Road Charge TAC adopts pilot evaluation criteria, recruitment targets and distribution; agrees to revisit non‑mileage accommodations after pilot

The Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee on June 26 adopted a set of evaluation criteria for an independent assessment of the state’s road‑charge pilot, approved staff’s recruitment targets and participant distribution worksheet for the pilot, and agreed to revisit recommendations on non‑mileage‑based accommodations after the pilot and the agency’s evaluation are complete.

Committee members voted unanimously to endorse the evaluation criteria presented by staff and to adopt the recruitment targets and distribution worksheet as tentative targets, with a caveat that the TAC would refine the numbers after further consultation with consultants and industry groups.

Why it matters: The pilot is intended to test alternatives to the current fuel‑tax model by charging for road use. The criteria and sample design adopted by the TAC will shape how the pilot measures revenue, costs, operations, equity and user impacts — and how results are presented to state decision makers.

The committee opened the afternoon session by returning to a set of four policy questions. Jeff (staff member) said the intent of item 4 was that “first we conduct the pilot and we gather the information and the data,” and then the TAC would be reconvened to consider recommendations going forward after the agency’s evaluation and reporting are complete. Jeff referenced the statutory process laid out in SB 1077 and explained that the commission and state agencies would carry the procurement and pilot development forward while the TAC would be kept informed and asked for input at milestones.

On evaluation criteria (item 1), Travis (staff/consultant) walked the TAC through an appendix summarizing eight evaluation categories: “revenue, cost, operations, user experience, privacy, data security, equity, and communications.” The committee agreed to hire an independent consultant to assess the pilot against those criteria and to keep that evaluation separate from the project team.

On recruitment and sample size (items 2 and 3), staff displayed a worksheet that aggregates minimums and subtotals across participant types and geographies. The chart shown to the TAC produced a grand total near 5,070 participants in the example, with 4,125 individual drivers and 25 tribal vehicles reflected in the draft worksheet; staff and committee members discussed a target range of roughly 5,000–6,000 participants. Professor Wachs moved to adopt the recruitment targets and definitions as reflected in the worksheet, with the explicit caveat that the TAC would revisit and refine those targets after further consultation with consultants and industry representatives; Council member O'Connor seconded the motion. For distribution across urban, suburban and rural areas the TAC adopted the staff targets with the same caveat (motion seconded by the mayor). Both motions carried unanimously.

Committee discussion repeatedly emphasized that the worksheet and sample are a working starting point. Multiple members said it was premature to lock down fine segmentation — particularly for commercial fleets and owner‑operators — without further consultation with industry groups such as the California Trucking Association. Committee members instructed staff and the consultant team to work with the trucking industry to refine definitions of small, medium and large carriers and to consider seasonal and business‑model differences when setting fleet sample sizes.

The TAC also recorded several action items to support recruitment and evaluation: CTC staff will ask the Department of Motor Vehicles to use its delivery channels to notify drivers about pilot recruitment; staff will ensure alternative‑fuel vehicles are included in targeting; CTC staff and the consultant team will research and return with a recommendation on urban/road‑type definitions and distinctions; and the consultant team will work with the California Trucking Association to define truck characteristics for testing. The TAC also asked that pilot data be shared with the TAC so members can evaluate equity implications for the committee’s future report.

Parking‑lot items for further research include whether participants may choose among reporting options during the pilot and whether vehicles could switch or share mileage reporting methods (for example, transferring an annual mileage permit among vehicles). The TAC also asked staff to report back on legal and practical distinctions between a vehicle, an owner and a responsible party for recruitment and record‑keeping purposes.

The committee set its next meeting for Friday, July 24 in South Lake Tahoe at the Lake Tahoe Resort Hotel and adjourned.