TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Stop with the additional taxes and oh by the way electric cars only put more money in CMPs pocket.

I am for this initiative. NY has already started with electric buses here in Albany. Anything we can do to mitigate climate change is a step
forward. Reducing our carbon footprint is essential.

This is a great opportunity for Maine to play a major role in. With the oldest population and a natural resource based economy we should be doing everything we can to keep our state clean and green. Like many other states our transportation system relies primarily on cars. This iniative would be a chance to provide alternatives, even given the dispersed, rural nature of the state.

Transportation is the largest source of air pollution in the region, and we need to build a modern, clean, safe, and accessible transportation system for the 21st century. The more we limit pollution from motor fuels, the more jobs we create, the more the economy grows, the healthier our air becomes, and the more lives we save. Pennsylvania should join TCI to fund better transportation infrastructure, reduce traffic, and make my community a cleaner, safer place to live.

Pollution from transportation is our largest source of global warming emissions (regionally and nationally).
I am requesting that New Jersey formally join the plan to reduce emissions.
I demand that the policy has a strong component of equity by prioritizing clean investments in areas overburdened by pollution and/or for those who don't have access.
Thank you for the bipartisan nature of this project, moving us forward while the federal government takes us backward.

We deserve clean transportation options to move into the future to ensure a healthier life for our children and grandchildren.

Of course reduction in GHG and related emissions is a worthwhile effort, however, I think this tax and trade policy will reduce the competitiveness of the states involved and result in more businesses moving from the area. Already many of these states are losing population and is jobs leave the area, residents will soon follow. This could have the impact of reducing GHG emissions by having less people on the highways, but the goal should not be to do anything to leave the states.

In addition I feel this does not address the high polluting older vehicles that are on the road by focusing on the GHGs. Technology could be developed to identify the extremely high polluting vehicles and getting them off the road. Perhaps high polluting vehicles could be targeted for purchase or removal from the states by some other method. Many times these are low MPG vehicles as well which results in more carbon generation than more efficient vehicles.

Lastly, the efforts to improve the traffic flow such as improved traffic light timing using developing AI could increase quality of life as well as reduce GHG emissions. This could be a technology that would bring high tech jobs and engineers to the area. Using other modern technology e.g. through Waze or other apps, employers could be enticed to stagger their employee commute to minimize traffic delays due to rush hour. The technology today lends itself much more today than in the time of the old Employee Trip Reduction Program. Besides flex hours, employers could be encouraged to let employees work from home.

In summary, I am against the GHG tax and trade program because I believe it will make these states an even less attractive place to establish a business.

My husband and I pay enough taxes in Massachusetts and we oppose this tax. We are both registered as Independent voters but lately leaning
toward voting Republican. With that said, we have also considered moving out of this state.

The Transportation Climate Initiative sets out a framework that imposes an unfair burden on all vehicle owners and thousands of businesses.

I am opposed to the TCI plan as outlined: Capping sales of gasoline and diesel, requiring suppliers to purchase allowances in order to sell motor fuel, and having consumers pay higher prices at the pump in order to subsidize electric vehicles.

This proposal negatively impacts low income Vermonters, particularly those that live in rural areas of the state. It would only help those who are considering purchasing a new electric vehicle and/or those that live in urban areas with access to public transportation.

Furthermore, while some consumers may be able to choose public transportation or an electric car to avoid the increased cost in gasoline, there is no viable option for businesses that need diesel trucks. In Vermont, 25% of the motor fuel sold is diesel— and we need diesel trucks to haul milk, logs and other products that benefit our agricultural economy. Diesel is also sold with increasing blends of renewable biodiesel, which is critical for Vermont and the Northeast to meet our energy goals.

We ask you to slow down this process and consider taking diesel fuel out of TCI.