TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Increasing fuel costs in Maine just isn't feasible. We HAVE to drive 30 + miles to work, shop and get medical attention. There's no public transportation available in most of the State. Transportation costs for public education are already having huge impacts on budgets. Additional taxes won't and increased gas prices won't force me to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle. It will force me to choose between going to a dr and hoping I get better at home. This isn't an initiative for Maine.

Our governor forcing this tax does more harm than good. Stop the nonsense and punishing poor and middle class which make up the majority of the state.

Voters denied your automatic gas tax request and now you're trying a back door attempt to install one. This will not fly, we WILL remember this come next re-election Gov. Baker. You have become as conservative as that nut Liz Warren.

What is the "cap" rate going to be? Or to put it in another way, what will be the schedule in the reduction of available
"carbon allowances" per year? And what will be done if this reduction in available fuel (due to an artificially-induced
scarcity aka the "cap") if transportation in the TCI jurisdiction is adversely affected? Will the "cap" be adjusted or will it be strictly adhered to?

For example, if electric and alternative-fuel vehicles are unavailable or, more likely, not affordable to the majority of residents and there are inadequate alternatives for public transportation such as exists in many of the communities and TCI jurisdictions, what is the proposed plan when (if) the "cap" reduces the amount of available fuel below what is needed by the fleet of vehicles at that time?

Additionally, what is the trigger level that activates additional carbon allowances from the cost containment reserve; that is, at what price of fuel will this occur?

From the TCI 101 video, you mention that the "computer models" understand what the impacts will be, but do they? What is the algorithm that takes into consideration citizens not being able to get to work or take children to school or daycare and how many allowances will be allowed and allocated? Is there transparency in these computer models? Another example is that someone close to me drives and delivers life-saving materials. Will this person and others like him be able to buy fuel for their vehicles in a few years or will they be forced to expend exorbitant amounts of money to upgrade to a newer mode of
transportation?

And the video also states that "if it costs more than we thought it would, we can only afford a lesser reduction, but if it turns out it's cheaper than we thought it was, we can actually afford more of a reduction. So these mechanisms allow the design to have a self-adjusting quality and also a risk management feature that doesn't allow the price to go higher than expected." Unfortunately, these mechanisms are NOT self-adjusting and, instead, they will require interaction at these
unknown and unexplored thresholds and this does not bode well for a far more complex economic and transportation system that will be perturbed significantly by the TCI design. This sounds reckless for something that will have serious and detrimental ramifications to millions of people.

I can only recommend abandonment of this initiative before irreversible damage is done to the Commonwealth, the states, and the public.

It is impossible to cut down on vehicle pollution if the community doesn't have mass transit opportunities that are regularly available. Our governments need to encourage development of mass transit in any way they can.

Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) states are developing a regional policy for low-carbon transportation following the December 18, 2018, statement by nine states and Washington DC committing to:

“…design a regional low-carbon transportation policy proposal that would cap and reduce carbon emissions from the combustion of transportation fuels through a cap-and-invest program or other pricing mechanism… [and]… to complete the policy development process within one year, after which each jurisdiction will decide whether to adopt and implement the policy.”

We have run out of time. Such a plan is beyond mandatory. There is no question in the mind of any reasonable person that Connecticut should be part of this initiative, and should be in a leadership role.

We know that in order to make our contribution to mitigating climate change, we need to start reducing our dependence on gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. This is not something that can occur overnight. TCI will allow participating states to take a tax from sales of fossil fuels and use that to invest in alternatives that are greener - rail, buses, and bike/pedestrian infrastructure. These investments will benefit us in other ways as well - improving bus transit, especially around our cities, will provide more options for working class people without cars, as well as for middle class people who might choose to leave their car home, but currently lack viable options. A shift away from private cars will relieve congestion in our towns. Building bike/ped infrastructure will make our streets safer for all.

Transforming our transportation to a clean and efficient system is essential to meeting the climate goals of the next decade and preventing catastrophic climate change, around the world as well as in our own state. Transportation is one of the top source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the TCI will build on the success of RGGI in coordinating the climate leadership in NY and the northeast. Please take this essential leadership role in the fight against climate change for this and future generations, and join the TCI.

As transportation contributes the majority of carbon it is urgent that we transition to using electricity for motor vehicles, heating while ensuring no adverse impact on minorities and low income folks