TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Hastings Holdings, LLC which employs 29 people and provides petroleum for other companies that employ hundreds of employees in Virginia is strongly opposed to the "framework for a draft regional policy proposal" which seeks to expropriate the petroleum marketing industry. Over time this plan proposes to move Virginia from simple rationing and new taxes to the ultimate prohibition of fossil fuels.
This plan does not assess the collateral damage it will inflict on state revenue, local tax collections, Virginia's Transportation Trust fund, and consumers.
Many of the advocates of these policies support regulation to electrify transportation. Those advocates somehow forget to mention that a major component of batteries powering these vehicles is cobalt, 90 percent of which is mined in third world countries under unfavorable working conditions.
As the number of electric vehicles grows, petroleum marketers will likely have to battle for a share of the electric vehicle charging market with utility companies that see EV charging as a new business opportunity without cost. When utility companies install charging stations, they may seek the ability to include that cost as part of their capital investment. When these costs are approved by governmental regulatory agencies, they can then be passed on to all ratepayers as part of their monthly electric bills.
Hastings Holdings, LLC believes this would provide regulated utilities an unfair competitive advantage that Virginia based small businesses simply cannot compete with. I must economically justify and self-fund at risk investments in new equipment like EV charging stations and so should my competition.
Another likely competitor under this scheme is the state government itself. This is not a concept, as just this past session the General Assembly passed legislation to allow the Departments of Conservation and Recreation, General Services, and Transportation to install electric chargers. Fortunately our association was able to narrow this initiative considerably by limiting the number of state agencies involved and mitigating the threat of unfair competition by requiring the state to sell the power at prevailing market rates including taxes.
All Virginians, particularly the petroleum marketing and convenience industries, support a clean environment. There are many ways to achieve this without rationing. Incentivizing the sale of electric vehicles does nothing to meet your stated goals of "equity, environmental justice, and non-discrimination." As one example, the stated goals could be achieved far faster and cheaper via efforts to assist low-income Virginians to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles that meet current and future CAFÉ standards.
History has proven that rationing followed by prohibition - the ultimate goal of TCI - has led to black markets, unregulated and untaxed sales, and undue burdens on law enforcement.
The impact of these proposals will not be solely on fuel sellers and convenience stores - what about the auto repair industry, muffler shops, service facilities at new car dealers, quick lubes etc.? What about agriculture, construction, Loggers and watermen who will be forced to scrap present equipment or pay artificially high prices due to rationing? What about the consumer who will experience not only higher prices to operate their personal vehicles, but higher prices for consumer goods and services?
The impact of these proposals will completely devastate Virginia’s economics. Recent information predicts an alternative fuel source for Commercial Trucks are 15 to 20 years out, Trucking companies have utilized Virginia interstates I95, I85 and I81 as a major travel corridor for years which allowed the state and individual companies to benefit from them stopping and doing business on these popular travel routes. The proposals will cause the majority of companies to route their trucks around the state devastating businesses.
Hastings Holdings, LLC opposes the TCI plan to ration, tax and ultimately eliminate fossil fuels.

