Committee divided on short-term EV incentive funding; some members propose $2 million recommendation to Appropriations

Members of the House Transportation Committee debated whether to include short-term funding for an electric-vehicle (EV) incentive program in the committee's budget-adjustment (BAA) letter, with several members proposing a $2 million recommendation to the Appropriations Committee and others urging caution.

Representative Brown said the program helped preserve income eligibility and affordability for lower-income Vermonters and urged that some level of incentives continue. Representative Wirth countered that the short-term data did not clearly show the incentives were the cause of increased EV sales, and warned that a stop-start funding approach risks wasted effort. Several members noted EV ownership in the state rose from roughly 4% in 2022 to about 12% recently, a trend some said supports continuing incentives as a long-term policy.

Committee members discussed funding sources: some argued the current program has largely been funded with general-fund dollars and that any short-term money should come from the general fund rather than the transportation (T) fund; others said the Transportation Fund had a surplus figure cited in the discussion (committee members referenced a T fund surplus of more than $4 million during remarks). Several members said they did not want to use scarce transportation dollars for EV incentives because of competing priorities such as education and property-tax relief.

Data limitations were raised. A committee member noted that the presentation by Matt Coda did not disaggregate trends by household income, so the full equity impacts of the program remain unclear. Members also described program "burn rates" reported to the committee: presenters and members cited end-of-program monthly disbursement rates in the range of roughly $500,000 to $600,000 per month, which informed a calculation that $2 million would fund a short window of continued operation (one or two months depending on distribution timing).

Representative [unnamed] proposed that the committee recommend $2,000,000 to Appropriations to keep the program running through the near term and to avoid a disruptive stop in spring sales; that motion was discussed but not formally voted. Other members favored waiting to see whether the governor included funding in the executive budget before committing committee language that would restart the program only to see it stop again.

The committee asked staff to draft a short, two-sentence addition to the BAA letter reflecting the range of views (a preference for general-fund support, interest in a short-term allocation if the governor's budget did not include funding, and concern about program continuity). The draft language will be finalized and the committee will revisit it at the next meeting; no formal appropriation or transfer was approved in the session.

Ending: Staff will draft candidate language for the BAA letter asking Appropriations to consider near-term funding (the $2 million figure was suggested by committee members) and will return the language to the committee for review prior to the BAA deadline.