Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

News

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways


  • The state gas tax is a key source of funding for transportation maintenance and other projects.
  • Uniquely high gas prices in California have fueled disagreements over the state’s environmental regulations and recent refinery closures.
  • With the growing popularity of electric and fuel-efficient vehicles, gas tax revenues have decreased, raising questions about the future of California’s transportation funding.
  • Some have proposed replacing the gas tax with a road usage tax based on miles driven.

What is the Gas Tax?

Transit funding in California comes from a variety of sources, including the gas tax. In fact, most state funding comes from the state tax on gasoline. The revenue is distributed to support the maintenance of city streets, bridges, state highways, and more.

In 2017, former Governor Jerry Brown signed the Road Repair and Accountability Act (Senate Bill 1) into law. This legislation marked a significant investment in California’s transportation infrastructure, and was the first time the state’s gas tax was increased since 1994.

Overview of the Gas Tax Debate

Although the state charges the tax to gasoline suppliers, this cost tends to get passed on to drivers through higher gas prices. Additionally, since the passage of Senate Bill 1, the state gas tax is set to increase annually with inflation. California’s tax on gasoline is the highest in the country — one of several factors contributing to the high prices California drivers typically pay at the pump.

(Image Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration)

Gasoline prices in California consistently exceed the national average. Along with the gas tax, compliance with the state’s environmental regulations adds costs for fuel suppliers, often leading to higher prices.

Despite the high prices, the amount of funding collected from the state gas tax has been substantially decreasing. Some research projections indicate that with increased electric vehicle use, the state may soon face a significant decline in gas tax revenue if the current revenue structure is not revised or replaced.

Pros and Cons of California’s Environmental Regulations

Many have urged policy changes to bring gas prices down. In 2025, the California Republican congressional delegation called for Governor Gavin Newsom to hold off on implementing new updates from the California Air Resources Board. These amendments would tighten some existing requirements under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with “aims to accelerate the adoption of zero-emission infrastructure.” Many republicans opposed these changes out of concern that they would further strain suppliers and thus increase retail fuel prices.

Critics of California’s environmental policies also argue that these strict gas tax rules have led to refinery closures, creating a worsening gasoline supply crisis. Some economists have estimated that in 2026, the closures of two major refineries “will result in an additional $1.21 increase in gasoline prices, which could result in California gasoline prices being over $2.50 higher than in the rest of the country.”

However, proponents of the state’s regulations argue that the long-term benefits are significant, both environmentally and financially. For example, the LCFS has been described as an evidence-based effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollutants, improving air quality. Governor Newsom’s office has also stated that “in the long term, LCFS is estimated to reduce fuel costs for Californians per mile by 42% – translating to savings of over $20 billion in gasoline costs every year by 2045.”

A Mileage-Based Alternative?

With the rise in electric vehicle usage and the closures of several in-state refineries, recent conversations have turned to alternative methods of raising funds for transportation services instead of the gas tax. One of these proposals is a road usage fee, based on miles driven. The state has considered potential models of road charge systems for some time. In 2017, the Road Charge Pilot Program explored considerations like the complexity, feasibility, and functionality of road usage models. The study “confirmed the viability of many aspects of a user-based transportation revenue mechanism,” and the California State Transportation Agency has encouraged continued research.

Supporters argue that charging based on miles driven would increase fairness, as drivers of both gas and electric vehicles would contribute. Analysis has shown that a flat-rate road usage charge would help to reduce some inequities in the burden of transportation fees. For example, such a model would “generally shift the fuel tax burden from lower-income to higher-income households” according to researchers with the Mineta Transportation Institute.

Others have raised concerns about unintended side effects of a usage-based model. Currently, electric vehicle drivers in California pay additional registration fees to help make up for lost gas tax revenues. If a road usage charge was added, these drivers might face excessive costs, which could potentially disincentivize electric vehicle usage and its intended environmental benefits. Similarly, if usage fees were to be implemented in addition to the gas tax instead of replacing it, gas vehicle drivers would experience higher costs as well. Concerns have also been raised about the administrative burden of switching to a new program, and the potential for government overreach with the monitoring of drivers’ road usage.

Looking Forward

Ultimately, much of the discussion around a road usage charge can be considered preliminary. California lawmakers have not passed a mileage tax, despite some claims online. In March 2025, the Assembly and State Senate Transportation Committees held an informational hearing regarding declining gas tax revenues and potential paths forward. More recently, the State Assembly approved a measure for the California Transportation Commission to continue a long-term study of possible mileage-based models.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the gas tax pay for?

  • The gas tax is one of several sources of funding for transportation maintenance throughout the state, including upkeep of highways and bridges, transportation research, and more.

How does the gas tax affect gas prices?

  • Federal and state taxes, environmental regulations, refining costs, and crude oil prices all play a role in retail gas prices. California’s state gas tax is uniquely high, making it one of several factors that contribute to higher prices at the pump.

How would a road usage charge work?

