Turning All U.S. Roads into Toll Roads: “Tax by Mile” is Here

Dan Titus, May 16, 2025

“…if somebody comes out with the idea that we’re going to use the amount of miles you drive as some form of a punitive measure to regulate your behavior, this program is dead, dead, dead. It will just never happen…” – Jim Madaffer, California Transportation Commission, Road Charge Pilot

Road charge pilot programs, which propose replacing gas taxes with per-mile fees, are now being implemented throughout the United States. Influenced by the United Nations and California’s climate change policies, the primary driver of these programs seeks outcomes that change human behavior and consumption patterns. In this article we will discuss road charge pilots in the context of these influences, denoting details on evolution, policy, current status and opposition critiques to these programs.

A key driver of road charge pilot programs is sustainable development, which in employs behavior modification techniques to steer individuals and communities toward environmentally and socially desirable actions, such as reducing carbon footprints or adopting renewable energy, in the name of climate change. Through mechanisms like hidden carbon taxes, subsidies for green technologies, or restrictive regulations, it incentivizes or penalizes behaviors, through punitive measures, to align with collective goals, often framed as serving the public good. However, this approach can be antithetical free association and informed consent, as it may bypass individual autonomy by imposing policies without transparent disclosure of their full implications or costs, such as higher energy prices or limited consumer choices. Road charge would institute punitive measures and regulate behavior by charging a fee for each mile a vehicle is driven.

California’s first road charge pilot laid the groundwork for sustainable climate change transportation funding in the United States. The $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), H.R. 3684, was signed into law on November 15, 2021. The bill allotted money for states to implement road charge pilot programs using California’s first road charge pilot program from 2016-2017, acting as a blueprint. Specifically, $75 million supports a growing number of state pilots, with California, Oregon, and Utah currently under way. California’s second road charge pilot (2024-2025), is the most current program in that state.

As of April 2025, these are the current state road charge pilot programs:

State	Program Name/Description	Funding Amount	Status
California	Road Charge Collection Pilot (2024-2025): Tests real payments for per-mile fees.	~$5-10 million (state + IRA grants)	Completed January 2025
Oregon	OReGO: Voluntary per-mile fee program for EVs and fuel-efficient vehicles.	~$3-5 million (IRA + state funds)	Ongoing since 2015
Utah	Road Usage Charge Program: Optional per-mile fee for EVs, expanded in 2020.	~$2-4 million (IRA + state funds)	Ongoing since 2020
Virginia	Mileage Choice Program: Per-mile fee option for EVs, launched in 2022.	~$2-3 million (IRA + state funds)	Ongoing since 2022
Maryland	Road Usage Charge Pilot: Tests per-mile fees for transportation funding.	~$1-2 million (IRA grants)	Launched 2024
Hawaii	Road Usage Charge Demonstration: Tests mileage-based fees for EVs.	~$1-2 million (IRA grants)	Ongoing since 2023

The United Nations Paris Agreement

Road charge pilots are influenced by the Paris Agreement and shaped by U.S. climate commitments, aligned with U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) goals. NDCs, encourages states to integrate climate goals into pilot designs. States like California and Oregon, with ambitious climate targets, use pilots to balance revenue needs with emission reductions, supporting Paris Agreement objectives.

The Paris Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide global frameworks for addressing climate change and promoting sustainable development, which directly influence road charge pilot programs in the United States, including those in states like California, Oregon, and Utah. Below is an explanation of how these international agreements interface with U.S. road charge pilot programs, focusing on their goals, mechanisms, and implications. Before diving into this of road charge pilot programs, it is important to provide some background.

Adopted in 2015 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the primary goal of the Paris Agreement is to strengthen the global response to climate change global warming by limiting global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It requires signatory countries, including the U.S., to submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) outlining climate action plans, such as reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The Paris Agreement was originally signed during the Obama administration in December 2015, with the United States formally joining in September 2016. President Obama chose to enter the agreement as an executive agreement rather than a formal treaty, which would have required a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate for ratification. This decision was strategic, as securing Senate approval would have been difficult given the political climate at the time.

