TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

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.

I care about reducing pollution from transportation because it is our largest source of global warming emissions (regionally and nationally).
I am requesting that NY state formally joins the plan to reduce emissions.
I feel that the policy should have a strong component of equity by prioritizing clean investments in areas overburdened by pollution and/or for those who don't have access.
Finally, thank you for the bipartisan nature of this project, moving us forward while the federal government takes us backward.

states need to take action on the climate crisis now.
Demand a strong program that invests in public transportation, biking, walking, and prioritizes equity.

To: TCI
From: Ellen Valentino
Subject: Proposed Draft Regional Policy
Date: November 5, 2019

The members of the Mid-Atlantic Petroleum Distributors Association (MAPDA) respectfully submit comments regarding the TCI framework and proposal released this fall. Our members are deeply concerned that the framework is moving ahead to foregone conclusions that are not substantiated by the real-world experience of other states.

The Transportation Climate Initiative sets out a framework that imposes an unfair burden on all vehicle owners and thousands of businesses, including those of our members. The proposal outlines a program that will cap the sale of gasoline, tax it, and then require the revenue generated to be spent on new government programs and projects that will further reduce the sale of gasoline. Some of the projects envisioned have ramifications that have not been verified or well thought out.

Electric vehicles are not the only answer.
The framework pins emissions reduction on electric vehicles, or EVs to reduce gasoline sales. EVs are not the magic bullet to solving greenhouse gas emissions. An EV's massive battery must be charged with electricity, which requires power generated from another source such as coal, natural gas or even nuclear power, and has an adverse environmental impact upon disposal. Pushing consumers to electric vehicles has not been shown to lessen environmental impact due to the environmental costs of EV batteries and manufacture of new vehicles. Further, programs such as incentives to EV purchase often favor wealthier individuals while the new taxes on gasoline will disproportionate affect poor and rural communities.

Our members are at a geographic disadvantage.
The northeast compact has a greater impact on Maryland and Delaware than the other Northeast states. Geographically, Maryland and Delaware retailers will suffer the most because consumers may more easily choose to go elsewhere for fuel. It won’t just be gasoline prices that rise to meet the TCI demands. The Northeast is a major trucking corridor and this proposal will essentially raise prices on transported goods. California’s Cap and Trade program, upon which the TCI framework is based, has led to a surge in gasoline prices, which affects all aspects of the economy.

All voices are not being heard.
Although this proposal has been pitched as a consensus document, in fact, it is not. There have been only three work sessions and less than a handful of webinars to solicit public feedback and comment. The framework is not ready for adoption by the states as too many points have not been clarified and fleshed out. No one really knows the full detail of the proposal. More outreach and public input needs to happen to shift this to a consensus. At the present, the framework appears to be a predisposed outcome. I urge that the participating Governors be required personally to attend and hold public hearings throughout their states. Our members are willing to work with others on this issue to create a true collaborative plan.

The current proposal will not achieve its goals.
California enacted a similar program recently, and, by most accounts, their gasoline costs have skyrocketed while the environmental impact has struggled to show a true measurable benefit. We welcome the opportunity to create a realistic policy proposal that provides a more balanced solution.

Respectfully submitted,

Ellen Valentino

Sales tax when we buy a car, excise tax every year for the privilege of owning a car, sales tax on every gallon of gas, federal tax on every gallon of gas, mandatory inspection - another tax every year, license plate tax, license to drive tax, enough and I'm sure I've forgotten a few! ENOUGH! yOU ARE GETTING YOUR WISH OF BETTER GAS EFFICIENCY IN CARS AND NOW LOSING REVENUE. We in Western Mass DO NOT HAVE ANY MASS TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS. Plus you are talking about adding the MILEAGE USAGE TAX AS WELL - WHEN WILL IT END????

We probably do not have as much time as we think to address the climate crisis. All efforts to address the issue should be considered and enacted as soon as possible. The sooner the better.

I support this initiative as a practical and needed way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. I am now using an electric bike for my errands and buses and subways for longer distances. I am pleased to not need to buy another car and hope changes in transportation infrastructure will make this possible for others as well.

See uploaded attachment for the comments of General Motors on the Transportation and Climate Initiative's Draft Memorandum of Understanding.