Vermont Electric Cooperative briefs Senate panel on EV uptake, load-management pilot as committee discusses EV registration fee and MBUF plans

Vermont Electric Cooperative representatives and committee staff briefed the Senate Transportation Committee on Feb. 5 on electric vehicle adoption in VEC's territory, pilot load-management work and the status of legislation and funding for EV infrastructure.

Andrea Khan, representing Vermont Electric Cooperative, told the committee that VEC serves roughly 33,000 members across about 2,000 square miles and that the cooperative tracked nearly 1,000 electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in its service area. "We have almost just under 3,000 miles of line, and our service territory is about, just over 2,000 square miles. We're rural. We're spread out," Khan said. She described a $500 EV incentive offered by VEC with a $500 adder for income-qualified members and said the cooperative provides free Level 2 chargers to participants in its energy-transformation program.

Cyril ("Sorel" in the session) and other VEC staff described the cooperative's approach to managing new electric load. The presentation noted two principal concerns: rapid load growth from electrified transport (VEC projects system load could roughly double by 2040 under some scenarios) and the timing of that load, which often coincides with transmission peaks and the least-clean, most-expensive hours. VEC staff said transmission upgrades tied to EV adoption could reach on the order of $100 million without aggressive demand-shifting measures.

The cooperative described two strategies it is piloting: shifting charging away from peak hours (through managed chargers or scheduled charging) and shaping charging by throttling or ramping down power delivery during constrained hours so vehicles still reach required state-of-charge by morning. Khan said the cooperative has both charger-based and vehicle-based control pilots (including direct communications with some vehicles' telematics systems for cars such as Tesla). The cooperative reported that testers receive advance notice of managed events and that opt-outs are rare.

On incentives and equipment, Khan said VEC offers a $500 incentive and a $500 income-qualified adder, provides free Level 2 chargers for some program participants, and is experimenting with bring-your-own-charger enrollment. VEC staff said many of the managed chargers are Level 2 equipment operating typically at 7 8 kW, while some stations and home installations can go as high as about 19 kW (Ford Charge Station Pro). The cooperative reported roughly 50 60 Teslas on vehicle-based communications and about 70 vehicles with direct communications in firm pilot programs; it also said about 120 batteries are enrolled in its bring-your-own-battery managed program.

The member survey VEC shared showed adoption and intent trends and barriers: cost of vehicles and battery range remain top obstacles among respondents who said they do not plan to drive electric; renters and lower-income members were significantly less likely to plan EV purchases in the near term. Khan said the cooperative's survey is statistically significant and repeated annually, which helps track trends in intent and obstacles.

Committee discussion turned to policy. Patrick Murphy, state policy director for the Institute of Transportation, briefed the committee on the origin and current status of an EV infrastructure registration fee enacted in the prior session and on plans for a possible mileage-based user fee (MBUF) in coming legislation. Murphy summarized the law as establishing a fee tied to vehicle registration: $89 for battery-electric vehicles and $44.50 for plug-in hybrids, with revenue directed to the Agency of Commerce and Community Development to support community and workplace charging, including multifamily dwelling projects. The statute links any future implementation of a mileage-based user fee to replacement of the registration-based fee for battery-electric vehicles and keeps the plug-in hybrid fee in place until a MBUF is implemented.

Murphy and committee members discussed projected revenue and timing. Joint Fiscal Office and DMV estimates presented in committee materials put early-year revenue in the low hundreds of thousands for late FY25 and roughly $1.7 million for FY26 under medium-adoption scenarios; DMV-provided projections cited in the discussion estimated roughly $500,000 for part of FY25 and $1.4 million for FY26, with caveats about legacy data coding for plug-in hybrids. Murphy said the committee had directed the original fee to be set at a level to generate revenue for charging infrastructure without unduly discouraging adoption.

Senators asked about program design and priorities. Some members said multifamily (rental) charging and workplace charging were prioritized because existing programs for single-family home charging and corridor fast charging (NEVI-funded) were already underway, while the multifamily program had run out of grant funds and was seen as a gap. Committee members debated whether directing registration-fee revenue to ACCD and to multifamily/workplace installations was the appropriate choice and asked agency staff and presenters for additional data on charger uptime, utilization, and lifecycle maintenance.

No formal committee votes were recorded during the session. Murphy and others said statutory language from the prior session (Act 62) allowed planning and grant applications and that additional statutory work would be expected this year to implement a mileage-based user-fee system if the Legislature chooses to pursue it.

Ending: Committee members requested follow-up materials, including VEC's survey and methodology, further data on charger reliability and maintenance, and more granular revenue projections and cost estimates for road-and-bridge maintenance under alternative fee models. VEC representatives said they would provide the survey and continued to invite committee engagement as VEC moves pilots toward program scale.