Appropriations adds $1M toward mileage-based user fee; committee flags one-word fix to bill language

House Transportation Committee members said House Appropriations has included $1,000,000 of a $3,000,000 request to support programming for a mileage-based user-fee pilot, and committee staff discussed a minor wording change to clarify the bill’s stated intent.

The appropriation was raised at the committee’s March 25 meeting as lawmakers weighed next steps while a related federal grant application with the Federal Highway Administration remains on hold. Damon Leonard, legislative counsel to the committee, said the FHWA decision could take ‘‘somewhere between two to eight weeks,’’ and that the committee has $700,000 already in place that could serve as match funding if the federal award comes through.

Why it matters: the $1 million addition would fund program start-up work if the federal grant is delayed or canceled; clarifying the bill’s intent would reduce confusion about whether the mileage-based fee should be set ‘‘approximately equivalent to’’ the combined charges for different vehicle types or to each vehicle type separately.

Committee discussion focused on two linked items: the money in the appropriations report and a grammatical clarity issue in draft 7.1 of the mileage-based user-fee bill. Leonard said the language in section 12 (page 20) reads in a way that could be read as adding the two comparisons rather than stating equivalence for each vehicle class. He said a single additional word — inserting the word "to" after "and" in the draft — would make the intended meaning clear.

‘‘Grammatically, the way you would read it is that it would be the combined total of the gas tax for an internal combustion engine plus the gas tax and infrastructure fee for a plug-in hybrid,’’ Leonard said. ‘‘If we add in the word to after the and ... it will be approximately equivalent to the internal combustion engine charges and to the plug-in hybrid charges.’’

Patrick Murphy, an agency transportation official who spoke in committee, said the transportation agency understands the committee’s intent. ‘‘Roughly about $200, and I can assure you that we wanna come back in January with something that’s roughly equivalent to about 600,’’ Murphy said, referring to the rough comparisons the agency plans to present when it returns with rate scenarios.

Members discussed options for fixing the wording: offer a technical amendment on the floor, wait for the senate to correct it if it issues a strike-all, or make the correction at third reading. Several members and staff said the change is minor and could be made later in the process; the committee chair said she preferred not to offer a floor amendment immediately and expected the issue to be fixed either in the senate or at a later reading if necessary.

Details and next steps: the committee will continue to monitor the FHWA decision (estimated two to eight weeks) and the appropriation language. The transportation agency plans to return with rate scenarios next January that will show impacts by vehicle class and help the legislature set a rate. Committee staff drafted a technical amendment for Representative Pouch that could be used if the House opts to amend the bill on the floor.

The committee’s discussion made clear that no final rate or implementation action was taken at the March 25 meeting; the intent language discussion was advisory and the funding note reported out of appropriations will be subject to further drafting and potential repurposing depending on the federal decision.