TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

CLIMATE CHANGE IS SERIOUS andOUR AIR IS MAKING US SICK. Among other things, we need a regional policy for low-carbon transportation.
Reducing pollution from transportation is a key component in reducing Pennsylvania's emissions. Public transit investments, that could be made with the Transportation & Climate Initiative (TCI) proceeds, would be very valuable.
PLEASE CHOOSE THE AGGRESSIVE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION TARGET THAT THE MOST RECENT CLIMATE SCIENCE TELLS US WE NEED!

We have a gas tax already, we have excise tax, we have income tax, we have sales tax, we have property tax, I don't think I need to continue there. Wait we also have fees now vs tax, like my child has to pay a fee to take a bus to school? nice way to bypass a vote. Weather or not it is local, state or federal the tax burden is out of control. For the first time younger generations wont have the same quality of life their parents did. Meanwhile government employees who traditionally made less than the private sector in exchange for retirement benefits now enjoy the same salary as the private sector or higher with massive pension benefits. State cops making 250k, MBTA workers the same and retire with pensions after 25 years that we pay for many more years. Run a responsible government and all the funds that are needed are their with no new taxes. Stop hiding behind the education, public safety, environment and infrastructure card you play to steal more from us. Our children's futures deserve to have the same standard of living the boomers and following generation did. You the generation I am a part of are ruining our country at the expense of the younger and elderly. The founding fathers revolted for much less. All we have to do is look at a state like NH and their tax more reasonable tax burden to see what a bloated government system we have in MA.

Climate change is a pressing issue being ignored at the Federal level. It is critical that state, communities, corporations, and individuals take action.

Sadler Brothers Oil Company which employs 87 people and provides petroleum for other companies that employ hundreds of employees in Virginia 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.
Sadler Brothers Oil Company 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 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 most companies to route the trucks around the state devastating businesses.
Sadler Brothers Oil Company opposes the TCI plan to ration, tax and ultimately eliminate fossil fuels.

The TCI is a critical initiative that will demonstrate the regional leadership we need to actually tackle the climate crisis. I'm a student, and increasingly growing frustrated with government inaction or moderation. The TCI is the first step, and it needs both complimentary legislation and language that will support low income residents who may be affected by the TCI. Attached is a joint letter by orgs in Vermont that demonstrate the urgency of this bill.

Thanks!

Governor Scott,

Please support TCI in Vermont. We will likely already be paying in, because a lot of our fuel retailers are out of state, so we may as well take funds as well.

Thanks,

I am very opposed to Vermont's participation in the proposed Transportation and Climate Initiative. As much as I have heard from Vermont officials, both legislators and office holders, that it is not a carbon tax, it is obviously a carbon tax by what ever name they want to label it. Since Vermont is all ready one of the highest tax paying states in the union, with one of the lowest carbon foot prints all ready there is no need to further increase the tax burden on Vermonter's. Especially for an expensive program that will have no significant impact on the climate. T.C.I. will only serve to increase government cost and bureaucracy, at a time when we should be reducing both to make Vermont affordable again. The scale of the program will lead to further government waste and abuse of resources. As one Vermont Senator, a leading proponent stated the "money will be off the books"! Can such a statement of a government official not scare anyone!
As with any government program T.C.I. will only be distributing a fraction of the funds collected back to the states. After paying exorbitant salaries and administrative fees, what percentage of the revenues collected will actually be returned to the claimed reinvest?
On top of T.C.I.'s cost and impact to Vermonter's directly, the secondary cost of increases for every goods and services required by Vermonter's will see increases!
Concluding, T.C.I. is a terrible idea.

I have been skeptical about using market mechanisms for carbon emission reduction when the plans were based solely in VT, due to the added costs and competitive disadvantage with surrounding states. But a regional plan that reaches all the way to Virginia makes a lot of sense, and we would be foolish not to take advantage of the market power of such a large populous area to reduce emissions. The climate crisis is the number one threat to the future of all residents of Vermont and the planet. The near term costs of economic transition will be a good investment in the future of our energy infrastructure.

Vermont has led the nation in climate-friendly initiatives, and that makes me proud to be a Vermonter. So, with the TCI, it should be a no-brainier that our state joins it.

We must curtail our usage of fossil fuels. There are varying degrees of opinions on that, which is understandable, but please remember that emissions from burning fossil fuels do not magically disappear in the atmosphere. Add to that the billions and billions of engines, and thousands of power stations generating emissions. The volume of heat-trapping gasses going into the atmosphere is huge. Earth's atmosphere is large, but human needs for transportation and electricity, for example, have exceeded its capacity to withstand the heat-trapping gases we put into it.

As a result, Earth is warming, and weather is changing. People are dying, lands are becoming inhabitable, and extinctions are on the rise. Scary stuff, and there is much data to back it up.

Tough decisions must happen now, and unfortunately, some may financially affect people, but our future is on the line – study after study proves this. The actions we take or do not take now will dictate the fate of all life on Earth. To back up my assertion, watch the Weather Channel for a month or two and track how many times "historic", "unprecedented", "abnormal", and "record" in forecasts and reports.

Vermont must join the TCI.