[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6347552,"mediaKeyId","2245343-1ae1756ade481f590ed1fd6fa7b2e5d7","parentId",2245343,"title","Sierra Club asks lawmakers for bigger EV incentives, more transit funding and safer active‑transport infrastructure","audioSeconds",1340,"startMs",4335000,"endMs",5675000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2245343-1ae1756ade481f590ed1fd6fa7b2e5d7&start=4335&end=5675","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2245343-1ae1756ade481f590ed1fd6fa7b2e5d7/thumbnail_4335000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6347552/Vermont/Sierra-Club-asks-lawmakers-for-bigger-EV-incentives-more-transit-funding-and-safer-activetransport-infrastructure","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6347552-c3757d0150e19fb3190e45f5a7f836b1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184831&Signature=Tn5iHL52qFST79Ni7RmgCWSbFHDSmpT~wJNHcrMQSqRpU8RxqN8ux6x~cX3VZzZCth7aNznbwR7hZ2TgIaqn8Up-qAuUS7gavWKjSRCIEvQIM8SP1TniBT4cB-AmR0DMeDMWqe8mH1oDO3g9BvcNjjhLeQzXZe7IqEotdtfx5lJx5KZC1qCiytmVAz0VXbwmpVI-Ypnlhn1SEumgDZs5Kjhn~j-P-ntlnMrFHlV9PcvPqKphIjDOkuCCRaZPUkD5Yr6GI9MZj6U5KIZOu6001cJXixiiX6JJP8DOAv~5uLD8iCwGonTdfL4CNAsBZZgxpDHfnpwmSSEmHog2TOhoQA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-02-07T03:55:49Z","article","Rob Kidd, staff director for the Vermont chapter of the Sierra Club, testified to the House Transportation Committee on Feb. 6, urging lawmakers to expand electric‑vehicle incentives, shore up sustainable funding for transit, and invest in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure as part of an equity‑focused transportation strategy.

Kidd told the committee he supports programs that make electrification affordable for lower‑income Vermonters and highlighted the state’s existing initiatives, such as the MyRide/MyEV incentive programs (discussed in committee testimony), as mechanisms that improve access. “We need to expand transit. We need to expand bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and we need to rapidly electrify,” Kidd said, adding that life‑cycle ownership costs for electric vehicles are lower and that transitioning keeps more energy dollars in‑state.

Why it matters: Kidd framed the policy case as both climate and public‑health policy — reduced tailpipe pollution lowers respiratory harms — and as an economic argument about keeping energy dollars circulating locally. He also pushed for policy fixes aimed at renter and multi‑unit dwelling access to charging and recommended revisiting prior studies on increasing transit ridership.

Testimony highlights and policy requests
- EV incentives and equitable access: Kidd urged continued and sustainable funding for EV incentive programs that lower the upfront cost barrier for lower‑income households and recommended consideration of RGGI or other sources as part of a funding mix. He told members the MileageSmart/MyEV incentives have helped some lower‑income Vermonters access EVs.
- Charge‑access and multi‑unit dwellings: Kidd recommended support for policies that make it easier for condominium owners, renters and multi‑unit dwellings to install charging (right‑to‑charge concepts were referenced), and suggested incentives or technical assistance for landlords and building owners.
- Transit funding and innovation grants: Kidd said Vermont should sustain and grow support for public transit providers and for mobility innovation grants (e.g., microtransit pilots) so rural and small‑city providers can test flexible models. He asked the committee to revisit a 2019 study the agency completed on increasing transit ridership and to consider fare policies and route design that can boost usage.
- Active transportation and safety: Kidd urged more investment in separated bicycle corridors where feasible, referenced the Memorial Valley Rail Trail as a successful model, and noted the recently enacted 4‑foot safe‑passing law. He recommended pilot projects, stakeholder processes, and public awareness campaigns to improve safety and visibility.
- Battery lifecycle and mining concerns: In response to a question about global battery supply chains, Kidd said battery mining has known harms but noted industry and federal incentives (including IRA incentives) are opening reuse, recycling and domestic processing options. He recommended state incentives and programs that support reuse and recycling of EV batteries.

Lawmakers asked follow‑up questions about Quebec electricity tariffs, grid sourcing and charging costs; Kidd said Vermont’s grid and in‑state energy investments affect how much value remains local when transportation electrifies and offered to provide comparative data and sources the Sierra Club uses on local economic impacts.

Ending
Kidd offered continued assistance and indicated the Sierra Club can provide technical witnesses and references on EV charge‑access policies, battery reuse, mobility innovation grants and active transportation case studies. The committee recessed to the next agenda item.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Transportation - 2025-02-06 - 9:00AM","oneSentenceSummary","Rob Kidd of the Vermont chapter of the Sierra Club told the House Transportation Committee the group supports sustained EV incentives, expanded public transit funding, right‑to‑charge protections, and more bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to advance equity, health and emissions reductions.","taxTitle","Transportation, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",35155,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6347556,"House Transportation reviews $883 million FY26 transportation budget; members press on TIB, maintenance and transit funding",1769,59000,1828000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2245343-1ae1756ade481f590ed1fd6fa7b2e5d7&start=59&end=1828","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2245343-1ae1756ade481f590ed1fd6fa7b2e5d7/thumbnail_59000.jpg","/articles/6347556/Vermont/House-Transportation-reviews-883-million-FY26-transportation-budget-members-press-on-TIB-maintenance-and-transit-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6347556-25f5b1ecca82546b5ae3cbf43512c19a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184831&Signature=fiQj3msAuqT-FvDQT3okYX4RqVGQiDMDWGeDSjWqG9AqeQ8bCkpAcVLqJHBdK4rD1i0neRR08wymZGzJGnwkWB5NSYVOTs9u5WVah5R~~Ob0bbRvA-bE34utAvJc7VcL~pYgPZWVwY-4Tt1v~ylJq5ZYMHhtfa~hxvzCiV8pypo0YqSsMPGyx2Zqv88jZCG6QT2xMYCamDcdvYFSZWj3OVMNd065jiVIPiAcebAkvbFRTg3sCiIBUfvGRbhnaYVphQCrp8TgV-A7bzm9J42zBN-BP5EnaBnwp2~CLZknhc6kAgRIUYKM9ptVsje~T16ZNGuOJB1NFOnrapuIAXrHsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Transportation Committee on Feb. 6 examined the governor’s fiscal year 2026 transportation budget, a proposal totaling $883 million across all funds and including roughly $331 million from the state transportation (T) fund and about $452 million in federal money, Joint Fiscal Office analyst Logan Moberry told the committee.

