Mileage Tax on the Horizon: What It Will Cost Commuter Communities

California Has Not Enacted a Mileage Tax — Yet. But We See Where This Is Going!

California has not enacted a mileage tax — yet. Drivers are not currently being charged per mile. No per-mile rate is in effect.

However, Assembly Bill 1421 has advanced through the State Assembly and continues moving through the legislative process. The bill expands the state’s framework for what it calls a “road usage charge,” a mileage-based system intended to generate transportation revenue.

We are told it is only a study.

We are told it is only planning.

We are told nothing has been decided.

But direction matters. And the direction is clear.

Another important fact to take in consideration is this:

As of 2025, the best public data indicates electric vehicles make up a single-digit share of all registered light-duty vehicles in California.

In 2024, about 6.5% of all registered vehicles on the road in California were zero-emission vehicles (including battery EVs and plug-in hybrids). In 2025 this figure remains under 10% of all vehicles statewide. That means well over 90% of vehicles on California roads are gasoline-powered. Yet the mileage-based taxation framework being prepared today will not remain confined to EVs.

Even if initially justified as a way to capture revenue from electric vehicles, the structure being built is designed to apply broadly. Absent a binding repeal of the gas tax, the practical outcome is clear: once implemented, a mileage tax will eventually affect all drivers — in addition to existing fuel taxes.

Summary:🚗 In 2025, EVs represent under 10% of all registered light-duty vehicles in California. Despite this small share, the mileage tax infrastructure being advanced today is positioned to expand statewide, ultimately affecting all drivers — not just EV owners — and potentially layering on top of the existing gas tax.

Mileage Tax Is Being Positioned as a Replacement. We See Mileage Tax as an Addition.

The mileage tax is being publicly framed as a responsible “replacement” for declining gas tax revenue. That framing is misleading.

There has been no binding repeal of the gas tax.

No structural rollback.

No legally guaranteed offset written into law.

Calling it a replacement while leaving the existing tax structure intact is not transparency — it is narrative positioning.

If this were truly a neutral swap, lawmakers could commit, in writing, to eliminating the gas tax concurrent with implementation of a mileage charge. They have not.

Absent that guarantee, the practical and historical pattern is clear: new revenue mechanisms do not erase old ones — they stack on top of them.

Labeling the mileage tax as a replacement softens public reaction. But without structural repeal, it functions as what it is: an additional tax layer.

Communities deserve straightforward language — not strategic wording that downplays cumulative impact.

What the Numbers Would Mean for Households

Public discussions reference a possible range of 6 to 9 cents per mile.

At 15,000 miles driven annually, that equals:

• $900 per year at 6 cents per mile

• $1,350 per year at 9 cents per mile

That translates to:

• $75 to $112 per month per vehicle

For a two-vehicle working household — common in commuter cities — that becomes:

• $1,800 to $2,700 annually

That is not marginal.

That is grocery money.

That is insurance money.

That is housing margin.

In communities like Compton, where many residents commute significant distances for work, those numbers are not abstract projections. They are foreseeable cost increases.

Why Commuter Communities Bear the Brunt

Mileage-based taxation ties cost directly to distance traveled. Distance traveled, for many working-class families, is tied directly to earning a living.

Construction workers, warehouse employees, healthcare staff, tradesmen, service industry workers — these are not remote jobs. They require physical presence.

Those who must drive the most to maintain employment would pay the most.

Higher-income professionals with short commutes or remote flexibility absorb such policies differently. For working commuters, the burden compounds.

When layered on top of rising rent, insurance premiums, utility costs, and broader economic pressures, an additional $900 to $2,700 per year per household becomes structurally significant (based on the number of vehicle and commuted distance per vehicle).

Modernization Without Spending Reform

The state argues that declining gas tax revenue requires adaptation. Electric vehicles do not pay fuel taxes. Fuel efficiency reduces per-gallon collections.

That may be true. But modernization of revenue without modernization of spending simply expands the intake side of the ledger.

If this were truly a neutral replacement, lawmakers could provide a binding guarantee: repeal the gas tax concurrent with implementation.

Until such guarantees exist, skepticism is rational.

Preparing a mileage tax infrastructure while leaving existing taxes intact suggests expansion, not substitution.

The Pattern Is Familiar

Policy transitions rarely happen overnight. They move through stages:

Study. Framework. Pilot. Implementation. Adjustment.

By the time rates are enacted, the infrastructure is already built.

We do not need reassurances about intent. We can observe trajectory.

The Bottom Line

California has not enacted a mileage tax — yet. But the policy machinery is advancing toward one. And unless the state commits to eliminating existing fuel taxes, the practical outcome will be an additional financial burden on working families — especially in commuter cities like Compton.

Infrastructure must be funded. But funding transitions must not quietly expand cost onto those already carrying the heaviest economic load.

This is not about opposing road maintenance. It is about demanding fiscal honesty before new revenue mechanisms become permanent fixtures.

Working communities deserve clarity, guarantees, and fairness — not layered taxation disguised as modernization.