As I’ve been investigating California’s mileage-based road charge, it’s clear this isn’t just a policy about road funding. It’s the quiet rollout of a system built to track, record, and bill movement itself. The state says it’s about fairness and modernization, but the deeper I look, the more it resembles a permanent surveillance and revenue network disguised as transportation reform. What’s being tested today through Caltrans and the State Transportation Agency is the blueprint for total mileage monitoring tied to personal identity.
California is advancing a plan to replace the state gas tax with a mileage-based road charge that taxes drivers by distance traveled. The effort is led by the California State Transportation Agency and Caltrans under a multi-year Road Charge program first authorized by SB 1077 in 2014 and extended and refined by SB 339 in 2021. The state’s stated purpose is to stabilize road funding as fuel-tax revenue declines.
As of October 2025, the program is still in the pilot and data-gathering phase. No statewide mandate or rate schedule has been enacted, but Caltrans has already built the structure necessary for full implementation. What is being called a “test” now is the foundation for what will later become mandatory reporting.
Under the mileage model, the tax attaches to the driver and vehicle rather than to a fuel purchase. In practice this converts an indirect, anonymous tax at the pump into a direct, identity-linked tax on driving. State materials describe several reporting methods, including odometer verification, plug-in telematics devices, smartphone tracking apps, and GPS-enabled systems to separate in-state from out-of-state travel. Each of these options requires registration, verification, and data transmission. Drivers must identify themselves and their vehicles, creating records that tie travel data to individual identity.
Under the proposed structure, the state will allow drivers to choose from several collection options. The simplest is manual odometer reporting. Drivers would be required to submit verified odometer readings during vehicle registration renewal or at scheduled intervals. These readings could be reported through an online portal, in person at a DMV office, or by uploading a timestamped photo verified through a state system.
For automated reporting, drivers could install plug-in devices that connect to a vehicle’s onboard diagnostic port. These devices record total distance driven and transmit the data either to the California Department of Transportation or to an approved third-party “account manager.” Smartphone applications and in-vehicle telematics would serve as additional options, using GPS or accelerometer data to calculate miles traveled. Vehicles with built-in connectivity could transmit mileage directly to the billing system without user interaction.
Once mileage data is received, the state or its contracted vendor would calculate the charge, generate an invoice, and collect payment electronically. Drivers could be billed quarterly or annually, or have payments deducted automatically through a linked account. Failure to report or pay would trigger administrative penalties such as fines, late fees, or registration holds, mirroring the enforcement mechanisms used for toll violations or unpaid vehicle fees.
Even for drivers choosing manual reporting, participation requires personal identification and verification. Every vehicle enrolled in the system must be linked to a registered account, and every account will contain identifying data. While Caltrans has stated that location information will not be stored, the inclusion of GPS-capable options means the system has the technical ability to track and log more than mileage alone. The state claims privacy protections will exist, but the safeguards are procedural, not structural. The capability to monitor remains inherent in the technology itself.
The gas tax functions as an indirect levy because it’s collected automatically at the point of sale. No reports are filed, no personal information is disclosed, and no permission is sought. It is theft embedded in market activity, but it does not track personal behavior. The road charge changes that structure. It shifts the tax from the sale of fuel to the act of driving itself, transforming mobility into a taxable and reportable event.
Officials have stated that privacy will be “protected,” but the definition of protection remains vague. Data that exists can always be accessed. The system architecture being tested allows for time, distance, and route logging. Even if California promises that only mileage totals will be used, the infrastructure still enables location tracking and behavioral analysis. The claim that location data is optional ignores that the capability itself is permanent. Once the system is operational, access and purpose can expand without additional consent from drivers.
Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission say participation in pilots has been voluntary, but they are preparing recommendations for eventual statewide implementation. SB 339 authorized the collection of pilot data for future legislative design, meaning the foundation for mandatory reporting is already built. Nothing in the current statutes provides for broad exemptions. There is no published language guaranteeing that rural residents, commercial fleets, or low-mileage drivers would be excluded. There are also no statutory details on penalties for non-compliance, data retention limits, or inter-agency data sharing.
Once implemented, the road charge would function as a direct tax requiring ongoing participation. Drivers would have to register, report, and submit data periodically. Penalties would apply for non-reporting, underreporting, or failure to install tracking devices if required. The system removes anonymity from road use. Every mile driven becomes data stored, audited, and billed. The infrastructure transforms movement into documentation.
The state’s reasoning is that electric vehicles and hybrids do not pay gas tax and therefore must contribute “fairly” to road maintenance. That argument masks the real issue. The goal is not equity in contribution—it is measurable compliance. Every modern tax program aims for precision, automation, and enforcement through data. The road charge achieves all three. It moves taxation from impersonal collection to individualized accounting, allowing the state to know not just that you owe, but how you move.
Once a data channel exists, new uses follow. The same system that tracks mileage can easily apply variable rates by region, time of day, or vehicle type. It can impose congestion pricing, environmental surcharges, or emissions-based fees. Each expansion can occur by administrative rule rather than legislation. In technical terms, the data and payment infrastructure are the foundation for a dynamic pricing grid over personal travel.
No direct tax operates without compulsion. The state frames participation as cooperation, but cooperation under penalty is compliance. The road charge introduces continuous reporting and creates a database of driver behavior under the justification of maintaining infrastructure. Historically, governments expand surveillance systems under pretexts of fairness or safety. Once normalized, they rarely contract.
There is no assurance that data collected through the program will remain confined to transportation agencies. The state already shares traffic and registration data with insurance providers, federal agencies, and private contractors. The inclusion of third-party “account managers” in the mileage program adds another layer of exposure. Every system with commercial intermediaries becomes a commercial data source.
In essence, California’s mileage-based road charge converts driving from a private act into a monitored transaction. It replaces an automatic tax on fuel with an administrative tax on motion. The new model requires disclosure, verification, and identity tracking. It is not a modernization of taxation—it is the digitization of control.
The Legislature has not yet passed a bill mandating full participation statewide, but the pilot language under SB 339 establishes the procedural groundwork. Once scaled, opting out will not be a legal choice. The road charge will be embedded in the act of driving, enforced through registration, billing, and automatic penalties.
California presents the road charge as a solution to declining revenue. In reality, it is the beginning of permanent surveillance built into transportation. It links taxation to behavior, travel, and identity. It collects, stores, and monetizes data on every driver in the state. The gas tax was impersonal theft through market design. The road charge is personal theft through tracking.
Freedom of movement and mandatory reporting cannot exist together. The right to travel becomes conditional when each mile must be declared, measured, and billed. Once the system exists, the burden of proof shifts from the state to the citizen. It will no longer matter whether you consent. Participation will be assumed.
References:
California Legislature. Senate Bill No. 1077 — Road Usage Charge Pilot Program.
Chaptered September 29, 2014, as Chapter 835, Statutes of 2014.
👉 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1077
California Legislature. Senate Bill No. 339 — Road Charge Pilot Program.
Chaptered September 24, 2021, as Chapter 308, Statutes of 2021.
👉 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB339
California Road Charge Program (Official Public Portal).
Public engagement site with pilot information, FAQs, and legislative background.