TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Callaville, LLC which helps employ numerous people and is strongly opposed to the "framework for a draft regional policy proposal" which seeks to expropriate the petroleum marketing industry. Over time this plan proposes to move Virginia from simple rationing and new taxes to the ultimate prohibition of fossil fuels.
This plan does not assess the collateral damage it will inflict on state revenue, local tax collections, Virginia's Transportation Trust fund, and consumers.
Many of the advocates of these policies support regulation to electrify transportation. Those advocates somehow forget to mention that a major component of batteries powering these vehicles is cobalt, 90 percent of which is mined in third world countries under unfavorable working conditions.
As the number of electric vehicles grows, petroleum marketers will likely have to battle for a share of the electric vehicle charging market with utility companies that see EV charging as a new business opportunity without cost. When utility companies install charging stations, they may seek the ability to include that cost as part of their capital investment. When these costs are approved by governmental regulatory agencies, they can then be passed on to all ratepayers as part of their monthly electric bills.
Callaville, LLC believes this would provide regulated utilities an unfair competitive advantage that Virginia based small businesses simply cannot compete with. I must economically justify and self-fund at risk investments in new equipment like EV charging stations and so should my competition.
Another likely competitor under this scheme is the state government itself. This is not a concept, as just this past session the General Assembly passed legislation to allow the Departments of Conservation and Recreation, General Services, and Transportation to install electric chargers. Fortunately our association was able to narrow this initiative considerably by limiting the number of state agencies involved and mitigating the threat of unfair competition by requiring the state to sell the power at prevailing market rates including taxes.
All Virginians, particularly the petroleum marketing and convenience industries, support a clean environment. There are many ways to achieve this without rationing. Incentivizing the sale of electric vehicles does nothing to meet your stated goals of "equity, environmental justice, and non-discrimination." As one example, the stated goals could be achieved far faster and cheaper via efforts to assist low-income Virginians to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles that meet current and future CAFÉ standards.
History has proven that rationing followed by prohibition - the ultimate goal of TCI - has led to black markets, unregulated and untaxed sales, and undue burdens on law enforcement.
The impact of these proposals will not be solely on fuel sellers and convenience stores - what about the auto repair industry, muffler shops, service facilities at new car dealers, quick lubes etc.? What about agriculture, construction, Loggers and watermen who will be forced to scrap present equipment or pay artificially high prices due to rationing? What about the consumer who will experience not only higher prices to operate their personal vehicles, but higher prices for consumer goods and services?
The impact of these proposals will completely devastate Virginia’s economics. Recent information predicts an alternative fuel source for Commercial Trucks are 15 to 20 years out, Trucking companies have utilized Virginia interstates I95, I85 and I81 as a major travel corridor for years which allowed the state and individual companies to benefit from them stopping and doing business on these popular travel routes. The proposals will cause the majority of companies to route their trucks around the state devastating businesses.
Callaville, LLC opposes the TCI plan to ration, tax and ultimately eliminate fossil fuels.

We need non-fossil fuel public transit through out the country, and subsidized too, to get people used to riding it. This country uses far too many greenhouse gas emitting single passenger and freight trucking vehicles. We've got to reform our transporation systems as fast as possible.

I am in favor of the Transportation and Climate Initiative. I don't know why people are calling it a "gas tax." As I understand the agreement, our states are trying to fund clean transportation by imposing a market-based limit on pollution, a policy model known as cap-and-invest. How else are we going to make progress on these issues? As capitalists, we need to look at the market for solutions. We cannot afford to be short-sighted -- we need to understand what the current unbridled use of carbon-based transportation is doing to our lives and to our children's futures. Someone is going to have to pay for our reckless consumption of oil and gas for energy. Who should it be?

The recent gas tax initiative is in violation of Federal and State laws regarding the intended use of gas taxes. RGGI and TCI are multi-state "agreements" that have never received U. S. Congressional approval as required under Article 1, section 10 of the US Constitution (Compact Clause). This also has never been regionally approved. There should be court challenges if this ever does come to agreement. The Initiatives do NOT comply with legal use of carbon/gas taxes, in that they are to be used "... solely for the cost of ... highway and bridge construction and maintenance ... etc. (Maine Constitution Article IX, Section 19: Limitation on expenditure of motor vehicle and motor vehicle fuel revenues.) Why this discussion and these initiatives have reared their ugly heads is easy to understand. Just one more set of illegal, back-door taxes to more greatly subsidize an even more costly "green" agenda whether it's legal or not. Increasing fuel taxes is not legal nor acceptable. The states (especially Maine) must start to apply already collected taxes judiciously and where intended. This is just one more big tax and spend scheme. It completely fails to follow the rule of law and/or Constitutional tests.

Though retired I still drive, use buses and trains, bike, and care about my community. The TCI should improve all of the above. For climate change I would prioritize electrification of our region's commuter rail, connecting the bike paths to the urban core, and changing car fees so more polluting cars pay higher fees.

My name is Barrett Rock, and I live in Durham, NH 03824. I am a retired college professor of forestry, and I am interested in the TCI Regional Policy Design effort because I have been conducting research on the impacts of climate change on New England forest tree species (primarily red spruce, white pine and sugar maple since the early 1980s, research which began as an assessment of acid rain damage, and then morphed into climate change issues.
My suggestion on transportation policy design is based on the result of my research, which has clearly documented the effects of automobile and truck emissions on sensitive forest species (red spruce, white pine and sugar maple), in the form of both acidic precipitation and ground-level ozone. Of very critical importance are the emission levels of heavy truck transport systems, especially diesel. Combined with heavy automobile travel, often with one occupant per vehicle, these emissions of CO2, NOx, O3, and SOx are responsible for significant damage to foliar tissues and the photosynthetic apparatus.
My suggestion for the TCI regional policy consideration is the dramatic expansion of a high-speed rail system, preferably across the entire US. CO2 emissions from rail transport are significantly lower than truck transport (to move 1 ton of goods 1 km, a locomotive emits only 18 grams of CO2, compared wth 47 grams by truck. The rail system is essential 3 times more efficient than a truck. Similar comparisons are seen with the other pollutants. An efficient and effective high-speed rail system would compete very effectively with air transportation, which emits a startling 560 grams of CO2 moving the same 1 ton go goods 1 km! Add to that the social equity and availability of passenger high-speed transportation offered by such a transportation policy, and I think the idea has much merit.
Finally, let me say that engaging the stakeholders in the TCI regional policy process is a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate democracy in action! Thank you for giving me this chance.

Since Maine is made. Up of largely rural areas. We don't have public transportation. We have a large senior citizens who live on social security. It is not unusual for seniors to travel 10 or more miles for medical appointments. Many residents travel 15 or more miles for work,and 10 or more miles for groceries. Are you going to put citizens out of work? Are you going to put seniors who will not get medical care because they cannot afford gas? How is putting a high tax on gas really going to help the Climate Initiative? Let's use common sense, and do not punish the people of Maine with additional taxes.

My two major concerns are Lake Champlain and other bodies of water, and air quality - particularly in Burlington.

The degradation of Lake Champlain due to road runoff, sewage spill, algae and farming practices, as well as Vermont's
lakes and rivers, is deeply concerning.

The concentration on roads and parking lots at the expense of solutions such as light rail and rail connecting Vermont is repeating
the past and compounding present problems.