[{"_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",6227505,"mediaKeyId","3491198-c2629315373da19a8c03efe106ffb98a","parentId",3491198,"title","House Transportation members hear report showing T‑fund roughly 1% below forecast, debate letter to governor on revenue options","audioSeconds",2496,"startMs",0,"endMs",2496445,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3491198-c2629315373da19a8c03efe106ffb98a&start=0&end=2496","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3491198-c2629315373da19a8c03efe106ffb98a/thumbnail_0.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6227505/Vermont/House-Transportation-members-hear-report-showing-Tfund-roughly-1-below-forecast-debate-letter-to-governor-on-revenue-options","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6227505-4bf4a12d8aee1a4e404c17a0bb7573c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1775790151&Signature=ecCWWPVTKzsPEQeU9wh-BcxPfltBApWD1pPvj2CEg3zmNTaElRXCM7rx0fRhLEYLkhBmhtZ5vgL486-lhzKuSFZqHccJUiH3TuXccJwnAk9rtpyi4gnZ5lvONF6PNRe2xnTdQr0RP3pEhP1O-Bv6U8UJSPYNsyx~umQroDqYGkZZG1Ub8v6tJ0La1okD6S8cg2GgNZWW1-lAzyp8nrqP2~kL99mA7FXpMNQzm4X4A08vjq~y6i6-mBkd5yPUdgxbaPF5DoI1-4tl4iXKOqHIbuKi8cf1Ms8pkOtISdP4WPWsFr8ZDuwPeVRpuEWZ8ukuj4AR7uxgXSjp0HS6JSX5ZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-24T09:41:53.287Z","article","Logan Mover, an analyst with the Joint Fiscal Office, told the House Transportation Committee on May 22 that April transportation revenues were essentially on their monthly target but that year‑to‑date receipts remained below the January forecast.

“We are still, point 9% below or, $2,200,000,” Mover said, adding that the shortfall followed a larger gap reported in the prior month.

Committee members pushed to turn the revenue update into action. Chair (title used in the hearing as “chair”) and several representatives debated whether the committee should draft a letter to the governor and agencies before adjournment asking for policies that protect or increase transportation funding. The options discussed included reducing transfers out of the transportation fund to the education fund, considering modest revenue increases, or a combination of offsetting revenue and savings.

The Joint Fiscal Office presentation showed the Transportation Fund (T Fund) has grown about 5.1% year‑over‑year for the trailing 12 months but that, on the forecast adopted in January, cumulative collections were roughly 0.9%—about $2.2 million—below target. Mover also noted a five‑year compound annual growth rate projection of about 1.22% for the T Fund absent policy changes.

Representative Frank asked who develops the forecast used as the target; Mover said the consensus forecast is created by JFO staff and legislative staff—“Jam Carr who works for the agency and then, Tom Kavett, who works for the legislators.”—and adopted by the legislative body that sets revenue expectations in January and is updated in July.

Members raised several specific funding and program figures cited during the session: the DMV fee package passed earlier in the year was described as a roughly 20% statutory increase in fees, while recent collections have shown about a 9.5% lift in those fee receipts when measured on a short window; committee members also cited a federal match gap the agency reported as roughly $20 million and characterized as trending toward $30 million. Committee discussion noted there remain several hundred thousand dollars of unspent budget items but that those sums would not close the multi‑million dollar gap discussed.

Representative Burke and others emphasized the committee’s role in educating the larger House membership about the shortfall and exploring revenue‑neutral options or targeted revenue increases. Several members urged that any letter or recommendation be high level and focused on the funding challenge and possible categories of responses—protecting T Fund revenues, limiting transfers, or asking agencies to propose revenue and cost‑saving options—rather than prescribing a specific tax or fee in detail.

Committee members also noted statutory review thresholds: if transportation revenues decline beyond a small percentage, legislative review processes are triggered under the relevant transportation bill language; members cited roughly a 1% threshold for certain required actions and a 4% threshold that would require identification of specific projects to the Joint Transportation Oversight Committee (JTOC). Mover said he did not have the precise statutory text on hand but that staff could follow up with the exact citations.

No formal motion or vote to send a letter was recorded in committee minutes during the session. Members agreed to continue discussion over the next week of session and to consider drafting language for a letter that could be completed before the legislature adjourns; several members said they expected follow‑up work over the summer and a fuller review after the interim when members reconvene.

The committee also discussed ancillary matters tied to affordability and revenue, including a proposal to change the cadence of vehicle safety inspections. Members voiced concern that moving inspections to every two years could reduce revenue for the T Fund and asked the Department of Motor Vehicles and Agency of Transportation staff to provide additional information about safety and fiscal impacts before any statutory change was pursued.

The committee asked Joint Fiscal Office staff to continue providing monthly updates and to supply statutory citations and thresholds for required reviews of transportation revenues. Committee members said any final letter or recommendation should be circulated for member input and would be used both to inform the governor and to continue educating House members about the T Fund shortfall.