Moberry said the largest single program area is program development — primarily paving and capital projects — at about $411 million, of which roughly $308 million is federal funding. “If you’ll see $411,000,000, that’s almost half of everything in this budget,” Moberry said. He also walked members through maintenance, town highway programs, the internal service (central garage) fund and transfers the administration proposes, including a $12.5 million set‑aside for IIJA federal match.

Why it matters: Committee members pressed staff to clarify how fund types and prior bond activity constrain short‑term flexibility, and asked for historical comparisons to detect trends. That context matters because state, federal and locally matched dollars carry different eligibility rules, and many program obligations extend multiple years, limiting how quickly the legislature can re‑direct spending.

Committee discussion and key details
Members repeatedly asked how the Transportation Infrastructure Bond (TIB) fund is being used when the state has no outstanding bonds. Moberry explained the TIB fund is a dedicated revenue stream intended to pay debt service if bonds are issued; because there currently are no outstanding bonds, the administration proposes to appropriate the TIB revenues for long‑lived capital projects instead, with a statutory caveat that TIB dollars be used for long‑term projects. “If we had TIB bonds, we would use the TIB money to pay for any debt servicing costs for those bonds. But since we don’t have any bonds, we appropriate it like T fund dollars with that caveat that it has to go to long term projects,” Moberry said.

Members and staff reviewed the state’s prior TIP bond history. Fiscal staff noted Vermont issued three series of TIP bonds (2009, roughly 2011, and 2013) totaling about $36 million at the time and that federal COVID relief funds were used to retire outstanding TIP bonds early, which freed up roughly $2.5 million per year in recurring TIB revenues to spend on projects on a pay‑as‑you‑go basis.

Moberry told the committee the governor’s recommended budget shows a small net change compared with last year: total program development is down about $9 million (2.2%), driven in part by a $27 million decrease in paving lines, while the overall total of AOT programs is essentially flat (less than 1% increase). He flagged a forecasted revenue downgrade that the administration proposes to address with a $2.3 million transfer this session to align TIB appropriations with expected receipts.

Committee members sought a clearer historical view of appropriations. Several asked staff to provide multi‑year line‑by‑line comparisons (4–5 years) showing which programs have grown, fallen or remained level and to separate personnel costs (pay, health care) from project spending. Moberry said the white book and the agency’s project lists provide itemized project detail and that fiscal staff can prepare a historical spreadsheet on request.

Other program notes and numbers cited in committee discussion
- Total all‑funds budget: $883,000,000 (Moberry).
- T fund (state transportation fund) shown in the presentation: about $331,000,000. Federal funding shown: roughly $452,000,000. Local/other: about $24,000,000 (as presented by Moberry).
- Program development (capital/paving): roughly $411,000,000 of which about $308,000,000 is federal.
- Maintenance: about $117,000,000 total, of which $110,000,000 is state T fund dollars (Moberry: “almost all of that… is T fund dollars”).
- Central garage (internal service fund): about $25.6 million (internal transfers from agency divisions pay the garage fees).
- Pay act / pay‑related placeholder included in the operating request: $3,000,000 (up from about $2.5 million last year) as a budgetary estimate for pay pressure.
- Transfer set‑aside for IIJA federal match: $12,500,000 (set aside in prior year for federal match use).
- Stabilization reserve: statutory requirement to hold up to 5% of the prior year’s T fund appropriations; staff said it generally has been maintained near the 5% maximum and that the balance is roughly in the mid‑teens of millions (Moberry referenced $15–$18 million as a round figure for the fund balance during Q&A).

Discussion vs. decision
Committee members debated whether the budget’s line items reflect legislative priorities or simply the constraints of available fund types and projects already in the statewide queue. Fiscal staff repeatedly cautioned that observed dollar shifts often reflect project timing and differing federal match rates rather than deliberate reprioritization. No formal committee actions or votes were taken during the hearing; members requested additional materials and follow‑up figures.

What members requested next
Members asked staff to provide:
- A 4–5 year historical comparison showing program line trends (maintenance, paving, town highway aids, public transit, rail, aviation) broken out by fund where possible.
- A clearer separation of personnel (pay and benefits) vs. project dollars for major appropriations.
- The agency’s planned project list tied to the white book pages for items that drove the year‑to‑year changes.

Ending
Fiscal staff told the committee they will provide the requested comparative spreadsheets and project detail and that the committee will see agency witnesses and legislative counsel as the budget language and bill drafting move forward. The Committee recessed to hear guest testimony on transportation policy from outside witnesses.

","The House Transportation Committee on Feb. 6 reviewed the governor's FY26 transportation budget — $883 million across all funds — hearing explanations of fund breakdowns, the role of the TIB fund, prior TIP bond issuances and requests for more historical and program-level detail from members.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Sierra Club asks lawmakers for bigger EV incentives, more transit funding and safer active‑transport infrastructure

House Transportation reviews $883 million FY26 transportation budget; members press on TIB, maintenance and transit funding