TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

WE AS RESIDENTS AND TAXPAYERS IN THE COMMONWEALTH HAVE HAD "ENOUGH" WITH ALL OF THE FRIVOLOUS TAXES..
WE HAVE TO LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS.. THE STATE LEGISLATORS SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD.
TAX AND SPEND ENDS HERE...VOTE OUT ANYONE WHO APPROVES OF THIS TAX GRAB.. IT WILL DO NOTHING TO APPROVE AIR QUALITY OR PREVENT CARBON EMISSIONS OR "GLOBAL WARMING"
IT'S JUST ANOTHER UNJUSTIFIABLE MONEY GRAB BY USELESS POLITICIANS......

We am pleased to hear from the TCI webinar that only the fossil component of motor gasoline and diesel combustion would be counted; not the renewable portion; and that you are working on incorporating into the models a more accurate reflection of the source of the power for electric vehicles (coal, natural gas, renewable natural gas, hydropower, solar, wind, etc.) taking into account the various state programs. We also appreciate that you will be factoring in the additional demand for electricity that achieving the electrification goals will produce.

We note, however, that the list used for modeling investment did not include investment in infrastructure for cleaner renewable fuels such as high blends of high octane ethanol or biodiesel, renewable natural gas or renewable diesel. These options, although not included in the investment-related modeling, could be an option as member states determine how they design their programs and should be a variable that you take into account. It appears that the modeling also does not factor in variables related to the potential adoption of renewable transportation fuels and the effect that would have on reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution caused by fossil fuel combustion. We hope that you seek out experts in this field as you and, the states and DC continue to revise and improve materials being used to discuss and implement climate smart transportation improvements.

This "sin tax" ( see cigarettes ) is despicable. There is no scientific consensus that man is warming the planet via carbon emissions. In fact there is no definitive consensus planet is even warming. If there is such a threat from driving our cars then ban them! I have to use my car to make a living......now I'll have less to invest in my own 401k and may never be able to fully retire while my hard earned money is taken from me to preserve MBTA pensions and allow those employees to continue to retire early and in comfort!!

First, I'm very pleased that you are implementing this initiative and that Governor Baker is onboard with the idea.

1. Offsets -- the offsets should be very strictly defined and regulated. E.g. when I fly to Canada I can buy a CO2 offset for only about $6, but a researcher at St. Mary's University in Halifax claims this offset is a lie. It can't be guaranteed in the long term to really offset the emissions. The offsets clause sounds like a potentially huge loophole. I'm sure I'm not the only one saying this. Who judges what's a real offset?

2. Stability Mechanisms -- I like that there is a feedback mechanism either way -- if costs go too high or if costs are unexpectedly low. However, I think there should be language that allows for having more ambition before 2032 in terms of how much we're willing to pay for reductions and how high our reductions must be. 25% by 2032 may seem good in today's political climate in the U.S. But right now leaders in Denmark are being criticized for planning overall reductions of 60% by 2030 IIRC, criticized for that being not ambitious enough that is. In five years, if the TCI is working well, I'd hope political will would exist for more realistic targets. By more realistic I mean more realistic in terms of what is necessary to avert climate crisis, i.e. higher reduction targets. The news from the scientists both about climate CO2 sensitivity and about its dangerous effects seems only to be getting worse each passing year and never better.

3. Maybe I'm feeling spiteful, thinking particularly about Governor Sununu, but I'd like it, if possible, if we could be good to those in the TCI with us and bad to those not. E.g. if Rhode Island is in, let's make Providence a good commuting community for jobs in Boston and make Nashua less so.

4. Compliance period - I'd defer to those experienced with the electric power supplier cap and trade programs, but it strikes me that three years is a long time out for the first trading/compliance date. People are talking about 2030 as a critical target date for reducing our emissions significantly. 2025 would be the first date where we really see this initiative acting, if I'm understanding correctly. That leaves a very narrow window if the initiative doesn't immediately have much effect. People who are critical about cap and trade/invest programs tend to be critical about them having caps that are too high to bring about much effect. With electric power emission cap and trade we got a bit of a gift from natural gas supply, right? Transportation may not get such a gift, so this program might have to be more rigorous to do as well.

Regards and thanks again for this plan,
Mike Small

This is a very regressive tax increase MOU unless the signatories are planning commensurate reductions in other regressive taxes imposed in their respective states. The recitals about climate changes are conclusory and lack scientific foundation. Before considering MOU's such as this I recommend the TCI jurisdictions undertake some basic scientific investigation. Perhaps several panels of real scientists can be convened to debate the current circumstances of gradual global temperature rise and contrast the current rise with similar increases that have occurred since the last ice age (that continues to wind down).
Moreover, whatever a few jurisdictions in the United States undertake will not matter an iota relative to global emissions. We are effectively opting to make our marketplaces more expensive places to live and work with zero benefit aside from good feelings- -essentially self flagellation.
NY is already a high social overhead state that is driving established residents away- -please do not compound your bad economic policies with this disastrous proposal.

Our Center OPPOSES the TCI Gas Tax. In addition to the economic problems caused by raising fuel prices at the pump, the concept of states giving away their taxing authority to a group of un-elected ideologues at a 3rd party organization that is only interested in advancing a radical environmental agenda … is anathema to a true democracy!

You’ve no doubt already heard from the TCI’s detractors which likely made no impact on this absurd policy.

I recently returned from Copenhagen, Denmark where Climate Change group think is in full tilt. The skyline is dotted with windmills, the bike paths are as wide as car lanes, there’s a 25% surcharge on all restaurant meals and a 180% tariff on cars all to become “carbon neutral” by 2025. With a population of 750,000 and 1.5 million bicycles, it was amusing to think how riding a bike in winter works out. Better yet, what do they do if they visit a pub at night and have to make it home on icy roads? Do they do make 20 trips to the grocery store per week since their bicycle baskets can only hold so many items? Technology has evolved and lifted billions out of poverty because of carbon fuels. Now, you want our country to go backwards?

No one wants pollution. But, climate change advocates can’t differentiate between pollution and “man-made” global warming which in junk science as well as a power and wealth grab by the global elites. If Thunberg is Time Magazine’s Person of the Year, then the planet is doomed anyway. That’s almost as bad as B. Hussein O. being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The irony of my visit to Scandanavia is that the people love their herring but can’t eat it more than twice a month because the Baltic Sea is so polluted. They can’t do anything about climate change but should be and could be working on cleaning up the sea which is the lifeblood of their economies.

In closing, my eye doctor’s assistant works in Portland, ME but commutes from Oxford county. Increasing the burden on her commute by increasing gasoline taxes to boost government revenues is not only foolish but, if I had the power to do so, I would make it a criminal offense.

This is robbery and you should be ashamed of yourselves for stealing from taxpayers in the states trying to push this crap through, gas tax revenues have fallen because previous administrations have pushed through electric vehicles and mass transit and now your going to tax hardworking people so that you can pay for your underfunded, and over bloated failed pension funds. No thanks and you will be voted out of office because the people are sick and tired of your wasteful spending. New Hampshire is right not to stand with you morons...