TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I am a small business owner and operate a delivery business in the waterville area. the tci policy as it is now is the worst plan to reduce emmissions which from what i read is the "intent" of the tci proposal. taxing fuel further will increase operating costs for all transportation services by increasing their anual fuel costs by approximately 7.5% seems like a small ammount for a good cause until you look at it further take my small business to start in a year i will purchase just over 850 gallons of gasoline this is running a 30 mpg vehicle at optimal fuel consumption. which equates to just $144.50 more in fuel costs. i have still maintained the same carbon emissions the same can be said for oter companies as well lets look at a trucking and freight company, an 18 wheeler gets roughly 5.3 mpg runs 3,000 miles per week and annually will consume 29,434 gallons of fuel. which means every operating 18 wheeler will be taxed an additional $5,003.78 and has not altered its carbon emissions not to mention the operating cost which will be passed along to the consumer. now i would say it makes more since to adopt something like the california emissions laws. it would be better to impose a fee for failing an emissions test rather than paying more for doing your job and paying another tax for fuel. these fees can fund projects on atmospheric carbon scrubbing projects which will clean the already poluted air and at the same time will do more than encourage drivers to lower emissions, new cars sold will already meet or exceede these emissions requirements and older vehicles can either be brought up to code at the owners expense or end up with fines for failing the emissions test. trucking companies, cab companies, public transport, mail couriers and so many others will be forced to do 3 things! 1 look into overhauling its logistics to deliver more efficiently 2 bring all operating vehicles up to code for emissions and 3 pay for not meeting emissions testing. and these emissions tests and fines can be anual with vehicle inspections and a part of d.o.t highway checks imposing a fee for every mile driven after the initial fine is issued until an emissions test is passed will also encourage these high emission vehicles to be parked and cease operation until they meet code. bottom line taxing the fuel needed to run your business or to commute to work or deliver essential goods across the united states is a terrible idea! i understand a road tax it pays for infrastructure repairs and upkeep and new roadways bridges etc. but saying no matter how low your emissions are you get to pay the same ammount as everyone else is crazy! we have all seen diesel pickup trucks take off from a stop and "rolling coal" because its fun, how is it fair they pay $0.17 while im sitting here in a ford focus. another outcome could be the forced purchase of ev's which simply changes the source of this pollution and new england does not have an effective infrastructure for ev charging or even repair. please reconsider the proposal and target offenders with fees rather than all purchases of road fuel, and use these fees to fund existing atmosphere pollution elimination projects. thank you!

I'm one for trying to implement measures to decrease our carbon footprint. Unfortunately, a gas tax is not going to accomplish much as the majority of the population will still be driving gas powered vehicles. Unless more electric vehicles are manufactured and made more affordable, this will not change. What it will only do is place an additional burden on people to pay more taxes on their already overly taxed income. I say no to the TCI, and try to find other ways to decrease the carbon foot print by other means.

I am happy to see a plan to reduce greenhouse gases created by transportation in the Northeast. Placing a price on carbon, whether through a cap-and-trade or a direct fee, is the best way to encourage consumers to switch to cleaner transportation, and suppliers to sell cleaner fuels.
This is a climate crisis. We have act NOW to lessen the damage that will be done to our planet. Yes, gas prices will likely go up. But that's what's required to prevent catastrophe. Having multiple contiguous states involved will lessen the ill effects of price rises. And those hardest hit by price rises should receive payment to offset their hardship.
I was dismayed to read that some governors have already decided not to participate in this plan. I implore them to reconsider. The future of the planet depends on all of us.

The recent gas tax initiative is in violation of Federal and State laws regarding the intended use of gas taxes. RGGI and TCI are multi-state "agreements" that have never received U. S. Congressional approval as required under Article 1, section 10 of the US Constitution (Compact Clause). This also has never been regionally approved. There should be court challenges if this ever does come to agreement. The Initiatives do NOT comply with legal use of carbon/gas taxes, in that they are to be used "... solely for the cost of ... highway and bridge construction and maintenance ... etc. (Maine Constitution Article IX, Section 19: Limitation on expenditure of motor vehicle and motor vehicle fuel revenues.) Why this discussion and these initiatives have reared their ugly heads is easy to understand. Just one more set of illegal, back-door taxes to more greatly subsidize an even more costly "green" agenda whether it's legal or not. Increasing fuel taxes is not legal nor acceptable. The states (especially Maine) must start to apply already collected taxes judiciously and where intended. This is just one more big tax and spend scheme. It completely fails to follow the rule of law and/or Constitutional tests.

Please do whatever it takes to make this initiative happen. RGGI has been a win, TCI will be a win. The critics deserve to be heard, they have valid concerns. In Mass we can expect economic concerns to be met by a "Mass Save for Vehicles" program to help people upgrade to electric or hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.

Please Reject the Senate Climate Change Package!

I'm asking you to reject the Senate Climate Change Package consisting of bills S 2477 , S 2478 , and S 2476. This type of taxing does nothing to change the climate and will make the cost of living unaffordable while hitting the working class the hardest. Please stand up for your most vulnerable constituents and our great state and vote against these bills.

To whom it may concern,

As an avid outdoorsman with young children, I strongly encourage our elected officials to tackle climate change. While this small increase will not be an overbearing hardship for me personally, I do have concerns with the proposed plan to increase the price for fuel. This increase would be a financial hardship for many of my close friends and family. My understanding based on 2017 census data is that poverty levels across the state seem higher in central and western Massachusetts. Many families rely on their vehicles for their livelihoods. Currently I commute an hour to get to my primary source of income. I have a 30 minute commute to my second job. There just aren't any jobs out this way. I purchased the most fuel efficient vehicle I could afford. If electric vehicles were affordable and the infrastructure was there, I would have purchased one. There is very little access to public transportation for many of us. I need to drive 35-40 minutes to get to the closest commuter rail.

Would the proposed plan address the issues in the central and western part of the state? Road conditions are poor. Service stations are far and few between. I don't think I've ever seen an electric vehicle charging station. What happens when I lose power and can't charge my vehicle? In the past 3 months I've been without power for over a week. Who would service the newer model vehicles that this initiative is pushing for?

Again, I am in support for climate change initiatives. I moved to rural Massachusetts due to my love of the outdoors. I urge you to consider how this fuel increase will affect the members of the rural parts of the state. If this money will go directly into infrastructure improvements then you have my full support. Your transparency with where these funds end up may help many individuals get on board with saving the environment for a few dollars a week.

Regards,

Kevin Graves