Sadler Brothers Oil Company which employs 87 people and provides petroleum for other companies that employ hundreds of employees in Virginia is strongly opposed to the "framework for a draft regional policy proposal" which seeks to expropriate the petroleum marketing industry. Over time this plan proposes to move Virginia from simple rationing and new taxes to the ultimate prohibition of fossil fuels.
This plan does not assess the collateral damage it will inflict on state revenue, local tax collections, Virginia's Transportation Trust fund, and consumers.
Many of the advocates of these policies support regulation to electrify transportation. Those advocates somehow forget to mention that a major component of batteries powering these vehicles is cobalt, 90 percent of which is mined in third world countries under unfavorable working conditions.
As the number of electric vehicles grows, petroleum marketers will likely have to battle for a share of the electric vehicle charging market with utility companies that see EV charging as a new business opportunity without cost. When utility companies install charging stations, they may seek the ability to include that cost as part of their capital investment. When these costs are approved by governmental regulatory agencies, they can then be passed on to all ratepayers as part of their monthly electric bills.
Sadler Brothers Oil Company believes this would provide regulated utilities an unfair competitive advantage that Virginia based small businesses simply cannot compete with. I must economically justify and self-fund at risk investments in new equipment like EV charging stations and so should my competition.
Another likely competitor under this scheme is the state government itself. This is not a concept, as just this past session the General Assembly passed legislation to allow the Departments of Conservation and Recreation, General Services, and Transportation to install electric chargers. Fortunately our association was able to narrow this initiative considerably by limiting the number of state agencies involved and mitigating the threat of unfair competition by requiring the state to sell the power at prevailing market rates including taxes.
All Virginians, particularly the petroleum marketing and convenience industries, support a clean environment. There are many ways to achieve this without rationing. Incentivizing the sale of electric vehicles does nothing to meet your stated goals of "equity, environmental justice, and non-discrimination." As one example, the stated goals could be achieved far faster and cheaper via efforts to assist low-income Virginians to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles that meet current and future CAFÉ standards.
History has proven that rationing followed by prohibition - the ultimate goal of TCI - has led to black markets, unregulated and untaxed sales, and undue burdens on law enforcement.
The impact of these proposals will not be solely on fuel sellers and convenience stores - what about the auto repair industry, muffler shops, service facilities at new car dealers, quick lubes etc.? What about agriculture, construction, Loggers and watermen who will be forced to scrap present equipment or pay artificially high prices due to rationing? What about the consumer who will experience not only higher prices to operate their personal vehicles, but higher prices for consumer goods and services?
The impact of these proposals will completely devastate Virginia’s economics. Recent information predicts an alternative fuel source for Commercial Trucks are 15 to 20 years out, Trucking companies have utilized Virginia interstates I95, I85 and I81 for years which allowed the state and individual companies to benefit from them stopping and doing business on these popular travel routes. The proposals will cause most companies to route the trucks around the state devastating businesses.
Sadler Brothers Oil Company opposes the TCI plan to ration, tax and ultimately eliminate fossil fuels.

Prevention of the most disastrous effects of climate heating requires the equitable, coordinated, action of millions of people backed by the authority of government.Single states by themselves are not enough.A national effort would be best, but is impossible under the current administration. Mutual effort, support, among groups of states is probably the best we can hope for and would produce mutual benefits for them.

I am submitting comments for you to consider as a resident and taxpayer in Connecticut to express my concern about the potential that a cap and trade program will have on our customers, employees, business and the environment.



The plan seems to be geared toward converting millions of gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs).



While EVs may be an apparently attractive way to lower emissions, we urge that greater consideration needs to be given to a number of factors that will have an impact on jobs, the economy, property values, electric reliability, emissions and family-owned businesses.



Please consider the following points and recommendations so that they can be incorporated into the final draft of the TCI:



• TCI needs to be very cautious about advantaging regulated electric monopolies that already benefit from antitrust protection and a guaranteed rate of return. According to the website Utility Dive (https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-new-england-will-significantly-miss-2050-carbon-targets-at-curr/564726/), "Just to meet this load that comes from electrifying transportation and buildings, you have to add an electricity sector that's equal to the current electricity sector" – which is a huge gift to utility investors. Are utilities doing such a great job that they deserve these government handouts (Eversource is rated below California’s PG&E in 2019 by the American Customer Satisfaction Index)? Our business cannot compete with utilities coddled and protected by government unless, we get equivalent protection and subsidies to create a level, competitive playing field.



• With the goal of putting million’s EVs on the road, TCI should have ISO New England and the other grid operators fully evaluate the impact that this would have on the electric grid. An article published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) indicates that one EV can consume as much electricity as a home does. And as noted, we need to double power generation to meet the state’s carbon goals, an unlikely feat that will result only in supply shortages. The unintended consequence of the government heedlessly jumping onto the EV bandwagon will be rolling blackouts, with power loss to critical infrastructure such as schools, businesses, emergency responders, hospitals and nursing homes.



• The ISO’s should add to their evaluation the impact of state policies promoting electric heat pumps on the electric grid, which could require an additional 17 million MWH of power annually. TCI must understand the impact that their program has on other initiatives also looking to utilize more electricity. TCI is not operating in isolation and has the responsibility not to operate in the dark either, and ensure that electric reliability is not compromised.



