Senate Transportation reviews mileage‑based user fee draft; members press agency on flat fee, enforcement and outreach

The Senate Transportation committee continued work on a mileage‑based user fee proposal during a meeting Tuesday, during which legislative counsel and Agency of Transportation staff explained changes in draft 3.2 and members raised concerns about enforcement, transition mechanics and public outreach.

"There is one line difference between 3.1 and 3.2," Damian Leonard of the Office of Legislative Council told members and walked the committee through edits that replace earlier BEV‑only language with a single "covered vehicle" definition and add intent language aimed at ensuring owners and lessees of efficient vehicles contribute equitably to the transportation fund. He said the draft removes an earlier opt‑in flat fee and instead preserves the current $89 infrastructure fee during an initial transition; that fee would be credited against the first mileage‑based reconciliation once a mileage reporting period closes.

The change prompted questions from members about process and clarity. A committee member warned that language allowing the commissioner to suspend or refuse vehicle registration for noncompliance could effectively prevent people from driving and harm livelihoods. "That is a huge problem for me," the member said, arguing suspension would cut off access to work for people relying on their vehicles.

Leonard and Patrick Murphy, state policy director at the Agency of Transportation, replied that the proposed registration restrictions mirror existing enforcement tools for unpaid registration fees and are designed to ensure compliance when no odometer data exists. Murphy said the $89 transitional charge is meant to reduce edge cases caused by misaligned inspection and registration cycles: "We thought it would be simplest to have people continue to pay an $89 flat fee until such time as you have a completed mileage reporting period within the system starting from January 2027," he said, adding that when a reporting period closes the fee would be applied as a credit to the first mileage‑based bill.

Members pressed the agency to show specific scenarios. Committee staff and university researchers committed to producing infographics that illustrate when odometer readings are captured, how credits would apply for one‑ and two‑year registrations, and sample bills for different vehicle types and usage patterns. Claire Nelson of the UVM Transportation Research Center said the center will provide scenario timelines "within the next week" to help the committee weigh transition options.

Outreach and accessibility figured prominently. Draft 3.2 would require AOT to prepare written mailings, web materials, translated resources, and a public engagement plan that includes surveys and focus groups, and to report to the joint transportation oversight committee by Sept. 15. Researchers told the committee that public polling shows preference for mileage fees over flat fees improves when voters are given clear information about purpose and expected payments.

The committee also debated the program's scope and definitions: the draft proposes expanding the MBUF to "highly fuel‑efficient" light‑duty vehicles and later to all light‑duty vehicles, with an option under discussion to define coverage by an EPA‑based mpg threshold (draft used 25 mpg as a working number). Members asked that any such study‑period definition not be interpreted as a permanent statutory definition.

No formal votes were taken. Committee members asked the agency for clearer materials — scenario charts, sample reconciliations and a side‑by‑side document showing draft changes — before deciding whether to reinsert a flat‑fee option or modify enforcement language. The committee expects additional materials from AOT and UVM and will resume consideration before the bill moves forward.