[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6321653,"mediaKeyId","2349299-e759f18724744b6cf70b204d62b26081","parentId",2349299,"title","TAC narrows pilot recruitment, vehicle classes and exemption tests; votes recorded","audioSeconds",718,"startMs",6442855,"endMs",7160855,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2349299-e759f18724744b6cf70b204d62b26081&start=6442&end=7160","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2349299-e759f18724744b6cf70b204d62b26081/thumbnail_6442855.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6321653/California/TAC-narrows-pilot-recruitment-vehicle-classes-and-exemption-tests-votes-recorded","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6321653-479dd11ff9b9283dce3540e45c66fa8d/orig.mp4?Expires=1776092571&Signature=RUUR3bZoFwH0EYpjUNmKPg3XSM9Owxj3Mx1HXwxYWqik6MKHrFVRdnY~YndNLOrOa7CrZ-KWVOAgITMQS3V7qP48cXkRod62hpdv5vaM3Qp8Aa-gChDZ8TspGHE17FtbIpvyJN3sgbLl24lS3k~ZNQmKooLjWyKdNkNE36AWCspDpkhphfk1fT6b7M8EYD7Y05mYW1rgGkCW2n9Z2IQ1oXvHV69y~UN3g8qF~MSCMUEC2mdNKA0b7HSuGAifDWl6kIyzAebr0ynepcuOz2WNiZvN4gMA7Kd4zwxs~ZuOD97AhVzwJQirUFU4DPqi-oLjyAVwcJkEjpQCr75tiL2cEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California Transportation Commission","date","2025-02-20T01:36:47Z","article","At its May 23 meeting the Transportation Commission Technical Advisory Committee voted on a set of practical pilot‑design questions: who will be recruited, which vehicle types will be included, and whether the pilot should test exemptions for private roads and mileage driven outside California. The TAC also reviewed proposed pilot evaluation criteria and asked staff for a recruitment and sample‑size matrix for the June meeting.

Recruitment and participant types
Staff recommended recruiting individuals, households, businesses and at least one government agency. Committee members debated household‑level participation (a “family‑plan” concept) vs. individual recruits. Supporters said households let evaluators compare multiple reporting methods in the same family and test household invoicing concepts; critics warned that intra‑household vehicle sharing could complicate attribution. The TAC moved and seconded the staff recommendation to recruit a diverse set of participants (motion: Finnegan; second: Sauer). The motion was approved by voice vote with one recorded abstention noted in the transcript (Marcantonio). The committee directed staff to return in June with a matrix that ties the recommended participant groups, methods and target sample sizes.

Vehicle classes and fuel types
Staff proposed use of the eight GVWR weight classes for trucks and an explicit public/private (commercial/non‑commercial) registration distinction to create a common taxonomy and recommended the pilot include a cross‑section of current California vehicle types and fuel types (EV, hybrid, diesel, gasoline). The TAC approved the staff recommendation (motion: Sauer; second: TM). Committee members emphasized that the pilot need not recruit equal numbers from each cell of a large matrix but should prioritize a meaningful representation of light‑duty vehicles (the largest group on the road) as well as heavy commercial vehicles for which existing programs such as IFTA provide mileage precedent.

Exemptions to test
Staff recommended testing both automated and manual mechanisms to exempt private‑road mileage and mileage driven outside California. The committee approved testing both automated and manual exemption mechanisms (motion: Finnegan; second: portrait); members asked for more work on how exemptions would be operationalized and for the exemption question to be revisited when enforcement and reconciliation are clearer. The TAC recorded the vote in voice and acknowledged one abstention for the broader set of decisions; staff will provide more detailed matrices in June and July.

Evaluation criteria and next steps
Travis Dunn and the project team presented a draft set of evaluation goals and 56 candidate criteria grouped into eight categories; staff said the TAC may recommend evaluation criteria to the California State Transportation Agency and that an independent evaluator will convert TAC criteria into specific measures and methods. The TAC asked staff to circulate a recruitment strategy and a proposed sample‑size allocation in June and to schedule follow‑up discussion on enforcement and exemption design. TAC members asked staff to study Oregon’s ongoing pilot recruitment lessons and to coordinate outreach with counties, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties.

Votes at a glance
- Policy decision 1 (participant types): Motion moved by Finnegan, second by Sauer. Outcome: approved; recorded abstention: Marcantonio.
- Policy decision 2 (vehicle classes and fuel types): Motion moved by Sauer, second by TM. Outcome: approved; abstention: Marcantonio (recorded in meeting as abstaining on some items).
- Policy decision 3 (mileage exemptions automated and manual for private roads and out‑of‑state miles): Motion moved by Finnegan, second by portrait. Outcome: approved; one abstention recorded.
- Policy decision 4 (privacy approaches): addressed as part of the privacy article; TAC adopted governance (principles) and accountability approaches and directed Caltrans to draft privacy principles for TAC review before July.

