2/21/2020 |
William |
Forrest |
U. of Rochester |
Rochester |
New York |
Transportation using fossil fuels is poisoning our atmosphere with CO2 and methane. There is already too much of those gasses in our atmosphere, and it's leading to very damaging Climate... read more Transportation using fossil fuels is poisoning our atmosphere with CO2 and methane. There is already too much of those gasses in our atmosphere, and it's leading to very damaging Climate Change. We must combat this by developing cleaner ways to achieve facile transportation for all. Gas powered automobiles are a leading cause of this atmospheric pollution, and they must be phased out rapidly. We need to replace them soon. Using airplanes within the USA for transportation is also becoming unsustainable. We need fast electric powered trains to minimize their use. Look to Europe for answers to these questions. |
- |
2/28/2020 |
Gail |
Watson |
U of Maine |
Cambridge |
Maine |
Governor,
I can't afford an increase of 17 cents in the gas tax. I can't drive 30% less than I already do. My husband and I have not taken any vacation trips, not even in local... read more Governor,
I can't afford an increase of 17 cents in the gas tax. I can't drive 30% less than I already do. My husband and I have not taken any vacation trips, not even in local Maine for fiive years. I can't drive 30% less to work. I already only shop on days I go to work. We can't now afford gas to go to the Fryeburg Fair or go to movies in Bangor or take a leisurely drive for fun. We bought a car that was smaller to save on gas. Electric vehicles, besides being untenable in cold winter months, are not better for our environment. Not in their manufacture nor in the disposal, something the car manufacturers don't care about and green non conservatives have not even thoroughly considered.
Your plan will sink the Maine economy. Our vacationland will become a wasteland of unemployed people.
Make your budget balance by spending less, just as we rural Mainers must, or you will be spending less time as Governor. |
- |
2/26/2020 |
Melinda |
Fields |
Turtle Ledge Farm |
Hampton |
Connecticut |
Time is running out - climate change is upon us. To lessen the extreme effects we need to do all we can at the state and regional levels to change the business as usual mindset and lower... read more Time is running out - climate change is upon us. To lessen the extreme effects we need to do all we can at the state and regional levels to change the business as usual mindset and lower emissions. High speed rail and commuter lots, charging stations, tax credits for EV's and electric buses all would help with the transition. |
- |
2/23/2020 |
Cheryl |
Alison |
Tufts University |
Worcester |
Massachusetts |
Travel within Massachusetts, particularly commuting into Boston, has become something of a regular nightmare. We travel several times a week between Worcester, MA, where we live, and Boston or... read more Travel within Massachusetts, particularly commuting into Boston, has become something of a regular nightmare. We travel several times a week between Worcester, MA, where we live, and Boston or Medford, MA where we teach at Tufts University's different campuses.
My partner takes the train; I drive due to disability issues that make it hard to walk to the train and walk from the train to work. The train is quite expensive, and he has a few times been caught very late getting home (sometimes more than an hour) because of issues with the trains or tracks. Driving sometimes takes a considerable amount of time due to congestion; we worry about the possibility of traffic accidents, given the high rate in the area.
Both of us would prefer if there were faster, more reliable, cheaper transportation. It would be amazing if there were a higher-speed train that did not cost around 25 dollars to take it to Boston and back.
I'm not sure what the exact right answer is, but I know that Massachusetts must lean hard into investing in its infrastructure if we are to sustain increased population growth and a thriving economy. Otherwise, our roads will become more jammed and our air worse. Tempers will continue to flair (Masshole should not be a term!). Why not plan for the future with a state-of-the-art railway? If there were better park-and-ride options here in Worcester, I might be able to partake.
Lots to consider. The only wrong thing to do is nothing.
Thank you for your time! |
- |
12/2/2019 |
John |
Mudrock |
Tufts Medical Center Community Care |
Lynnfield |
Massachusetts |
I am strongly opposed to this hidden gas tax that is AGAINST THE PEOPLE'S WILL AND VOTE. This tax bill is a work around
as it should have originated in the State House of... read more I am strongly opposed to this hidden gas tax that is AGAINST THE PEOPLE'S WILL AND VOTE. This tax bill is a work around
as it should have originated in the State House of Representatives and is being considered with ZERO INPUT from the voters or stakeholders.
