TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

My name is Barrett Rock, and I live in Durham, NH 03824. I am a retired college professor of forestry, and I am interested in the TCI Regional Policy Design effort because I have been conducting research on the impacts of climate change on New England forest tree species (primarily red spruce, white pine and sugar maple since the early 1980s, research which began as an assessment of acid rain damage, and then morphed into climate change issues.
My suggestion on transportation policy design is based on the result of my research, which has clearly documented the effects of automobile and truck emissions on sensitive forest species (red spruce, white pine and sugar maple), in the form of both acidic precipitation and ground-level ozone. Of very critical importance are the emission levels of heavy truck transport systems, especially diesel. Combined with heavy automobile travel, often with one occupant per vehicle, these emissions of CO2, NOx, O3, and SOx are responsible for significant damage to foliar tissues and the photosynthetic apparatus.
My suggestion for the TCI regional policy consideration is the dramatic expansion of a high-speed rail system, preferably across the entire US. CO2 emissions from rail transport are significantly lower than truck transport (to move 1 ton of goods 1 km, a locomotive emits only 18 grams of CO2, compared wth 47 grams by truck. The rail system is essential 3 times more efficient than a truck. Similar comparisons are seen with the other pollutants. An efficient and effective high-speed rail system would compete very effectively with air transportation, which emits a startling 560 grams of CO2 moving the same 1 ton go goods 1 km! Add to that the social equity and availability of passenger high-speed transportation offered by such a transportation policy, and I think the idea has much merit.
Finally, let me say that engaging the stakeholders in the TCI regional policy process is a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate democracy in action! Thank you for giving me this chance.

I appreciate this effort and it’s bipartisan nature. I am concerned about climate change, but also concerned that any new policy to drive down emissions be carefully crafted. In Maine, emissions from transportation constitute our largest source of climate change causing pollution. We are largely a rural state, and many of our citizens are not well off. Yet a culture here has evolved where driving large heavy vehicles such as pickup trucks and SUVs is common practice. I believe one measure with potential is to incentivize the purchase of smaller and lighter vehicles without penalizing those who drive larger and heavier ones. If a carbon fee on fuels used for transportation is instituted, it will be important to avoid the kind of backlash we have seen in France. The fee must be large enough to cause a change in consumer habits, but should not be punitive to those who feel they must have a big vehicle. Consumer freedom of choice should prevail, but with attractive savings accruing to those who downsize. Some sort of break for low income people might be one way of achieving emissions reductions without causing a major backlash.

As an extremely concerned citizen and chapter leader of Greater Stamford CCL, I have learned so much about the most sensible policy to move towards renewables : carbon fee and dividend. In fact, a bill (HR 763) is working it's way through congress to enact this policy. Simply put, a steadily rising fee is placed on carbon emissions which is then is returned to every American household in the form of a montlhy dividend. The increasing fee signals the market that renewables are increasingly more attractive than fossil fuels. The dividend protects lower income families rom the price increase. Environmentalists and economists see this as the best policy to move towards renewables while protecting the vulnerable. And it has bi-partisan support, including from the fossil fuel companies. I urge you to explore this policy in the transition to renewables in the transportation sector.

My name is Carol DiPirro and I live in Merrimack, NH. It is a state that is dragging its feet to promote more efficient less green house gas producing transportation.
Policies put in place should have a price high enough to effectively reduce emissions according to the latest science
I appreciate that both parties are working on this initiative. Clean air and water is important to everyone. I am a mother and now a grandmother and I worry about the future of humans surviving on this planet.

My name is Margaret Pikaart. I moved to downtown New Haven 2 1/2 years ago. I am extremely concerned about our environment and for the future for our children and grandchildren. I am asking that TCI create a policy that will have a price high enough to effectively reduce emissions according to the latest science and a policy that will have a strong component of social equity and doesn't hurt rural or low/moderate income people
I thank you for ALL that you do and appreciate that this is s bipartisan effort.

Sincerely,
Margaret Pikaart

I believe the TCI is long overdue and will help us transition to electrified transportation, just as RGGI has done for renewable energy. I encourage TCI states to be as aggressive as possible to encourage utilities, suppliers and end users to aid a rapid transition. I also hope TCI can expand beyond the 9 states to a national initiative. Thank you for this critically important initiative!

Jeff Jones from Bangor, ME and I volunteer with the Citizens' Climate Lobby, which promotes bipartisan legislation as a solution to climate change disruption by assessing fees on carbon-based fuels and returning all of the money directly to individuals by dividend. Economists and others recognize that a market based approach, in some ways similar to RGGI, could work more effectively than non-market based proposals that rely on subsidies and regulations. This program, called Carbon Fee and Dividend, has been laid out in H.R. 763, The Energy Innovation and Dividend Act in Congress:
https://energyinnovationact.org/
I am in support of your effort and suggest that:
The policy should have a price high enough to effectively reduce emissions according to the latest science.
The policy should have a strong component of social equity and not hurt rural or low/moderate income people.
Thank you for the bipartisan nature of this project; I feel that is the only way to make it work.

I am a former wind energy engineer. I am very concerned that we reduce carbon emissions as soon and as fast as possible.
1. Do a carbon tax or fee or cap and invest. Do NOT propose a cap and trade program!
2. Collected fees must be returned to citizens - to ensure strong public support
3. Make sure the dividends are structured to make sure low income communities are not unduly burdened by the transition to a green economy
4. Make sure that the tax or cap is adjusted each year to reduce emissions to zero by 2050
5. Provide rigorous independent studies to document the expected efficacy and possible down sides of the proposed plan

We have no time to lose! Any proposal must meet these requirements as it needs to be publicly acceptable and effectively reduce emissions!

Dear TCI Team,

I am so grateful for your hard work to expand regional carbon pricing to a new sector of the economy and to do so in an inclusive, collaborative, bipartisan manner. I look forward to learning more about TCI but want to share some of my hopes based on my first impressions, study of RGGI, and enthusiasm for MA's current fee and rebate proposal H.2810 from which we could all learn.

1. The price must be high enough to drive emissions reductions. For all the revenue RGGI has generated, I have yet to find a single economist who argues that the RGGI price (a paltry $4-$5 when last I checked) is high enough to drive emissions reductions. (All arguments I've seen have attributed falling emissions to our use of natural gas.) TCI must decide on a way to measure the effect of the price on consumer behavior, perhaps coupled with nudges at the moment where people are paying for fuels to encourage them toward greener solutions. Like H.2810, I hope that this price will be set to increase until regional emissions targets are met, rather than chosing an arbitrary ceiling.

2. H.2810 also uniquely proposes redistribution of 70% of its funds directly to families to financially equip them to make greener decisions. These rebates are weighted by income to ensure financial protections for the low-income communities most affected by climate change. This is the only carbon pricing bill to my knowledge that has received explicit support from Environmental Justice organizations in MA, and I think we must consider whether a rebate structure is possible in TCI to ensure that no family is left in a difficult situation. I also look forward to learning how TCI is working to engage and address the concerns of these organizations as expressed here: https://climatejusticealliance.org/climate-justice-equity-principles-transportation-climate-initiative/

3. Please continue to emphasize that the TCI is transportation sector specific. We should use the wide-reaching aspects of this project to highlight that home heating/cooling emissions remain untouched and that the unimpressive effects of RGGI in the electricity sector still need to be rectified. In our battle for H.2810 in MA, countless legislators are saying to us "H.2810 is not necessary because TCI will solve that problem." Instead, lets focus on the synergistic aspects of these two legislative efforts, with the climate crisis as the bottom line.

Thank you so much,
Eben