Why it matters: The committee’s direction determines the pilot’s recruitment targets, the taxonomy of vehicles to be tested, and which exemption mechanisms will be evaluated — inputs that will shape procurement, pilot costs, and the independent evaluation.

What staff will provide: A recruitment and sample allocation matrix for the June meeting; draft privacy principles prior to July; a written response to stakeholder letters; and follow‑up research on legal/technical constraints to collecting real money in the pilot.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","May 29, 2015 Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee Meeting - Part 2","oneSentenceSummary","At its May 23 meeting the Transportation Commission Technical Advisory Committee voted to recruit individuals, households, businesses and at least one government agency for the road‑charge pilot, to include all eight vehicle weight classes and a mix of fuel types, and to test automated and manual exemptions for private‑road and out‑of‑state mileage.","taxTitle","Transportation Commission, Agencies under Office of the Governor, Executive, California","taxId",70065,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6321658,"Advisory panel reviews business case, leakage and how fuel taxes are collected for road‑charge planning",146,1110125,1256705,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2349299-e759f18724744b6cf70b204d62b26081&start=1110&end=1256","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2349299-e759f18724744b6cf70b204d62b26081/thumbnail_1110125.jpg","/articles/6321658/California/Advisory-panel-reviews-business-case-leakage-and-how-fuel-taxes-are-collected-for-roadcharge-planning","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6321658-307f1946e4e6cdd05048e8cc22635371/orig.mp4?Expires=1776092571&Signature=NTn~B1tWUzXwbWBBVz5JCyFm1ZimTEuSaHQR8o3jNvpD43QssZae38ruqUsH1HRdd0b-8A9Yx04P6Zn~1vfcEFHJtQBfw7ngKYs4x4d5ohvDfFWdhT1CUzHExQ8znxOS6uL843HWt~fANuGf~YU-5gn4bPyuTImHzYbym6lMoH4c-M7tlgNq6id~1zqmct6zfra2AijfotOisx1NXXu8CHfy6StFGibBuKZ8fwlR-qNOHSiSVsBGRq7BJ2-IEDELWrFHM0J9kBG79zTep1ZVlzIq0aHeXreZx~ajbIF7NnUQns-416cvjk3XznHogZ~pdlV94F3oljkjMmhb6t8-ew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An advisory presentation to the Transportation Commission Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the business case framework for a road‑charge system and provided an extended primer on how fuel taxes are collected and accounted for in California.

Travis Dunn, the project business‑case lead, told the committee the central equation for the analysis is “net revenue = gross revenue minus leakage minus cost of collection.” He said the business case will foreground net revenue because gross estimates of potential road‑charge receipts are only useful once the project accounts for leakage (evasion, negligence, systemic error) and the cost to collect the money.

Key numbers and benchmarks cited in the presentation:
- The project team is using multiple institutional sources for data, including the Board of Equalization (which collects fuel taxes), Caltrans, the Air Resources Board, DMV, and federal sources such as the Energy Information Administration and FHWA. Dunn asked TAC members to share VMT and socioeconomic stratification data to refine the analysis.
- Cost of collection for California fuel excise taxes is low compared with many utilities. The Board of Equalization’s compensation in the last fiscal year from the motor vehicle fund was stated as roughly $28 million, representing about 0.6% of revenue collected; national averages for fuel‑tax collection costs are generally below 1% (the presentation used 0.9% as a national benchmark).
- Transfers and refunds reduce the taxable fuel base. The team estimated transfers for off‑highway and exempt uses at roughly 5% of the motor fuel tax base; refunds to exempt users occur but the total is unknown and staff said they are collecting more detailed controller data.

Dunn reviewed leakage (evasion, negligence, systemic error) and said there are limited benchmarks available — New Zealand’s road‑user charges and other jurisdictions provide data — and emphasized that pilot test data will be necessary to sharpen leakage estimates. The team noted odometer accuracy tolerances and cited odometer fraud as a potential data source on evasion.

The presentation included an explainer on how fuel taxes are imposed: taxes are levied as fuel is removed from the terminal rack by a licensed supplier, collected upstream, then passed through the distribution chain and embedded in pump prices. Dunn described the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA), which is already used by interstate heavy trucks to allocate fuel taxes by miles driven in each jurisdiction and said that heavy‑truck reporting under IFTA shows existing mileage reporting practices for large commercial fleets.

Why it matters: Any road‑charge design must address net revenue, cost of collection and likely revenue leakage. The pilot will gather operational data that will inform realistic revenue forecasting and design choices such as whether to use private account managers, reconciliation and enforcement mechanisms, and which vehicles to include.

