House Transportation panel weighs mileage-based user fee; agency cites 11,000-mile average

The House Transportation Committee on March 13 examined draft 4.1 of a mileage-based user fee proposal for battery electric vehicles, focusing on whether to keep the provision, remove it, or include contingency language and an inflation-adjuster. Committee members also pressed agency staff on how the proposal would estimate a registration fee for newly registered EVs and how payments and true-ups would work.

Damien Leonard, legislative counsel, said the draft removes a previously confusing "mileage reporting period" definition and clarifies the pay-as-you-go option. "For the mileage reporting period...the commissioner would determine if the actual miles traveled by the BEV during the reporting period were greater than or less than the miles reported by the owner during that period," Leonard said, describing how the bill would require reconciliation at the end of a reporting period.

The proposal would allow owners of newly registered BEVs to opt into a pay-as-you-go program if the commissioner makes it available; otherwise the owner would be assessed an estimated registration fee based on an "average annual vehicle miles traveled" measure. Leonard said the draft uses a current example estimate of about $154 for that upfront assessment.

Patrick Murphy, state policy director for the Agency of Transportation, said the UVM Transportation Research Center reviewed odometer data and produced an average that is "just under, 11,000 miles. It's about 10,850 or so." Staff described two implementation choices: have the commissioner determine and update the average periodically or set a fixed default in statute and revise it later by rule or statute.

Committee members asked whether the average should be calculated on the entire fleet or only EVs; Murphy said the legislature asked the agency to base the rate on the entire fleet in relation to what the average gas vehicle pays. Members urged clearer statutory language on which vehicles count (pleasure cars only, excluding trucks, farm vehicles and antiques) and asked for a required process for how the agency will update the number.

Leonard explained how the system would work operationally: inspections would record odometer readings, a mileage-based assessment would be calculated within 14 days after a reporting period, and the owner would receive notice and have 45 days to pay in full or opt into monthly or quarterly installments. For owners who previously paid an EV infrastructure fee, the draft credits the $89 infrastructure fee against the first year of the mileage-based charge and reconciles thereafter.

The committee discussed practical protections and consumer impacts: pay-as-you-go enrollment, monthly or quarterly payment options to avoid sticker shock, mechanisms for self-reporting via photo capture if software supports it, and enforcement if payments are missed. Leonard confirmed that unpaid past-due amounts would accrue interest (the draft cites 1.5% per month) and could prevent registration renewal until the balance is resolved.

No formal motions or votes were taken. Members asked staff to provide illustrative examples showing how different usage patterns and timing of inspection/registration would affect payments for typical owners. The committee agreed to return to the item at a later meeting; the chair said members might reconvene Tuesday morning to continue discussion.

What’s next: the committee requested illustrative billing examples and clarified language on the basis and update mechanism for the average miles figure; staff and agency representatives will refine the draft for further committee review.