GAMING
Online Lottery
Lottery is a critical product for convenience stores for both the commissions it provides and the foot-traffic it generates. C-stores represent over 50% of brick and mortar lottery agent locations and 70% of instant ticket sales. State lotteries promote online lottery as the way to reach younger generations of players, however research shows millennials and centennials continue to visit convenience stores. An appropriate first step to reach these young adults is to adopt a cashless payment program as digital wallets, not cash, is a preferred payment method. Any development of online lottery must consider convenience stores and the important role they’ve played and will continue to play so their businesses are enhanced, not harmed, by innovation.
Alternative Payments
As younger generations carry less paper currency and rely more on digital wallets, it is important that both state lotteries and their brick and mortar retail partners accept these alternative payment methods. Given that lottery agent commission is fixed and insufficient to absorb to the related fees associated with card and digital-card usage, it is imperative all fees be paid by the state lotteries.
Sports Wagering
State leaders must consider the US Department of Justice’s most recent interpretation of the Wire Act with respect to online sports wagering. NECSEMA supports legal sports wagering and believes convenience stores have an important role to play. Sports wagering should not be the exclusive domain on casinos and online sports-betting platforms. If a state is to enter sports wagering, then it should use all resources available to it. Offering ubiquity by allowing kiosk-based interfaces at qualifying lottery agents enhances awareness, generates additional handle, liquidity and profitability, creates opportunity for cross-promotion with state lottery products and supports local small business.
Lottery is a critical product for convenience stores for both the commissions it provides and the foot-traffic it generates. C-stores represent over 50% of brick and mortar lottery agent locations and 70% of instant ticket sales. State lotteries promote online lottery as the way to reach younger generations of players, however research shows millennials and centennials continue to visit convenience stores. An appropriate first step to reach these young adults is to adopt a cashless payment program as digital wallets, not cash, is a preferred payment method. Any development of online lottery must consider convenience stores and the important role they’ve played and will continue to play so their businesses are enhanced, not harmed, by innovation.
Alternative Payments
As younger generations carry less paper currency and rely more on digital wallets, it is important that both state lotteries and their brick and mortar retail partners accept these alternative payment methods. Given that lottery agent commission is fixed and insufficient to absorb to the related fees associated with card and digital-card usage, it is imperative all fees be paid by the state lotteries.
Sports Wagering
State leaders must consider the US Department of Justice’s most recent interpretation of the Wire Act with respect to online sports wagering. NECSEMA supports legal sports wagering and believes convenience stores have an important role to play. Sports wagering should not be the exclusive domain on casinos and online sports-betting platforms. If a state is to enter sports wagering, then it should use all resources available to it. Offering ubiquity by allowing kiosk-based interfaces at qualifying lottery agents enhances awareness, generates additional handle, liquidity and profitability, creates opportunity for cross-promotion with state lottery products and supports local small business.
TOBACCO
Flavor Bans
Prohibiting legal adult products is a proven health policy failure. Tobacco is a legal adult product that should only be sold by responsible retailers in a licensed, regulated and enforced environment. Prohibiting tobacco from sale in any size jurisdiction dismantles the protections of the legal market and send sales over borders and to criminals operating in the illicit market creating public health and public safety concerns as well as tax losses to the state and revenue losses to retailers. Banning menthol cigarettes and mint/wintergreen smokeless tobacco is a particularly senseless policy as traditional tobacco products have negligible youth appeal and banning menthol disproportionately impacts communities of color.
Massachusetts case study: On June 1, 2020, Massachusetts became the first and only state to ban flavored tobacco. The first 12 months demonstrate that the ban has been an utter failure. The vast majority of the excise tax stamp sales once sold in Massachusetts have migrate to New Hampshire and Rhode Island. In fact, menthol cigarette sales climbed 78.5% in NH and 42.5% in RI. Clear evidence a flavor ban is ineffective and only serves to rob the state of needed tax revenue and licensed retailers from selling a legal product their adult customers enjoy and have located elsewhere.
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS)
Minors generally choose electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), commonly referred to as e-vapor or vape, over traditional tobacco products such as cigarettes, smokeless, and cigars. But aggressive federal action over the past several years has led to a significant drop in youth usage rates. The most recent National Youth Tobacco Survey shows ENDS use among HS-aged youth is 11.3% - down from 19.6% in 2020 and 27.5% in 2019. Traditional tobacco products reveal virtually no youth appeal: among HS-aged youth, cigarette use is 1.9%, cigar use is 2.1% and smokeless use is 2.1%. Yet, anti-tobacco lobbyists continue to sell the story that all flavored tobacco products should be treated the same. NECSEMA encourages local, state and national leaders to recognize the vast difference in product use profile and the dramatic fall in use directly related to the aggressive federal activity beginning in 2019.