Less critical details: members discussed timing for drafting and sending a possible letter (some suggested completing a draft by summer so agencies have time to respond; others said the full committee might sign a letter after additional input), and they flagged ongoing floor scheduling that could affect when the body formally takes positions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Transportation 2025-05-22 - 9:50AM","oneSentenceSummary","Logan Mover, an analyst with the Joint Fiscal Office, told the House Transportation Committee on May 22 that April transportation revenues were on the monthly target but that cumulative year‑to‑date collections remained about 0.9%—roughly $2.2 million—below the forecast adopted in January.","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},6227502,"Agency of Agriculture outlines new testing program for public EV chargers; committee urged to close statutory gaps",2540,2545875,5233,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3491198-c2629315373da19a8c03efe106ffb98a&start=2545&end=5","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3491198-c2629315373da19a8c03efe106ffb98a/thumbnail_2545875.jpg","/articles/6227502/Vermont/Agency-of-Agriculture-outlines-new-testing-program-for-public-EV-chargers-committee-urged-to-close-statutory-gaps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6227502-b7afb63e9f79f17524c553d13301c600/orig.mp4?Expires=1775790151&Signature=mClFOwVR1hqpvGbNQODm9wKpQGUlfSMu85i5xT3prsp6HkWXjQXlTqPru~5kr9cn5DaUXrhbUTezJbdjXlztFgs~b9YuKxU4kSswpcD8qclP2Y~E6yFxxKPIeqyrV9t5ncPIXbE0-ukTsqHocCxpgCSZTKmiM45VlGCw8P05rM0BUs2iTX2iwDMASUP4gfZc9fSFN71MmNfMT0ezQvwakjRG5QErnOoNufVAVqmgexsWHO1Lb-qSSPINTevFK9jQ8Qjts~MzxHWv4L3GNAUsOfQume79qAA3KRhsU0mCr-IwRQ20Ofj634oEZYGGwqHkjXeLm5GPhHgULS~cJleh~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Steve Collier, general counsel for the Agency of Agriculture, and Scott Dolan, the agency’s weights‑and‑measures specialist, told the House Transportation Committee on May 22 that the agency has begun licensing and testing public electric vehicle charging stations and is building a regulatory program for accuracy and consumer protection.

“We do want consumers, when they go to an electric vehicle supply equipment and charge their car, we do want them to get what they pay for just the same way that they do when they go to the gas pump,” Collier said.

Collier described a recent build‑out of the agency’s testing capability. The agency purchased level‑2 testing equipment in 2024 (Collier said the equipment cost about $110,000), licensed operators who install chargers, and has tested devices at dozens of locations. Dolan told the committee the agency tested about 237 meters across roughly 46 distinct addresses (the agency treated some clustered charging sites as single locations) and found roughly 8% of meters outside the ±2% tolerance set in the national Handbook 44 standards.

“We did 237 meters, and we did 46 unique locations,” Dolan said. “In our testing, we found 8% of the devices were outside of the 2% allowed tolerance.” He added the errors skewed both ways: about 5% of devices were delivering more energy than metered (giving energy away) and about 3% were registering more than the meter permitted (keeping more than the customer should have paid); ranges of error reported during the hearing reached as high as about 6% on some devices.

Agency staff said they are in the procurement process to buy heavier level‑3 (DC fast‑charger) testing equipment and expect the tester to arrive within weeks after contract execution. Dolan described the level‑3 load emulator as substantially larger (he estimated roughly 350 pounds) and said the agency will begin licensing and testing level‑3 sites once the equipment is in hand.

Collier and Dolan identified statutory and jurisdictional ambiguities they said the committee should consider clarifying: current statutory definitions exempt chargers made “available to a business’s customers” or available only to a closed group (for example, a manufacturer’s proprietary network) from weights‑and‑measures regulation. Collier said that exemption could leave large private networks and utility‑owned charging sites outside of the agency’s oversight unless statute is changed.

“You could have Costco or Tesla placing chargers that are technically not available to the public under the current drafting, and we wouldn’t be able to regulate them,” Collier said, describing the exemption as a potential loophole. Agency staff also noted that public utilities and utility‑owned chargers can fall under the Public Utility Commission or Department of Public Service jurisdiction, complicating a single statewide regulatory approach.

The agency charges a $25 annual license fee per plug for public chargers and reported it had issued roughly 53 licenses to date; the team said it had visited more locations than were yet licensed as it works through compliance and licensing. The agency also reported that a commonly used commercial provider, ChargePoint, had been collecting a 6% sales tax on energy transactions in some cases; Collier said the agency had asked the tax department to confirm whether that practice was correct.

Committee members asked how the agency would handle legacy chargers that pre‑date national standards. Dolan said legacy equipment that is accurate and not deceptive will generally remain in service through its useful life, while new equipment will be expected to meet NIST/Handbook 44 and related national type evaluation standards.

Members and staff discussed enforcement pragmatics: level‑2 tests generally take about 30 minutes, and inspectors sometimes must schedule visits outside normal business hours because chargers can be occupied by a single vehicle for hours. Level‑3 tests require larger load emulators and more logistics; the agency expects to start those tests in the coming weeks once the procurement is complete.

The committee invited the agency to return with a formal update after the summer procurement and urged staff to coordinate with the Department of Public Service and Public Utility Commission on jurisdiction and statutory language. The discussion closed with committee members saying they will review statutory language to consider clarifying definitions for “available to the public” and whether utility‑owned chargers should be within the weights‑and‑measures program.

Less critical details: the agency emphasized an education‑first approach to compliance and said initial inspections have relied heavily on voluntary correction and vendor cooperation; the agency suggested a public demonstration of testing equipment could be scheduled for committee members.","Steve Collier, general counsel for the Agency of Agriculture, told the House Transportation Committee on May 22 that the agency has begun licensing and testing public level‑2 electric vehicle chargers and is acquiring the heavier equipment needed to test level‑3 (DC fast) chargers.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Transportation members hear report showing T‑fund roughly 1% below forecast, debate letter to governor on revenue options

Agency of Agriculture outlines new testing program for public EV chargers; committee urged to close statutory gaps