TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

As currently proposed, TCI would result in a potentially significant effective tax on highway gasoline and diesel. This would increase costs for manufacturers, retailers, dairy, forestry, mineral, and other businesses dependent on highway transportation for moving supplies and goods, as well as construction and other contractors dependent on vehicles, both through direct costs and the cost of transportation service providers.

Unlike residential drivers, who might respond to higher costs by adjusting driving habits and potentially converting to more efficient vehicles, and for whom states could fund programs supporting such changes with revenues allocated from TCI, the commercial transportation noted above is already driven to be as efficient as possible in terms of both logistical planning and transportation technology owing to regulatory requirements and the high costs of transportation generally, compounded by the competitive pressures businesses already face.

Without meaningful options to reduce exposure to the effective tax impact of TCI through behavioral or technology changes, or options for states to fund programs supporting such changes with revenues allocated from TCI, this cost impact could only be mitigated by moving production or operations out of the impacted region, or businesses would be left facing the consequences of trying to absorb or pass on costs to consumers.

TCI would therefore appear to promise little if any change in commercial transportation carbon emissions unless produced by reduced business operations, with resulting loss of employment and economic activity. This would be both fundamentally inequitable and highly cost ineffective.

The most efficient way to address the concerns outlined above while proceeding with TCI would be to exclude diesel from the program and focus on highway gasoline and related transportation issues and opportunities. This would protect the overwhelming majority of commercial transportation, and states could still work to assist businesses with smaller, gasoline fueled vehicle options.

Nevertheless, even focusing on highway gasoline could still lead to other economic and social consequences, particularly in rural areas. These potential consequences should be fully explored, explained, and opened to public review and comment before states take formal steps forward on the TCI proposal.

This is a tax without voter approval that will make small businesses and tax payers suffer. Massachusetts voters have spoken on such a tax in 2014 when a similar gas tax was voted down. Circumventing democratic representative approval is wrong. There needs to be a vote on this action. As a tax paying resident of Massachusetts I strongly disapprove.

TCI spelled differently is TAX. Do not approve any legislation which authorizes TAX err, TCI!

We do not need the Transportation and Climate Initiative in MA. It amounts to a carbon tax at the wholesale level and ultimately another tax
on gas and diesel. Taxes are already too high, we do not need to add more. Such an initiative needs to be voted by the State legislature, it should not be implemented by the Executive branch or other means. CA is losing business and residents because of excessive regulation and taxes. We do not need gas prices exceeding $4 per gallon or higher car prices, etc.

When is Governor Baker, going to get out of his gas guzzling SUV and ride a bicycle?
Maybe Baker and Mayor Marty can bike ride together.
I am moving to FL When I retire, I am tired of Liberal MA

STOP! Enough already!
There are already too many taxes, and fees in this state. These inflated taxes are driving people out of this state.( if we can afford the gas to get out) TCI is just another BS tax that you're trying to sneak by. Need more money, try reducing your bloated salaries, and pensions!

This "initiative" would put enough of a burden on my small 7 person business to consider closing it as I am at retirement age and don't want to face the challenge of how to get goods to jobsites throughout Eastern Mass.

I have been researching the science behind man-made global climate change for many years now. I will openly say that there are very good reasons to consider this science as not completely understood or worthy of creating governmental policy from as of yet.

I implore you to please look at the new scientific research sited in the following article written by pro-AGC journalist Roger Pielke. It states an example of how very much the understanding and implications of modern climate science are constantly changing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/12/22/in-2020-climate-science-needs-to-hit-the-reset-button-part-one/#34741d36482c

It is a very good example of precisely how, as the science gets better, the level of "reaction" keeps dropping.

Sincerely,

William Smith
Gorham, ME