The classification of the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement rather than a treaty was controversial. The Obama administration argued that it had the authority to join the agreement under existing treaty obligations (the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), and because the agreement’s commitments were voluntary and thus didn’t require new legislation.

Opposition to the Paris Agreement

Critics maintained that an agreement of such significance should have been submitted to the Senate as a treaty under Article II of the Constitution.

In June 2017, during his first term, President Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, though due to the agreement’s terms, the formal exit didn’t take effect until November 2020. Shortly after taking office in January 2021, President Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the Paris Agreement, and the U.S. officially reentered the agreement in February 2021, committing to a 50-52% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.

In January 2025 of his second term President Trump signed an Executive Order, to begin the process of exiting the agreement.

The Paris Agreement interfaces with road charge pilot programs, according to advocates:

Encourage Low-Carbon Transportation: The transportation sector accounts for about 29% of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Paris Agreement’s push for decarbonization aligns with incentivizing electric vehicle (EV) adoption, as EVs produce zero GHG; however, their overall lifespan carbon footprint includes emissions from battery production, raw material extraction, and manufacturing, which can be significant and reduce a gains realized by GHG reductions. Road charge pilot programs, such as California’s 2024-2025 pilot and Oregon’s OReGO, test per-mile fees that can be structured to incentivize, through subsidies, low-emission vehicles. For example, California’s pilot explores rate-setting that reduces fees for EVs or fuel-efficient vehicles, supporting the state’s 2035 ban on internal combustion engine vehicles and the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) goals. In the NDC context, civil society ensures climate policies reflect diverse societal needs and promote inclusivity. NDCs goals are set by unelected government agencies, large urban city representatives, environmental groups non-governmental organizations (NGOs), non-profit organizations, community groups, indigenous groups, religious organizations, unions, and grassroots movement groups. By replacing gas taxes, which EVs do not pay, road charges ensure sustainable road funding while aligning with Paris Agreement goals to reduce fossil fuel reliance.
Funding Climate-Resilient Infrastructure: The Paris Agreement emphasizes climate adaptation, including resilient infrastructure. Road charge pilots aim to generate stable revenue for road maintenance, which is critical as climate change increases wear on infrastructure (e.g., extreme weather damaging roads). Inflation Reduction Act, which funds road charge pilots with $75 million through the Strategic Innovation for Revenue Collection (SIRC) program, ties funding to climate resilience, reflecting Paris Agreement priorities. States like Maryland and Hawaii use pilot revenues to support infrastructure upgrades that withstand climate impacts.
Equity Considerations: The Paris Agreement’s principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” emphasizes equity in climate action. U.S. road charge pilots, influenced by federal policies like the Justice40 Initiative, aim to ensure that low-income and disadvantaged communities are not disproportionately burdened by new fees. For instance, California’s 2024-2025 pilot tests equitable rate structures, such as discounts for low-income drivers, aligning with the Paris Agreement’s focus on fair climate policies.

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Road Charge Pilot Programs

According to advocates, Sustainable Development seeks to transform economic structures by enforcing policies that align economic activities and consumption patterns with environmental and social goals, fostering equitable systems and social addressing challenges. Regulations, such as carbon pricing, emission caps, and renewable energy mandates, seek to change the consumption behavior of businesses to adopt green technologies and practices, shifting economies, through behavior modification, from fossil fuel dependency to sustainable models while stimulating innovation in clean industries. Potential rationing of scarce resources, like water or raw materials, ensures equitable distribution and encourages efficient use, reducing waste and promoting circular economic systems. These measures create new markets, such as those for renewable energy and sustainable products, while addressing inequalities by prioritizing access for marginalized communities, thus reorienting economic structures toward long-term inclusivity.

