TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Climate change is without doubt the most pressing issue of our time. We must aggressively pursue clean technologies in all forms. Our transportation sector must be one of the leaders in rethinking our use of carbon technologies--not only how we power our modes of transportation, how we make them attractive and affordable, but also including how we make our roads.

I want to voice my support for this initiative, which I hope will decrease the use of carbon-based fuels by pricing them to reflect at least some of their external costs. For me the projected at-the-gas-pump price increases that have been bandied about in the media (well shy of 25 cents per gallon) are in fact all too modest to represent much of a price signal at all, especially given the large fluctuations in fuel prices that everyone has endured over the last twenty years, and the current low prices.

At the same time I recognize that many people are not able easily to absorb even small increases in fuel costs, and so this initiative must include a very strong equity component. Housing costs force trade-offs in commuting distances. Beyond applying revenues from this initiative to mitigation of carbon fuels' external costs generally, a substantial portion of the revenues should be directed toward mitigation of disadvantaged populations' costs specifically.

Such mitigation could take the form of support for affordable housing that allows shorter commutes (enlarged rental voucher programs, direct subsidizing of affordable housing construction, for example). It could take the form of support for dramatically expanded public transit options, although this approach seems likely to bypass large geographic areas that have no existing public transit framework upon which to build. It could take the form of additional incentives for gas-efficient vehicles. It could even take the form of odometer-based tax credits available to low-income filers, which, being based on miles traveled rather than fuel consumed, would still reward the use of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles.

This equity concern strikes me as particularly important for the Massachusetts governor in view of the public stance that he has taken on the inequitable nature of congestion pricing schemes.

I will be impressed and supportive of any administration that supports an initiative such as this one. In my view we are years behind where we should be. It is long past the time where we can afford to reject proposals because they are not perfect in every respect. We are at a point where we must move forward and try something, doing our best to provide flexibility to adjust as we assess our progress. Please be bold!

New York State politicians seem to not want to really support electric vehicles. They have been bought and paid for buy the fossil fuel automobile dealers. Here's why I believe this to be true. First, recent sales figures, nationally, indicate Tesla is selling 77% of battery electric vehicles. New York subsidized charging stations support the 23%, not the 77%. It seems to me that all viable vehicles should be supported by states subsidized charging stations. The argument that Tesla doesn't support existing standards is bogus, since there were no standards when Tesla started selling cars and providing a bare bones charging network. Second, the adoption of electric vehicles should be made as easy and convenient as possible. NYS should require NEMA 14-50 electrical outlets in the parking area of all new construction, especially single family homes with garages or driveways. A dedicated charging station should be acceptable as an alternative. Third, there should be no artificial barriers to the sale of electric vehicles. Placing restrictions on non-dealer sales clearly indicates the lack of commitment to improving the environment. If the current auto dealers offer a superior experience to people wanting to buy an electric vehicle, people would shop at the dealers. Currently indications are that fossil fuel auto dealers are not really prepared to sell electric vehicles. For the near future, and to enhance the adoption of electric vehicles, no artificial restrictions should be imposed on their sale. The prohibition of manufacturer owned sales outlets competing with their dealers should be continued for the sake of fairness. Fourth, I propose a very generous subsidy for electric vehicles that support "Vehicle to Grid" (V2G) capability. If you do the numbers, drawing 10 KW from 1 million electric vehicles when needed is equivalent to a 10 gigawatt battery backup. Ultimately, this should reduce or eliminate the need for utility scale battery backup, since the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Battery manufacturers probably oppose this capability since they will sell fewer utility scale battery systems. Once this technology is kick started by a generous subsidy for a few thousand cars, the capability will become common and useful.

Gas taxes place a regressive tax on the working poor. Climate initiatives should be through investment, not placing additional taxes on the working poor.

Please do not listen to the untrue climate change lies. If we were not so greedy to build houses on flood plains there would be no problem. The water needs a place to go when it rains. When houses are built on the flood plain, the water goes into them. God has given the sea its limit. When we thumb our noses at Him and build where the water should go, there is flooding. Please do not raise the cost of driving to support unproven "science".

How much more do you corrupt politicians plan to steal from us. We don't want ANY more of your F*****g taxes.

There is no more important issue than climate. I want to see the TCI move forward rapidly, I strongly support it. This winter has been 8 degrees above normal, the ground has never frozen. Let's lead on this issue!

I support the TCI regional policy design process in order to help mitigate global warming and climate change and provide for a sustainable future for my children and future generations.