House Transportation committee advances T bill language, including mileage‑based fee provisions; debates EV funding and pilot‑fund transfers

The House Transportation committee on Wednesday advanced language to add the mileage‑based user fee program to the T bill and reviewed related provisions including refunds, an 18% annual interest cap, and options for an initial transition credit.

Legislative counsel Damian Leonard began the review of the draft, telling the committee, “I’m Damian Leonard from the Office of Legislative Council,” and reading a refund provision that would require the commissioner to return amounts paid by an owner or lessee that exceed what is due upon a terminating event. The committee confirmed the refund language and approved an interest cap set as 1.5% per month (an effective 18% annual maximum), and discussed adding a statutory‑bracketed grace period for late filings or inspections; staff said similar unpaid‑fee practices have used a 30‑day administrative window.

Why it matters: The MBUF framework will change how electric‑vehicle owners are charged for road use and how related revenues flow into state transportation accounts. The committee’s choices on credits and allocation will affect initial billing fairness for EV owners and how much money is available for existing programs.

The group debated how to handle the transition from existing registration/inspection‑based fees to mileage reporting. Staff presented two approaches: a simple flat credit (the administration’s preference) or a prorated credit based on months already covered by the most recent registration/inspection payment. Committee members said the flat approach would be administratively simpler and easier to explain to EV owners; the committee then instructed staff to adopt the administration’s language and to move the MBUF language into the T bill draft.

The committee also reviewed an appropriation for Drive Electric Vermont. Staff presented language carried forward from prior years that would appropriate $292,000 from the transportation fund to support the agency’s partnership with Drive Electric (stakeholder coordination, consumer education, infrastructure and technical assistance). Members raised whether the appropriation should be funded from new MBUF receipts, from pilot‑fund payback amounts, or from the larger transportation fund. One agency official, Shel Doomhower of the Agency of Transportation, said the timing should work: “the funds will be collected in ’27 and they’ll be allocated to something in ’27,” and noted that cash‑flow adjustments across programs are routine.

The committee discussed an option to explicitly allocate the first $292,000 of MBUF receipts to Drive Electric and direct any amounts above that back into the transportation fund, but staff noted that all receipts initially enter the transportation fund and that explicit allocation language can be added later in the MBUF allocation paragraph or in the appropriations bill for clarity.

Other substantive T bill items checked off during the session included a technical cleanup of definitions, increases in contractor bonding waiver thresholds (raising the floor from $100,000 to $250,000 for secretary waiver authority), updated bridge inspection and closure authority to comply with federal national bridge inspection standards, and a new penalty (up to $1,000) for violating a bridge posting or closure. The bill also adjusts public‑transit advisory council membership, updates Green Mountain Transit Authority budget language, and raises the transportation alternatives grant cap (ongoing cap to $600,000 and a one‑year increase to $1.2 million for the coming fiscal year).

On pilot‑fund language, drafters inserted a provision that would transfer one‑half of any excess local option tax revenues (after specified pilot fund obligations) into the transportation fund for the state aid for town highways program. Representative Burke and others debated the practical effect given a governor‑recommended $3.4–$4 million grand‑list stabilization expense; committee members said they would not contest that specific appropriation politically but would press to secure other surplus funds for town highways.

What wasn’t decided: The committee paused before finalizing exact allocation wording and agreed to take a short break to get input from Logan and from the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) on the accounting and specific allocation language before printing a full T bill draft with MBUF inserted.

Next steps: Staff will insert the approved MBUF language and related technical edits into the T bill draft, consult with JFO and the staff member named Logan on funding‑source language, and reprint a complete draft for committee review.