TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

If the government was actually competent they could balance the budget without new taxes. What will happen to the State of RI, when people leave because they cannot afford it; businesses close so there'll be no jobs and our population diminishes to the point that the tax rolls cannot cover the operating budget of the State? RI will become a welfare State of the Federal Government and lose it's independence. DO YOUR JOB!

Charlie Baker and the Queen of Rhode Island Gina Raimondo are bent on taxing the heck out of the motoring public, including Taxi Uber and Lyft riders and drivers. This TCI Fuel Tax starts out small but balloons out of control to the point where as an example gasoline would go from $2.57 to $4.25/gallon over time. These governors are stealing President Trump's middle class tax cut in anyway they can. STOP THEM IN THEIR TRACKS. THINK ABOUT YOUR MOBILITY AND THE STRONG ECONOMIC CONDITIONS President Trump has enabled you to keep you and your families financially strong and mobile.

I want to voice my support for this initiative, which I hope will decrease the use of carbon-based fuels by pricing them to reflect at least some of their external costs. For me the projected at-the-gas-pump price increases that have been bandied about in the media (well shy of 25 cents per gallon) are in fact all too modest to represent much of a price signal at all, especially given the large fluctuations in fuel prices that everyone has endured over the last twenty years, and the current low prices.

At the same time I recognize that many people are not able easily to absorb even small increases in fuel costs, and so this initiative must include a very strong equity component. Housing costs force trade-offs in commuting distances. Beyond applying revenues from this initiative to mitigation of carbon fuels' external costs generally, a substantial portion of the revenues should be directed toward mitigation of disadvantaged populations' costs specifically.

Such mitigation could take the form of support for affordable housing that allows shorter commutes (enlarged rental voucher programs, direct subsidizing of affordable housing construction, for example). It could take the form of support for dramatically expanded public transit options, although this approach seems likely to bypass large geographic areas that have no existing public transit framework upon which to build. It could take the form of additional incentives for gas-efficient vehicles. It could even take the form of odometer-based tax credits available to low-income filers, which, being based on miles traveled rather than fuel consumed, would still reward the use of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles.

This equity concern strikes me as particularly important for the Massachusetts governor in view of the public stance that he has taken on the inequitable nature of congestion pricing schemes.

I will be impressed and supportive of any administration that supports an initiative such as this one. In my view we are years behind where we should be. It is long past the time where we can afford to reject proposals because they are not perfect in every respect. We are at a point where we must move forward and try something, doing our best to provide flexibility to adjust as we assess our progress. Please be bold!

Working together with regional states to improve transportation with a goal of pollution reduction to combat climate change is the right way to go. The whole world needs to step up and get on board while there is still a planet to save. The United States used to be a leader in so many areas, including this, and here is a chance to get back into leadership.

This is bull***t on a cracker disguised as a feel good policy to lower carbon emissions. The only thing this does is increase the price of gasoline at the pump for the consumer and it’s not going to stop us from driving gasoline vehicles. It’s just another fancy way for the governors of these states to take money from people. You take more money from people, less people can afford your stupid ass electric vehicles. We live in northern states where logging is a huge industry. Increasing the cost of gasoline will have a huge effect on loggers and in turn on lumber. How is it you can say we need more housing and then increase to cost of lumber via the cost of gas? Do y’all even look at the impacts beyond your own dollar signs? I think it’s time to rid ourselves of these thieving state governments for good.

We must make finding alternative means of transportation a high priority to limit the negative impact of private car and truck use.

The responsibility trans lies with who build vehicles,climate lies with those supllythe energy for such vehicle not the taxpayer.we already pay for that when we purchase said vechical.

I am against any gasoline tax increase in New Jersey to fight pollution and support electric vehicles and better public transit. The gasoline tax was increased in 2016 and 2018. The cost of living continues to increase in New Jersey. Working class and retired residents can't keep paying these tax increases. The only residents that can afford electric vehicles are high income residents. While electric vehicles do not use gasoline, fossil fuels are used to produce electricity. I also understand that the batteries used on electric vehicles are not environmentally friendly to dispose of.

• World Fuel Services which employs over 200 people 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.
• World Fuel Services 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 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?
• World Fuel Services opposes the TCI plan to ration, tax and ultimately eliminate fossil fuels.