Prohibiting legal adult products is a proven health policy failure. Tobacco is a legal adult product that should only be sold by responsible retailers in a licensed, regulated and enforced environment. Prohibiting tobacco from sale in any size jurisdiction dismantles the protections of the legal market and send sales over borders and to criminals operating in the illicit market creating public health and public safety concerns as well as tax losses to the state and revenue losses to retailers. Banning menthol cigarettes and mint/wintergreen smokeless tobacco is a particularly senseless policy as traditional tobacco products have negligible youth appeal and banning menthol disproportionately impacts communities of color.
Massachusetts case study: On June 1, 2020, Massachusetts became the first and only state to ban flavored tobacco. The first 12 months demonstrate that the ban has been an utter failure. The vast majority of the excise tax stamp sales once sold in Massachusetts have migrate to New Hampshire and Rhode Island. In fact, menthol cigarette sales climbed 78.5% in NH and 42.5% in RI. Clear evidence a flavor ban is ineffective and only serves to rob the state of needed tax revenue and licensed retailers from selling a legal product their adult customers enjoy and have located elsewhere.
- View NECSEMA's January 5, 2021 Press Release
- Don't believe an illicit market for menthol cigarettes exists? Check out our partner's, Boston Convenience Store Owners Association, Facebook page for undercover surveillance video. Click here.
- In its 2022 Annual Report, the Massachusetts multi-agency Illegal Tobacco Task Force "identifies the cross-border smuggling of untaxed flavored ENDS products, cigars, and menthol cigarettes as the primary challenge for tobacco enforcement in the Commonwealth."
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS)
Minors generally choose electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), commonly referred to as e-vapor or vape, over traditional tobacco products such as cigarettes, smokeless, and cigars. But aggressive federal action over the past several years has led to a significant drop in youth usage rates. The most recent National Youth Tobacco Survey shows ENDS use among HS-aged youth is 11.3% - down from 19.6% in 2020 and 27.5% in 2019. Traditional tobacco products reveal virtually no youth appeal: among HS-aged youth, cigarette use is 1.9%, cigar use is 2.1% and smokeless use is 2.1%. Yet, anti-tobacco lobbyists continue to sell the story that all flavored tobacco products should be treated the same. NECSEMA encourages local, state and national leaders to recognize the vast difference in product use profile and the dramatic fall in use directly related to the aggressive federal activity beginning in 2019.
- On December 24, 2019, the federal legal minimum sales age was increased to 21
- On December 21, 2020, Congress passed legislation extending the applicability of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act to include ENDS
- On February 26, 2020, the federal government bans the sale of all flavored pod-based ENDS with the exception of menthol and tobacco flavor
- September 9, 2020 was the FDA's deadline for all ENDS manufacturers to submit a pre-market tobacco application (PMTA). Since then, over 6 million ENDS products have been removed from the market because they either didn't file an application or received a market denial order (MDO) from the FDA. For the FDA to issue a PMTA authorization, the product(s) must demonstrate they are appropriate for the protection of public health.
- March 15, 2022, President Biden the "Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022" which expands the FDA's authority to regulate synthetic nicotine.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Transportation emission reduction initiatives should ensure the ability of our industry to compete on any mobility solution in the future. Policies should:
EV Infrastructure
NECSEMA acknowledges the evolving transportation fuel landscape and recognizes the role electric vehicles will likely play. Located on the busiest corners and along the most-trafficked roadways, convenience stores expect to continue playing a primary role in a mobility, regardless of fuel. EV and EVSE technology is rapidly developing, so it is important the market for charging equipment remain open and competitive. Regulators should take care not to allow monopolization by public utilities in any form around EV infrastructure, particularly given the nascent nature of the industry.
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, over the next five years our states will receive millions of dollars in additional funding to build out an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging network and will be eligible billions of dollars more in competitive grants under the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) for Electric Vehicle purchase incentives and charging infrastructure. NECSEMA supports open, competitive and transparent markets for EV infrastructure and Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC) deployment over a monopolistic approach that puts utilities at the center of this emerging market. Doing so will stifle competition and future innovation.
ICE Bans
Banning the internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle is a dangerous and symbolic policy without a plan. There are far more practical ways to reduce emissions without forcing motorists to purchase a specific type of propulsion for a vehicle. Bans do not prevent motorists from purchasing cars and trucks form another non-ICE banned state.
