Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
03/20/2015 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB123 | |
| HB120 | |
| HB58 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 120-TRANSPORT NETWORK SVES. & WORKERS COMP
3:50:09 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 120, "An Act relating to workers' compensation
and transportation network companies; and providing for an
effective date."
3:51:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor of HB 120, stated that Chugiak-Eagle River is a
growing community of approximately 35,000 people about 10 miles
north of the core of the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA).
Although Chugiak-Eagle River is a thriving community, it has had
ongoing challenges in obtaining transportation services with its
municipal bus system and local taxicab industry. Apparently the
community lies too far from the MOA's core to receive consistent
and timely taxi service. It requires scheduling in advance or
waiting 30 minutes or longer for a cab, plus it can be costly.
The municipal bus system has continually been threatened with
reduced hours, routes, and service.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that the Chugiak-Eagle River
community hopes to get some relief from the transportation
issues by the new technology trends, such as Uber, Lyft, and
Sidecar, which are known as "transportation network companies"
or TNCs. The transportation network companies (TNCs) use smart
phone applications and software to connect people who want a
ride with available drivers willing to provide the service in a
relatively short amount of time.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER explained that drivers connected through
"transportation network companies" are independent contractors.
They obtain business licenses, operate their own vehicles,
establish operating hours, and decide for themselves whether to
accept or decline an available ride request. He stated that
Uber entered the Anchorage market in 2014 and created
transportation options for his community and for Girdwood, south
of Anchorage. He stated that Uber was currently in the process
of negotiating with the MOA on how to operate inside the
municipality. This bill would address several issues that will
help his community. He said that HB 120 would essentially do
two things. First, it would define "transportation network
company" and "transportation network company services." A
"transportation network company" would mean an entity that uses
a digital network or software application to connect passengers
to drivers. It would specify that transportation network
company services are provided from the moment that a driver
accepts a request for services for a ride to the point the
passenger exits their vehicle. In addition, this bill would
offers transportation network company drivers the same exemption
from workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements as
enjoyed by other people in Alaska, including babysitters, real
estate professionals, certain sports referees and officials, and
taxicab drivers since these people are not employees, but are
independent contractors. The Chugiak-Eagle River area has
expressed a strong desire for more choice, more competition, and
more opportunities for transportation services. He directed
attention to documents in members' packets from the local
chamber of commerce. He offered his belief that HB 120 provides
one step toward addressing the changing market in transportation
needs in underserved communities in Alaska.
3:55:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether there was a way to ensure
to transportation network companies (TNCs) could operate, but to
also ensure that all participants in the enterprise are fully
insured.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER answered that his intent was to address
some of the fundamental issues involved with transportation
network company operations; however, he also desires to focus on
this aspect and not be "everything to all people."
3:55:59 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on HB 120.
3:56:09 PM
MICHAEL MONAGLE, Director, Central Office, Division of Workers'
Compensation, Department of Labor & Workforce Development
(DLWD), stated that he was not an expert on transportation
network services. He said that the department is neutral on the
bill. He advised members that there was a companion bill in the
other body, [SB 58] and he testified in opposition to the bill;
however, that is incorrect. The bills are currently identical,
he said, apologizing for any confusion. He said the official
position of the Department of Labor & Workforce Development is
that it is neutral on both bills.
MR. MONAGLE referred to page 2, line 25, noting that the bill
would exempt a transportation network company driver from the
moment the driver picks up a passenger until the passenger
disembarks. He highlighted that what was unclear to the
department is how the exemption would apply to someone at the
curbside waiting for a passenger and something happens or if the
driver was waiting for a passenger to contact him/her and a
crash happened. He asked for further clarification on whether
that person was considered an employee or if he/she was
considered an independent contractor.
