Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Draft in our

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I sent it moments ago.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Good morning. Today is Thursday, 03/10/2026 here in House Transportation. We have on the Zoom Patrick Murphy from the Agency of Transportation, and we have Damian Leonard in the chair, our alleged counsel. We're gonna spend the next hour and a half, continuing to work on the language mileage based future fee. Maybe less, maybe more, but we're there is a you were just gonna say there is a new draft version.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: There is, 3.2. I sent it to Gabby about five minutes ago, so

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: I don't know if you've followed. It should be

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: on the website. It's dated this morning at 7AM.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Can you hear Please.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: And I wanna thank Patrick Murphy for working through the night with me on this. So he

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: He looks good.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I thought I worked late hours, and then I got his replies when I woke up this morning. So I'm very grateful for that help. So I'll walk you through what I've got, and it includes changes that were discussed yesterday. Hopefully, they're pretty close, but let me know if if additional work needs to be done. And see okay. Great. It's up on the screen. So the first is in the statement of purpose. The highlighted language here shortens up the whole bit about roughly equivalent to things and just says to ensure that battery electric vehicles contribute to the transportation funds in an amount that reflects the annual miles traveled by each vehicle. Alright. That's a good start. Mhmm. The next change you'll find on page two, the mileage reporting period. So yesterday, if you remember, as we were talking, it became clear that the agency had envisioned a pay as you go option being a potential option down the the line, and the language in the bill didn't reflect that. So you're going to see several changes that try to enable that. This is the first. So it it adds with respect to a pay as you go mileage based user fee program established pursuant to subsection forty three zero three b, the time period between a required report of the mileage shown on the vehicle's odometer and the most recent prior required report. So that's envisioning that the commissioner of motor vehicles, if the capability arises, could start allowing for a pay as you go program where folks are giving an odometer reading every month or every quarter or something like that. And Patrick can speak more to that later. Oh, yeah. It's just now.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Patrick, I was just wondering, it's most required before. So do you envision like I can sign up, I want to do a pay as I go And therefore, let's say it's monthly. I have to take a screenshot or however it is. And I don't report every month necessarily. I'm lazy. I just worry about the term required before. Mean, just can you speak to that?

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Sure. So somebody electing to do a, For the record, Murphy, state policy director for the agency of transportation. Somebody electing to pay as you go wouldn't necessarily have to do it on a consistent frequency. The intent there is to be able to more closely reflect when miles are incurred and then to be able to pay if that's the choice. And so if somebody is not consistent in their reporting and does it in spurts, then that just gets reconciled at the at the point of registration. Damian, could you

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: pull that language back up? So it's c. And So

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: the required report in this Damian, correct me if I'm wrong, but the required report in this is still the the annual inspection odometer reading.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So the way the reason I added this definition was because we already have that definition, and the idea here was that I was using mileage reporting period also for when the with the pay as you go program. So say I filed a report every 30 days, and it may be that you just say a report of the mileage shown and the most recent prior report because it the idea was that you're gonna the way I drafted it was that you would file your report with the commissioner. And once you file the report, the commissioner is gonna calculate the fee, and then you can pay the fee so that if you wanna do again, it when we get to the program, you'll see there's a lot of discretion for the commissioner to set periods and so forth and other terms and conditions. So maybe it's just taking out the words required in two places there. Because the it it was intended to capture that period that's less than the full annual reporting period.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I'm not trying to nitpick it at this.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Yeah. Gimmick. But

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: would it would it make sense to take out required in the two spots there and just See. Yeah. Patrick?

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah. I'm Okay. Yeah. That was confusing to me.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, great. I'll take that out.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Keyser and then Representative White.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Talk about nitpicking, just wait. And unfortunately this is going into my business background, but what I'm envisioning is you could have somebody as pay as you go. You'd have periods where you'd have your mileage that would be part of a statement, so to speak. This is how many miles you go. And then I give you $600 And then I would on a budget type of payment. Or in my own budget, I'd send you $25 a month. And so every month or something like that, we would have an online system, not a paper system. Online system where you could go and see your transactions. Is that even reasonable? Anyway, I'm thinking of a budget account for any

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: type of fuel. I think that's more like doing monthly installments for the annual period?

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: No. Yeah, whatever. We're talking about somebody that is like, got to send you $50 And so what you would have is you'd have a list of transactions. And I'm sorry, I'm getting way in the weeds. But because I think it would be easier for the consumer to understand it if they got it all on a You'd see all the transactions. So you'd have a $10 payment, you might have a $15 and then you have a statement amount that is due or credit, you might even build a credit.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah,

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: I can answer that. So, Keyser, the intent is to work within the MyDMV online system so that people would be able to to have essentially an account where they can view their transactions. They can have the records of the odometer readings. That's why yesterday we talked about like the need the ability to get rid of some of the older sections around, you know, records retentions and and that sort of thing because it it will be contained within an account that someone can access themselves.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Thank you, Katherine.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Sure.

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: And I'm just wondering in Section C, if we want to have language that says something about annual. Because isn't the expectation that you're either getting your mileage checked at your annual inspection or you're doing some type of pay as you go system within the year. But isn't the expectation that you're doing this at least minimal on an annual basis?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So the the when we get to the PayGo system

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: Dig into that more.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: We'll dig into that more. But this was intended to capture the intermittent Okay. Or in interim payments. And maybe I should just leave it out of this definition and explain this in that section. But this was intended to capture those interim payments. I was what it came down to is I was trying to simplify the language that I had to use in the statute, but I think I may have complicated things more. Maybe one, we've gone through the pay as you go system. Let me know if you think it just makes sense to use different words.

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: Yeah. Maybe just stop at at the comma there. If we're gonna go into more detail further down. With respect to pay as you go, mileage based user fee program established pursuant to subsection four thirty b of this chapter.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: That that wouldn't define what the period is, though. So I'd just delete the whole subset subdivision. Because it would just yeah. That's just telling you what it's referring to. And it's it's basically saying this definition only refers to that feed program or this portion of the definition. So