Sustainable development in its socialist context, emphasizes collective resource management and equitable distribution to meet present needs without compromising future generations. Rooted in principles of Marxist social justice, it prioritizes state or community-driven initiatives to regulate industries, reduce environmental degradation, and ensure universal access to resources like clean energy, water, and healthcare. This approach often leans on centralized policies to curb overconsumption and promote renewable energy, with an aim to reduce inequality and environmental harm.

In the United States, sustainable development has been implemented through policies like the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which allocated heavy subsidies for renewable energy and carbon reduction, often framed as advancing social equity by prioritizing underserved communities.

Sustainable development has been implemented at the local level in the United States through federal and state grants administered by agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Department of Energy, which fund initiatives such as renewable energy projects, urban green infrastructure, or climate resilience programs. These grants, often tied to policies like the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, are awarded to local governments, nonprofits, and NGOs, which collaborate with private companies through public-private partnerships (PPPs) to execute projects. While intended to promote environmental and social goals, this framework can foster crony relationships, as well-connected nonprofits and corporations leverage their influence to secure funding and contracts, sidelining smaller or less-connected entities. For instance, NGOs advocating for sustainable development may receive preferential treatment in grant allocations, while PPPs enable select businesses to profit from taxpayer-funded projects, creating a cycle of favoritism that undermines transparency and competitive fairness.

The Justice40 Initiative, launched by the Biden administration through Executive Order 14008 in January 2021, is a policy directing 40% of certain federal investments in areas like clean energy, transportation, housing, and workforce development to disadvantaged communities disproportionately affected by pollution and economic inequity. It aims to advance environmental justice by ensuring these communities—often low-income or minority populations—receive equitable benefits from federal programs, such as improved access to clean water, renewable energy projects, or job training. Implemented as part of broader climate and sustainable development goals, including the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the initiative seeks to address historical disparities while promoting a transition to a greener economy, though critics argue its broad scope and funding allocation lack clear metrics for accountability and effectiveness.

Note: President Trump rescinded Biden’s Justice40 Initiative by signing an executive order on January 20, 2025, that revoked Executive Order 14008. The rescission terminated the initiative, along with related tools like the Climate & Economic Justice Screening Tool and the Environmental Justice Scorecard

Opposition to Sustainable Development

Trump Administration: Political Implications – In March 2025, the United States government publicly stated it “rejects and denounces” the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – See table below to view SDGs goals and opposition critiques. This statement, delivered at the 58th Session of the UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD58), indicates the U.S. will no longer automatically reaffirm the SDGs. U.S. Rejection: The U.S. delegation at the UN explicitly declared it rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda and SDGs. No More Reaffirmation: The U.S. will no longer automatically reaffirm its commitment to the SDGs, meaning they will no longer be treated as a matter of course.

Sustainable development, particularly in its socialist-leaning forms, can be argued as unconstitutional in the United States because it often involves expansive government intervention that exceeds the enumerated powers granted to the federal government under the Constitution. Policies promoting centralized control over resources, land use, or energy production—such as through restrictive regulations or carbon taxes—may infringe on property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment and overstep the Commerce Clause by regulating intrastate activities. Additionally, mandates prioritizing collective equity over individual liberty, like those embedded in some sustainable development frameworks, can conflict with the Constitution’s emphasis on limited government and individual rights. For instance, federal overreach in environmental regulations has been challenged in cases like West Virginia v. EPA (2022), where the Supreme Court ruled that agencies cannot impose sweeping policies without clear congressional authorization, reinforcing constitutional limits on such initiatives.

Critics argue sustainable development’s socialist nature can lead to inefficiencies, as government interventions—through subsidies, taxes, or regulations—may distort markets and impose hidden costs on producers and consumers, undermining economic freedom and innovation. Sustainable development often increases prices by prioritizing eco-friendly materials, ethical labor practices, and renewable energy, which are costlier than conventional alternatives. These higher costs are passed onto consumers, making goods and services less affordable. This disproportionately burdens the poor, who rely on low-cost options to meet basic needs, creating a tension between environmental goals and economic access for vulnerable populations.

