Utah official tells Senate Transportation state’s road‑usage charge reached break‑even as enrollment rises

Senate Transportation Chair Rich Westman convened a remote committee briefing Jan. 15 where Lyle McMillan, director of strategic technologies for the Utah Department of Transportation, outlined Utah’s road‑usage charge (RUC) program and options states are using to capture revenue from electric and high‑efficiency vehicles.

McMillan said Utah has roughly 64,000 electric vehicles registered and about 12,000 vehicles enrolled in its voluntary RUC program, adding that enrollment is growing by roughly 400–600 participants per month as owners are offered RUC at registration renewal. "We're scaling whether we want to or not," he said.

Why it matters: Many states face shrinking fuel‑tax revenue as more drivers use EVs and more efficient vehicles. Utah’s program offers a per‑mile option and a flat registration fee that acts as a cap for participants who do not report miles; setting those amounts affects whether drivers pay more or less than under the traditional gas tax.

McMillan described two reporting paths participants may choose: telematics (vehicle‑provided mileage data) or periodic digital odometer capture (a quarterly photo). He said Utah’s vendor chain anonymizes telematics data before it reaches the state and that the department has paid for vendor services to preserve privacy. "Smart Roads gets that information, gives it to the vendor, who gives it to us, anonymized," McMillan said.

The department removed an earlier OBD‑II plug‑in device option after finding it expensive and difficult to anonymize, McMillan told the committee. He described other recent operational changes that reduced costs, including shifting from monthly to quarterly billing, adopting prepaid 'wallets' with automatic top‑ups and planning direct‑debit (ACH) to cut credit‑card merchant fees.

Financial picture: After several years of start‑up expenses that initially outpaced revenue, McMillan said Utah's program "eked out and got in the black" last year after contract changes and administrative savings. He added Utah expects continued scale efficiencies and volume discounts as enrollment grows toward a long‑term target that would materially lower per‑participant costs.

Program design and policy choices: Participation in Utah’s RUC remains voluntary; the state uses an annual flat registration fee as a default cap for non‑reporting drivers. McMillan said the legislature asked the department to analyze scenarios for mandatory participation or removing the cap; Utah found potential "perverse" outcomes if the cap were removed without careful design. Committee members pressed on whether Utah’s enabling law required vehicle manufacturers to support telematics; McMillan said the state has relied on OEM and ZEV‑state developments and did not mandate such capabilities in state law.

Interstate issues and privacy: Committee members raised cross‑border driving concerns and whether geofencing or interstate data sharing could allocate charges more precisely. McMillan said geofencing experiments produced public backlash in pandemic‑era testing and that Utah currently sees limited cross‑border metro spillover, so the state has not pursued mandatory geofencing; he said interstate interoperability remains a long‑term goal contingent on federal grants and vendor solutions.

Next steps: McMillan said Utah will seek legislative clarification on a recent statutory 'reset' that limited the program’s CPI indexing and that the legislature will consider that language in the coming session. He offered to share comparative materials on Hawaii, Oregon, Virginia and Utah and provided contact information for follow‑up questions.

The Senate Transportation committee thanked McMillan for the briefing and indicated staff would review the materials and may invite further testimony as Vermont considers RUC design choices.