AB1058 amends Section 7360 of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Law by adding “Except as provided in Section 7374” to the statutory provisions that impose the main state excise taxes on motor fuel and the annual CPI-based adjustments. The affected levies include the 18‑cent base excise, the 17.3‑cent additional levy created in subdivision (b), and the 12‑cent additional levy created in subdivision (c), as well as the statute’s CPI escalation mechanism and the federal-tax-triggered recalculation rule.
The bill does not itself spell out the suspension conditions in Section 7374 within the text provided here, but its effect is clear: the core state fuel taxes and their automatic increases are now expressly made subject to suspension under that separate provision. That change creates a statutory path to pause multiple components of fuel tax revenue that currently fund state and local highway and transit programs, with direct implications for transportation agencies, bondholders, fuel distributors, and budget forecasters.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB1058 inserts “Except as provided in Section 7374” into subdivisions imposing the state fuel excise taxes and the CPI adjustment, making those levies susceptible to a suspension mechanism codified elsewhere in the statute. The bill leaves in place the existing federal-tax-triggered recalculation that maintains a combined federal-plus-state floor of 27 cents per gallon if the federal tax falls below 9 cents.
Who It Affects
The change affects entities collecting and remitting the excise (fuel distributors and retailers), the state board charged with rate adjustments, Caltrans and local transportation agencies that receive fuel-tax revenues, and holders of transportation revenue bonds or other contracts that rely on those revenue streams.
Why It Matters
By creating an explicit statutory exception for suspension, the bill converts what were predictable, regularly adjusted revenue streams into contingent ones whenever Section 7374 is invoked — increasing short‑term policy flexibility but reducing revenue certainty for capital programs and contracts tied to fuel-tax receipts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB1058 does one principal thing: it makes the principal state motor fuel excise taxes and their statutorily mandated increases subject to a suspension rule referenced as Section 7374. Practically, the statute’s base 18‑cent excise, the 17.3‑cent subdivision (b) levy, the 12‑cent subdivision (c) levy, and the board’s annual CPI-based increases (the July 1 adjustments) now carry the qualifier “Except as provided in Section 7374.” In other words, once Section 7374 is read together with Section 7360, those taxes are not absolute — they may be paused in whatever circumstances Section 7374 specifies.
The bill preserves several technical mechanisms inside Section 7360. It keeps the federal-triggered recalculation: if the federal fuel tax drops below 9 cents and federal allocations for highways and exclusive public mass transit guideways are reduced, the state rate is recalculated so the federal plus state rate equals 27 cents per gallon.
It also preserves continuity for persons exempt from the federal tax at the time of any federal reduction. The statute keeps the board’s role in making the March 1/July 1 rate adjustments and retains the rounding rule for CPI increases to the nearest tenth of a cent.Operationally, the change shifts where policy discretion can reside.
Rather than changing the statutorily listed base rates, the legislature (or whatever mechanism Section 7374 prescribes) can suspend those levies without rewriting the base numbers in Section 7360. That creates a layered administration problem: collection systems, dealer reporting, monthly remittances, and any refunds or credits must be able to reflect a temporary suspension; recipients of fuel‑tax revenue must plan for possible interruptions; and legal obligations in bond documents and grant agreements tied to fuel-tax receipts may require waiver or renegotiation if a suspension occurs.Because the text provided adds the suspension trigger but does not include Section 7374 itself, the real-world effect — who can order a suspension, what triggers it, its duration, and whether suspended amounts are recouped later — depends entirely on the content of Section 7374.
Compliance officers and fiscal managers should therefore treat AB1058 as creating a contingent authority over the existing fuel tax architecture that will materially change forecasting and contractual risk once Section 7374’s procedures are known.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes the 18¢ per gallon base excise (subdivision (a)), the 17.3¢ per gallon subdivision (b) levy, and the 12¢ per gallon subdivision (c) levy explicitly subject to suspension under Section 7374.
The federal-tax trigger remains: if the federal fuel tax falls below 9¢/gallon and federal highway/transit allocations fall correspondingly, the state rate is recalculated so federal plus state equals 27¢/gallon.
The statute preserves the rule that any person or entity exempt from the federal fuel tax at the time of a federal reduction remains exempt for the recalculation provision.
The board must continue to perform annual CPI-based rate adjustments each July 1 (with the first covering Nov 1, 2017–Nov 1, 2019 and subsequent 12-month periods) and round results to the nearest tenth of a cent.
