TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

We can cut poverty and pollution at the same time. We urge you to move forward with a regional program that prioritizes the needs of communities overburdened with pollution and underserved in mobility options.

We need to act now on Carbon emissions to ensure a livable planet for our children. Massachusetts has always been a progressive leader and we should continue to do so by joining this coalition, we owe it to the next generation!

Gov. Mills, you should take a trip to this way down east corner of the state. Washington County can not afford to go along with this. There is no public transportation here, and most of us have to drive at least 2 hours for medical appointments. We are very limited on our shopping choices here, as it is, and this will make it even more difficult on a population that is mainly those on limited incomes as it is. An elderly gentleman told me many moons ago that "Washington County is the dumping ground for the poor, the elderly and the handicapped". For the most part this still holds true, 40 years later. Please do not become part of this and make it even harder for those of us who live here and have no finances to escape.

First, I'm very pleased that you are implementing this initiative and that Governor Baker is onboard with the idea.

1. Offsets -- the offsets should be very strictly defined and regulated. E.g. when I fly to Canada I can buy a CO2 offset for only about $6, but a researcher at St. Mary's University in Halifax claims this offset is a lie. It can't be guaranteed in the long term to really offset the emissions. The offsets clause sounds like a potentially huge loophole. I'm sure I'm not the only one saying this. Who judges what's a real offset?

2. Stability Mechanisms -- I like that there is a feedback mechanism either way -- if costs go too high or if costs are unexpectedly low. However, I think there should be language that allows for having more ambition before 2032 in terms of how much we're willing to pay for reductions and how high our reductions must be. 25% by 2032 may seem good in today's political climate in the U.S. But right now leaders in Denmark are being criticized for planning overall reductions of 60% by 2030 IIRC, criticized for that being not ambitious enough that is. In five years, if the TCI is working well, I'd hope political will would exist for more realistic targets. By more realistic I mean more realistic in terms of what is necessary to avert climate crisis, i.e. higher reduction targets. The news from the scientists both about climate CO2 sensitivity and about its dangerous effects seems only to be getting worse each passing year and never better.

3. Maybe I'm feeling spiteful, thinking particularly about Governor Sununu, but I'd like it, if possible, if we could be good to those in the TCI with us and bad to those not. E.g. if Rhode Island is in, let's make Providence a good commuting community for jobs in Boston and make Nashua less so.

4. Compliance period - I'd defer to those experienced with the electric power supplier cap and trade programs, but it strikes me that three years is a long time out for the first trading/compliance date. People are talking about 2030 as a critical target date for reducing our emissions significantly. 2025 would be the first date where we really see this initiative acting, if I'm understanding correctly. That leaves a very narrow window if the initiative doesn't immediately have much effect. People who are critical about cap and trade/invest programs tend to be critical about them having caps that are too high to bring about much effect. With electric power emission cap and trade we got a bit of a gift from natural gas supply, right? Transportation may not get such a gift, so this program might have to be more rigorous to do as well.

Regards and thanks again for this plan,
Mike Small

As a taxpayer, commuter and dedicated employee of a large organization in Massachusetts I employ you to NOT ENDORSE this carbon Tax being discussed at the Mass Legislative branch. We need INNOVATION not higher taxes on the working class!!

Why don't you just skip all of the complication and add a tax directly on the price of gasoline/jet/diesel/nat gas/coal rather than trying to hide the cost that will ultimately be passed on to the consumer in some nonsensical program? The tax would be based on carbon from a nonrenewable source (i.e if gasoline has 10% ethanol content then 90% of the gasoline is taxable). All of these "programs" are just taxes to try to incentivize the consumer to find an alternative. Make sure the money collected from the tax actually goes to renewable r&d and isn't diverted somewhere else. Forget the rebates for using renewables. If the tax is high enough people would go buy more efficient cars and renewable electricity sources would become more economical. Or, make the tax low enough so it doesn't have an impact on the local economy and the r&d from the taxes would eventually bring the price of renewables down enough that people will choose to buy it on their own.

Maine does have some unique transportation and mobility challenges, and we deserve solutions that get us to work, to stores and appointments, and to our favorite outdoor places—solutions that are affordable, reliable, and reduce air pollution.
TCI could bring significant economic, environmental, and health benefits to Maine communities. By redirecting some of the $5 billion a year we send out of state to fossil fuel companies into our local communities and sustainable transportation solutions, we could also address mobility and pollution problems- please choose to resolve this issue for humans and to counteract drastic air and climate concerns!

Engine manufactures continue to refine and improve the entire fuel system to meet the US EPA air quality mandates set forth for particulate and greenhouse gases emissions. These improvements include technologies in both gasoline and diesel vehicles engines.

I am not opposed to electric vehicles as a matter of an individuals choice of options for transportation. However, I am opposed to subsidizing only electric vehicles at the expense of other fuel efficient modes of transportation.

Bio Fuels must play an important role in reducing the carbon foot print of gasoline and diesel to further reduce both NOX and particulate matter. Bio Fuels are readily available in the supply chain today while the electric vehicle charging stations are far from being available.

If a tax is charged on gasoline and diesel, an equal amount of the monies collected must be proportionally allocated to electric, gasoline, diesel, and renewable energy sources.

Thank You

Mark Smith