  • Broadly, a road usage charge is a model in which drivers are charged a tax per mile driven, instead of per gallon of gas purchased. Researchers have explored several different technologies that could be used to implement a road usage charge in California.

Is California switching to a road charge model?

  • At the time of writing, California has continued to support research on the road charge as a future alternative, but legislators have not passed a mileage tax into law.
Paola Simi is an ACE fellow.
Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding was first published by ACE and republished with permission.

Read More

Congress at sunset

America's national debt is projected to reach $45 trillion by 2029. Explore Congress's constitutional "Power of the Purse," federal spending, appropriations, and the policies contributing to rising deficits.

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Congress Must Enforce the Power of the Purse as Debt Soars

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” (Appropriations Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, U.S. Constitution). Congress’s “Power of the Purse” means the President cannot spend money or authorize expenditures unless Congress has passed a specific law funding it (Congress.gov).

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the total federal debt held by Americans is on track to hit $40 trillion by the end of 2026. Currently, every resident in America carries a $122,642 share of this debt.

Keep ReadingShow less
​A Lebanese girl returns with her family to live amid the ruins of an apartment wrecked by Israeli strikes.

A Lebanese girl returns with her family to live amid the ruins of an apartment wrecked by Israeli strikes in the Houch neighborhood, after being displaced for weeks by war between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia that has displaced 1.2 million Lebanese, on April 28, 2026, in Tyre, Lebanon.

Scott Peterson / Getty Images

Please Don't Feed the Warmongers

I was recently catching up with an old friend from my Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps days who told me about some young sailors he knew in Bahrain tasked with intercepting hostile drones. Critically, as highly disciplined professionals, they have become extraordinarily good at it. My friend and I, with over twenty years of active duty service as military officers between us, discussed the extent to which their competence and vigilance are keeping them, and other Americans deployed in the area, alive, all while their leadership in Washington treats war with an increasingly terrifying callousness.

As brave servicemembers risk their lives on the front lines, Trump brags about how much money he’s making as president. It is true that for those invested in the types of industries that thrive during armed conflict, this war in Iran is a windfall. Trump himself invested between $9.7 million and $24.3 million in arms manufacturers and Pentagon contractors in 2025. Why would he end the war?

Keep ReadingShow less
A father voting, with his young son standing by him, watching him.

Citizens cast their vote during the 2026 presidential runoff in Colombia on June 21, 2026 in Barranquilla, Colombia. Ivan Cepeda, candidate for the Pacto Historico party and Abelardo de la Espriella, candidate for the Salvación Nacional, face in a tight runoff to rule Colombia from 2026 to 2030.

Leonardo Castañeda/Getty Images

Colombia’s Election Matters—Especially to Ecuador and the U.S.

In a closely fought election on June 21, conservative outsider Abelardo De La Espriella prevailed over Iván Cepeda, an ally of current leftist president, Gustavo Petro. Central to the electorate’s choice were distinct policy proposals to fight criminality and the drug cartels, who control large swaths of Colombian territory. The policies president-elect De La Espriella will bring to the fight against these issues matter greatly, not only to Colombia, but to neighboring Ecuador and the United States.

Earlier in March, Ecuadorian President Noboa, desperate to gain traction in his own drug war, announced a partnership with the U.S. to conduct joint operations against drug cartels. The partnership quickly went awry. A New York Times investigation of the first strike indicates that what the joint militaries considered a drug camp was in fact a dairy farm, with no drug connection. Then, on March 17, Colombia accused Ecuador of bombing within its territory with U.S. involvement. These incidents resulted in U.S. lawmakers calling for a suspension of joint operations on May 13. Very quickly, the U.S. partnership has reopened the scars of the Plan Colombia era of the early 2000s, where an overly militaristic approach to the drug war funded by the U.S. resulted in human rights abuses and false positives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult grandson teaching his grandfather to use laptop, close-up.

Social Security faces a funding crisis by 2032 that could cut retirement benefits by 22%. Learn what's driving the shortfall and how it could be fixed.

Westend61 / Getty Images

Social Security Faces a 2032 Crisis with Deep Benefit Cuts Ahead

A financial tsunami of giant proportions is heading our way. And it is due to arrive in about six years. Policymakers have known about this tsunami for some time, but in June, we found out the Big Wave is taller than anyone knew.

That’s when the Social Security Trustees released their latest report on the financial health of the popular Social Security retirement program. According to the trustees’ report, the outlook is not good – Social Security’s solvency is in danger. By 2032, the Social Security fund will fall short by about $2.5 trillion of the money needed to pay the 52 million American retirees their full retirement benefits. Previously, it was thought that the tsunami would make landfall in 2034, but the finances are deteriorating faster than expected. If no presidential and congressional intervention is mounted, retirees will take about a 22 percent haircut, meaning any senior beneficiary who was receiving $3000 per month will see that chopped to about $2300 per month, a loss of about $8000 per year.

Keep ReadingShow less