Road wear-and-tear is the fourth power of vehicle mass.

Fuel usage is roughly correlated with vehicle mass. It isn't perfect, but heavy cars tend to use more fuel.

So they are starting with the fuel usage tax (roughly correlated with first power of vehicle mass). If you really want to tax people for the damage they cause for roads, they should move towards a *greater* dependence on vehicle mass (towards fourth power). Instead, they are moving in precisely the opposite direction.

This proposed change simply isn't rationale.

They want to do all this using stranded energy-- wind or solar which no one uses because it is located in the middle of nowhere.

Their analysis makes no mention of the energy cost of transporting zillions of tons of limestones from the middle of nowhere to the ocean. Or, rather, to all the world's oceans (since we don't want to cause one region to spike in alkylynity.)

And if it doesn't cost that much money/energy to transport those zillions of tons of rock, then it presumably costs even less to transport the electricity (Electrons don't weigh that much). In which case, the resource wouldn't be stranded.

But, it is good to see people thinking about this sort of thing, however incompletely.