TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I strongly support greater regulation of pollution coming from transportation. I believe in addition to this regulation, however, we need to focus on creating a larger, better, and more affordable public transit infrastructure to help combat single-person contribution to this issue.

I oppose the TCI. It is a burdensome tax on the people. All goods are shipped using fuel to a store. Citizens of the states must drive to and from their places of employment and other such obligations. this will just strangle the working class and stifle economic growth in the region.

Hello,
Please find attached a letter from 44 New York members and supporters of E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs) supporting the Transportation and Climate Initiative discussions to develop a policy that invests in clean and modern transportation solutions in New York State and across the region.

Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Ying Li

Development Director
Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2)
www.e2.org

Virginia Conservation Network is the partnership of 125 groups across the Commonwealth working to protect our natural resources. We have a 50 year history of working for state level policy changes to protect and restore our air, water, and natural landscapes.

Climate change is the biggest environmental threat we face here in Virginia and across the globe. All levels of government must step up to address this threat by putting policies in place that reduce carbon emissions. Virginia is on a path to joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to ratchet down our carbon pollution from electricity generation with a statewide goal of getting to a carbon free power grid by 2050. However, the utility sector is only on fifth of our greenhouse gas emissions, forty-six percent of our state’s carbon pollution derives from the transportation sector. It is time for Virginia, our neighboring states, and the nation to tackle this source of pollution.

VCN is excited about the solutions the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) could offer our Commonwealth. TCI would not only put in place a system to reduce carbon pollution from transportation, the resulting revenue streams from TCI could allow us to expand our transit networks and transition our vehicle fleets—from police cruisers to school buses—to all-electric. The potential for revenues to be invested in cleaner and more accessible transportation solutions in communities that suffer disproportionately from transportation pollution and a lack of mobility options can not be overstated. It is important that while we look towards transportation solutions we look not only to electrification but also to smart land-use including walkable, bikeable communities. We look forward to working with TCI and our neighboring states to tackle this problem from all angles.

There are many co-benefits to cleaning up our transportation system; however, the benefits for public health would prove especially significant. Virginia’s rate of asthma and related deaths is well above the national average. Richmond in particular has more deaths linked to asthma than any other U.S. city, and childhood asthma is a top reason that Richmond children miss school. Cleaner vehicles would mean cleaner air for our kids to breathe.

We are excited to support this endeavor to simultaneously tackle the climate crisis, enhance our region's mobility and make a significant shift towards cleaner, healthier communities.

I'm told that: TCI is a multi-state plan to cap emissions from the transportation sector, auction off permits to distribute fossil fuels in the participating states and use the auction revenues to invest in low-carbon transportation solutions.

This approach, if understood by me, seems to lead to scarcity followed by higher prices (an indirect fuel tax/fee). Where's the equity in this?

I'm also told that: Despite RGGI’s success regionally, carbon pollution is rising in Vermont (as I suspect is so in other states). The increase is driven primarily by an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, our cars and trucks.

As I look around the parking lots, I see larger and larger automobiles and pickup trucks every year with the concomitant worse mileage in most cases. Manufacturers' pursuit of greater profits push for larger vehicles for safety and indirectly for status. Since we wouldn't want to/can't limit vehicle choice, maybe we should have a CO2 mileage levy on each vehicle that is dependent on annual mileage driven, and EPA mileage rating. This levy could be established at the annual inspection from odometer readings and be progressive with the EPA mileage rating, so that unnecessarily large vehicles in effect pay more for the mostly unnecessarily greater CO2 emission. Mileages could be reported to the DMV and car registration renewal would be dependent on the payment of the levy.

RI Energy CZAR failed us! Yes, an inferior solution equates to an inferior product. Electric vehicles remain a wet dream given a flawed electricity affordability & availability. The back door carbon Tax is a niggardly end run lacking in reality.
The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why and or how anybody ever thought they could? Never the less RI like Germany still embraces an already failed in Europe wind & solar industrial complex GREEN SUICIDE. TODAY'S Snow storm & Polar Vortex weather events evening reading material, before the lights go out, for RI elected officials! Given the US Congress budget reflects a beginning for a already failed in Europe flawed wind and solar industrial complex subsidies phaseout - a much better understanding for all the components & limitations of wind & solar generated electricity is mandatory! The rational solution can be found!
Many Researchers have been underestimating the true cost and utility of wind and solar generated electricity!
This question comes up in many types of evaluations, including Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI), Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), and Energy Payback Period (EPP).
Conclusions;
a) Several adjustments need to be made to make wind and solar EROIs comparable to fossil fuels or generation IV Nuclear fission. The biggest of these is adjusting to remove intermittency (strength of wind & solar is every changing even beyond the day night cycle)..
b) Back of the envelope estimates would suggest that if the adjustments are made EROIs for Wind & Solar are likely less than 1.0 hence not a feasible solutions especially when compared to lower cost & predictable alternatives! Perhaps, The very BIG IF an EROI as low as 3:1 might be useful, then there is a possibility that some wind energy would be helpful, especially if a particular wind location has a very high capacity factor (can generate electricity a large share of the time), and IF both hostile environment induced rapid equipment attrition & complex under water transmission line hubs resultant companion pricing problems can be handled adequately. The EROI of solar PV would probably still be too low in most applications, especially in the northern US locations.
c) EROI can be a starting point for analysis, just as for example in preliminary medical models et al. However it is necessary, especially where a) energy acquisition b) energy conversion to power & c) power - electricity distribution, to look at real world outcomes. Yes, in this case actual outcomes can be very different than claims by an equipment vendor or an aligned an over sold political cult having unknowingly drank the green Kool-Aid.
In any event, we need to be examining situations more closely, instead of simply assuming that hidden subsidies now buried in your electricity Bills & state + federal tax bills can be counted on indefinitely. Today the US Congress is looking at retiring W&S subsidies after 20 + years of tax & rate payer monies squandered !