TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Get serious. The climate Crisis and our infrastructure crisis are not going to fix themselves. It is time to do something that will provide a means to a proactive, positive change for my grandchildren's future.

VPCMA Comments in Opposition to TCI Framework for a Draft Regional Policy Proposal

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. Some of the projects envisioned have ramifications that have not been verified or well thought out. For instance, pushing consumers to electric vehicles has not been shown to lessen environmental impact due to the environmental costs of EV batteries and manufacture of new vehicles. Further, programs such as incentives to EV purchase often favor wealthier individuals while the new taxes on gasoline will disproportionate affect poor and rural communities.

The northeast compact has a greater impact on Maryland and Delaware than the other Northeast states. Geographically, Maryland and Delaware retailers will suffer the most because consumers may more easily choose to go elsewhere for fuel.

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.

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.

The Transportation Climate Initiative sets out a framework that imposes an unfair burden on all vehicle owners and thousands of businesses.

I am opposed to the TCI plan as outlined: Capping sales of gasoline and diesel, requiring suppliers to purchase allowances in order to sell motor fuel, and having consumers pay higher prices at the pump in order to subsidize electric vehicles.

This proposal negatively impacts low income Vermonters, particularly those that live in rural areas of the state. It would only help those who are considering purchasing a new electric vehicle and/or those that live in urban areas with access to public transportation.

Furthermore, while some consumers may be able to choose public transportation or an electric car to avoid the increased cost in gasoline, there is no viable option for businesses that need diesel trucks. In Vermont, 25% of the motor fuel sold is diesel— and we need diesel trucks to haul milk, logs and other products that benefit our agricultural economy. Diesel is also sold with increasing blends of renewable biodiesel, which is critical for Vermont and the Northeast to meet our energy goals.

We ask you to slow down this process, consider taking diesel fuel out of TCI and ensure that renewable liquid fuels such as biodiesel are not taxed in the same manner as petroleum fuel.

Our outdated transportation system is Maine’s largest source of climate pollution—and it doesn’t even meet the needs of Maine people.

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.

I am submitting comments for you to consider as a 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:

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.

Thank you for listening.

The whole concept of TCI is simply another tax implemented to fund excessive and irresponsible government spending. We do not need nor can we excuse the terrible waste in government already. Most people living on fixed incomes are already hurting from outrageous healthcare costs, increasing food prices, living costs and taxes. To add any gas tax will increase the cost of all goods delivered by truck, rail and air. This would be irresponsible on all accounts. Furthermore, there is no proof of a climate change threat. Indeed, just the opposite based on historical data. This is just another Tax and Spend initiative that will again hurt Maine citizens. May God save us from politicians influenced by lobbyists and their money. This reminds me of the reasons why we are subsidizing wind power. Ridiculous.