Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pilot Design Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TAC debates who, what and how to test in road‑charge pilot; privacy rules highlighted
Summary
At the May 29 Road Charge TAC meeting staff and consultants sought guidance on participant types, vehicle classes, exemptions and privacy protections; committee members emphasized built‑in privacy by design and asked for further analysis of equity and data security.
The Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee on May 29 reviewed policy questions that will shape the pilot’s design, including which types of participants and vehicle classes to recruit, what mileage exemptions to test, and what privacy protections to require for volunteers.
Shannon Crum, TAC staff, summarized decisions taken to date and posed four policy topics for action: which participant types to recruit (individuals, households, businesses, government agencies); which vehicles to include; what mileage exemptions to test (for example private roads or out‑of‑state miles); and what personal privacy protections the pilot should use.
Crum reiterated earlier design decisions: volunteers will choose account managers; volunteers will choose mileage recording and reporting methods; out‑of‑state vehicles will be included and assessed for use of California roads; the pilot will test an open system design to encourage competition; and the pilot will test interoperability with other states. "All of these decisions are open to be revisited as new information is developed," Crum said.
Privacy emerged as a central theme. Jeff Doyle, a consultant on privacy, told the committee that privacy has been built into choices the TAC already made — for example, allowing a time‑permit option and multiple recording methods. Doyle recommended the committee minimize collection of personally identifiable information (PII) and consider both legal and technical controls. "These choices together really form the basis of the strongest privacy protections that you can have," Doyle said.
Several members asked whether the pilot should collect real money. Committee members emphasized the pilot should replicate real operational steps except where legislative authority prevents collection. Norms derived from state law and a statutory directive in the enabling legislation require the pilot to limit PII and prohibit certain sharing without consent. Panelists said the pilot as currently planned would not be a permanent revenue mechanism and that any future operational collection would require separate legal authorization and policy decisions.
The committee asked staff and consultants to return with further analysis on (a) how many participants of each type would be required to produce statistically useful results, (b) how exemptions would be administered in manual reporting options, (c) the interaction between vehicle classes and participant types (for example fleets), and (d) specific legal and technical privacy safeguards, including data security and retention policies.