- Encourage, promote and incentivize private sector solutions, investment and competition;
- Prioritize the free market over mandates;
- Be transparent and avoid uncertainty for businesses and consumers;
- Ensure all modes of transportation pay their fair share for infrastructure usage.
EV Infrastructure
NECSEMA acknowledges the evolving transportation fuel landscape and recognizes the role electric vehicles will likely play. Located on the busiest corners and along the most-trafficked roadways, convenience stores expect to continue playing a primary role in a mobility, regardless of fuel. EV and EVSE technology is rapidly developing, so it is important the market for charging equipment remain open and competitive. Regulators should take care not to allow monopolization by public utilities in any form around EV infrastructure, particularly given the nascent nature of the industry.
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, over the next five years our states will receive millions of dollars in additional funding to build out an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging network and will be eligible billions of dollars more in competitive grants under the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) for Electric Vehicle purchase incentives and charging infrastructure. NECSEMA supports open, competitive and transparent markets for EV infrastructure and Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC) deployment over a monopolistic approach that puts utilities at the center of this emerging market. Doing so will stifle competition and future innovation.
ICE Bans
Banning the internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle is a dangerous and symbolic policy without a plan. There are far more practical ways to reduce emissions without forcing motorists to purchase a specific type of propulsion for a vehicle. Bans do not prevent motorists from purchasing cars and trucks form another non-ICE banned state.
TCI
(Updated 11/19/21). During the week of 11/15/21, Governor Lamont, Governor Baker and Governor McKee all pulled their support of The Transportation Climate Initiative (TC) as a means to raise revenue for carbon reduction initiatives. NECSEMA applauds these Governors for their decision despite it being based more on the enormous revenues states are receiving and the current high gas prices rather than the inherent flaws of the TCI program. NECSEMA pledges its support to identify thoughtful programs to deploy federal ARPA and Infrastructure revenues for carbon reduction programs that does not threaten the availability of existing, critical fueling infrastructure.
We encourage those who still believe TCI is a program worth pursuing, please read below and click her for "TCI Fiction - Fact"
(Updated 11/19/21). During the week of 11/15/21, Governor Lamont, Governor Baker and Governor McKee all pulled their support of The Transportation Climate Initiative (TC) as a means to raise revenue for carbon reduction initiatives. NECSEMA applauds these Governors for their decision despite it being based more on the enormous revenues states are receiving and the current high gas prices rather than the inherent flaws of the TCI program. NECSEMA pledges its support to identify thoughtful programs to deploy federal ARPA and Infrastructure revenues for carbon reduction programs that does not threaten the availability of existing, critical fueling infrastructure.
We encourage those who still believe TCI is a program worth pursuing, please read below and click her for "TCI Fiction - Fact"
More on TCI
The Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI) was a regional compact among northeast and mid-atlantic states to set a fee on gasoline and diesel with the intention to reduce transportation related emissions. On December 21, 2020, the long-awaited Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was released. You may view NECSEMA's Press Release here. At the time, NECSEMA acknowledged the importance of reducing emissions from the transportation sector. In fact, our members are introducing EV charging infrastructure and selling greater volumes of biofuels every year. That said, transportation fueling is a mature, complex and hyper-competitive market, so any disruption to it must be taken seriously. TCI did not addressed significant design concerns raised by NECSEMA, nor did it have the commitment of the entire region of states.
Since the public release of TCI in 2019, NECSEMA closely followed TCI’s development and offered constructive comments on its numerous policy documents, invite only and public comment sessions, and webinars. Our comments were grounded in our unique perspective and working knowledge of the wholesale and retail supply chain our members have operated for the last 125 years. Our comments were generally disregarded by the GCC and state leadership. Following are several of our concerns with the program:
NECSEMA contends TCI was more about revenue generation than about emissions reduction. If raising money for carbon reduction efforts is the goal, then there are other ways to get there. NECSEMA is open to discussing a carbon tax or an appropriately-priced, dedicated motor fuels tax.