It is DICTATORIAL. |
- |
12/21/2019 |
DAVID |
DEEN |
TU, LCV, NWF, VNRC, CLF, |
PUTNEY |
Vermont |
Transportation is the big unaddressed source of carbon. let's go get it! read more Transportation is the big unaddressed source of carbon. let's go get it! |
- |
10/25/2019 |
MICHAEL |
HOLT |
Truro Climate Action Committee, a town board, but I speak on my own behalf |
TRURO |
Massachusetts |
How about a gas tax or road toll set up in such a way that it doesn't hurt low income people? People could be required to furnish income information, and businesses required to furnish... read more How about a gas tax or road toll set up in such a way that it doesn't hurt low income people? People could be required to furnish income information, and businesses required to furnish information about their size, when applying for a transponder. And everyone who currently has a transponder could be required to furnish that information. Then, people over a certain income and businesses over a certain size could be tolled at a higher rate. The transponders could even be required to buy gas. Or a simpler method would be to apply a flat gas tax, and then return dividends to everyone who report low incomes on their taxes. |
- |
11/8/2019 |
Lauren |
Bailey |
Tri-State Transportation Campaign |
New York |
New York |
The Tri-State Transportation Campaign's comments on the TCI draft framework are attached. read more The Tri-State Transportation Campaign's comments on the TCI draft framework are attached. |
TCI TSTC Comments 11.5.19.pdf |
10/16/2020 |
Lauren |
Bailey |
Tri-State Transportation Campaign |
Trenton |
New Jersey |
Please find attached a group of New Jersey-based organizations' comments regarding the proposed equity commitments and other considerations for TCI. read more Please find attached a group of New Jersey-based organizations' comments regarding the proposed equity commitments and other considerations for TCI. |
Comments on TCI roundtable equity comments (1).pdf |
5/3/2019 |
Sunyoung |
Yang |
Trenton resident |
Trenton |
New Jersey |
The cap and investment and other carbon market trading and offset measures are extremely concerning in these proposals. Net zero emissions framework is also problematic. Low income communities... read more The cap and investment and other carbon market trading and offset measures are extremely concerning in these proposals. Net zero emissions framework is also problematic. Low income communities and people of color are living in some of the highly trafficked routes where freight and manufacturing storage processing industries have been emitting high levels of toxins for years in the region. Any offset scheme would further concentrate the actual amount of air pollution for environmental justice communities and be detrimental to our lives. Environmental justice groups in CA have attested to this reality after going through their own climate initiatives--the offset market abroad has led to devastating consequences for Indigenous folks in the Amazon getting kicked out of their land for carbon forestry REDD+ credit market while EJ communities in CA living next to major freight corridors, Chevron/Texaco oil refineries, and other polluting industries have seen co-pollutants concentrated while also carbon emissions have gone up. No community benefit from any EJ or equity funds generated through market trading of carbon credits will alleviate the increased health risks from further pollution by these trading schemes. Please take this provisions out and concentrate on real policy strategies that will reduce in every part of this region carbon and other toxic co-pollutants. The emissions cuts have to be absolute and not a switch and bait tactic. Offsets and trading are false solutions with tremendous consequences for human rights violations and endangering our community health while giving us a false sense that we are actually reducing emissions when we're not. Electrifying freight and transport has been done in other regions and along with other initiatives in RGGI to convert our grid into real renewables (not nuclear or clean coal) we can make the emissions targets. Carbon trading will never get us to the emissions reductions while creating more disaster in the process. |
- |
11/4/2019 |
Kate |
Childs |
Transporter |
Meriden |
Connecticut |
I am submitting comments for you to consider as a resident and taxpayer in Connecticut to express my concern about the potential that a cap and trade program will have on our customers, employees... read more I am submitting comments for you to consider as a resident and taxpayer in Connecticut to express my concern about the potential that a cap and trade program will have on our customers, employees, business and the environment.
The plan seems to be geared toward converting millions of gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs).
While EVs may be an apparently attractive way to lower emissions, we urge that greater consideration needs to be given to a number of factors that will have an impact on jobs, the economy, property values, electric reliability, emissions and family-owned businesses.
Please consider the following points and recommendations so that they can be incorporated into the final draft of the TCI:
• TCI needs to be very cautious about advantaging regulated electric monopolies that already benefit from antitrust protection and a guaranteed rate of return. According to the website Utility Dive (https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-new-england-will-significantly-miss-2050-carbon-targets-at-curr/564726/), "Just to meet this load that comes from electrifying transportation and buildings, you have to add an electricity sector that's equal to the current electricity sector" – which is a huge gift to utility investors. Are utilities doing such a great job that they deserve these government handouts (Eversource is rated below California’s PG&E in 2019 by the American Customer Satisfaction Index)? Our business cannot compete with utilities coddled and protected by government unless, we get equivalent protection and subsidies to create a level, competitive playing field.
