Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

piggy bank
Coins falling into a white piggy bank

Love Him or Hate Him, Open a Trump Account

Last year, Congress established 530A tax-advantaged investment accounts for children under the age of 18. These accounts are now open and eligible children born between January 1, 2025 and December 31, 2028 receive a $1000 contribution from the federal government. This August, philanthropists Michael and Susan Dell gave $6.25 billion to supercharge these so-called Trump accounts, $250 goes into the accounts of the first 25 million children who have an account, are 10 and under and live in qualifying zip codes. Two hundred and fifty dollars was deposited into our children’s 530A Trump accounts.

However, as of July 2026, less than 10% of children eligible to open an account actually had an account. Too many of those who are economically worst off have not opened these 530a accounts. Research shows that families with higher incomes, older people, men and white people are more likely to be aware of this opportunity compared to families with lower incomes who are younger, women and Black and Latino. Given the historical, persistent racial and growing economic wealth gap, opportunities to build wealth should not be overlooked.

Keep ReadingShow less
House key on calculator with wooden table background copy space.

95% of Americans see an affordability crisis, and most distrust government to fix it. An argument for tracking real outcomes, not just GDP growth.

Pla2na/Getty Images

America’s Affordability Crisis Is a Democracy Crisis

Affordability dominates the national conversation because it dominates people’s lives. Ninety-five percent of Americans say the country is facing an affordability crisis, yet two-thirds don’t believe the federal government will successfully address it.

This is more than an economic problem – it’s a crisis for democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large dollar sign surrounded by code, number sequences in green ink.

As Congress weighs AI risk after researcher Jacob Coxon's viral warning, an opinion piece argues fear of 'losing control' can entrench Big Tech's power.

Anton Petrus/Getty Images

The Business Value of Losing Control of AI

A warning that artificial intelligence may escape human control can make its developers look more important, not less. For companies trying to establish AI as the defining technology of the century, even the possibility of catastrophe can increase the perceived significance of what they are building.

That possibility is now moving rapidly from Silicon Valley into Washington. On Sept. 16, senators were scheduled to gather for a private bipartisan briefing organized by Sen. Bernie Sanders on what he called the “extraordinary dangers” of advanced AI. The meeting followed the resignation of Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, whose warning that people building frontier AI genuinely believe the technology could kill humanity drew more than 100 million views. Coxon had spent three years working on pretraining at OpenAI and Anthropic.

Keep ReadingShow less
house with red door
Cozy house with red door under a blue sky

Massive Racial Wealth Gap for Massachusetts Latino Families

BOSTON — A comprehensive statewide report released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston has exposed a staggering racial wealth gap in Massachusetts, revealing that Latino families hold a median net wealth of just $1,200.

The landmark study, titled “Family Wealth in Massachusetts,” indicates that despite the Commonwealth ranking near the top of national measures for median income, economic security remains profoundly stratified along racial lines. The findings show that the median net wealth of White families in the state stands at $549,200—an amount 458 times greater than that of typical Latino households.

Keep ReadingShow less