Public Works hearing advances debate on SB 627 to raise non‑resident tolls while protecting New Hampshire E‑ZPass holders

Public Works and Highways · April 1, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A House Public Works hearing on SB 627 focused on raising tolls for cash and non‑New Hampshire E‑ZPass users to fund the 2027–2036 10‑year transportation plan while preserving current rates for accounts tied to New Hampshire E‑ZPass and providing free transponders for residents for a limited period.

CONCORD — The House Public Works committee heard testimony on Thursday about Senate Bill 627 FN, which would raise tolls for cash and non‑New Hampshire E‑ZPass users to support a 2027–2036 10‑year transportation plan while keeping rates unchanged for accounts listed on a New Hampshire E‑ZPass.

Sen. Waters, who sponsored the bill, told the committee the measure is aimed at closing a funding gap the 10‑year plan exposed. “We haven’t raised a toll since 2007,” Waters said, adding that the bill is intended to keep New Hampshire residents from bearing the cost while generating revenue from out‑of‑state travelers and cash users. He said the plan is needed to fund projects including improvements at I‑293 Exit 6 and 7 and the Bow‑Concord corridor.

Supporters from industry and regional planning groups argued the proposal addresses safety and economic needs. Joanne Fryer, a licensed transportation engineer representing ACEC and Fuss & O’Neill, said delaying projects increases accident risk and costs: “If we don’t implement this, think about the cost … from time commitment, gas, for idling, as well as potential safety issues,” Fryer said. Amy Charbonneau of Continental Paving highlighted project backlogs and estimated that a red‑listed bridge repair could cost about $93,000,000, warning that failing to coordinate larger projects would waste limited bridge funds.

Alex Katrubas of the Associated General Contractors of New Hampshire called the bill a “common sense” response to rising construction costs and distributed legal and comparative‑rate materials. “Construction costs have obviously risen dramatically in the past 10 years,” Katrubas said, and he provided charts showing how neighboring states handle E‑ZPass discounts. Jim Jalbert, who operates C & J Bus Lines, urged bipartisan support, saying that operators and travelers routinely pay out‑of‑state tolls to access destinations and that the state must act to preserve service and safety.

David Rodrigue, the Department of Transportation commissioner, said the DOT is neutral on the bill but recommended that any final text explicitly limit the resident discount to accounts listed on a funded New Hampshire E‑ZPass. He said most other E‑ZPass agencies have raised rates since 2007 and that benchmarking to inflation is common. Rodrigue estimated the DOT might distribute 125,000–150,000 sticker transponders at about $0.65 each and noted the draft amendment under discussion would provide free transponders for up to 210 days. The commissioner also said that, at current earn/spend rates, the department expects its bank of federal match “toll credits” to be exhausted by about 2035 if additional capital funding is not secured.

Committee members asked about legal exposure under the dormant commerce clause and how other states implement discounts and residency rules; panelists pointed to case law and examples from Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island and offered to provide exact citations and counts. Several lawmakers also pressed for clarity on the amendment’s phrasing so that the “on this one occasion only” language would clearly modify the intended toll‑setting authority.

The committee closed the public hearing after testimony and distributed a draft amendment clarifying that a person need not be a state resident to obtain a New Hampshire E‑ZPass account in order to receive the discount, a change the chair said was intended to limit legal risk. The chair said the amendment would be drafted by legislative counsel and the bill scheduled for follow‑up consideration.

Next steps: The committee did not take a final vote on SB 627 on Thursday; members said they expect the amendment to be submitted in written form for review and to schedule further action at a subsequent meeting.