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: for you on that.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So but, yeah, if if it comes to it, we can take this out. So I will come back to that. Terminating event. We looked at this language yesterday. Oh, I'm sorry. I gotta pull it back up on the screen. It's just highlighted because the editors hadn't looked at it yet. So when we get to the mileage based user fee, I've made a number of changes here. So bear with me. So the first is the annual mileage based user fee language is the same as what we saw yesterday for the most part. I've added except as otherwise provider pursuant to subsections b and c at the section to address pay as you go and newly registered vehicles, which we hadn't addressed in yesterday's language, and we'll get to those in a second. The other change here is I took the payment requirements, and I brought them up into this subsection because now that we have multiple programs, it was getting confusing as to what payment requirements applied when or multiple not programs, but options within the program. So pay as you go option is subsection b. And Patrick can talk a little bit more about the background to this, but what this would provide is that the commissioner in the commissioner's discretion could establish a pay as you go mileage based user fee program that owners or lessees may opt into in lieu of paying the annual mileage based user fee. So in other words, instead of at the end of each year getting this bill and then having to figure out, I'm gonna pay a lump sum or in quarterly or monthly installments, you can pay as you go and then true up at the end of the year. So what they would do is they would report the mileage shown on their odometer. And this says at times and in a manner required by the commissioner, that leaves a lot of discretion to the commissioner as to how you would report. And I think it leaves enough room for the commissioner to say, potentially, that you can report as you as you want to. And then at the end of the year, when you get your inspection, we true up and you get billed for whatever you haven't paid for. And then as soon as practicable, after receiving the report, commissioner would calculate the applicable mileage based user fee and mail the registered owner or lessee a statement of the amount. And remember, mail includes notice on my DMV and email. And then the owner or lessee would remit the full amount due to the commissioner within not more than thirty days after the assessment. This was a placeholder, so this language can change. I just put something in because I wasn't sure what was wanted here, and it was quite late. Following each annual inspection for a BEV enrolled in the program, the commissioner would determine the if the actual miles traveled were greater than or less than the miles reported during that time period, if the actual mile mileage was less than the owner than the amount reported. So, for example, maybe there was an error with the reading of the odometer and they paid for miles that weren't actually on the odometer, something like that. They could receive a credit equal to the difference, and that credit would be applied to reduce the next amount due. And then if the actual mileage was greater, which is probably the more likely scenario, the owner or lessee would be assessed an amount equal to the difference, and the amount would be added to the next amount due from the owner. So, essentially, you true up at the end of the year, and anything that you haven't paid for would go on to your next bill. Anything that you've overpaid for will be credited against your next bill. Patrick, do you wanna speak to this a little bit more?

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Just generally that, the idea is to make sure that we have language that would allow for this option but not box us into having to provide this option if through the So that's why, you know, Damian noted some flexibility within that language is is to just preserve that option, which we feel would be the one of the more convenient ways to do it for for people. And if we are able to implement that by January 2027 to to be able to do that, but not necessarily to be directed to do that if it is not feasible within the timeframe that we have.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: So I would just have concerns in general. Think it should be a challenge. Yeah. I I think that's going to be cumbersome from a lot of Vermonters to come up with a registration fee and then plus the pay if you go all at once. Yeah. So I think it has to. Well,

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: I just want to clarify that and we haven't gotten to this section, I understand where you're coming from. Even if there is not a pay as you go system where you'd where there is the self reporting of the driver of their odometer readings through photo capture, there would still be the ability to pay on a monthly basis or a quarterly basis on a frequency that the the user selects once enrolled in the program.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Okay. And that's a shell or That's a shell. That's okay.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah. That is yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So this is more about the technical ability of the system to be able to handle photo capture from an individual user versus just being able to take an estimated payment and distribute that across twelve months of the year. That part of it, the latter part is what would be required within this system.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Two

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: things. One, there any concern at all? I mean, because the programs aren't written yet that they'll run-in like this is what we're talking about. Not quite sure we're going to be able to pull that off. Are there any concerns? Are we getting it right in the legislation before we find out how it can actually work? Is that an issue? The second thing is, do you envision BEV owners of being informed of this and then choosing something. I'm going to choose monthly payments. And then therefore, my DMV gives you an email at the end of the month or whenever so that it's not completely on the owner to like, oh, it's the end of the month, I gotta send my payment. Two questions there, Patrick.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah, sure. The first overall question, is there concern about like the ability to implement the program given the language that we have? No, we've tried to as defined as possible so that you're comfortable with the direction of the program and how it will function, but to also be flexible enough for those various edge cases to come up for, you know, and Damian will point out these various sections where the Commissioner has some discretion in being able to figure out how to handle those. So I think we are comfortable with our ability to implement what we are working with the vendor on right now is a specific scope of work about what this system must be able to do, and so there's lots of things in there that will handle all kinds of cases that we know will and have come up in other jurisdictions. The second piece of it is, yes, there will be a big part of this grant and the implementation work is figuring out communications, and so somebody enrolling in the program will be able to select themselves what payment frequency or method they would prefer, and then they'd be able to, based upon that selection, have the regular communications and reminders to make sure that it's as convenient and easily accessible as possible.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I think you envision sort of, I sign up and it asks me, how many miles a year do you think you're gonna drive? And I put, I don't know, 12,000. And then it says, okay. And then, you know, I start my monthly payments because you're gonna have to come up with an estimate, I guess, of how many miles will that be self selected. Then, of course, you're trued up at the end at registration or inspection.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: So what I was starting to talk about yesterday is that, you know, they once the system is built, there we won't necessarily be able to access the historical data for the odometer readings. So if you've owned your vehicle, say for five years, we won't necessarily be able to see what those inspection reporting periods showed for odometer readings. DMV is able to see that data, but the system itself won't be able to automate it, automatically base payments off of those historical data points. But in the future, after you've sort of passed your first cycle with the program, then you would be able to have sort of a more finely tuned number that you can base monthly or quarterly or what have you payments off of. So it will then, it will eventually be drawing from the historical data within the system so that if you've traveled 12,000 miles in that first reporting period that is recorded within the system, then you would be able to, you'd get something that maybe $165 or whatever is what your monthly payments are going to be based upon. There's language in here that addresses the transition. I think it's in here. Damien and I had corresponded on this. For that first piece, it really has to be an estimate because we won't be able to draw automatically My from the data

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: question is, is it the system that even after it's going, is it the system that's going to tell you what your monthly payment is? Or are you going to sign up for, based on mileage or based on a twelfth of what you expect at the end? Who's got to decide what that monthly payment is?

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: So right now I think it's written as it's based on the average vehicle going to average a number of miles, which is about 11,000 miles. There may be flexibility within the system to at least have some thresholds in there if somebody is self selecting that amount, that there's at least a floor and maybe a ceiling as well, So you're not getting somebody to input something wrong and then they're they're, you know, invoice the you know, a far too high amount over time.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Maybe they put in the yearly amount in the monthly.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah. Something like that.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So there's No. That that would be good.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: There is an ability within this system, I believe, that that sort of will check for those, you know, like, very high or very low amounts.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: But again, is it the user or the system that will tell you what your if you choose monthly payments, what what it will be?

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: As it's written right now, the the the first sort of year, the first upon enrollment, it would be determined by the system.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: There's a question out here for public credit.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Member)]: So I think a lot of us probably use monthly withdrawal from our checking account for my cell phone. They will email me and tell me on Tuesday whatever amount is going to be withdrawn for paying my bill. Is that what you envision this pay in a billing model to be like, or is this something that the person that is paying, like me, the driver, is going to physically have to monthly go in and report, well, I travel 1,200 miles this month and put in the figure. Or if you're saying, okay, we're going to base this pay as you go on, let's say, 11,000 miles a month and calculate each month's pay. It's the same amount every month. And the person needs to know for themselves that they have to take this out of their checking account and pay DMV?