• Although EVs are considered a low- or zero-emission vehicles, they are only as clean as the electricity that charges them. Connecticut is heavily reliant on natural gas to generate electricity and becoming more dependent on it as nuclear generation in the region is retired. Natural gas (methane) is more than seventy times as potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and combusting natural gas also emits carbon dioxide. According to the Department of Energy, an EV produces 4,362 lbs of CO2e per year (https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html)– that’s almost two tons – hardly emissions-free, and that doesn’t even consider the CO2 resulting from their manufacture. TCI needs to fully understand the lifecycle impact of EVs and the source of the fuel that electricity is being generated from before EVs are designated as “clean”. It is intellectually and environmentally dishonest to claim that electricity is clean when ISO New England today (10/29/19) reports that just 8% of electric generation is renewable and 53% is generated with natural gas. Methane’s impact on climate change is an inconvenient truth. A recent study commissioned by the Connecticut Chapter of the Sierra Club (https://issuu.com/ctsierraclub/docs/hartford__ct_mobile_methane_leak_su) found that in Hartford, CT alone, gas pipelines leak approximately 43,000 cubic feet per day, or 313 metric tons per year. That is equivalent spilling and not cleaning up 320 gallons of diesel per day (or 117,000 gallons per year). Just because you can’t see natural gas leaks, it doesn’t mean that they are not there and that they are not doing environmental damage. According to Gale Ridge, PhD, a scientist and researcher on the Sierra Club study, “In a one month period, we found about 700 leaks in Hartford. Over a one-year period covering the same area, PURA reported 139 leaks. Even recognizing that some of the leaks we found are known to PURA, that’s about a 5-fold difference. We believe that CNG may be missing a large percentage of its leaks.”



• Connecticut motorists are already paying the highest gasoline taxes in New England and the 11th highest tax in America. Connecticut also has the highest diesel tax in New England and the 9th highest tax in America. Any proposal that increases the cost of fuel in our state will disproportionally harm low-income motorists and businesses when compared to states that do not participate in TCI. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council "Low-income, households of color, multifamily and renting households spend a much larger percentage of their income on energy bills than the average family." An across-the-board energy tax is therefore "regressive," i.e. "African-American and Latino households and renters in multifamily buildings who pay a disproportionate amount of their income for energy" will be greater impacted by such a tax than average- or high-income earners. Moreover, low-income families will have less means to change their energy use to lower-taxed fuels, which are prohibitively expensive to convert to. TCI needs to consider the impact of their program on low- and fixed-income families who will not be able convert to EV’s.



• Presumably, the purpose of TCI is to change consumption behavior in Connecticut and the region. But we’ve seen huge variations in energy commodity prices that haven’t affected consumption. EIA, for example, shows that gasoline consumption in Connecticut in 2015 was the same as in 2011, despite prices being more than $1/gallon less. Energy consumption is inelastic. Even if TCI is successful in increasing cost of fuel, the data clearly demonstrate that people will be paying higher prices for fuel and not curb consumption. Further inflation will result as the price of every product sold in Connecticut increases as merchants and manufacturers increase prices to account for TCI. Either that, or people will vote with their feet and leave the state or region.



Finally, even if TCI resulted in changes in consumption behavior in Connecticut, such changes will have no impact on climate change. As reported in U.S. News & World Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report claims that even if the U.S. as a whole stopped emitting all carbon dioxide emissions immediately, the ultimate impact on projected global temperature rise would be a reduction of only about 0.08°C by the year 2050. China and India will dominate global carbon emissions for the next century, and there’s little the U.S., let alone Connecticut can do, to affect this. A Princeton University study likewise predicted that even if all countries stopped emitting CO2 entirely, the Earth would continue to gradually warm, before cooling off.

I ask that TCI take all of these issues into consideration before they decide to move forward.

I hope this response is taken seriously - i am not just a propane company owner. i am a Vermont tax payer who has NO interest in being forced into an electric vehicle and that is what this is designed to do. I also have no interest in a heat pump home in New England. I have already seen (and my company has worked on) too many frozen pipes in homes with heat pumps!! This is yet just another freedom being taken away Because someone somewhere has decided this is the only way to save the planet! or is it? i am old enough to remember the ozone layer being destroyed and we were all going to burn up if we didn't do something right away. now these same scientists are back with yet another scare. i'm not saying don't be good stewards of what we have but where is the common sense and balance??
i'm a little company and don't have the power of the environmental lobby groups and electric companies but i will fight this until i am forced out of the state i was born and raised in by people who have just come here to take over!!
don't even get me started on the fact nobody will be able to afford higher taxes - but then, as I've already stated, i guess that's the plan - right:(

The whole concept of TCI is simply another tax implemented to fund excessive and irresponsible government spending. We do not need nor can we excuse the terrible waste in government already. Most people living on fixed incomes are already hurting from outrageous healthcare costs, increasing food prices, living costs and taxes. To add any gas tax will increase the cost of all goods delivered by truck, rail and air. This would be irresponsible on all accounts. Furthermore, there is no proof of a climate change threat. Indeed, just the opposite based on historical data. This is just another Tax and Spend initiative that will again hurt Maine citizens. May God save us from politicians influenced by lobbyists and their money. This reminds me of the reasons why we are subsidizing wind power. Ridiculous.