• With the goal of putting million’s EVs on the road, TCI should have ISO New England and the other grid operators fully evaluate the impact that this would have on the electric grid. An article published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) indicates that one EV can consume as much electricity as a home does. And as noted, we need to double power generation to meet the state’s carbon goals, an unlikely feat that will result only in supply shortages. The unintended consequence of the government heedlessly jumping onto the EV bandwagon will be rolling blackouts, with power loss to critical infrastructure such as schools, businesses, emergency responders, hospitals and nursing homes.
• The ISO’s should add to their evaluation the impact of state policies promoting electric heat pumps on the electric grid, which could require an additional 17 million MWH of power annually. TCI must understand the impact that their program has on other initiatives also looking to utilize more electricity. TCI is not operating in isolation and has the responsibility not to operate in the dark either, and ensure that electric reliability is not compromised.
• Although EVs are considered a low- or zero-emission vehicles, they are only as clean as the electricity that charges them. Connecticut is heavily reliant on natural gas to generate electricity and becoming more dependent on it as nuclear generation in the region is retired. Natural gas (methane) is more than seventy times as potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and combusting natural gas also emits carbon dioxide. According to the Department of Energy, an EV produces 4,362 lbs of CO2e per year (https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html)– that’s almost two tons – hardly emissions-free, and that doesn’t even consider the CO2 resulting from their manufacture. TCI needs to fully understand the lifecycle impact of EVs and the source of the fuel that electricity is being generated from before EVs are designated as “clean”. It is intellectually and environmentally dishonest to claim that electricity is clean when ISO New England today (10/29/19) reports that just 8% of electric generation is renewable and 53% is generated with natural gas. Methane’s impact on climate change is an inconvenient truth. A recent study commissioned by the Connecticut Chapter of the Sierra Club (https://issuu.com/ctsierraclub/docs/hartford__ct_mobile_methane_leak_su) found that in Hartford, CT alone, gas pipelines leak approximately 43,000 cubic feet per day, or 313 metric tons per year. That is equivalent spilling and not cleaning up 320 gallons of diesel per day (or 117,000 gallons per year). Just because you can’t see natural gas leaks, it doesn’t mean that they are not there and that they are not doing environmental damage. According to Gale Ridge, PhD, a scientist and researcher on the Sierra Club study, “In a one month period, we found about 700 leaks in Hartford. Over a one-year period covering the same area, PURA reported 139 leaks. Even recognizing that some of the leaks we found are known to PURA, that’s about a 5-fold difference. We believe that CNG may be missing a large percentage of its leaks.”
• Connecticut motorists are already paying the highest gasoline taxes in New England and the 11th highest tax in America. Connecticut also has the highest diesel tax in New England and the 9th highest tax in America. Any proposal that increases the cost of fuel in our state will disproportionally harm low-income motorists and businesses when compared to states that do not participate in TCI. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council "Low-income, households of color, multifamily and renting households spend a much larger percentage of their income on energy bills than the average family." An across-the-board energy tax is therefore "regressive," i.e. "African-American and Latino households and renters in multifamily buildings who pay a disproportionate amount of their income for energy" will be greater impacted by such a tax than average- or high-income earners. Moreover, low-income families will have less means to change their energy use to lower-taxed fuels, which are prohibitively expensive to convert to. TCI needs to consider the impact of their program on low- and fixed-income families who will not be able convert to EV’s.
• Presumably, the purpose of TCI is to change consumption behavior in Connecticut and the region. But we’ve seen huge variations in energy commodity prices that haven’t affected consumption. EIA, for example, shows that gasoline consumption in Connecticut in 2015 was the same as in 2011, despite prices being more than $1/gallon less. Energy consumption is inelastic. Even if TCI is successful in increasing cost of fuel, the data clearly demonstrate that people will be paying higher prices for fuel and not curb consumption. Further inflation will result as the price of every product sold in Connecticut increases as merchants and manufacturers increase prices to account for TCI. Either that, or people will vote with their feet and leave the state or region.