Since the public release of TCI in 2019, NECSEMA closely followed TCI’s development and offered constructive comments on its numerous policy documents, invite only and public comment sessions, and webinars. Our comments were grounded in our unique perspective and working knowledge of the wholesale and retail supply chain our members have operated for the last 125 years. Our comments were generally disregarded by the GCC and state leadership. Following are several of our concerns with the program:
- Chief among our concerns was the program’s design flaw requiring a 3% per year reduction in available emission credits at the public auction, and a corresponding 3% drop in regional emission caps. Both would have lead to a 30% drop in fuels that may legally be sold by 2032. We believe those dramatic drops would lead to shortages based on projections detailed by the US Energy Information Administration indicating only a 6% drop in demand over this same timeframe. Thereby, creating a 24% drop or pinch-point that would have manifested within 3-years of TCI’s implementation and created shortages and outages where motorists would become unable to purchase fuel they need. We called this element of the program's design reckless and would have left motorists and commercial vehicles short of the fuel they need.
- TCI lacked value and efficacy with reducing emissions. Officials said TCI would have achieved a 26% drop is emissions from the transportation sector. However, TCI officials rarely identify what their own reference case modeling predicted: 25.7% of the 26% drop in emissions woudl be achieved without implementing TCI, but through existing and anticipated new car fuel economy standards. TCI would only reduce emissions a meager .3% over the initial ten years with a price tag of least $3 billion.
- TCI’s projection that it would have only cost the consumer 5-9-cents per gallon is disingenuous. There is no way for GCC to predict or guarantee that amount. Emission credits are sold in an open public auction with no restriction on who participates. California has a similar program and 60% of auction registrants are non-regulated entities causing unnecessary inflation to the price of credits. Fuel suppliers that are unsuccessful at the auction would have had to purchase the credits in a secondary market if they wished to continue selling fuel. This will have the effect of further increasing the cost of the fuel they sell. Given this dynamic, created solely by TCI’s design, their prediction of only a 5-9cent increase is unrealistic.
NECSEMA contends TCI was more about revenue generation than about emissions reduction. If raising money for carbon reduction efforts is the goal, then there are other ways to get there. NECSEMA is open to discussing a carbon tax or an appropriately-priced, dedicated motor fuels tax.
DEVELOPMENT
Highway Rest Area Commercialization
Federal law prohibits the development of interstate rest areas built after January 1, 1960. This law was designed because when Congress created the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s, community leaders feared local businesses, jobs and tax bases would shrink as motorists bypassed their cities and towns should commercial services such as food and fuel be offered along the highways. Many of the existing convenience/fueling businesses located off the interchanges in the state were developed because of the protection this law provides. Commercializing rest areas would jeopardize these private businesses and simply transfer existing excise, use and sales taxes not generate new revenue.
Federal law prohibits the development of interstate rest areas built after January 1, 1960. This law was designed because when Congress created the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s, community leaders feared local businesses, jobs and tax bases would shrink as motorists bypassed their cities and towns should commercial services such as food and fuel be offered along the highways. Many of the existing convenience/fueling businesses located off the interchanges in the state were developed because of the protection this law provides. Commercializing rest areas would jeopardize these private businesses and simply transfer existing excise, use and sales taxes not generate new revenue.
Labor
Covid-19 Liability Protection
From the start of the pandemic, the Dept. of Homeland Security deemed convenience stores, gas stations and the wholesalers and trucking companies that supply essential businesses and critical infrastructure. These businesses continued to provide fuel, food, beverages, overt he counter medication and other goods and services to their communities and customers. While grateful, it was not without significant expense and challenge. Examples of harassment, confrontation and even physical harm were common since March 2020. Despite following CDC guidance and taking all protective precaution, these businesses could face exorbitant civil suits alleging that individuals contracted COVID-19 at one of their locations simply because they have been open and operating during the pandemic. It is critical that Congress and/or State legislatures pass legislation providing liability protections to businesses for the duration of the national public health emergency. Legislation should not cover bad actors, but only those businesses who prioritized the safety of employees and guests and acted responsibly to mitigate the spread of the virus.
From the start of the pandemic, the Dept. of Homeland Security deemed convenience stores, gas stations and the wholesalers and trucking companies that supply essential businesses and critical infrastructure. These businesses continued to provide fuel, food, beverages, overt he counter medication and other goods and services to their communities and customers. While grateful, it was not without significant expense and challenge. Examples of harassment, confrontation and even physical harm were common since March 2020. Despite following CDC guidance and taking all protective precaution, these businesses could face exorbitant civil suits alleging that individuals contracted COVID-19 at one of their locations simply because they have been open and operating during the pandemic. It is critical that Congress and/or State legislatures pass legislation providing liability protections to businesses for the duration of the national public health emergency. Legislation should not cover bad actors, but only those businesses who prioritized the safety of employees and guests and acted responsibly to mitigate the spread of the virus.