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: So there may be two options, and there would be two options allowable under this language. The first that Representative Corcoran was getting at earlier is that you would be able to pay on a monthly basis. You'd get these consistent reminders about this whatever time of the month, here is the invoice, so it wouldn't be something that's like a big burden to the user to be able to pay. It's more akin to one of your utility bills. There is, with this language that Damian just went into, the pay as you go system, there may be people who would prefer to pay only exactly the amount of miles that they've gone. And for that, they would essentially have to take an odometer reading themselves through the use of like a mobile phone, taking a picture, and then loading that to the system and entering in their mileage and paying through that method. So it's maybe more onerous for some, but that is why it would only be an option. It wouldn't be like the required method.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Okay, so there's no option that if you're basing it on an annual amount of $11,000 having in mind following year when you true up, that it's just an automatic, that instead of just sending an invoice every month, you tell the person, you know, it's due and we're gonna take, you know, withdraw from whatever account you want it to be withdrawn from, and it's paid, the person is actually going to have to wait to get the invoice and pay from the invoice like you do for your electric utility bill.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah, that's a question I have to run by the vendor.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Yeah, okay. Okay. I mean, I think it would be easier if that would be an option to just, hey, your bill is due in ten days and, you know, we're taking a $100 out of your account, you know, be ready. I don't know.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah. I I will follow-up with the benefit of that question.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Two more. And and I realize, you know, we're trying to figure this out. We haven't written the program completed yet. But, you know, I worry of I don't know. Somebody retired person who only drives three or 4,000 miles a year, you know, getting a monthly payment as if they drive 12,000 a year and getting ahead, that's one thing we want to make sure doesn't happen. And the other thing is, is it really necessary to self report by taking a photo and trying to uplift it? That's pin and neck for me. I can imagine from everybody else. I'm not sure why I can't just say, tell us what your odometer is. And you fill it out and off you go. And if you're not telling the truth or whatever, it's gonna be trued up at the end. But that, you know, to self report in those monthly times or quarterly times, it seems like you ought to just be able to say, what's your mileage? If you want to upload a photo, fine, we'll do it for you. But you self report because at some point at the inspection, you're gonna have a real record and reconciliation to happen.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah, understand the point. It would be, if provided, just an option and not a requirement, but I think the idea behind the photo capture is to actually help avoid what would be an inconvenient mistake. So if people entered their amounts in wrong or, you know, so there is the technology where the, if you both upload the photo, it helps to validate the data that's been entered, or if they don't correspond to be able to notice that person that there may be an error in what you've entered so that you're not overpaying You're or

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: already gonna have mistake proofing in the program. Right? So if I put 12,000 miles and I meant to put 1,200, I assume it's gonna go, woah, hey, this is, you know, way above what's expected or way below. You know, probably negative. So you're gonna have that mistake proofing. I just you know, there's other things I have to go out and take a picture of my registration, get my Oyster license. I gotta take a picture of our registration, take a picture of this, take a picture of that, upload it all, and it takes, you know, a long time, and it just doesn't work very well. I can't imagine having to go out in the middle of the winter and take a picture of my odometer just to pay a bill. Just seems like-

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Well, so- Or then- Just as a reminder, this is an option that people could choose if they wanted to, that they prefer not to pay on a consistent basis or not to pay upfront. And if you're paying as you go here, you know, like you just ended the trip, you're already in the vehicle, you just take a picture of the odometer and then you pay like these are the miles I've gone. Understand your point that not everybody will find that convenient and that's why it is just an option.

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: Yeah, I think Representative Pouech brings up a good point in that it reminds me, there are people who really kind of struggle with technology. And so I think it will be important that the DMV has a clear phone number for people to reach out for assistance and try to figure out things like this. I imagine with their new system that they will be set up for that, but I just think that will be an important part of communicating mileage based user fee as it is unrolled to the public. And my second point I wanted to bring up, and I did bring this up earlier in the week, this program clearly is requiring electric vehicles to get their annual inspection. And so I just, again, I'm suggesting that we look at requiring annual inspections upon being able to re register your car, which then addresses the combustion engine cars out there and the percentage of cars that we think are not getting inspected. I know that inspections are being looked at and reevaluated in the building already, but it just seems to be, if EVs are gonna be required to get annual inspections, let's make sure all cars are required to get their annual inspections.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So we get back into it. This is part of the transition that Patrick was talking about. What I realized this morning when I got Patrick's feedback was that I didn't include the transition to cover to address sort of what happens with all of the funny cases with cars that are currently EVs that are currently registered and have paid the infrastructure fee and are going into this program and how are we gonna address that. So there will need to be a section in here separate from the statute that kind of addresses how you roll into the program if you have a current currently registered EV. This subsection addresses newly registered EVs. So it would propose to assess upon registration a mileage based user fee equal to the rate the the mile per mile rate multiplied by the average annual vehicle miles traveled, and then require payment in the same way that you do for the annual mileage at that point. So either a lump sum or a quarterly or monthly installment payment of that. So this I believe yesterday, you know, it's it's roughly 11,000 miles. So it's roughly a $154 at the current time. And this you know, people's travel went down. This would probably change. If people's travel went up, it could change. You could also set a fixed amount. And then upon completion of that first mileage reporting period, then you could you would basically true that amount up and either receive a credit if you traveled fewer miles or receive a bill for the remaining balance if you traveled more miles. So this is requiring a mileage payment upfront, for the year if you have a newly registered EV. Questions? Okay. The next changes in here are just is just renumbering of sections here because I added the two new subsections and moved some other pieces around. The and then I've consolidated the mileage based user fee rate and then the annual adjustment language. I know there was a lot of discussion about that the other day about whether to keep that in. It's still in this draft because I didn't have a clear direction from the committee discussion as to whether it was coming out or not. But that's in a subdivision two of this section. And it's it's unchanged from what was there before, but that's that's still there.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Sorry, to go back a little bit. Yeah. I'm trying to, I guess. Sure. Brand new vehicle that's just being registered, that's page five, right? Yep. So are we saying I go I get a bought bought a brand new vehicle. I register it, and I gotta pay my fee Yes. For a whole year?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: This that's what this is proposing. Drive? That's what this is proposing. Yes. Doesn't seem right.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I don't pay my gas tax when I register my vehicle. The whole idea of monthly payments or, you know, it's after you've driven, then you read the mileage and you pay. This is saying I'm going to pay $160 added to my registration, having driven a mile. Doesn't seem fair. And that's the whole purpose of a mileage based user fee in mind, is to be fair. Know, electric vehicles pay their fair share, but paying upfront is not fair. Somebody who's retired and only drives 3,000 miles a year now is gonna pay $140 for a year and then get trued up, I guess, at the end and get a check back.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Patrick?