Finally, even if TCI resulted in changes in consumption behavior in Connecticut, such changes will have no impact on climate change. As reported in U.S. News & World Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report claims that even if the U.S. as a whole stopped emitting all carbon dioxide emissions immediately, the ultimate impact on projected global temperature rise would be a reduction of only about 0.08°C by the year 2050. China and India will dominate global carbon emissions for the next century, and there’s little the U.S., let alone Connecticut can do, to affect this. A Princeton University study likewise predicted that even if all countries stopped emitting CO2 entirely, the Earth would continue to gradually warm, before cooling off.
I ask that TCI take all of these issues into consideration before they decide to move forward.
Please don't make a long term decision on the SHORT TERM view that EV's are the best option for the climate. HUGE investments may prove to have been foolish down the road. There are always new technologies developing especially those in the renewable world that do NOT rely on fossil fuels AT ALL! To convert to EV's which rely mainly on Natural Gas is a short term view!! Think of future generations not just a short term feel good plan.
Thank you.
|
- |
11/20/2019 |
MARTIN |
JOYCE |
TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY/AND PRIVATE CITIZEN TOO |
WEYMOUTH |
Massachusetts |
Don't sneak in a gas tax....Mass. voters already VOTED AGAINST IT! read more Don't sneak in a gas tax....Mass. voters already VOTED AGAINST IT! |
- |
2/27/2020 |
Karen |
Marysdaughter |
Transportation for All |
Bangor |
Maine |
I am a regular bus rider in Bangor, Maine and a member of a public transit advocacy group called Transportation for All. I definitely want to see Maine participate in TCI, following the example... read more I am a regular bus rider in Bangor, Maine and a member of a public transit advocacy group called Transportation for All. I definitely want to see Maine participate in TCI, following the example of RGGI. I am especially excited that TCI could be a conduit for more funding for public transit! I want to see public transit supported vigorously in Maine, both within local communities and as connectors between communities. I'd also like to see policies that support the reduction of sprawl and the encouragement of walkable neighborhoods. Transit riders and drivers should be key stakeholders in developing transportation policies. Policies should not only focus on economic and environmental sustainability, but on equity - assuring that public transportation is available for the people who most need it, such as the disabled, the elderly, and those on limited incomes. |
- |
1/13/2020 |
Dick |
Lemieux |
Transportation engineer |
Concord |
New Hampshire |
You cannot clean up the air by taking money from the drivers of relatively clean cars and diverting it to pay for trains and buses that generate more pollution per unit of productivity (passenger... read more You cannot clean up the air by taking money from the drivers of relatively clean cars and diverting it to pay for trains and buses that generate more pollution per unit of productivity (passenger miles) than the cars. If you really want to reduce pollution, you need to reduce congestion. Clearly, buses and trains don’t lower highway congestion. The technology exists today to reduce congestion AND enhance personal mobility, without killing the economy. The best tool in our toolbox is congestion pricing.
https://www.concordmonitor.com/Trains-and-clean-air-29076184 |
- |
2/24/2020 |
Helen |
Mangelsdorf |
Transportation Climate Intiative |
Philadelphia |
Pennsylvania |
As a resident of Philadelphia for over 35 years I have lived in a bus route where Diesel engines were idled, equipment for construction equipment unloaded in our block, and for over twenty years... read more As a resident of Philadelphia for over 35 years I have lived in a bus route where Diesel engines were idled, equipment for construction equipment unloaded in our block, and for over twenty years forced to travel by car along major roads as there was no connection between my job and my home. My lungs are definitely the worse for wear. My home and neighborhood is noisy, and traffic problems grow worse as population increases.
All this seems damaging and certainly adding to the destruction of our planet and our civilization. |
- |
1/16/2020 |
Glenn |
Hufnagel |
Transportation & Climate Initiative |
Buffalo |
New York |
The transportation sector is currently responsible for more than 40 percent of climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions in the region, and soot and smog from cars and trucks are major... read more The transportation sector is currently responsible for more than 40 percent of climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions in the region, and soot and smog from cars and trucks are major contributors to lung disease and other health problems region-wide, particularly in low income communities. Preliminary modeling estimates that by 2032, the proposed program could yield monetized annual public health benefits of as much as $10 billion, including over 1,000 fewer premature deaths, and over 1,300 fewer asthma symptoms annually region-wide, among other safety and health benefits.