Hidden fees and taxes, such as those embedded in energy regulations or carbon pricing schemes, have constrained energy production and raised consumer costs. For example, utilities complying with federal mandates for renewable energy integration often pass on compliance costs—like grid upgrades or carbon taxes—to consumers, increasing electricity costs. In 2023, residential electricity prices rose by 6-8% in states with aggressive renewable mandates, as utilities offset the costs of transitioning from fossil fuels. These measures disproportionately burden low-income households, highlighting tensions between socialist-inspired equity goals and economic realities.

Sustainable development’s benefits are offset by drawbacks. Renewable energy’s costs, $0.048/kWh for solar and $0.026/kWh for wind, are marginally competitive; however, there are pitfalls: high initial investments and grid integration expenses. Without subsidies, cost savings are modest at best. Large-scale solar farms, like the 3,500-acre Desert Sunlight Solar Farm, disrupt desert ecosystems and species, while wind farms cause 140,000-500,000 bird and bat deaths annually and require 30-141 acres/MW to operate, leading to habitat loss. Also, the environmental damage caused by non-recyclable components of solar and windmill components and land-intensive nature of these projects further challenges viability in the long run.

The Paris Agreement & Sustainable Development Goals

The Paris Agreement, which focuses on climate action, and UN SDGs interface with U.S. road charge pilot programs by shaping their climate, equity, and infrastructure goals. The Paris Agreement’s decarbonization targets encourage EV-friendly fee structures, while SDGs 9, 10, 11, and 13 guide pilots toward sustainable, equitable, and resilient transportation systems. Federal funding from the IRA’s SIRC program ($75 million for 2022-2026) ties these global frameworks to state-level pilots, though challenges like privacy, equity, and public opposition require careful navigation to fully align with international goals.

Overview of the UN SDGs: Adopted in 2015, the 17 SDGs provide a blueprint for sustainable development by 2030, addressing poverty, inequality, climate change, and infrastructure. Relevant SDGs for road charge pilots include:

SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (sustainable and resilient infrastructure). In the U.S. opposition cites the risk of over-reliance on technology and displacement of traditional industries through regulation.
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities (equitable policies and opportunities). In the U.S. critics contend that reducing inequality through policy interventions, such discriminatory Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs, can discourage individual effort, innovation, economic competitiveness.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities (accessible, sustainable transport systems). In the U.S. many argue that urban-focused development can impact suburban-rural areas or impose one-size-fits-all solutions, instituting regulations and costs on property owners.
SDG 13: Climate Action (urgent action to combat climate change). In the U.S. critics question man-made climate change, the feasibility of rapid decarbonization, economic costs, and the reliability of climate models, advocating for adaptation over mitigation.

Argument for Road Charge Pilot Programs:

SDG 9: Resilient Infrastructure:
- Road charge pilots aim to create sustainable funding for road maintenance, addressing the shortfall from declining gas tax revenue due to EV adoption. This supports SDG 9’s goal of building resilient infrastructure.
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: Equity is a core SDG 10 objective. Road charge pilots address concerns that gas taxes unfairly burden low-income or rural drivers who rely on less efficient vehicles. Pilots test equitable rate structures, such as California’s exploration of income-based discounts or exemptions.
SDG 11: Sustainable Transport Systems:
- SDG 11 promotes sustainable urban mobility: walking, biking, mass-transit penalizing vehicle use. Road charge pilots encourage efficient transportation by adjusting fees based on vehicle emissions or efficiency, as seen in California’s 2024-2025 pilot.
- Programs like Virginia’s Mileage Choice incentivize EVs, reducing urban air pollution and supporting cleaner transport systems, aligning with SDG 11’s focus on sustainable cities.
SDG 13: Climate Action:
- Road charge pilots align with SDG 13 by supporting climate-friendly transportation policies. By structuring fees to favor EVs or low-emission vehicles, pilots contribute to reducing transportation-related GHG emissions.
- Oregon’s OReGO program, for instance, ensures EVs pay for road use while maintaining incentives for low-carbon vehicles, complementing climate action goals.

