By Edward Henderson, California Black Media
As California grapples with declining gas tax revenues and a rapidly changing transportation landscape, Assembly Bill (AB) 1421 has emerged as a flashpoint in Sacramento – adding heat to an ongoing debate over how the state should pay for its roads, bridges, and transit systems in the years ahead.
Authored by Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D–Suisun City), a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC), AB 1421 does not create a new tax.
Instead, Wilson explains, the bill directs the California Transportation Commission to consolidate years of research into a comprehensive report on alternatives to the gas tax, including — but not limited to – road-user charges and mileage-based fees. It also extends the life of an existing technical advisory committee through 2035 to ensure continued public and legislative oversight.
Wilson, who chairs the Assembly Transportation Committee, says the bill is about transparency and preparation, not immediate implementation.
“We’ve been studying alternatives to the gas tax since 2014,” Wilson told California Black Media (CBM).
“What this bill does is bring together all the work that’s already been done — by universities, state agencies, and pilot programs — and ask for a complete report back to the Legislature.”
At the core of the discussion is a problem nearly everyone agrees on: California’s gas tax is no longer a reliable funding source. As vehicles become more fuel efficient and electric vehicle adoption grows, fewer drivers are paying into the system that maintains the state’s transportation infrastructure.
Under the current system, Wilson noted, drivers of gas-powered vehicles can pay between $300 and $600 a year in gas taxes, while many electric vehicle owners pay as little as $117 annually through registration fees.
“That’s a huge delta,” she said. “If you use the infrastructure, you should help pay for it. Right now, the burden falls disproportionately on people who drive long distances, can’t afford newer vehicles, or rely on their cars for work.”
Wilson emphasized that equity concerns are central to the bill. Studies from other states, she said, show that mileage-based systems — if carefully designed — can be more progressive than gas taxes, offering rebates or reduced rates for low-income drivers and people who must travel long distances for employment.
Still, the proposal has drawn fierce opposition from Republicans, most notably Assemblymember David Tangipa (R–Fresno), who has used social media to warn Californians that AB 1421 is a precursor to a new tax.
“The supermajority in Sacramento has approved plans to move toward a mileage-based tax,” Tangipa said in a video posted to Instagram.
“Californians already pay the highest gas taxes in the nation, and now the idea is that if you use the roads, you’ll also be taxed per mile.”
Tangipa, who commutes long distances from his district in the Central Valley to Sacramento, framed the proposal as an existential threat to working-class Californians and rural residents.
“In my own case, I drive a lot of miles just getting to the Capitol,” he said. “If a mileage tax had been in place last year, I would have paid more in mileage taxes than I paid in property taxes.”
A central concern raised by Tangipa is the possibility of “double taxation,” in which drivers would be required to pay both the gas tax and a mileage-based fee.
“If you can’t afford an electric vehicle, you risk being double taxed,” he said. “That’s a direct hit on everyday Californians who are just trying to get by.”
Wilson disputes that characterization, stating that she and other supporters in the Legislature reject double taxation and are considering how any future system could replace — not stack on top of — the gas tax.
She also stresses that AB 1421 does not authorize a new tax, nor does it mandate a mileage-based system.
“This bill is about information,” Wilson said. “It’s about understanding what’s working, what’s not, and how California’s unique geography and diversity should shape our decisions.”
Tangipa remains unconvinced. While supporters describe the bill as a study, he argues that its purpose is clear.
“They say it’s only a study,” Tangipa told CBM. “But the study is about how to implement a mileage-based tax. Californians deserve to know the direction Sacramento is moving.”
He also questioned why lawmakers would explore new revenue mechanisms at a time of record state tax revenues.
“Even when the state has historic tax revenue, they’re still looking for ways to take more from drivers instead of reallocating existing funds,” Tangipa said. “If infrastructure is the priority, then fix the budget before asking people to pay more.”
Wilson, meanwhile, says the public conversation is exactly the point. Since becoming committee chair, she has held multiple town halls, met with city and county officials, and scheduled additional hearings to gather input from residents across the state.
“I didn’t come into this with a predetermined outcome,” she said. “I want Californians to weigh in. This isn’t about a silver bullet — it’s about building a sustainable, fair system over time.”