock!

I oppose the TCI as a regional tax (yes, it is a tax) for several reasons.

The main reason I oppose this tax is because there can not be a fair way to distribute the collected revenue in relation to distributing the money back to the States that may participate.

The TCI puts an unfair tax burden especially on Vermont, perhaps the poorest state in this proposed TCI group of states, a rural state where private vehicle transportation is highly if not solely dependent upon all needed purposes for it's transportation needs.

Vermont, one could argue, also has the least "climate" impact of all the other states as well which would make the TCI ratio a much higher tax to bear and less a fair return in any proposed "investments" this tax is proposed to create.

There is also the near certainty that this TCI tax would only keep increasing to an even wider gap between personal and family income and the ability to absorb increasing this tax level proposed or any future TCI tax increases.

This TCI tax would then limit tourism in Vermont and restrict Vermonters the ability to plan for themselves when and how they wish to travel for business and work and for leisure.

The TCI would likely not allow and fair representation to a smaller TCI contributor such as Vermont.

Any overhead or newly formed bureaucratic oversight of the TCI would likely not be cost effective and a large percentage of TCI revenue would have bloated top heavy administrative costs to set up such a regional program.

These are just a few reasons I oppose this TCI tax.