Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conference committee narrows differences on mileage-based user fee for electric vehicles
Summary
A conference committee on the TPO narrowed remaining differences between House and Senate mileage-based user fee proposals, debating payment options, inspection timing (45 vs. 90 days), and whether future expansion should include plug-in hybrids; staff will draft intent language and members will reconvene.
A conference committee on the TPO met to reconcile competing House and Senate bills that would implement a mileage-based user fee (MBF) for electric vehicles, focusing on payment options, inspection timing and the scope of vehicles covered.
Damian Leonard, legislative counsel, presented a side-by-side comparison of the two drafts and outlined the key remaining differences. "The house proposes just payment at the end of the reporting period," Leonard said, while "the senate has 4 payment options: annual, pay-as-you-go, estimated and flat rate," allowing new vehicles to use pay-as-you-go, estimated or flat-rate options in their first year.
The committee debated how to time the flat-rate payment; Leonard said the current language places the flat-rate payment at the end of the reporting period but "it could easily be changed to the beginning of the reporting period." Members also weighed differing inspection-grace periods: the senate text allows 90 days to obtain a required inspection before registration renewal while the house proposes 45 days. The senate version also includes a mechanism to credit owners who report fewer miles than they paid for against future MBF charges.
On scope and transition, Leonard said transition-language is similar across drafts but the senate update would limit future expansion to plug-in hybrids, whereas the house includes an explicit report requirement to evaluate potential fees on public EV charging that the senate text does not contain.
Committee members raised revenue and compliance concerns. One committee member noted recent declines in enforcement and inspection interactions and warned of cumulative revenue loss, citing roughly "$1,000,000 for inspection fees that aren't happening" and about "$3,000,000" from enforcement-related revenue that has dropped compared with past years. The member said those losses, together with falling license renewals, represent a material erosion of transportation fund receipts.
Separately, a member relayed testimony expressing concern that requiring BEVs to show inspections in order to register could prompt some owners to stop registering their vehicles. "The testimony was concerned that people would stop registering the vehicles," the member said, flagging a potential compliance and public-safety consequence of stricter registration checks.
Members agreed they wanted a short, factual finding or intent statement that reflects observed behavioral and enforcement changes affecting transportation revenues; the chair and others asked staff to draft one or two lines for inclusion. They also asked staff to look at DMV inspection-process improvements and to consider safety language that ties enforcement reductions to broader risks.
No formal votes were taken. The committee planned to continue discussions on payment methods (including whether to split the difference on a 45- or 90-day inspection window) and scheduling; members asked Megan to coordinate and aim for a follow-up meeting at about 12:30, pending floor activity.
What happens next: staff will draft proposed intent/findings language and logistics for the inspection and payment provisions; members will meet again to try to resolve the remaining text differences before final conference work on the floor.
