BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1077|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1077
Author: DeSaulnier (D)
Amended: 8/21/14
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 9-0, 4/29/14
AYES: DeSaulnier, Gaines, Beall, Galgiani, Hueso, Lara, Liu,
Pavley, Roth
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella, Wyland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-1, 5/23/14
AYES: De León, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters
SENATE FLOOR : 23-11, 5/27/14
AYES: Beall, Block, Corbett, De León, DeSaulnier, Evans,
Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson,
Lara, Leno, Lieu, Mitchell, Monning, Padilla, Pavley, Roth,
Steinberg, Wolk
NOES: Anderson, Cannella, Correa, Fuller, Gaines, Knight,
Morrell, Nielsen, Vidak, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Calderon, Liu, Torres, Wright, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 46-26, 8/25/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Road usage charge pilot program
SOURCE : Transportation California
DIGEST : This bill creates a Road Usage Charge (RUC) Technical
CONTINUED
SB 1077
Page
2
Advisory Committee (Committee) to guide development and
implementation of a pilot program to study the potential for RUC
as an alternative to the gas tax.
Assembly Amendments revise and recast the bill with a similar
intent as it left the Senate and now authorize the Chair of the
California Transportation Commission (CTC) to select Committee,
as specified; require the California Transportation Agency
(Agency) implement the Committee's recommended pilot program, as
specified; require the Agency report to the Legislature; and add
legislative intent language.
ANALYSIS : The state derives its transportation funding
primarily from a variety of excise and sales taxes on gasoline
and diesel fuel. Existing law requires that the state spend the
revenue from the base 18-cent-per-gallon fuel excise tax to
maintain and operate the state highway system. Excise tax
revenue from gasoline above the base revenue is used primarily
for local streets and roads as well as new capacity projects. A
statewide sales tax on diesel is dedicated to supporting transit
operations in the state.
In addition, existing law establishes in state government the
Agency, which oversees and directs policy for a number of
transportation-related departments, including the California
Highway Patrol, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the
Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Section 1 of Article I of the California Constitution declares
that all people have certain inalienable rights, including but
not limited to the right to individual privacy.
This bill:
1.Requires the Chair of the CTC to create, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Transportation Agency, the Committee
composed of 15 members.
2.Requires, when selecting the members of the Committee, the
Chair consider individuals who are representative of the
telecommunications industry, highway user groups, the data
security and privacy industry, privacy rights advocacy
organizations, regional transportation agencies, national
research and policymaking bodies, including, but not limited
CONTINUED
SB 1077
Page
3
to, the Transportation Research Board and the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
members of the Legislature, and other relevant stakeholders as
determined by the Chair.
3.Provides the Committee may request Caltrans to perform such
work as the Committee deems necessary to carry out its duties
and responsibilities.
4.Requires Committee study RUC alternatives to the gas tax,
gather public comment on issues and concerns related to the
pilot program, and make recommendations to the Secretary on
the design of a pilot program to test alternative RUC
approaches and any evaluation of the program.
5.Requires the Committee consider the following:
A. The availability, adaptability, reliability, and
security of methods that might be used in recording and
reporting highway use.
B. The necessity of protecting all personally identifiable
information used in reporting highway use.
C. The ease and cost of recording and reporting highway
use.
D. The ease and cost of administering the collection of
taxes and fees as an alternative to the current system of
taxing highway use through motor vehicle fuel taxes.
E. Effective methods of maintaining compliance.
F. The ease of reidentifying location data, even when
personally identifiable information has been removed from
the data.
G. Increased privacy concerns when location data is used in
conjunction with other technologies.
H. Public and private agency access, including law
enforcement, to data collected and stored for purposes of
the RUC to ensure individual privacy rights are protected.
CONTINUED
SB 1077
Page
4
1.Requires the Committee consult with highway users and
transportation stakeholders, including representatives of
vehicle users, vehicle manufacturers, and fuel distributors as
part of its process.
2.Requires, based on the recommendations of the Committee, the
Agency implement a pilot program to identify and evaluate
issues related to the potential implementation of an RUC
program in California by January 1, 2017.
3.Requires the pilot program accomplish all of the following:
A. Analyze alternative means of collecting road usage data,
including at least one alternative that does not rely on
electronic vehicle location data.
B. Collect a minimum amount of personal information
including location tracking information, necessary to
implement the RUC pilot program.