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah. Thank you. So the the intent is not for it to be necessarily paid upfront. So I just wanna clarify that. And I don't know, Damian, if that's what you're actually seeing in the language, but the the other sections would allow for with any vehicle, regardless of its age, would allow for the ability to space payments out on a quarterly or monthly basis. So right now, what electric vehicle owners are paying is $89 at the point of registration, and they're essentially paying ahead for what their mileage is estimated or expected to be. And when the legislature adopted the $89 it was with the understanding that for the vast majority, wouldn't necessarily be exactly $89 Some will be lower, but some will be higher and maybe a lot higher. So there needs to be some way to sort of estimate out how you would pay on a monthly or quarterly basis, and it has to be based on some number. You don't have any historical data, of course, with a new vehicle, and it's obviously a question for the committee to decide what that number should be, but what we've included in the language is what people on average are paying for gas vehicles traveling the average number of miles in a year?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative McCoy, and then White, and then Sally.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Member)]: So I think we have to begin paying something because they will always be behind, so they can't go the whole year driving 11,000 miles and then get assessed fees. If we can rework the wording that we have in the prior section about somebody who currently has an EV, it's a guesstimate based on 11,000 miles, and you have a choice of paying as you go or paying quarterly or paying monthly or however you do it. So I guess that option should be given to the driver picking up his brand new EV. You will be assessed a mileage based user fee based on 11,000 miles your first year. Would you like to pay it now, or would you like to choose to pay it quarterly or monthly, or pay as you go your exact mileage? Somehow word that in this section for a brand new EV. But I don't think, I mean, they do have to pay something. I don't want to have a whole year go by. So offer the same plans as we are offering anyone else driving an EV. That's, I mean, you don't, if you choose not to, you don't want to pay the whole thing up front, and I get that. I mean, you are literally driving a car out of the lot and haven't driven a mile, but you know you're gonna be assessed 11,000 miles a year, you can pay. Just

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: to be clear, the monthly and quarterly is in here. The pay as you go option is not, but that's an easy change. So yeah. Representative White?

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: I agree with both representative Pouech and representative McCoy. I mean, I I think it's unfair to assess a full annual amount at the point of registration or purchase. Think that laying out the options and maybe they're paying the first quarterly payment. Because if they are someone who drives much less, fewer miles, paying that 11,000. And again, if they're income sensitive, that seems like that could be onerous. Paying the first quarter and then they're being able to self attest or whatever to pay subsequently, I agree it should be something. I don't think it should be the annual cost at the point of purchaseregistration.

[Rep. Kate Lalley (Member)]: I'm just wondering if a potentially simple solution to this would be to just have the starting point be the infrastructure fee that everybody is accustomed at this point to be paying. That amount would be your beginning point for the mileage based user fee. So it would be frictionless in that sense. People are already accustomed to paying this. And then that would set the foundation and then we would add on from there. So we would be getting revenue in, a nice chunk of it that we need to compensate for the heavier weight of these cars and their impacts on our roads. So that might be just sort of a way to start this whole thing off. Everybody gets that right now. And that also addresses, Rep. Pouech, your concern, which I think is very valid. We have many, many retired people in this state who are probably only driving pretty low mileage, particularly a lot of people. If they have an EV, it's their sort of like little running errands locally car. And so it's likely that they may never exceed infrastructure fee. But they're used to paying it right now, that seems like a kind of fair and fairly simple thing to do. Because if you are like, okay, we're not doing this, we're going to do this other thing, and you have to understand it, and it's da da da da, I think it just might be an easy way to just sort of shift this all over. And the other thing I was kinda wondering about is the writing is sort of on the wall that eventually this is maybe the best way to go for everybody. So I was wondering if we could have some discussion at some point about maybe a phase two of this whole thing. I'm getting out over my skis on this, I admit. But an inbox option for everybody, so that we can start people like myself who drive a combustion engine car, but are thinking about maybe an EV for the next one or something like that could start to maybe start to transition over. We'd probably get more honestly, probably more revenue out of me by having me on the M Bus thing. That would be something just to explore, actually.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: You might have just killed the bill if you put

[Rep. Kate Lalley (Member)]: a paper out of me. Not to point it out, but just thinking ahead. I just find this parallel system a little bit

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: messy. So we're representing the couch.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I agree. A prepayment of some type seems reasonable, but I just want to make sure at some point monthly or quarterly, I get a chance to sort of true up and say, hey, guess what? I'm not driving that many miles. You still have credit. And then go to a point where now you owe based on your monthly or quarterly or end of

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: year report. That's in the language.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: I would offer a representative to thank you. Just a comment. You just bought a 30,000, 40,000, $50,000 car, and then you're gonna cry over a $154, just extra red tape. Hey, just charge them the $1.54 and move on. It's about a free pass for ten years anyway, running those heavy trucks and cars that are wrecking our roads worse than those smaller weighted vehicles. Don't even give them the option. 154, pay up. If you had a free ride for a decade, move on. Just paid 44,000 for that new electric vehicle, pay the 154, dude. I got it. Alright. So maybe 60,000 a little bit more than the 24,000 I heard advertised. Point is that if you put 11,000 miles or whatever the number is on this account, it's just there. And then pay as you go, I've got this in my head, I'm sorry, but if you send some money in, that just works that amount down. And we're not talking about penalties on not paying that, right?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: The pay as you go.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Not pay as you go. I'm saying So I get assessed 11,000 miles when I register that car. And I'm not paying anything because I'm driven. But we're going to have a statement that says, you're a new owner, you have 11,000 miles on this account. In other words, you have this mBuff that's 11,000 miles. And it's just there. It's a budget payment, you think of it like that, or whatever. And you throw $10 a month at it, and then at your inspection, you find you only get 5,000 miles. And then there's a reconciliation, just as we talked about, just so long as there's no penalties for interest or anything involved in that first year. Anyway, that was my thought.

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: I hate to get bogged down on this fairness thing, considering the obvious thing you've heard me say it over and over again, when you drive out state, it's not fair. So just kind of ironically, we're getting bogged down on fairness when the whole thing's not fair if you're driving out of state.

[Rep. Ken Wells (Member)]: Actually, just building on Brett Casey's point, was curious if the agency considered any I understand it's pretty costly to and there's surveillance concern or privacy concerns. But was there ever considered an option for if folks want to utilize some type of monitor to track what their in state versus out of state mileage is? Could that be offered? Could there be more exploration to offer that at some point in the future, particularly if we were to roll out more broadly? What are the options there?

