TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Maybe if Baker, and all other politicians give up their SUV’s, boats, private jets and mansions, “Stakeholders” could get behind this if it was approved thru proper procedures. But this is just a money-grab so that Baker, and his political buddies can continue with their energy-wasting habits.

Stay out of my pockets! Your entire project is a ruse and goes against the rule of law. It’s really “Climate Farce” and you know it. People will react and you will be exposed.

You are all a bunch of Thieves, you are so out of Touch with every day working me and Women. If I conducted My fiscal affairs the way Beacon Hill does, I would be broke and homeless.

You’re not fooling anyone. This is a government “fee” that is going to be passed onto consumers so call it what it is, a TAX.

Concerns I have with the initiative:
1. 100% of the data was provided by biased institutions and government agencies.
2. These 12 states have a population exceeding 60 million. However there were only 3 focus groups with only 1000 attendees.
3. The result of doing nothing will be a 19% improvement. The TCI plan calls for $40 billion in taxes with an overly optimistic improvement of an additional 5%
4. Reducing fuel consumption by 30% will devastate state tax coffers. What will offset this?
5. These proposed taxes will hit the lowest wage earners the hardest. They are also the least likely to purchase an electric car.
6. There is no clear path to a measurable result. Also no accountability in the impending failure.
7. This will surely spawn another govt agency that will cost much and produce nothing.
8. The result of prior initiatives like wind have taken 50 years to achieve the results promised in 5. Wind and solar are extremely inefficient due to the continued need for fossil fuel plants in the event the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine, which is often.
9. Some of the projected benefits are completely ambiguous like the health benefit from walking and riding a bike. In Baltimore both are unsafe practices.
TCI needs to do the following:
1. Produce an unbiased study which considers taxpayer impact, the inefficiency of government to efficiently execute and to identify a specific set of results with total accountability when it doesn’t work.
2. Look at other alternatives that people actually use. Solicit major public input on other options don’t just rely on environmental consultants and government agencies that are completely biased.
3. Identify and communicate a clear objective benefit to the taxpayer other than the government telling them what’s good for them.
4. Don’t exclude those from the conversation that will be most impacted, create a team of business leaders and citizens. Don’t do all the work behind closed doors.

Thanks for your consideration. This proposal needs a lot of work it’s obviously written by academics and regulators. Get private industries who will be impacted to weigh in. Let us work together for comprehensive environmental improvement.
Respectfully submitted

John Phelps
President
Highs of Baltimore LLC

443 463 3654

We are working hard in the NEK ( Northeast Kingdom) to reduce carbon emissions- lots of driving in this rural area so we need the incentives that TCI would provide - can’t do much on a meaningful scale without it. As far as it amounting to another tax on fuel- the price of gas differs as much as 25 cents or more per gallon between St. Johnsbury and Lyndonville, the next town north. An added tax of 5 cents pales in comparison to these fluctuations. And the TCI takes seriously the impacts on rural and low income populations, which is a key strength. Vermont needs to be part of this initiative so we have a place at the table when decisions are made.

For the sake of our families, our children and grandchildren we must be responsible and accountable.