Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ev Fees Mbuf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates options for electric‑vehicle fee and mileage‑based user fee; draft keeps intent language and schedules further reports
Summary
Senators and AOT discussed draft intent language on a per‑kilowatt‑hour fee for public charging, concerns about double taxation with a mileage‑based user fee, and reporting deadlines for design work; agency representatives urged exploratory language rather than immediate per‑kWh implementation.
Committee members and Agency of Transportation staff discussed several pieces of the draft relating to fees for plug‑in electric vehicles and a proposed mileage‑based user fee (MBUF).
Patrick Murphy (AOT) told the committee that AOT shared the committee's concerns about a per‑kilowatt‑hour fee because of administrative complexity and potential double taxation for drivers who might also pay a mileage‑based fee. Murphy said the agency prefers language that would “examine” or “work toward” collecting a fee to supplant lost fuel tax revenue from out‑of‑state plug‑in electric vehicles rather than immediately authorizing a per‑kWh charge.
The draft includes intent language that a mileage‑based user fee be approximately equivalent to the average amount collected through state fuel taxes from non‑plug‑in passenger vehicles and from plug‑in hybrid vehicles’ current state revenue streams. Committee members debated whether the draft should fix an implementation date (one proposal used 01/01/2027) or leave the date flexible; senators proposed removing the hard start date so the statutory intent applies whenever the program is implemented.
Members raised constitutional and administrative concerns. One senator noted the interstate commerce clause and the difficulty of distinguishing out‑of‑state from in‑state charging transactions without collecting more transaction data; doing so could raise privacy and legal questions. Murphy and others also warned about fairness and the potential inability to track whether a plug‑in vehicle that charged in Vermont is also subject to a mileage fee elsewhere, suggesting that any future per‑kWh approach would need a refund or credit mechanism to avoid double charging.
The bill would also require AOT to report to JTOC on Sept. 30 and Dec. 15 on the status of federal grants and other funding for the design of a mileage‑based user fee and on agency progress designing the system. AOT said it had not had time to review the report dates and would provide feedback on feasibility.
Committee members discussed next steps: staff will circulate revised language that switches the draft from an authorization to an examination or study where necessary, and AOT will comment on the proposed report dates and implementation feasibility.
