TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Comments on Program Design as Outlined on Sept. 16 and 29, 2020 TCI Webinars – Modeled 2032 Max Mileage Reductions from Reference Case of Only 2.0% is a Program Failure

Comments on Program Design as Outlined on Sept. 16 and 29, 2020 TCI Webinars – Modeled 2032 Max Mileage Reductions from Reference Case of Only 2.0% is a Program Failure

My wife and I own our home at 82 Sussex St, Rehoboth Beach, DE. We have solar panels on our roof and an electric vehicle charging station right next to the solar panels in our driveway. We have three electric plug in cars. We also bike a lot.
Thank you for your interest in our opinions.
I favor a carbon fee and dividend approach to reducing carbon pollution that causes global warming.
This approach gives all fees on carbon fuels back to the people in a monthly dividend. See HR 763, a bi-partisan bill in the US Congress. I think this works best on a national scale, but a regional scale, like RGGI, could work also.
The dividend approach ensures that almost all people of limited means will be better off financially than without the program, since most richer families use more carbon fuel that poorer families, so the rich will pay more, but everyone gets the same dividend. The REMI study confirms this concept.
It encourages people to use more efficient cars, electric cars, bikes and mass transit. For those lower income families that find that they are not better off, we could devise a program for free bus tickets, or free bicycles, if they would use them. We might be able to sell them used electric vehicles or hybrids that cost less than brand new, at below market prices, which subsidies could be paid out of the carbon fee.
Of course, we would need an educational program that inspires everyone to use low carbon transportation.
Thank you again

I live in Bethany Beach, DE and strongly believe that we need to take action to begin to counter the devastating impact of humanity on the environment. This is one step in the right direction. Please set a policy that has a price high enough to effectively reduce emissions according to the latest science. Please design a policy that has a strong component of social equity and doesn’t hurt rural, low/moderate income people. Thank you for the bipartisan nature of this project as we must work together as hard to fix as we did to break the environment.

I am writing with deep concern about the proposal put forward by the Transportation Climate Initiative.

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. Rather than use the existing motor fuel tax structure in the states, the tax has been intentionally proposed at a point of “prime suppliers” so that it will be hidden from consumers. I believe that the TCI planners feel that it must be done this way because if the general public knew the costs of this plan they would soundly reject this and other proposals like it. If the energy provided by petroleum to move people and goods in the economy is removed by reduced gasoline consumption, it either must be replaced by more expensive and less efficient forms of energy or the movement of people and goods must be reduced. Either scenario will have devastating effects on the economy in the northeast and will continue to push people and businesses away from these states.

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. The general public in the member states has little or no knowledge of this plan to massively increase the cost of their transportation fuels.

I reject this framework – and I urge that the participating Governors be required personally to attend and hold public hearings throughout their states. This 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 had no true measurable benefit.

A zero emission mass public transportation system will be more cost effective for business in the long run. low income residents will be able to get to work more efficiently and predictably. Health care savings and environmental resources are two more considerations for me.

Our transportation system is stuck in the dark ages. Traffic congestion from millions of cars and trucks are polluting our lungs and planet more than ever before. In fact, transportation is our largest source of global warming emissions (regionally and nationally). I would like to see Delaware formally join the plan to reduce emissions. Let's prioritize the development of clean mass transit in areas overburdened by pollution and in areas where the population does not have access to convenient transport. Why not concentrate on mass transit rather than another lane of traffic on the interstate (which never seems to alleviate congestion)? Let's progress toward a clean transportation plan.
Thank you for promoting the bipartisan nature of this project, moving us forward while the federal government takes us backward.

Solar roadways should be implemented in the controlled testing area. Or considered for additional grants or funding: https://solarroadways.com/faq-solar-roadways/