Next steps: The business‑case analysis will proceed with a bottom‑up estimate of costs and revenues for each operational concept and will use pilot results to refine leakage and cost estimates. The project team plans to return with more detailed revenue and cost estimates and asked the TAC to share additional data sources.","Caltrans project team presented a business‑case framework that isolates net revenue as gross revenue minus leakage and cost of collection; the meeting included a detailed primer on how California fuel taxes are levied, exemptions and transfers, and benchmarks for cost of collection.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6321663,"Technical advisory committee vets privacy approaches, operational concepts for road‑charge pilot",96,22775,119710,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2349299-e759f18724744b6cf70b204d62b26081&start=22&end=119","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2349299-e759f18724744b6cf70b204d62b26081/thumbnail_22775.jpg","/articles/6321663/California/Technical-advisory-committee-vets-privacy-approaches-operational-concepts-for-roadcharge-pilot","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6321663-560af82445156284431c2c6fb7f6f0f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1776092571&Signature=hYyJjEJ4y6CX~EV3FiksDdZGOur9eoA-VgtOR~nJX7~KOpvy-~8Nn14zhiGOnHjmeU97O7HzhQus8EpkOBqaUUM6tFaSLoGL0IPp9Xta3P9S7ImK18qEc55CS2C8je0ZL3o4A10EEtgNT6CQDo5Epb3tm-KdIF6xxU0C4WG--TkKQVlDTYAd8aXKYk-sovzUHoARuMCqFUCpT7yJZ3e0w4rWuOToEkFQTmFeKlCZRI318Uq35vYwj9n6QOT6i5Lw3WgUcXJ0hM52d9nyqdtHYHd~x0CXYsoJmI2UCcM8OR7wOOKdeiJtzoU~VzTDFp3wAYkLKErQOJYAQ7cSqzMQFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Transportation Commission Technical Advisory Committee on May 23 reviewed a set of operational concepts for a possible road‑charge pilot and discussed four policy approaches to privacy protections before voting to move forward with principle‑based privacy guidance and accountability measures.

The committee’s briefing led with presenter Jeff Doyle laying out four operational concepts for collecting road‑use charges and four privacy‑policy approaches the TAC could adopt. Doyle said the committee should consider “what type of PII is required,” “how will it be collected,” “how and which information is being transmitted,” and “how is the information used.” He described the operational concepts as: a time permit (unlimited miles for a time period); a mileage permit (fixed miles purchased, self‑reported odometer); odometer charge (annual self‑reported odometer readings); and electronic mileage metering with and without general location capability. On the most location‑capable option Doyle said that it “does require GPS, or some sort of location based technology to make that happen.”

Why it matters: The balance between useful enforcement and protecting personal privacy shaped the committee’s discussion and its narrow policy votes. Doyle and staff framed the decisions as inputs to procurement of an independent evaluator and to the design of the pilot’s data handling and enforcement simulation.

Committee discussion and staff recommendations centered on four privacy policy approaches: a governance/principles approach, a detailed specifications (design) approach, an accountability approach that would evaluate protections against adopted principles, and a model legal protections approach that would assemble statutory protections for testing. Staff recommended adoption of the governance approach (privacy principles) and the accountability approach (evaluation against adopted privacy criteria), and asked Caltrans to draft a privacy‑principles document for TAC review before the July meeting.

At the meeting the TAC voted to adopt staff’s recommended approach. The motion to adopt the governance and accountability directions and to direct Caltrans to produce a draft privacy principles document was moved and seconded; the motion passed with no recorded oppositions and no abstentions reported in roll call.

Quotes and context: Jeff Doyle summarized the framing for the panel: “the four questions are, what type of PII is required in order to administer the road charge system? How will it be collected, the method of collection? How and which information is being transmitted? And then finally, how is the information used?” Patricia Chen of Los Angeles Metro, speaking during public comment, emphasized equity and a staged approach to implementation but did not oppose the TAC’s privacy direction.

What happens next: Caltrans and the project team will prepare a draft privacy‑principles document and return it to the TAC for review and written comment before the July meeting. The independent evaluator that the California State Transportation Agency will retain to assess the pilot will be asked to evaluate pilot performance on privacy protections using TAC‑commented evaluation criteria.","Committee members reviewed four operational concepts for a potential California road‑charge pilot and directed staff to develop privacy principles and accountability evaluation measures; the panel voted to advance governance and accountability approaches and to draft detailed privacy principles for TAC review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

TAC narrows pilot recruitment, vehicle classes and exemption tests; votes recorded

Advisory panel reviews business case, leakage and how fuel taxes are collected for road‑charge planning

Technical advisory committee vets privacy approaches, operational concepts for road‑charge pilot