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah, so we did lot of work in the 2021 with stakeholder groups, with surveys of almost 400 different Vermonters, many of whom owned EVs at the time. There were a lot of privacy concerns around that. There were also cost effective concerns. The technology that has been piloted elsewhere has quite high administrative costs. Some programs aren't even generating net revenues from those. Others are 40% administrative costs. The plug in devices that are used in some cases quite high, there's a number of issues with that, and then who bears that cost, is it the user, is it the state or some combination of the two, either way the net revenues to the transportation fund are substantially lower, and especially with a smaller volume of participants. And then you've got a number of challenges with telematics right now of not every, there's just high costs that come with that. And so some of the states that have piloted this are moving away from the plug in devices as an example. What we do intend to do is to continue to look at what can be used in the future and cost may come down through the use of telematics. There may be developments that allow for you know, more sort of open sharing of the data that comes from the automakers. There's ways that this program can evolve, and I think it's important to recognize that this is just, it's a first phase, we're not saying that the system is perfect, but it could evolve over time to allow for the option of somebody to report in any, sort of method that was allowed and that reduced privacy concerns because people are electing to do that. What we're setting up building right now is the ability to just receive data from whatever the reporting source, receive data and be able to bill for mileage based user fee rate that has been set by you all. And the whole point, just to address a couple of questions or comments that have come up in the last few minutes, the whole point of this has been to make a fairest system. It's to move toward something where more vehicles are paying something closer to what all the other vehicles are paying. So there's some parity on a per mile basis to the impacts that the infrastructure is experiencing. So it is, the legislature chose to impose a flat fee on EV owners. We did, through that road usage charge study back in 2021, see that the flat fee is not the fairest system. You do have many people who are driving much less, many who are driving many more miles, and so it's it's not a true user pay model, just as the gas tax right now is not a perfect system. It's not a fairest system. It's not necessarily reflective of the actual impacts and the miles that you travel. So that's why we proposed the mileage based user fee in the first place, to get closer to that fairest system and to kind of move away from the flat fee model.

[Rep. Ken Wells (Member)]: Thanks for that, Patrick. And I just want

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: to say I'm encouraged to

[Rep. Ken Wells (Member)]: hear that it sounds like the agency will be continuing to monitor what options are available and how the technology is evolving in terms of costs and other concerns, because it seems like that would be useful to keep checking back in on as an option for folks who do drive significant mileage on the state. Thanks.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yes, and just lastly, is a part of our grant work as well. So after the system is implemented in January, it's not, you know, if we don't just kind of wrap up, we're evaluating how the initial implementation worked. What have we learned so far? We're discussing options with other jurisdictions. And then, you know, to representative Lalley's point, we are developing for that grant a possible transition strategy that would be delivered to FHWA by the end of the grant, I think in September 2028. So this is our first step towards what we think is a fairer system. We know it's not perfect, but I appreciate some of the concerns that have been raised.

[Rep. Ken Wells (Member)]: Thanks.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So I don't just on the mileage based user fee for newly registered vehicles, I hear still discussion about what the appropriate fee is. I heard some folks who support the 154, others who support the 89. Shall I leave it as is for now until the next draft?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, I don't think any of

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: these has been made without paying that. Okay.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I'm wondering if

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: Patrick wanted to weigh in on representative Lalley's suggestion of using that registration fee that EV owners are already paying, the infrastructure fee out of the gate, and then transitioning, having the true up at a year and then transitioning. That seemed like a valid suggestion.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: So that's partially what we've recommended, and I don't know whether that's yet reflected in the language that Damien's drafted just for this morning. But we did correspond last night about how the transition happens where you have a number of different scenarios, and this is in response to representative Pouech's request for some examples. So if it feels like a good time for the committee to have a little discussion of that, it might be helpful to sort of answer some of those questions that have been raised and maybe that kind of

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah, we can definitely transition there, but first representative, while he has a question.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Member)]: So I guess my I'm assuming that the fee of $89 goes away when AMBUF is put into place, correct? Yes. Okay. So I think the suggestion is, I wouldn't call it the fee. I guess I would call it your first payment on an end buff. When you purchase the vehicle, you're going to be assessed $89 instead of 154. And then you true up when? At the end of the year? Or like, are you doing it quarterly? Or because you're still going to be paying backward, like you're paying after the fact. At some point, you will always be paying after because you're reporting quarterly in what you just wrote. Whereas gas tax is an idiot. It's in real time.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: But I think they still

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: have the option to pay

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: the 89, then they

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: can do the monthly or even probably pay more if

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Member)]: they want. Correct. But just for that first transition period. Yes. Will they be truing up quarterly the first year or are they gonna wait till the end of the year and then The

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: next week. It might be helpful for Patrick to share the chart that he created for this morning right now because I think that addresses some of those questions about what an existing EV driver is going to do as they transition into this? Because you're an existing EV owner. You've already paid your infrastructure fee in in 2026, and possibly you've paid two years of infrastructure fee. And so how's that gonna apply? Right. And so Patrick can walk you through that. Can

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: you see this okay?

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: Yeah. Yes.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: So this is it, as I said, in response to representative pouches request for some examples. And so I tried to I have not gotten into, the list will be far longer when the system is actually designed of the different things that could possibly happen. So I don't want to get bogged down in all those details, but do give you a sense of how will this be experienced by certain users. Representative So Burke is wanting to join. Yeah. Oh, great. So for the for someone who has an initial registration, say in September and their inspection comes afterwards before anything is implemented with the Myers based user fee and they have just a one year registration. I've laid out, okay, their next registration is gonna be the following September '27 when the program is live. Their inspection, though, doesn't happen until after that registration. And so there's no there's not yet any mileage reporting data within the system. They've paid an $89 EV infrastructure fee in 2026 before the program's implemented, and so that just gets applied. They're, it carries them through that first period. So they wouldn't experience the MyasRace user fee in full as an actual payment until they're following inspection. They're following registration in September 2028. Now somebody on a two year registration, same thing. Because their inspection still falls after the next registration, you don't have the full reporting data, and they're credited for the EV infrastructure that they paid.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Patrick, think we just have a question from representative Pouech.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So, thanks Patrick for doing this. I appreciate it. So in the first two instances, I've done my registration before the program starts. I've got an inspection with a number, but it's when do they actually start paying the mileage based user fee? The next registration?

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: So

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yes. You

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: know, and that's when it it kicks in?

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: So what they would I've put options here because at that point in September 2027, they'll then be able to pick, you know, whether it's whether it's on a monthly, quarterly, or if they wanna pay upfront, they they will be able to do that or at a pay as you go option. So there's any number of different ways it could look. Somebody might want to pay $154 upfront. Other people might prefer to space it out and pay $13 or something a month. Others still might want to just be able to pay as they go based on their photo capture or their self reporting method. So you're not necessarily going to see like a huge bill in that first year. What you'll see is options, and you'll be able to select those, and then begin paying either in the first month or the first slug of miles that you drive.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: And so just follow-up. So whether I in these examples in September 27 or it could be '28 depending on, you know, if I've got a one or two year, is it fair to say at those points, registration, now your mileage based user fee is kicking in and they'll be probably some kind of upfront payment, but it started in September 27. It's like now we're starting. Is that?

