TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I'm writing to encourage a thoughtful approach to equity and transportation in the TCI. In particular, I ask that you include a cap on carbon emissions of at least 25% by 2032, an increase in the minimum investment in overburdened and underserved communities (>35%), and that investments be put towards active transportation like better sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and high quality public transit. Thank you for taking action to support healthier and more sustainable communities for the future.

As a Pennsylvania resident, I write in strong support of the Transportation and Climate Initiative. The transportation sector has perhaps the greatest potential for transformation in the wake of climate change, in ways that can decrease emissions and increase connectivity. In Philadelphia, while I applaud the heterogeneous integration of bus, trolley, elevated train, and regional rail systems, much more investment is needed to increase reliability and service range. Moreover, given our placement at the nexus of the New Jersey-Pennsylvania-Delaware tri-state area, the city is ripe for increasing the means, convenience, and affordability of transportation. Finally, it is an embarrassment that it is easier for a Philadelphia resident without a vehicle to travel to New York City--two states away--than it is to travel within Pennsylvania. These forms of investment can work in concert to build a more sustainable and connected Pennsylvania and Northeast Corridor. Thank you for your consideration.

We have to come to terms with the fact that human beings are destroying our planet. We must start by seriously reducing our dependence on and use of fossil fuels.

This entire initiative is ill-conceived, beginning with the baseless attribution of the reported warming trend, and of the severity of weather events, to emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide. The imposition of such a cap-and-invest system would only raise costs to consumers and accomplish nothing to mitigate or moderate whatever future climate trends are measured or whatever future weather events occur in our region. New York's population is already declining, so this restrictive plan seems likely to accelerate that trend as other regions and states avoid similar misguided ideas. I therefore strongly oppose the adoption of the elements of this most unwise plan.

Clean Transportation Can Protect Our Environment and Grow Our Economy
HIGHLIGHTS
The Northeast has helped lead the nation
in reducing pollution from electricity.
Now the largest source of pollution in the
region comes from transportation. We
can create a better, cleaner transportation
system for Northeast residents through
investments in public transportation and
new technologies such as electric vehicles.
An important step forward would be for the
Northeast region to set an overall limit
on pollution from transportation through
a regional “cap-and-invest” program,
similar to the program the region
implemented for electricity-related
emissions. This program would begin to
hold oil companies accountable for their
emissions and provide funding for clean
mobility for Northeast residents.
Over the past decade, the Northeast region of the United States has helped lead
the country—and the world—in supporting and developing clean, renewable
sources of electricity. Taken together, the policies of Northeast states, from Maine
to Maryland, have generated billions of dollars in investment for solar, wind, and
efficiency. One driving force behind this investment is a regional initiative that
caps emissions from the electricity sector, charges power plants for the emissions
they generate, and invests the revenue from those fees into efficiency and clean
energy programs. This initiative has helped fundamentally change the region’s
electricity sector: we have achieved unprecedented penetration of renewables,
nearly eliminated the use of coal, and reduced overall electricity use at a time of
economic expansion.
The next big step for the region is to bring that same sense of commitment,
ingenuity, and purpose to clean transportation.
Transportation is the largest source of pollution in the Northeast region,
comprising more than 40 percent of total regional global warming emissions
(Georgetown Climate Center 2015). In addition to the health impacts associated
with rising temperatures, soot and ground-level ozone from the region’s cars
and trucks are responsible for more than 50,000 asthma attacks, 1,000 deaths,
and other pollution-related illnesses that incur approximately $27 billion in total
health care costs every year (Holmes-Gen and Barrett 2016). The health impacts
of transportation affect all of us, but especially vulnerable are children, the elderly,
the chronically ill, and people in low-income communities (who often live in or
near freight corridors).

Please find attached Electrify America's comments to TCI on the draft MOU and proposed program framework.

Regards,
Andrew Dick
State Government Affairs Manager
Electrify America, LLC

I live in NYC where most people travel by public transportation but where there is also a severe car crisis. I would propose making it a cost to drive recreationally, institute residential parking permits, put idling spots in every neighborhood so the e-economy of having *everything* delivered results in less pollution and traffic issues, upgrade and increase public transportation so it's less unpleasant/unpredictable, mandate regular car care with subsidies for those with lower incomes, make it cheaper not more expensive to get a hybrid/electric car, and create delivery windows for large trucks so they aren't causing constant backlog traffic choking fuel belching pollution fests.

I oppose Massachusetts participating in the Transportation Climate Initiative.

The TCI will be paid for by working families and small businesses across Massachusetts in the form of a gas tax. The current proposal could see an additional five to 17 cents per gallon, and these costs will be passed down to consumers in more ways than one. Not only will it cost more to fill the gas tank, run errands, and pick up the kids from school, businesses will be forced to raise the prices of goods to cover the cost of this proposal.

In addition, living in a part of Massachusetts close to New Hampshire, consumers will take their money across the border. Instead of buying their gas in Massachusetts, consumers will go to New Hampshire (who has already opted out of this proposal) to buy gas, as well as other goods like groceries and lottery tickets, that they would usually buy in Massachusetts.

Despite its good intentions, the TCI’s effect on reducing carbon emissions will be marginal. Carbon emissions are already expected to fall in the next decade by at most 19%. The TCI will only see a reduction in carbon emissions between 1-6%.

Before imposing this new tax, the proposal should come for a vote before the legislature. Unilaterally levying a gas tax is not just bad practice, it’s bad policy. Massachusetts needs to take a hard look at the TCI before saddling Massachusetts families and businesses with new taxes.

I believe the proposed TCI is a useful starting point for action on carbon reduction but not nearly aggressive enough. To actually effect a critical reduction in VMT the "price at the pump" needs to start higher with assurances it will go even higher.
There should be explicit measures to address the inequitable hardship on low-income and rural households using some portion of the auction income to cushion this inequity. I hope Pennsylvania will join in this regional effort.