Paragraphs (b)(2)–(4) retain the historical March 1 rate‑setting process to offset revenue loss attributable to Section 6357.7 (though subsection (b)(5) ended that adjustment process as of July 1, 2019).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Base 18¢ excise made suspendible
Subdivision (a) currently imposes the 18‑cent per gallon base excise and contains the federal-triggered recalculation formula. AB1058 prefixes that language with “Except as provided in Section 7374,” so the base excise is no longer unconditional in the statute: it exists unless and until the suspension mechanism in Section 7374 is applied. Practically, this means the legal existence of the 18¢ levy can be overridden by the suspension rule, though the numerical base and the federal-recalculation math remain unchanged.
17.3¢ additional levy and historical revenue-neutral adjustments
Subdivision (b) contains the 17.3‑cent add-on and the board’s March 1 adjustment duty to offset revenue losses from Section 6357.7, plus the provision that those adjustments cease after July 1, 2019. By adding the suspension exception to subdivision (b), AB1058 allows the 17.3¢ component — and the board’s ability to set an adjusted rate under the pre‑2019 scheme — to be paused under Section 7374. That creates the operational question of whether the suspension would have to coordinate with the board’s historical adjustment calculations or simply nullify them during suspension.
12¢ levy made suspendible
Subdivision (c) imposes an additional 12‑cent per gallon tax effective November 1, 2017. AB1058’s insertion of the exception makes this discrete statutory levy subject to suspension in the same manner as the base and subdivision (b) levies, ensuring any pause applies to all three named levies rather than just the base rate.
Annual CPI escalation placed under suspension authority
Subdivision (d) directs the board to apply annual CPI adjustments to the taxes in (a)–(c) every July 1, specifying the calculation, rounding to the nearest tenth of a cent, and that later legislative increases become new bases for CPI indexing. By qualifying (d) with the Section 7374 exception, AB1058 makes the CPI escalation itself subject to suspension — so a pause could freeze both statutory base rates and their planned escalations rather than leaving only the bases suspendible.
Treatment of subsequent rate increases
Subdivision (e) treats post‑July 1, 2017 increases as changes to the base for future CPI adjustments. The bill leaves this posture intact while putting the underlying base-and-adjustment mechanics under the suspension exception, so any future legislation that raises base rates remains potentially suspendible under Section 7374 unless that section specifies otherwise.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Motorists and consumers — if Section 7374 is invoked to suspend excise rates, retail pump prices would likely fall in the short term (subject to market dynamics), producing immediate relief at the pump.
- Policymakers seeking short‑term fiscal flexibility — executive or legislative actors who want a mechanism to temper fuel prices without rewriting base statutory rates gain a legislative tool to do so.
- Fuel distributors and large retailers (short-term administrative relief) — a suspension could reduce the need to collect and remit certain excises temporarily, lowering immediate compliance costs, provided the suspension is administrable without large-scale refund processing.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local transportation agencies (Caltrans, regional transportation planning agencies, transit operators) — these entities rely on fuel‑tax receipts to fund operations, maintenance, and capital projects and would face revenue shortfalls if suspensions reduce incoming funds.
- Bondholders and contract counterparties on transportation revenue-backed debt — a pause in dedicated revenue streams risks covenant breaches, rating downgrades, or required debt-service support from other sources.
- Tax collection and treasury administrators (the board and remitting entities) — suspensions introduce implementation complexity: updating collection systems, issuing guidance, and potentially administering refunds or credits if taxes already collected must be reconciled.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma AB1058 exposes is straightforward: it gives policymakers a way to deliver short‑term relief at the pump by pausing statutorily guaranteed fuel-tax components, but doing so undermines the predictability and contractual reliability of revenue streams that fund long‑lived transportation projects and debt — forcing a trade‑off between immediate price relief and long‑term infrastructure stability.
The most consequential open question in AB1058 is procedural: the bill removes statutory immunity for the listed fuel taxes by tying them to Section 7374, but the provided text does not show what Section 7374 actually authorizes. That creates two layers of uncertainty: first, who can trigger a suspension (the Governor, the Legislature, an administrative board, or some combination), and second, whether suspended amounts are forfeited, later recouped, or offset by other revenue adjustments.
These implementation details determine whether a suspension is a temporary cash‑flow measure or a structural cut to transportation finance.
Operationally, suspending base levies plus CPI escalators raises hard administrative problems. Collections systems and dealer reporting are built around fixed per‑gallon rates; a suspension that begins mid-month or mid-quarter could generate refund claims, complicate audits, and require reprogramming of point-of-sale systems.
On the fiscal side, transportation projects with multi-year budgets and debt service calibrated to fuel-tax flows would face either cutbacks or the need for replacement funding; the statute as amended does not provide a replacement mechanism or repayment timetable. Finally, the federal-triggered recalculation stays in place, which could create odd interactions if the federal tax changes while a state suspension is active.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.