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: That's right. Yeah.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: For the for the next reporting period. So

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: the So

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: the actual so that you won't see the actual the first true up won't be till the following year when you

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: One year from that registration.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: If if you're on a one year or or two years if you're on the the the other option.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: And and so in this case, and and, you know, the person who did the double registration gets a little advantage in that their mileage base won't start for a little bit longer. Is that fair? Yeah. I mean, I think that's probably reasonable they paid upfront too. Okay, thanks.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah. And then and then we don't get in this situation of issuing refunds based, so that does speak to what representative Lalley was getting at. There are other situations that that come up, like if somebody had the inspection that and it preceded their registration, whether it's one month that this is these are just examples, but whether it's one month or several months. And then they were on a two year registration cycle, that in that second year, there's still, you're now in the program, the program is live, the DMV will have the data of within the system for that second reporting period. And so you would just have the partial amount that was intended to be for the second year, the $89 essentially, that would be credited against whatever the actual miles were that somebody drove. I'm just pausing if there's any questions.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: David? A clarifying question, Patrick. Do you see that credited amount being prorated? So I think the example you have here is that the so what I'm seeing is, I think, thirteen months. So a whole mileage based user fee reporting period. So I guess that would be the full amount. But if it say it was, like, ten months before your next registration that are in your first reporting period, would you see that, like, prorated amount of that $89 of ten of twelve months of it being applied against it or just the full 89?

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Just the full amount.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: We're trying to we're trying to keep things as as simple as possible, we don't want to get into range of formulas to determine where in their month they were. And that's in effect how the language right now in statute is for the EV infrastructure fee. It's just like, you know, it's not a registration fee. So if there's, like, a mid year sale of the vehicle or what have you, it's not credited back to to the registered vehicle's owner. It is just a straightforward $89 fee for the first year, dollars 89 fee for the second, and in this circumstance where we have data that exists within the system for that second year, is just that full $89 would be credited against that.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Why don't we just say at a certain point, we'd stop a two year registration until it so it's your registration, I know we'll have some in the system already, but between a certain point, like July 1 or something forward, it's a one year registration from EVs to get this thing, so we don't have to calculate out. And the driver of the vehicle, Moll, what am I paying? Am I paying? And I'm okay. I hear I'm supposed to be paying. I don't know if I'm supposed to be paying. Is that something that you can just simply unclick or click a box? Any EB, it's now just a one year registration or next year or two until everybody slides into the system and going forward. I don't know. It's just a thought. Seems pretty complicated, but maybe it isn't. Maybe it's just a thing in the system that it's going to happen and it's like, oh, I'll manage it with the guy behind the curtain. Know? Don't know. So

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: oh, sorry.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: No. Go you respond to that. That's that

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: So, you know, even if even if there was a desire to do that, which is not what we're proposing, you know, you still before the just to take the first couple of lines of this the spreadsheet, before the mileage based user fee even takes effect, there's there's that those legacy questions that you'd have to deal with. Yes. The the two year and and the two year registration and then just, like, where people are in their registration cycle versus their inspection cycle. And that's that's what I say. It's not going to be perfect, but but the intent was to to as representative Lalley mentioned, like, to be able to just have people on a on a glide path, it's not like January 1, everybody's enrolled in the program and paying. It's going to be based on where people are in their various inspection periods and registration cycles.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Member)]: In that queue, I guess, is if we eliminate the two year, we have less people in that queue, but I don't know by how many, and maybe it's not even worth it. But Okay. Thank you.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Sure. Are there other questions on this or should I just stop sharing?

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Any other questions? Can

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Member)]: you send that to us so we can at least physically?

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: It's online. Yeah. It's online. You.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: You can

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: take that down. Is still complicated. It helps a little bit. At least you can walk through it.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Well, I I yeah. I didn't have time to go through and, you know, draw up icons and arrows and

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Languages. Yeah.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Give actual actual examples of, you know, upstanding citizens like yourself, representative Pouech, who pay on time and and then, you know, representative Wells or or whomever, but But if if there are questions on it, just feel free to to reach out after if if they don't get answered during the testimony.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Are we done walking through the the schools? Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: There are a few more items in the bill.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Back up.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: On page five. Yep. The rest should be a little quicker till we get to the end. So we're actually gonna move ahead to page seven. Let me go ahead and post it. K. So the first is I added the exemption for BEV's that are owned or operated by The United States. And then I just moved the language about the mileage based user fee being in addition to any other taxes and fees to the very end just as part of the cleanup. The next change is in the failure to file reports or pay fee when due and the penalty. So if you remember, there was a $10 late fee plus interest plus the thirty day late penalty, the $10 late fee, I think you asked to have come out yesterday. So that's out. The other interest and past due penalties are still in there. And the permission for the commissioner to waive any interest due if it's excusable neglect is in there. And that's a pretty that's a moderately broad term that allows the commissioner some discretion to take into account, like, I was traveling overseas and my spam filter got the emails from the department or, you know, but it also allows the commissioner discretion to say that's not really a reasonable excuse for not paying.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: But again, even with all of this, even when you get to this point, they still can go in

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: and and void all those countries.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: They can register, pay this money and so forth. This is basically if you go in at the end of the year and you say, review your mileage reporting period ends, you get the bill, you don't elect monthly payments, you don't pay the bill, you could get assessed interest and penalties. This is really a policy question for you. We do not do this for registration fees. We do do this for the dealers and distributors of gas and diesel, but they're also, I think as one of the members said yesterday, they're sophisticated business entities with, you know, bookkeeping and so forth. So there's there's a little difference. We do do this for your, do something similar for, like, personal income tax and so forth. So it really becomes a policy question for you about how what sort of penalties you want to not pay.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Pardon me, and just

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: the size. Yeah. Thank you. I'm I'm trying to understand the difference between the penalty in subsection A and subsection B. A, failing to pay on time, which then will begin to accrue interest at one and a half percent. That sounds reasonable. But then an amount unpaid for more than thirty days, a penalty equal to 5% of the outstip. Both of these fees, I feel like the subsection A makes perfect sense. The subsection B feels onerous.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So again, this is a policy decision. This was taken from the gas and diesel taxes, and this is the penalty structure that's in place if a dealer distributor of gas and diesel. So they report on the twenty fifth of every month what they've sold or distributed during the past thirty days, essentially. And then they have a certain period of time to pay up what's owed on that. And so this is within those, this was designed as a a system to keep them current on their payments to the state. Again, this is a policy choice for you. The one and a half percent interest is basically the maximum statutory amount of interest. The 5% penalty on top of that is so that's basically a penalty above and separate from the interest that can come up to a quarter maximum if you remain unpaid for one hundred and fifty days, come up to a quarter of the amount due.

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: This says for thirty days.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So if you read on to the second sentence, the penalty imposed pursuant shall not exceed 25% of the amount of mileage base. So it's for each month until the mileage base user fee is paid in full, you get an additional 5%. And then it caps at 25%. Again, that is a policy choice for you. The language that was put in the original draft just said, what do we do for gas and diesel? Put it in here as a starting point. And that's what this was drafted as was a starting point based on those tax systems. Again, they're two different types of payers, so you may wanna make a different policy choice.

