California 2021-2022 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB339

Introduced
2/8/21  
Introduced
2/8/21  
Refer
2/17/21  
Refer
4/5/21  
Refer
4/5/21  
Report Pass
4/13/21  
Refer
4/13/21  
Report Pass
5/20/21  
Engrossed
6/1/21  
Refer
6/10/21  
Refer
6/14/21  
Refer
6/14/21  
Report Pass
6/22/21  
Refer
6/22/21  
Refer
6/22/21  
Report Pass
8/26/21  
Report Pass
8/26/21  
Enrolled
9/2/21  
Enrolled
9/2/21  
Chaptered
9/24/21  
Chaptered
9/24/21  

Caption

Vehicles: road usage charge pilot program.

Impact

The implementation of SB 339 is expected to have significant implications for California’s transportation funding framework. As the state moves towards an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles, traditional fuel tax revenues are projected to decline, potentially leading to significant shortfalls in transportation funding. For example, estimates suggest that by 2030, California could lose up to $2 billion annually due to reduced vehicle miles traveled and a greater adoption of electric vehicles. The pilot program aims to test the feasibility and effectiveness of a mileage-based road charge that could help stabilize and secure funding for infrastructure improvements.

Summary

Senate Bill 339, also known as the Road Usage Charge pilot program, was enacted to explore alternatives to the traditional gas tax system in California. Its primary aim is to implement a pilot program that assesses a mileage-based revenue collection system. The bill extends the operation of relevant provisions until January 1, 2027, allowing the Transportation Agency to implement this pilot program in consultation with the California Transportation Commission. The bill mandates the establishment of a technical advisory committee to guide the program's development and evaluation, ensuring public and stakeholder engagement as it proceeds.

Sentiment

Discussions surrounding SB 339 have revealed a strong sentiment of cautious optimism; supporters believe it presents a viable pathway for sustainable transportation funding amidst changing vehicle use patterns. However, there are underlying concerns regarding the administrative complexities and public acceptance of such a system. Stakeholders from various sectors have voiced both support for innovative funding solutions and skepticism about their implementation, particularly regarding potential costs to drivers and the importance of maintaining transparency and fairness in how charges are calculated and applied.

Contention

A notable point of contention within the discussions around SB 339 is how it plans to implement the mileage-based fees without adversely affecting existing fuel tax revenues that support numerous state programs. The bill includes provisions requiring that participants in the pilot program receive credits or refunds for state fuel taxes paid, which is intended to mitigate the financial impact on drivers transitioning from traditional taxes. Nevertheless, critics worry that the pilot program's design and result reporting could become contentious, particularly if there are disparities in impacts on various socioeconomic groups or geographic communities within California. Ensuring that the eventual rollout does not disproportionately burden low-income drivers or those with limited access to public transportation remains a crucial consideration for legislators.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB526

Regional transportation plans: greenhouse gas emissions: State Mobility Action Plan for Healthy Communities.

CA ABX21

Energy: transportation fuels: inventories: turnaround and maintenance.

CA AB1147

Regional transportation plan: Active Transportation Program.

CA AB1142

Regional transportation plans: transportation network companies.

CA SB475

Transportation planning: sustainable communities strategies.

CA SB950

Energy: transportation fuels: inventories: turnaround and maintenance.

CA AB350

Regional transportation plans: Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

CA AB2237

Transportation planning: regional transportation improvement plan: sustainable communities strategies: alternative planning strategy: state transportation funding.