I am submitting comments for you to consider as a taxpayer in Connecticut to express my concern about the potential that a cap and trade program will have on our customers, employees, business and the environment.

The plan seems to be geared toward converting millions of gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs).
While EVs may be an apparently attractive way to lower emissions, we urge that greater consideration needs to be given to a number of factors that will have an impact on jobs, the economy, property values, electric reliability, emissions and family-owned businesses:

Connecticut motorists are already paying the highest gasoline taxes in New England and the 11th highest tax in America. Connecticut also has the highest diesel tax in New England and the 9th highest tax in America. Any proposal that increases the cost of fuel in our state will disproportionally harm low-income motorists and businesses when compared to states that do not participate in TCI. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council "Low-income, households of color, multifamily and renting households spend a much larger percentage of their income on energy bills than the average family." An across-the-board energy tax is therefore "regressive," i.e. "African-American and Latino households and renters in multifamily buildings who pay a disproportionate amount of their income for energy" will be greater impacted by such a tax than average- or high-income earners. Moreover, low-income families will have less means to change their energy use to lower-taxed fuels, which are prohibitively expensive to convert to. TCI needs to consider the impact of their program on low- and fixed-income families who will not be able convert to EV’s.

Presumably, the purpose of TCI is to change consumption behavior in Connecticut and the region. But we’ve seen huge variations in energy commodity prices that haven’t affected consumption. EIA, for example, shows that gasoline consumption in Connecticut in 2015 was the same as in 2011, despite prices being more than $1/gallon less. Energy consumption is inelastic. Even if TCI is successful in increasing cost of fuel, the data clearly demonstrate that people will be paying higher prices for fuel and not curb consumption. Further inflation will result as the price of every product sold in Connecticut increases as merchants and manufacturers increase prices to account for TCI. Either that, or people will vote with their feet and leave the state or region.

Finally, even if TCI resulted in changes in consumption behavior in Connecticut, such changes will have no impact on climate change. As reported in U.S. News & World Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report claims that even if the U.S. as a whole stopped emitting all carbon dioxide emissions immediately, the ultimate impact on projected global temperature rise would be a reduction of only about 0.08°C by the year 2050. China and India will dominate global carbon emissions for the next century, and there’s little the U.S., let alone Connecticut can do, to affect this. A Princeton University study likewise predicted that even if all countries stopped emitting CO2 entirely, the Earth would continue to gradually warm, before cooling off.
I ask that TCI take all of these issues into consideration before they decide to move forward.

Thank you for listening.

I am submitting comments for you to consider as a resident and taxpayer in Connecticut to express my concern about the potential that a cap and trade program will have on our customers, employees, business and the environment.

The plan seems to be geared toward converting millions of gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs).

While EVs may be an apparently attractive way to lower emissions, we urge that greater consideration needs to be given to a number of factors that will have an impact on jobs, the economy, property values, electric reliability, emissions and family-owned businesses.

Please consider the following points and recommendations so that they can be incorporated into the final draft of the TCI:

• TCI needs to be very cautious about advantaging regulated electric monopolies that already benefit from antitrust protection and a guaranteed rate of return. According to the website Utility Dive (https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-new-england-will-significantly-miss-2050-carbon-targets-at-curr/564726/), "Just to meet this load that comes from electrifying transportation and buildings, you have to add an electricity sector that's equal to the current electricity sector" – which is a huge gift to utility investors. Are utilities doing such a great job that they deserve these government handouts (Eversource is rated below California’s PG&E in 2019 by the American Customer Satisfaction Index)? Our business cannot compete with utilities coddled and protected by government unless, we get equivalent protection and subsidies to create a level, competitive playing field.

• With the goal of putting million’s EVs on the road, TCI should have ISO New England and the other grid operators fully evaluate the impact that this would have on the electric grid. An article published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) indicates that one EV can consume as much electricity as a home does. And as noted, we need to double power generation to meet the state’s carbon goals, an unlikely feat that will result only in supply shortages. The unintended consequence of the government heedlessly jumping onto the EV bandwagon will be rolling blackouts, with power loss to critical infrastructure such as schools, businesses, emergency responders, hospitals and nursing homes.