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: I would suggest either deleting this or making it for more than six months, extending that because you're already accruing interest in subsection A. Then after thirty days, that feels not right. So in my mind, either delete it or make that six months. I don't know what other committee members feel.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Representative Kato, I would support Representative Blake's deletion of Section B. It almost seems onerous, and it's a de minimis amount of money that's going to come in regardless. And it will probably result in less admin, although you do it through a computer, I get that. But there's less admins. It just might be issue of proportionality and due process to have so much applied to that. But 1.5% is the statutory limit anyway for residential or for consumer interest. So I would just strike it. I think we're getting away, and it's gone. We were just talking about taking something out, I was like, we'll wait until Matt gets back. It out. Our representative office. Take it out

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: of the We're on penalties of section

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Penalties?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: If you don't pay, there's

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: a penalty. There's the way it's set up, there's interest at 1.5% per month that the balance remains past due. And then the penalty that the committee was discussing whether to take out is an additional penalty If you stay unpaid past thirty days, you get a 5% of the outstanding amount due plus an additional 5% for each additional month that you're past due until you hit a cap of 25%. So in other words, on top of the one and a half percent per month interest, you if you remain past due for five months, you can have a 25% penalty assessed.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: What's your credit card, man? 25%.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Was a great use. So sort of take it. I mean, that's the sentiment so far. Got a

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: question in terms of so we're you pay your I understand where the conversation was at one point. You pay it based on what you drove. In effect, right? You're gonna pay it on what you drove last year. Can settle up and true up based on what it

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: There's also a pay as you go option that's in this draft.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. But I can pay at the end of the year for everything that I drove. So I my $154 on average, 11,000 miles, whatever. That's a 100. Maybe you're a higher mileage. You might be a couple $100. But if the car now becomes battery, it's no longer worth any particular value. Batteries go, the car is no longer worth anything. I haven't paid my $154 I'm not going register it again. It's headed junkyard. Is is this where this penalty is gonna come in if I decide I just don't wanna pay it because I'm the car is dead now. Do I get out of paying that last year when it was drove because the it's now at the end of its life cycle? And I

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: when the you terminate the registration, that's terminating event, which is supposed to be there's supposed to be an odometer report at that point where you would have a balance. The The way this is worded in here is if you go to there we go. 4307 in here. Right now, the way it's worded is the commissioner may suspend or refuse to renew the registration of of an electric vehicle if the commissioner determines following notice and an opportunity for a hearing that the owner or lessee has failed to file a report, filed a report that basically is fraudulent or is delinquent at the time of renewal on the payment. Right now, it doesn't address what if you've terminated the registration of that car and gone out and bought a new car, so different vehicle. But you could certainly update that to say that, you know and the owner or lessee may not register. You know, commissioner can also, on their discretion, refuse to register a new vehicle for that individual if they still owe an amount. But that's yeah. It's not in the current bill. So there there is a bit of a gap there, and it becomes a decision of whether you want to have that out there as a penalty for failing to pay that final amount.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I mean, it's not a penalty, but, yeah, the amount itself Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, it's it's a But I'm not sure that the

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: ability to not drive a van is or to not register a vehicle is on par of a reasonable or not penalty for not paying. I'm just saying, it seems like you're paying after the fact. We must have plenty of other things in state government that have a

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: way to collect that money.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I don't know what they would be. There must be other events that we could use as a model as to

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: There's also a right for the commissioner to take a person to court to collect the amount due. And here, there's a civil action. The difficulty with that is the amounts may be small enough that the cost of an attorney filing the case is outweighs the amount that can be recovered. You know, if you're talking about $126 or something like that, that's a that's a, you know, a half hour of an attorney's time, let alone the court filing costs.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: So how would this then interface with documents that gets generally sent out saying, I'm going to be an actuary or whatever, and not an actuary, but

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: a- Executor.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: And my taxes are all paid and blah, blah, blah. And you have no, because you haven't paid your MBUF. Those forms I'm talking about.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, where you have to state that you're in good standing with the It's not addressed in this bill. With the current forms, I'm not sure if this would be covered under the good standing. Oftentimes, those will say good standing with respect to, like, unemployment insurance payments and income and corporate taxes and so forth. This is something separate.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: You

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: there there are potential ways to address this in terms of, you know, allowing the commissioner to say you gotta come come good before you can Just stir a new vehicle or something like that. There are are limits to to what you can collect. And I I'm not sure. You know, if Patrick has thoughts on this, I would invite him to weigh in. But I think a lot of it's kind of a policy question, and these are some of the nitty gritty details that this bill doesn't currently

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: address. I

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: think it's completely reasonable to require a person who is registering a new vehicle who has an unpaid MBUF fee to pay that fee before or at the point of registering a new vehicle?

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: We'll have to look at

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I guess we have pieces that have come up all, I'm sure, all morning that we're looking for you to go back and potentially work together to make more adjustments, I would suspect, or not. You were asking about, I appreciate your comment. I would say that what concerns me more than anything now is when we used to loan the kids take the car, they had to bring it back full. Well, guess what? Now they

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: don't pay gas money. Now they're they're gonna get out of paying that mileage piece.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Are these kids gonna learn? They can take the car. I still get

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: it on my bill later on. And they're still plugging it into my electricity,

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: and those kids aren't paying for anything when they joyride my car two or 300 miles. They don't have to pay for anything. That's just, you

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: know, that's

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: just I'm sure we're not looking for social issues. It's not appropriate here. Patrick's gonna tell us how he collects the money from his kids?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yes. Is that what you're gonna do, Patrick? Tell me how you're gonna get the

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: gas money out of your kids

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: for a for a non gas car? They

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: have bikes, and they can stay on the bikes because they

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: don't have a car. Yeah.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: And there's a practical Or

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: you could just say pay up front.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: The worst.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Goodness. Wanted to just ask Damian a question. So to representative White's point, there already in statute the ability for the commissioner to suspend registration, broadly speaking, for lack of payment?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: It's a good question. There is there is ability to suspend registration. Let me just look.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: To suspend or deny registration based on that basis?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: On debts owed to the DMV?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: If you give me just a second, I'll find that for you.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Great job. That's good.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: I also wanna just sort of I understand there are there are going to be some things that that come up throughout the implementation of this. But for the vast majority of people, those that are paying as they go, they're not going to fall behind that much.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Go ahead and instruct them.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: It depends which reporting options they choose. If they pay as you go, they could hypothetically fall behind more, but there is just the reconciliation at the point of registration that's going to take care of the vast majority of these cases where you either pay the balance that's owed or you're not moving on to registration of the vehicle.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: To to answer Patrick's question about the commissioner's current authority, so the commissioner can suspend or revoke registration of any motor vehicle if the vehicle has been stolen and the registry doesn't have legal title, if the vehicle is in poor mechanical condition and its operation and use is a menace or danger, the vehicle is operated without proper equipment after the owner has been notified to get that equipment. If the owner perpetrated a fraud on the department, if the owner is a habitual user of alcohol to access, if the number plates were erroneously issued, if suspension or revocation is authorized under any other provision of law, that's the one that's important, or if the commercial motor carrier responsible for the safety of the vehicle has been prohibited from operating by a federal agency, And then the commissioner can also deny registration if an applicant fails to disclose material information or is otherwise committed fraud or if their privileged operator has been suspended because of DUI or if they're prohibited from operating by the federal government, that's for commercial carriers. So the suspension or revocation is authorized under any other provision of law. The key there is that if you add in something here where if an individual has a terminating event and then fails to pay the amount due after the terminating event, you can add in language that just says the commissioner is authorized to suspend or revoke registration. If you want to, you could add this language of any other vehicle registered to that individual. But and you could also provide that they can deny it. And that but that would be a new section. It's not in the current bill. It's not in the current law that I can see.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: I might have to circle back on that, but I think, well, Matt's there, I make a motion to remove Section B. I think that was a favor, I think. The committee is fine with that. I think that we could And take that