Opposition

Privacy Concerns: Mileage tracking raises privacy issues, which pilots address through non-GPS options. This is critical to maintain public trust while meeting SDG 11’s goal of accessible transport.
Equity Trade-offs: Balancing SDG 10 (equity) with revenue goals is challenging. Rural and low-income drivers often oppose flat per-mile fees, as seen in California and Utah where opposition to pilots often cites rural inequity (e.g., longer driving distances), prompting states to design programs that mitigate these impacts, aligning with SDG 10.For example, Utah’s Road Usage Charge program ensures EV drivers contribute to road upkeep, funding repairs for infrastructure vulnerable to climate impacts like flooding or heatwaves.
Public Acceptance: Achieving Paris Agreement and SDG objectives requires public buy-in, but opposition to road charges (e.g., perceived as new taxes) complicates implementation.
Gas Tax Diversion: In states like California, diverting gas tax funds to non-road projects (e.g., public transit) aligns with SDG 11 but fuels opposition to road charges, as drivers feel road maintenance is underfunded.

Specific Examples

California (2024-2025 current pilot): Aligns with Paris Agreement and SDG 13 by testing EV-friendly rates, supporting the state’s 2035 EV mandate. SDG 10 is addressed through equity-focused rate structures, but opposition cites rural inequity and gas tax diversion.
Oregon (OReGO): Supports SDG 11 and Paris Agreement by ensuring EVs contribute to road funding without discouraging adoption. Privacy measures address opposition, aligning with public trust needed for SDG 9.
Utah: Focuses on SDG 9 by funding resilient roads through optional RUC for EVs. Equity concerns (SDG 10) persist among rural drivers, prompting ongoing adjustments.

California Road Charge Pilot Programs: Analysis and Comparison

Since California is the blueprint for road charge pilots in the United States, it is important to look at the genesis and details of the state’s pilot programs. The key differences between the first (2016-2017) and second current (2024-25) pilots are as follows:

Scope and Scale: The 2016-2017 pilot was larger in participation but exploratory, focusing on feasibility. The 2024-2025 pilot is smaller but tests real revenue collection, reflecting a more advanced stage of implementation.
Climate Integration: The current pilot explicitly aligns with California’s zero-emission vehicle goals, unlike the earlier pilot’s broader focus on revenue.
Payment Realism: Real payments in the 2024-2025 pilot provide a more practical test of public acceptance and system logistics compared to the simulation of 2016-2017.
Federal Support: The current pilot benefits from IRA funding, integrating federal resources, while the first pilot was state-driven.

First California Road Charge Pilot Program (2016-2017)

Authorized by Senate Bill 1077 in 2014, the first California Road Charge Pilot Program ran from July 2016 to March 2017. It was a nine-month initiative involving over 5,000 vehicles, which collectively reported more than 37 million miles driven. The program tested a mileage-based user fee, or “road charge,” as a potential replacement for the declining gas tax, aiming to create a sustainable and equitable funding mechanism for road maintenance.

The $95 million pilot, which ran from 2016 to 2017, was primarily state-funded through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA). The goals of the pilot were:

Sustainability: Develop a long-term funding mechanism to replace the gas tax, which was losing efficacy due to increasing fuel efficiency and electric vehicle (EV) adoption.
Equity: Ensure all drivers contribute to road maintenance proportional to their road usage, addressing the inequity where EV and fuel-efficient vehicle owners pay less in gas taxes.
Privacy Protection: Test methods for collecting mileage data without compromising personal information, using non-location-based options like odometer readings.
Feasibility: Evaluate various mileage reporting methods (e.g., manual odometer reporting, plug-in devices) to assess their practicality and public acceptance.