C. Ensure that processes for collecting, managing, storing,
transmitting, and destroying data are in place to protect
the integrity of the data and safeguard the privacy of
drivers.
1.Prohibits the Agency from disclosing information collected for
the pilot program, except as specified.
2.Requires the Agency prepare and submit a report of its
findings based on the results of the pilot program to the
Committee, the CTC, and the appropriate policy and fiscal
committees of the Legislature by no later than June 30, 2018,
as specified.
3.Requires the CTC include its recommendations regarding the
pilot program in its annual report to the Legislature.
4.Sunsets this bill on January 1, 2019.
Background
Why do we need to replace the fuel excise tax? The excise tax
on fuels was originally created in the early 20th century to
serve as a substitute user fee for the construction,
CONTINUED
SB 1077
Page
5
maintenance, and operation of the transportation system. At the
time, it was technologically very difficult to track actual
usage of the roadway by vehicle, but most vehicles on the road
were very similar and experienced similar mileage. Therefore, a
tax on fuels served as a suitable stand-in for usage.
Today, a trifecta of circumstances is combining to undermine the
sustainability of the fuel excise tax. First, the fuel excise
tax is not indexed to inflation, and therefore its value erodes
over time. The last increase to the base fuel excise tax was in
1994; due to inflation, a dollar in 1995 is only worth 55 cents
today. Second, both state and federal governments have adopted
policies requiring vehicles to become significantly more fuel
efficient over time. Simply speaking, this means that as
vehicles drive farther on less fuel, they do more damage to the
roadway system per dollar available to maintain that system.
Third, demographic trends and state policies are encouraging
Californians to drive fewer miles per capita. With fewer miles
driven in more fuel-efficient cars, less fuel is purchased. The
dire result of this combination of factors is that government is
left with dwindling resources to address growing transportation
problems.
Not only is the fuel excise tax unsustainable, but today's
varied vehicle marketplace is leading to significant distortions
in the market. Many drivers today travel exceedingly long
distances on a gallon of fuel, or without purchasing any fuel at
all, and therefore contribute little or nothing to the
maintenance of the road system necessary for that travel.
Further, nearly all of these highly efficient vehicles are new
models and relatively expensive, suggesting that high-income
individuals are more able to use public infrastructure without
contributing requisite tax revenue. Meanwhile, many of the
least efficient vehicles on the road are older, less-expensive
models typically driven by lower-income individuals. This often
means that those who can least afford to, are increasingly
shouldering the burden of funding the maintenance and operation
of the public roadway system. If the state were to increase the
fuel excise tax to try and slow down the diminishing buying
power of today's principle funding mechanism, it might only
exacerbate this regressive tax situation.
Due to technological advances, the state can address this
downward pressure on the fuel excise tax by shifting to some
CONTINUED
SB 1077
Page
6
other fee that more accurately measures usage. Many states are
exploring, and advocates argue, that some sort of RUC would
effectively and fairly replace the fuel excise tax.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
One-time costs to support the committee will be about $350,000
for two positions. Additional costs to hold some committee
meetings throughout the state will depend on the number of
meetings, but may total in the low hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
One-time costs for the pilot project will depend in part on
the number of vehicles and locations involved. Caltrans
estimates a cost of anywhere from
$1 million to $20 million. Given the significant impact that
changing to a RUC system will have on the state, it is assumed
the study should be as representative as possible, which
implies a cost at the higher end of Caltrans' range.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/25/14)
Transportation California (source)
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
American Council of Engineering Companies
American Planning Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
Associated General Contractors
Auto Club of Southern California
California Asphalt Pavement Association
California Association of Councils of Government
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Greenbelt Alliance
League of California Cities
San Mateo County Transportation Authority
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Self Help Counties Coalition
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/25/14)
Inland Empire Car Club Council
Over the Hill Gang
CONTINUED
SB 1077
Page
7
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 46-26, 8/25/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta,
Bradford, Buchanan, Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Daly, Dickinson,
Eggman, Fong, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Hall,
Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal,
Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Pan, Perea,
John A. Pérez, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas,
Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams,
Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Conway, Dahle,
Donnelly, Fox, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman,
Harkey, Jones, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez,
Olsen, Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Salas, Wagner, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Brown, Ian Calderon, Cooley, Dababneh,
Frazier, Rodriguez, Yamada, Vacancy
JA:e 8/25/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED