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

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.