• The ISO’s should add to their evaluation the impact of state policies promoting electric heat pumps on the electric grid, which could require an additional 17 million MWH of power annually. TCI must understand the impact that their program has on other initiatives also looking to utilize more electricity. TCI is not operating in isolation and has the responsibility not to operate in the dark either, and ensure that electric reliability is not compromised.

• Although EVs are considered a low- or zero-emission vehicles, they are only as clean as the electricity that charges them. Connecticut is heavily reliant on natural gas to generate electricity and becoming more dependent on it as nuclear generation in the region is retired. Natural gas (methane) is more than seventy times as potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and combusting natural gas also emits carbon dioxide. According to the Department of Energy, an EV produces 4,362 lbs of CO2e per year (https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html)– that’s almost two tons – hardly emissions-free, and that doesn’t even consider the CO2 resulting from their manufacture. TCI needs to fully understand the lifecycle impact of EVs and the source of the fuel that electricity is being generated from before EVs are designated as “clean”. It is intellectually and environmentally dishonest to claim that electricity is clean when ISO New England today (10/29/19) reports that just 8% of electric generation is renewable and 53% is generated with natural gas. Methane’s impact on climate change is an inconvenient truth. A recent study commissioned by the Connecticut Chapter of the Sierra Club (https://issuu.com/ctsierraclub/docs/hartford__ct_mobile_methane_leak_su) found that in Hartford, CT alone, gas pipelines leak approximately 43,000 cubic feet per day, or 313 metric tons per year. That is equivalent spilling and not cleaning up 320 gallons of diesel per day (or 117,000 gallons per year). Just because you can’t see natural gas leaks, it doesn’t mean that they are not there and that they are not doing environmental damage. According to Gale Ridge, PhD, a scientist and researcher on the Sierra Club study, “In a one month period, we found about 700 leaks in Hartford. Over a one-year period covering the same area, PURA reported 139 leaks. Even recognizing that some of the leaks we found are known to PURA, that’s about a 5-fold difference. We believe that CNG may be missing a large percentage of its leaks.”

• Connecticut motorists are already paying the highest gasoline taxes in New England and the 11th highest tax in America. Connecticut also has the highest diesel tax in New England and the 9th highest tax in America. Any proposal that increases the cost of fuel in our state will disproportionally harm low-income motorists and businesses when compared to states that do not participate in TCI. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council "Low-income, households of color, multifamily and renting households spend a much larger percentage of their income on energy bills than the average family." An across-the-board energy tax is therefore "regressive," i.e. "African-American and Latino households and renters in multifamily buildings who pay a disproportionate amount of their income for energy" will be greater impacted by such a tax than average- or high-income earners. Moreover, low-income families will have less means to change their energy use to lower-taxed fuels, which are prohibitively expensive to convert to. TCI needs to consider the impact of their program on low- and fixed-income families who will not be able convert to EV’s.

• Presumably, the purpose of TCI is to change consumption behavior in Connecticut and the region. But we’ve seen huge variations in energy commodity prices that haven’t affected consumption. EIA, for example, shows that gasoline consumption in Connecticut in 2015 was the same as in 2011, despite prices being more than $1/gallon less. Energy consumption is inelastic. Even if TCI is successful in increasing cost of fuel, the data clearly demonstrate that people will be paying higher prices for fuel and not curb consumption. Further inflation will result as the price of every product sold in Connecticut increases as merchants and manufacturers increase prices to account for TCI. Either that, or people will vote with their feet and leave the state or region.

Finally, even if TCI resulted in changes in consumption behavior in Connecticut, such changes will have no impact on climate change. As reported in U.S. News & World Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report claims that even if the U.S. as a whole stopped emitting all carbon dioxide emissions immediately, the ultimate impact on projected global temperature rise would be a reduction of only about 0.08°C by the year 2050. China and India will dominate global carbon emissions for the next century, and there’s little the U.S., let alone Connecticut can do, to affect this. A Princeton University study likewise predicted that even if all countries stopped emitting CO2 entirely, the Earth would continue to gradually warm, before cooling off.
I ask that TCI take all of these issues into consideration before they decide to move forward.

Please don't make a long term decision on the SHORT TERM view that EV's are the best option for the climate. HUGE investments may prove to have been foolish down the road. There are always new technologies developing especially those in the renewable world that do NOT rely on fossil fuels AT ALL! To convert to EV's which rely mainly on Natural Gas is a short term view!! Think of future generations not just a short term feel good plan.

Thank you.