TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

An increase in gasoline tax will hurt the working residents of MA. Do not increase the gas tax.

I think it's ridiculous to put the challenges of climate change on the backs of those who consume gasoline. New Hampshire has refused to go with this initiative. It can't work without all states in the region. And the US has done a lot already about climate change. Russia, India and China are the real problem countries. It is a worldwide problem - not a local one.

using an executive order to add a tax on fuels is wrong . by doing this action you will put a hurt on the lower paid people and will have an effect on business because of your policies in the past have not thought about what will happen with what you propose . your truck tax tolls are shortly going be implemented on all cars and trucks . this and your fuel tax increase will only cause more business to leave ri which you need to be reminded that small business is the back bone of jobs and the economy , we are last place in the country to run a business and this proposal will do nothing to help ri . only make it worse . we do not have a money flow problem in ri
we have a spending problem in ri . mainly caused by liberal greed and the catering to the unions and special interest , (ie the people that give money to your reelection) . this cycle needs to stop

Its bullsh_t. Get your grubby, sticky, spineless fingers out of MY paycheck. You have no right as public servants to create bullsh_t science excuses to take more of our hard earned money to fund your bullsh_t ideas and non-profits to skate on your own taxes.

As a lifelong Rhode Islander I have witnessed the misappropriation of funds obtained through our high fuel tax. The revenue collected is often diverted to the general fund to offset budget shortfalls. The intent of the state fuel tax was to maintain the state's infrastructure IE: roads and bridges. The TCI "tax" will achieve nothing other than to drive more people out of RI and create yet another state bureaucracy.

Transportation and climate initiatives are not only interstate issues but also intrastate issues. Therefore efforts need to include multimodal transportation and in particular passenger rail within Connecticut and between New England and Quebec with connections to states west.

Consider the issues of pollution generated as a result of driving out of state. The pollution is not only from automobile/truck exhausts but also from the debris caused by auto/truck braking.

STOP this NOW!!!! Whatever you try to call this it’s just another TAX! We’re not so stupid we don’t see this for what it is. If you try to call it anything else you just prove politicians are LYING SACKS OF CRAP. I voted for Baker in the past, if this goes through I WILL NOT vote for him again. I implore all other VICTIMS (not stakeholders) to make the same pledge and then follow through on it. Stop the wasteful spending in government and we’ll all be better off and not need more of our hard earned money STOLEN from us by the bloated government bureaucracy.

I had the opportunity to attend a public information session on the TCI on 2/12/20 hosted by the NYSDEC Office of Climate Change, at which time I was able to review the current projections of the economic & environmental impacts of the proposed initiative.

The projections for all three of the cap-and-invest scenarios under consideration indicate that the TCI will *increase* net household income for individual families, *raise* the overall GDP of our individual states, and *improve* public health in our communities while lowering the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of our region's transportation sector. My comment is informed by the results of these models as well as by the best available scientific data on climate change.

My two cents is that the TCI is our region's best opportunity to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector while investing in infrastructure and improvements to our region's transportation grid. The 20% & 25% scenarios in particular project higher rates of return under the cap system that will lead to additional investments to make life better for our families, our communities, and our overall region. It's a win-win-win-win scenario that greatly outweighs the rising financial & public health costs of continuing business as usual with a transportation system dependent on fossil fuels.

Scientists across multiple disciplines agree that their data indicates that we have less than a decade to transition to a carbon-neutral economy to avoid the catastrophic severe weather events, rising sea levels, and other environmental impacts of a 1.5°C global warming scenario above pre-industrial levels. We have already missed the deadline for a seamless and painless transition away from a fossil fuel-based economy; however, the proposed scenarios under the TCI will make this transition easier & more affordable for the vast majority of people within our region.

Our region has already successfully reduced our emissions in the energy sector through a cap-and-invest system that is transitioning our power grid to renewable energy sources without increasing the cost of energy for consumers. We, the people, can expect similar results from the TCI.

Several previous commentators have stated that they oppose the TCI because they are afraid that additional regulations will lead to higher gas prices. In the models for all three scenarios, any projected increases in gas prices are projected to be far, far less than what I paid for gas during the Bush Administration. The maximum projected increase of 17¢ over today's gas prices (which, as I understand it, would be the maximum projected fuel increase under the 25% cap scenario) is way, way better than the $2.50 more I was paying for gas back in 2007.

What's more, the public works investments from the cap-and-invest scenarios will make it easier and more affordable for both businesses and individual households to transition to a transportation system where buying gas won't be necessary. Our overall fuel costs will be lower as we need to buy less gasoline, and we will have more disposable income available due to reduced vehicle maintenance costs. These investments are a critical part of the TCI strategy, and to me they seem like a more than fair trade for a few cents extra at the pump.

The anti-TCI comments I've read seem to be rooted in a fear of change. We have been dependent on the fossil fuel industry for half a century, and we've sacrificed both our financial independence and our community health to building a transportation system designed around gasoline-powered automobiles. We have forgotten the spirit of innovation and sense of civic responsibility that built America in the first place. The technology already exists to transform our transportation grid to a gas-free system, which would make our cities and rural communities more resilient, more self-reliant, more healthy, and more financially robust. The TCI is an opportunity for innovation, and so it has my support.

Although there are still many details to be worked out under all three proposed scenarios under consideration as part of the TCI, I appreciate the overall health and economic benefits of the proposed initiative. I also very much appreciate how the cap-and-invest system leaves the ultimate decision for implementing the reduction strategies and the accompanying investments in the hands of our individual states. We will move forward together without sacrificing our sovereignty. We can expect to see a rise in GDP, household incomes, and public health. We will reduce the environmental impact of our transportation sector to keep our region inhabitable for future generations.

Because both the 20% and 25% cap scenarios are more aggressive in their approach to reducing emissions, and because these more aggressive caps will give our states more money to use to invest in clean transportation infrastructure, either of these scenarios under the TCI have my full support.

Yes, the HSR potential of the NEC is a must. However, higher-speed rail — 90 to 125 mph — is a perfect solution for underserved regions the like Great Lakes, Cleveland-Pittsburgh corridor, as well as Ohio’s long-delayed 3C project.