The associated auction of pollution allowances under the proposal is projected to generate up to nearly $7 billion annually that participating jurisdictions could invest in solutions to further reduce pollution and to improve transportation choices for rural, urban and suburban communities. Each participating jurisdiction will decide how to invest the auction proceeds. |
- |
10/31/2019 |
Blake |
Bradbury |
Transportation |
Bridgewater |
Maine |
The trucking industry is struggling enough as it is. We can't afford another .20 gal tax on fuels because or new Governor is an idiot! read more The trucking industry is struggling enough as it is. We can't afford another .20 gal tax on fuels because or new Governor is an idiot! |
- |
10/15/2019 |
Anthony |
Cherolis |
Transport Hartford at the Center for Latino Progress |
Hartford |
Connecticut |
The Transport Hartford Academy has been sharing a statewide survey on the topic of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector with those that live and/or work in Connecticut... read more The Transport Hartford Academy has been sharing a statewide survey on the topic of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector with those that live and/or work in Connecticut. The survey began on Oct 1st and will close on Oct 29th. The survey is being shared well beyond the network of environmental advocates. For example, AAA will be sharing the survey with Connecticut members. The survey has also been shared widely across city and town social media discussion groups. The survey includes home and work zip code information, and intentional outreach is being focused on areas of the state that do not have many responses. The survey currently underrepresents low-income, younger age groups, and people of color relative to their share of the state’s demographic. Intentional outreach is being focused on those groups and their responses could be considered separately to home in on equity issues.
Halfway through the survey, the results are quite interesting. There are clear preferences in Connecticut for which TCI revenue investments and complementary policies have the most support. Here are a few overall responses pulled from a 10/15 snapshot 65% Strongly Support and 18% Support a TCI cap-and-invest program in Connecticut. There was also a super-majority of support for dedicating a percentage of TCI revenue to overburdened and underserved communities and environmental justice projects.
Connecticut Survey Link – www.tinyurl.com/tci19survey
Live, Snapshot of Survey Results (these results update automatically until the survey closes on Oct 29th)
- Demographics, awareness, and support of TCI – https://centerlatino.wufoo.com/reports/transportation-climate-initiative-report-1/
- Support for potential TCI investments - https://centerlatino.wufoo.com/reports/transportation-climate-initiative-report-2/
- Support for potential complementary policies - https://centerlatino.wufoo.com/reports/transportation-climate-initiative-report-3/
- Survey comments on revenue investment and complementary policies - https://centerlatino.wufoo.com/reports/transportation-climate-initiative-report-4/
We believe strongly that these survey results (after the survey closes on Oct 29th) should be used to help shape Connecticut's approach to a politically viable and publicly supported state framework to the Transportation Climate Initiative. If similar or identical surveys were delivered in partner states, their results could be combined to set the most successful regional framework for TCI and the complementary policies.
Beyond the information gathered from the survey, sharing the survey widely across the state has a civic engagement and educational benefit. In the 10/15 snapshot 50% of respondents knew nothing at all about the Transportation Climate Initiative. 40% or respondents didn't know that the transportation sector was the state (and the region's) largest contributor to emissions. |
- |
10/1/2019 |
Anthony |
Cherolis |
Transport Hartford Academy at the Center for Latino Progress |
Hartford |
Connecticut |
The "Framework for a Draft Regional Policy Proposal" released on Oct 1st does not include natural gas / methane in affected fossil fuels that will be included in the cap-and-invest... read more The "Framework for a Draft Regional Policy Proposal" released on Oct 1st does not include natural gas / methane in affected fossil fuels that will be included in the cap-and-invest program. --- "The proposed program would cap emissions of carbon dioxide from the combustion of the fossil component of finished motor gasoline and on-road diesel fuel in the region."
Natural gas / methane used as a motor vehicle fuel is not sustainable and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions from on-road use.
The methane leaks from transmission pipelines, well heads, and fueling must be considered and is a significant greenhouse gas emission in addition to on-road tailpipe emissions. Environmental impacts from fracked gas wells and wastewater disposal (including earthquakes) are problematic and create widespread rural environmental justice issues. Natural gas / methane transportation fuels are already in use and may increase if they are given a lower cost of operation from being excluded from the Transportation Climate Initiative framework.
It smells funny that methane / natural gas utilized for transportation fuel was not included in this draft framework document. An outside observer might think that the natural gas industry is influencing the process to give themselves a competitive benefit despite negative environmental and ghg emissions impacts.
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/natural-gas-industry-has-methane-problem |
- |
2/28/2020 |
Alan |
Blasenstein |
Transport Hartford Academy |
W. Hartford |
Connecticut |
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... read more 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. |
- |