Montana bill would bar manufacturers from coercing dealers to stock EVs, sponsors say

Representative Randon Greg (sponsor) told the House Transportation Committee that House Bill 550 is intended to "protect the autonomy of Montana's motor vehicle dealers and preserve true consumer choice in our state." He said the measure would explicitly prohibit manufacturers from coercing dealers into purchasing electric vehicles (EVs) or plug‑in hybrids and would leave decisions about inventory to local dealers and consumers.

Greg laid out data he said show an industry mismatch between EV supply and demand: as of July 24, 2024, EVs remained on dealer lots an average of 81 days (a 75% increase from the prior year), compared with an industry average of 57 days for all vehicles, and cited a model‑level example (the Ford Mach‑E) averaging about 204 days on lot. He also described manufacturer requirements — initially cited by some companies as costing "half a million to a million dollars" for charging infrastructure — as evidence that dealers face significant pressure to accept EV inventory.

Joshua Fisher, appearing online for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, testified in opposition. Fisher said existing Montana law already prohibits manufacturers from "coercing the dealer from accepting the vehicle" and argued HB550 would "interfere with commerce," private contracts and automakers' ability to rely on franchise networks. He warned that if dealers decline to sell EVs in protected market areas, Montana consumers could be forced to purchase vehicles out of state and the state could lose sales tax revenue.

During committee questioning, members pressed both the sponsor and Fisher about contract law, consumer access and dealer obligations to service vehicles. Representative Staffman, who said he owns EVs purchased out of state, asked about a written letter from General Motors in the packet that stated HB550 "would hamstring our ability to provide electric vehicles to Montana consumers." Fisher said the letter reflected a manufacturer view that the bill could limit access to markets for certain products. The sponsor repeatedly said the bill would not ban EVs and that its goal is to "allow the market to decide" at a local level.

Committee members raised legal and practical questions: whether the bill could conflict with constitutional contract protections; whether franchise agreements that obligate dealers to sell and service a manufacturer's full lineup would be undermined; and how dealers' decisions might affect warranties, service availability and local consumer choice. Fisher acknowledged those tensions and said the bill ‘‘raises that question’’ about future consequences for service obligations.

The hearing closed without a committee vote. Representative Greg asked members for support and the committee recessed to take up other business.

The committee will decide next steps in a later proceeding; no date for a vote on HB550 was announced at the close of the hearing.