TAC narrows road‑charge pilot options: engine‑run time dropped; committee weighs interoperability, out‑of‑state participants and account managers

Members of the Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee spent the April 24 meeting narrowing concepts and technologies for the state’s road‑charge pilot and weighing operational design questions that will shape recruitment, measurement and enforcement.

Shannon Crum, staff, reconfirmed three high‑level preferences the TAC discussed at the March meeting: test only automated options already deployable, advance the manual options available for further analysis, and aim to narrow the range of concepts before the next meeting. Crum told the TAC she expected privacy questions and participant selection to be addressed in subsequent meetings.

Matthew Dorfman (technical lead) summarized seven operational concepts the TAC is considering: time permits (prepaid time windows), mileage permits (prepaid miles), odometer‑based reporting (prepay and postpay models), automated distance measurement (in‑vehicle devices reporting miles), and automated distance with general location (device reports miles and coarse location, switchable by the motorist). Dorfman reviewed four enabling technology approaches for automated testing: usage‑based insurance (UBI) devices plugged into the OBD‑II port, smartphone apps, factory telematics systems and other professional location devices used in commercial tolling.

Committee members signalled a consensus to remove engine runtime (a device that inferred consumption from engine vibration) from pilot consideration because it is not available for passenger vehicles and does not measure road usage directly. "Engine runtime ... measures engine vibration and the devices exist for large commercial vehicles, but they are not available for passenger vehicles and they don't address road usage," Dorfman said; Shannon Crum asked the TAC to confirm that omission.

Dorfman described user flows for each concept: time permits and mileage permits can be sold through retail channels (scratch‑off codes activated by license plate or account), odometer concepts rely on official odometer readings or authorized representatives for verification, and automated options require an in‑vehicle device or smartphone pairing and an account manager to bill participants. He also described enforcement approaches: visual checks for window stickers; manual or automatic license‑plate‑reader checks for plate/registration‑based concepts; and device‑status checks or periodic reconciliation for automated reporting.

Members raised implementation issues: privacy protections and encryption for mileage messages; odometer fraud risk for manual odometer options and how DMV, smog and repair records could help detect anomalies; costs and potential credit‑score requirements if private account managers are used; and how to credit fuel taxes paid if the fuel tax remains in place. Dorfman noted telematics can give the most accurate location and fuel‑use data; UBI devices cannot measure fuel use on roughly 30% of vehicles.

The TAC also discussed whether to include out‑of‑state participants. Dorfman offered three approaches: enroll out‑of‑state drivers as registered California participants (e.g., existing nonresident commuter permits), accept users registered in their home state (simulating interoperability), or provide temporary options for visitors (short time or mileage permits sold at retail). Committee members urged that interoperability be tested where feasible; staff noted Oregon’s program plans to recruit participants and that Western consortium states are sharing work, which could enable cross‑state testing.

Public commenters urged the committee to consider commercial and agricultural fleets, private roads and administrative burdens. Norm Groot, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, asked that agriculture be represented on the work group because of private roads and farm‑vehicle operations. Bob Naylor, representing LA Metro, recommended the design allow for congestion‑sensitive charges and regional piggybacking (local add‑ons) and requested location data to assess whether revenue is returning to the places where it is collected.

Staff asked the TAC whether it wanted the pilot to test multiple commercial account managers or a single state account manager; committee members discussed tradeoffs—private managers can supply consumer value‑added services but may limit participation by requiring credit mechanisms; a single public manager (e.g., DMV office) would keep state control but could be more limited in service offerings.

No formal votes were taken at this session on pilot technical rules; the TAC directed staff to prepare recommendations and potential narrower option sets for the May meeting and to include privacy, recruitment and interoperability issues in upcoming agendas.