House committee reviews draft 5.3 of transportation bill; mileage-based fee, EV funding and rail-trail rules draw debate

The House Transportation Committee met March 13 to review draft 5.3 of this year’s transportation bill, taking up changes that included a proposed mileage-based user fee (MBUF) for plug-in vehicles, clarifications to rail-trail hunting and trapping language, and technical statutory edits for transit and town-highway aid.

The session matters because the MBUF and related funding language would shift how drivers — particularly owners of battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles — contribute to state transportation revenue, and because uncertainty over federal charging grants (NEVI) affects projects and Vermont vendors that had been preparing construction work.

Committee chair Damien Leonard, legislative counsel, opened the meeting by noting the committee was “looking at draft 5.3 of this year's transportation bill.” Members discussed a number of discrete changes the draft authors flagged and asked agency staff for clarification before the bill is finalized.

Mileage-based user fee and intent language

The committee spent the largest portion of time on the mileage-based user fee (MBUF) provisions in sections 12 and 13. Agency staff said the bill’s operational design envisions odometer readings collected at annual vehicle inspections to produce a mileage measure that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or Agency of Transportation (AOT) would use to reconcile MBUF charges at registration. Patrick Murphy, Vermont Agency of Transportation, said the reconciliation “would happen at the time of renewing your registration” and that terminating events such as an out‑of‑state sale would trigger an immediate reconciliation with the prior owner.

The draft includes an intent provision directing that the MBUF for a battery-electric pleasure car be approximately equivalent to the amount the state and federal government collect from a comparable internal-combustion vehicle (state and federal gas taxes), and that plug‑in hybrid vehicles be treated by a blended approach (gas tax + increased registration fee). Representatives voiced differing views about whether the committee should include the federal portion of gas-tax revenue in the equivalency calculation. Representative Corcoran said, “I guess I feel uncomfortable with this language,” citing concern that tying MBUF to both state and federal revenues removes a “look-back” flexibility and could penalize EV owners when gas tax receipts fluctuate. Michelle Bowman, Vermont Agency of Transportation, told the committee the intent language can be drafted with effective‑date or sunset provisions tied to federal action if the committee desires.

Agency staff and members also discussed practical details that the bill does not finalize in statutory text: whether owners prepay monthly or are billed after a registration-period reconciliation, how DMV computer systems will flag sales and transfers for prorated billing, and how rates will be set next session. Patrick Murphy and Michelle Bowman said those operational details are “nuances we are gonna be working out over the next year” and that the agency will return with more specific statutory language and rate proposals in January.

Budget and timeline implications for electric-vehicle charging (NEVI)

Committee members raised funding gaps tied to the federal NEVI charging program and a separate state EV infrastructure fund. Agency staff reported the original federal grant award for certain EV work was about $3.5 million, of which roughly $700,000 was available; committee members and staff estimated roughly $2.7 million more would be needed to proceed without delay. AOT staff said the federal grants are not fully secure and several previously planned “shovel-ready” projects and Vermont contractors are on hold because federal funding was pulled or delayed. The committee asked AOT and the Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD) to clarify whether remaining state-authorized funds could/should be spent this year or reprogrammed, and the panel left the NEVI- and EV-infrastructure-related sections open pending that clarification.

Rail-trails: hunting, trapping and weapon discharge language

The committee reviewed proposed edits to the provision that restricts hunting and related conduct on Vermont rail-trails. The draft would replace the older phrasing “hunting, trapping, or molesting wildlife” with a prohibition on “harassing or molesting wildlife except for fishing,” while retaining a ban on the discharge or use of firearms and other weapons on the trail. Michelle Bowman noted state fish-and-wildlife regulations already prohibit setting traps within 50 feet of the traveled portion of a public trail; she cited the statutory cross-reference to 10 VSA and the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Regulations and said that the 50-foot trapping setback applies to rail trails. The committee debated whether changing the wording would clarify or create ambiguity; members asked staff to confirm that the new phrasing would not conflict with existing trapping setbacks and other statutes before finalizing language.

Other statutory housekeeping and program clarifications

The draft also includes noncontroversial edits and clarifications the committee checked off or discussed briefly: updated statutory language describing the Green Mountain Transit Authority’s area of operation (to permit service outside Chittenden County in specified circumstances), removal of obsolete initial-term language for transit commissioners, and revised appropriation/aid cross‑references for town highways and the class‑2 roadway program so the three related subsections draw from the same appropriations pool. Committee staff and the Joint Fiscal Office confirmed the amendments are intended to implement the committee’s prior legislative intent about formula application and budget requests.

Appeal timeline for recovery of canceled local project funds

Section 5.3 includes a change extending the timeline for a municipality to file an appeal after a project cancellation from 15 days to 30 days. The draft also removes two 30-day deadlines that previously required the board to schedule and decide a petition in those short windows; instead the board must schedule a hearing after an appeal is filed and then issue an appropriate order following the hearing. Committee members said the change is designed to give municipalities more time to assemble a record and for the agency and municipality to negotiate before escalating an action to the T board.

What the committee decided and next steps

The committee did not adopt final statutory rates for the MBUF; members tabled final action on sections tied to MBUF and the NEVI/EV infrastructure funding until agency staff can provide clarified language, an operational plan for billing/reconciliation, and updated budget figures. Several sections (including the MBUF intent language and NEVI/EV funds) remain open for further drafting; Damien Leonard said the committee will resume work on the remaining sections after the floor and will reconvene tomorrow morning to pick up the open items.

Representative Corcoran urged caution about locking the MBUF to a combined state-and-federal revenue target. Michelle Bowman and Patrick Murphy told members the agency can craft statutory trigger or sunset provisions and will return with firmer proposals, operational details and proposed rate scenarios in the next session.

Ending

Committee staff and AOT will return with clarified statutory text and operational details (billing timing, reconciliation at registration, and treatment of sales/terminating events) before the committee sets final rates or adopts an intent provision that includes federal gas tax equivalency. The panel left several sections open for additional edits and will continue drafting on the next meeting day.