Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee questions RUC rollout: GPS tracking, flat‑fee alternative and administration cap
Summary
Members pressed staff on the Road Usage Charge (RUC) provisions in the dash 13 amendment: how the program treats in‑state vs out‑of‑state miles, whether GPS is required, and whether providers can meet the proposed 10% administrative cap without GPS. Committee members requested clearer language and vendor cost information.
During the June 16 informational hearing, committee members focused a sustained line of questioning on the Road Usage Charge (RUC) provisions in the dash 13 amendment to House Bill 2025, raising constitutional, privacy and implementation concerns.
Senator Starr and other members questioned whether the RUC in the amendment would tax only miles driven "on public highways in the state of Oregon," and whether that language remains in the amendment. Starr cautioned that mandating GPS would both raise privacy concerns and make it harder for providers to meet a tight administrative‑cost limit. "That's problematic if you wanna have a provider get to 10% of the administrative cost because that requires the use of GPS," Starr said.
Staff and committee counsel responded: Patrick Brennan confirmed participants could opt for a non‑GPS option and that some participants could choose a flat fee alternative. Brennan explained, "that is what is in the bill. They can do the road usage charge program or they can do, the flat opt out." Committee advisers and witnesses said achieving a 10% admin cap would be difficult if GPS tracking is retained. "In order to get to 10¢ on the dollar, you have to get rid of the GPS that cannot be part of this system," a committee member stated during discussion of provider capabilities, and staff said they would record that question for follow‑up and consult providers.
Why it matters: the RUC design determines both privacy implications for drivers and the program’s administrative cost. Committee members asked staff to clarify whether the bill's language would limit charges to miles driven in Oregon, how flat fees would work, and whether non‑GPS reporting options could reliably exclude out‑of‑state miles.
Committee direction and next steps: staff agreed to collect vendor cost information and technical clarifications and to return with more detailed answers. Representative Gamba and others asked that the committee remove or clarify "within the state of Oregon" language if it creates vendor or constitutional problems; staff noted a flat‑fee alternative available in policy text and said they would follow up with providers and the Legislative Revenue Office for additional cost and feasibility information.