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I guess I'd ask the agency to figure out or whether or we think we should have some kind of how they want to cover people that failed to pay their money before they register a vehicle or not again if they failed to pay at the end of the life cycle or another. Does that sound right? If they're right, if we're suggesting another chain or not. And then we have what? One more section that's in

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: the big yellow?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Do you wanna keep going?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'd like to if that one big section gets us to the end, then we'll take a break before our next piece.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: That's why there's a big half an hour plus break in there because I expected that we might be into it. We might still be peep into it. The schedule is fluid.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: K. So the new proposal here amends so this is the current infrastructure fee. It was pointed out by the agency that it currently refers to the EV infrastructure fee. It's only going to apply to plug in hybrid electric vehicles when this takes effect. So the changes here are to delete the EV infrastructure fee. The other change proposed by the agency is deletion of the transfer of the the money to the to ACCD for the EVSE charging ports at workplaces and multiunit dwellings and dedicating that money back to the transportation fund for general uses. And from my conversations with Patrick, and he can speak to this a bit more because I'm fairly new to this, having only come to it last year, his understanding of the legislative intent was that when MBUF came online, these funds would go back to the general transportation fund rather than being dedicated to the build out of those level one and two charging ports at workplaces and multiunit dwellings. But again, that's ultimately it's a policy decision for you. This is the proposed cleanup here.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: With the effective date on

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: that being? It would be the same as the effective date for MBUC program, so January 1.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's not gonna happen January or 07/01/2026, when the T bill would be effective. It would be effective 01/12/2027. Yes. Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Does that as long as it's I I don't think I put that in there. I

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: don't if I have to. I just wanna be Yeah. I agree. Okay with going to the t funds early, but I suspect some people might not be.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I actually don't have effective dates ever.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Better for my mind. Yeah. That does not probably necessarily agree with everyone's. Yeah. It may not be the intent of what we had said previously. You know? So I'm I'm just trying to float it out there to those that do have a concern. I'm on board with doing it effective 07/31/2026, but I think it's not necessarily the intent of what was originally put in. If anybody wants to comment on that or not, or am I making up something that doesn't exist?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: No. The current changes occur whenever the MBUF is implemented, and there's no effective date in here. That said, you're not bound by the intent of the prior legislatures. So if you decide that the t fund needs that money sooner, you could do that effective July 1. And I don't know how much money it would be. That's a question for Logan. But you could you could end that transfer now or, you know, July 1 if you want to.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: Sales are up this year to buy. No, but that might screw up their gut. Yeah, I was just new.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: This is an area that I was thinking you might want to comment on or not, I don't know if it'll prompt you or not. Seems like you may or may not, but this money is going to ACCD right now. Question is, should we be starting on July 31, it starts going to the T Fund or 01/01/2027, it starts going to the T Fund. That's sort of, I guess, the question I'm asking people right now. Patrick, first, and then you go.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: I was just going to say that as I understood it when this first came up in the Senate Transportation Committee, the intent was to have this funding carved out for ACCD's charging program on a temporary basis, and that the battery electric fee would be repealed once a mileage based user fee was implemented, and then at that point, the revenue from the plug in hybrids would be flowing back into the transportation fund. The two were intended, I think, to coincide.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Meaning 01/01/2027?

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Meaning what has become 01/01/2027. But as Damian said, the language was not based on a specific date, just based on implementation of the mileage based user fee.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I just keep it the same. This is what we sold, and it's not going to be an awful lot of money. It's just going to add, again, more confusing. And the ACCD program, this committee has supported going forward. We know it'll phase out, but I'm not sure it's worth phasing them out necessarily sooner.

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: I was open to setting it this July 1. We heard some testimony about the ACCD program. It didn't,

[Rep. Ken Wells (Member)]: yeah, knowing

[Rep. Candice White (Member)]: the revenue shortfall in transportation, I'd be supportive of an earlier date. But I don't feel that strongly. Patricia McCoy?

[Rep. Ken Wells (Member)]: I think we need to hear from ACCD. It seems like they had a lot of demand for this program. It's a pretty small amount of money, so I hate to pull the carpet out from under them ahead of what they had anticipated in terms of when it would transfer over to the T Fund. So I don't think I'd support an earlier date at this time without testimony from ACCD on that.

[Rep. Chris Keyser (Member)]: I concur with that, just given the time crunch that we're in, talking about this meeting. I was just recommending the meeting today, that's what we found. Yeah. All right.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So that's Patrick, I'm sorry.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Can speak anytime you'd like, sir.

[Patrick Murphy (State Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Okay. So, I think that aligns with the agency's expectations around what the legislative intent was. Just to give you a sense of the scale, we have about 8,000 registered plug in hybrids at $44.5 in that six month span, if just quick math, it's only 4,000 vehicles that might be subject to it, understanding there's all kinds of things come in at different times on the registration cycle, but it's likely less than $200,000 you're talking about.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: The intent, the way it was meant to be, transitioned to 01/01/2027. And changes that, how many different areas of changes are we asking for for revised language when we finally look at this? Do we have policy questions left to decide? I assume we did not decide about the escalator specifically. We didn't vote on that, did we? No. We did not. So we still have to decide that. And there's other changes. Couple of changes to be made.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So the inflation adjustment still needs to be decided on. The next thing I have is there needs to be a transition section to address currently registered EVs in the initial year of program that's not in there. So I will add that. I'm gonna adjust the mileage reporting period definition to clear up some confusion. The add in and allowance for newly registered vehicles to go right into the pay as you go program if that program, is offered as an option. The delete the 5% monthly penalty. The agency is going to think about a proposal for what to do with to do about someone who fails to pay the final mBuff on an EV after its registration is terminated. And I'll add in a January 1 effective date for the termination of the ACCD transfer and an effective date with applicability language for the the actual mBuff program. Okay. And we will we're able

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: to pick this back up in sort of this afternoon's under committee discussions and pieces. We'll pick back up when your availability and Patrick's comes back in this afternoon. And as we work on the piece. We'll look at that one fifteen to two forty five pieces as we schedule that up. So for, your we are adjourned until 11:00 till we pick up the

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: next