In 2014, California passed Senate Bill 1077, creating a “Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee” to explore replacing the state’s gas tax with a mileage-based tax. The logic was simple: as vehicles become cleaner and more electric, gas tax revenue—the state’s main transportation funding source—would decline.
Yet, twelve years later, the state remains in pilot purgatory. Assembly Bill 1421, currently under consideration, would extend the committee’s life until 2035. That would mean two decades of study without implementation, a span longer than World War II and the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.
From Pilot to Policy Drift
By 2017, the initial pilot had already demonstrated the system’s feasibility: GPS tracking, odometer reporting, and simulated billing all worked at scale. The report concluded the next steps would involve simulating revenue flows, addressing administrative challenges, and preparing for public implementation.
Instead, AB 1421 proposes to extend the advisory committee—not to implement a mileage tax. The result is a decade-long bureaucratic inertia that keeps the idea simmering while avoiding the political risks of a new tax. This is a textbook case of policy drift, where institutions fail to adapt through action, letting rules and processes outgrow their original purpose.
Officials can claim they are “still studying” while the pilot apparatus ossifies: advisory boards, data models, stakeholder engagement, and draft regulations accumulate without any legislative consequence. In practice, this is less an evaluation and more a soft, indefinite launch—a way for lawmakers to prepare the ground for a future tax without having to confront voters today.
What’s Left to Test?
After twelve years, the technology has already been proven effective. Oregon, Utah, and Washington have tested or implemented similar mileage-based user fees. What remains untested isn’t mechanics, but public awareness and political tolerance. There’s no major campaign to educate Californians on how the tax would work or replace the gas tax. The committee’s extensions suggest a preference for low visibility, avoiding potential backlash.
On the revenue side, no real billing is authorized. The committee continues “modeling” and “community engagement” without triggering the difficult political decision: actually collecting money from drivers. In effect, the pilot is measuring how long the state can discuss a mileage fee without legislating it, not the system itself.
A Long-Term Hedge
AB 1421 allows politicians to appear proactive while delaying consequences. Consultants, agencies, and committees all benefit from continued funding. Meanwhile, Californians remain largely unaware that a major shift in transportation funding is inevitable.
By the time a real mileage tax is implemented, the advisory committee might qualify for a CalPERS pension before any revenue is collected. What began as a forward-looking pilot has become a political weather balloon, testing the public’s tolerance for delay rather than the feasibility of a new tax.
California may have solved the technical problem years ago, but the political challenge—convincing the public and passing legislation—remains unresolved. In this case, inaction has become the policy, and time is running out.