Supporting Arguments:

The gas tax was unsustainable as fuel-efficient and electric vehicles reduced revenue.
A road charge ensured fairness, as all drivers paid based on miles driven, not fuel consumed.
The pilot prioritized privacy, with safeguards to prevent location tracking and compliance with data protection laws.

Opposition and Pushback:

Privacy Concerns: Critics worried about potential government overreach through mileage tracking, despite assurances of non-GPS options. Some feared data could be misused.
Equity Issues: Rural and low-income drivers argued they would be disproportionately affected, as they often drive longer distances and own less fuel-efficient vehicles.
Administrative Complexity: Opponents highlighted the logistical challenges of implementing a statewide mileage-based system compared to the simplicity of gas taxes.
Lack of Public Buy-In: Limited participation and skepticism about the program’s necessity fueled resistance, with some viewing it as a new tax burden.

No significant litigation directly targeted the 2016-2017 pilot because it was a voluntary program with simulated payments. However, public feedback and concerns about privacy and equity shaped subsequent legislative discussions, influencing the potential design of later pilots.

Current California Road Charge Pilot Program (2024-2025)

Authorized by Senate Bill 339, the current Road Charge Collection Pilot ran from August 2024 to January 2025. This six-month program involved 800 participants who paid real money for per-mile fees, marking a shift from the simulated payments of the 2016 pilot. The program tests revenue collection mechanisms and is part of California’s ongoing effort to replace the gas tax.

The 2024-2025 pilot is supported by state funds through Caltrans and supplemented by federal grants from Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed into law on November 15, 2021. The IRA allocates $75 million over five years (2022-2026) through the Strategic Innovation for Revenue Collection (SIRC) program to support state-level road charge pilots. California, as a leading state in road charge research, likely received a portion of this funding, though exact amounts for the 2024-2025 pilot are not specified in available data. Participants were incentivized with up to $400 for completing the pilot, funded by the state. The goals of the pilot were:

Revenue Collection: Test actual payment systems to identify risks and challenges in collecting road charge fees.
Equity and Efficiency: Explore rate-setting methodologies that align with climate goals, such as adjusting fees based on vehicle efficiency to encourage zero-emission vehicle adoption.
Public Feedback: Gather participant experiences to inform a final report due to the California Legislature by December 2026.
ScalaIRAity: Assess how a road charge system could be integrated into California’s financial and administrative structure.

Supporting Arguments

The pilot addresses the projected decline in gas tax revenue as California transitions to EVs, with a 2035 ban on internal combustion vehicles.
Adjusting fees for vehicle efficiency supports climate goals and reduces the burden on low-income households by incentivizing fuel-efficient vehicles.
Real payments provide a more accurate test of public acceptance and system feasibility.

Opposition and Pushback:

Privacy Concerns: Despite privacy safeguards, some EV owners and rural drivers remain skeptical about mileage tracking, fearing potential data breaches.
Cost to Drivers: Critics, particularly EV owners, argue the road charge adds costs for those already paying less in gas taxes, potentially discouraging EV adoption.
Equity Debates: Rural drivers and low-income communities contend that a flat per-mile fee could still disproportionately impact them, as they drive more out of necessity.
Complexity and Cost: Opponents question the cost-effectiveness of implementing a new system versus raising gas taxes or other alternatives.

No litigation has been reported for the 2024-2025 pilot as of April 2025. However, public skepticism, particularly from EV drivers, has been noted in media reports, and feedback from the pilot may lead to legal challenges if a statewide system is proposed.

Dan Titus is affiliated with the American Coalition for Sustainable Communities (ACSC). Their mission is sustaining representative government; not governance, by collectivist-oriented unelected agencies and commissions.

Subscribe to our newsletter