3:58:21 PM
MR. MONAGLE directed attention to the current exemption for
taxicabs; however, he offered his belief that the language [on
page 2, lines 21-22 in HB 120 [in paragraph (11)] seemed broader
than just taxi services. He read, "(11) a person who operates a
motor vehicle that is (A) owned, leased, or authorized for use
by the person; ...." Under the definition of having a
technology platform, a smart phone, to connect the driver to a
passenger, it would seem that tour operators that treated their
drivers as independent operators with a smart phones could take
advantage of the same language. While the department
acknowledged an exemption exists for taxi drivers and limousine
services, expanding the industry further - into the tourism
business - would be of concern to the department.
3:59:33 PM
MR. MONAGLE directed attention to proposed Sections 3 and 4,
which are retroactive to January 1, 2014. He expressed concern
that an injured worker or an ongoing proceeding could be
nullified by the retroactive clause.
3:59:57 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES, in reference to the concern about drivers
waiting on the curb for passengers, directed attention to page
2, [line 27] which indicates service starts at the point "when
the person accept a request." She suggested that a person would
open his/her smart phone application, "app," and click on it to
make a payment. She said that the Uber car sitting by the curb
waiting for someone who has accepted the request would fall
under this language. She asked for further clarification on his
concern that there would be a "gap."
4:00:40 PM
MR. MONAGLE referred to page 2, line 25 which read, "... ; a
person is performing transportation network company services
under this subparagraph when the person accepts a request for
transportation ...." He suggested that the department was
concerned about a driver who was "in between" requests, who had
not yet received a text or other communication for the next
passenger. He clarified he was interested in what happened to
the driver in between calls.
VICE CHAIR HUGHES said she had misunderstood his concern.
4:01:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether he considered these
drivers as employees and not as contractors; further, to
consider the policy decision being made by this language.
MR. MONAGLE answered if a dispute arose as to whether the driver
was an independent contractor or an employee, that the
department would use the "relative nature of the work test" to
make the determination, which would consider a series of
questions. For example, one of the primary considerations would
be whether this was a separate calling or in other words whether
the work being done was independent of the employer or if the
employer gained significantly from the activities of the
employee. He characterized the "relative nature of the work
test" as consisting of a series of questions, such as who
provides the tools and equipment, who sets the hours, whether
the employee has the right to hire others, and if the conditions
of employment were set by the independent contractor or by the
employer. He said this type of analysis will help the
department make the determination on whether the person truly
was an employee or is an independent contractor.
4:03:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked what the ramifications to the law
would be if the exemption was adopted.
MR. MONAGLE said that ultimately whether to exempt the party
would be a policy decision by the legislature. Of course, the
department always has concerns about exemptions since there
seems to be a growing movement nationally to classify as
employees as independent contractors, he said. One of the
common complaints specific to the construction industry occurs
when employers classify their carpenters as independent
contractors instead of as employees. The department has a staff
of investigators who delve into these complaints, he said. He
recalled a national delivery company had classified its drivers
as independent contractors since their drivers leased the
vehicles; however, the California district court ruled that the
drivers were employees and not independent contractors. He said
the department has had some concern about the growing push
toward independent contractors, but their concern was primarily
to ensure that workers are covered in the event that something
happens to them. The department wants to ensure that employees
have medical coverage and wage replacement covered in the event
injuries are sustained on the job.
4:04:56 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on whether
taxicab drivers are considered independent contractors.
MR. MONAGLE answered yes.
4:05:10 PM
SHELDON WINTERS, Lobbyist, State Farm Insurance, stated that
State Farm Insurance was the largest insurer of personal
automobiles in the country and in Alaska. He said that State
Farm Insurance does not have any objection to TNCs
[transportation network companies] or any position on the gist
of the bill, which was to exempt TNCs from the workers'
compensation requirements. However, State Farm Insurance has
expressed concerned about the narrow definition of TNC services
in HB 120, which could have dire consequences if applied
elsewhere.
4:06:15 PM
MR. WINTERS offered to read some snippets from the Division of
Insurance's consumer warning posted on the division's website.
He read, "Alaska Division of Insurance (DOI) joins 14 other
states in issuing a warning about the risks of rideshare and
vehicle-sharing programs ...." He stated that figure was now 22
states that have issued similar warning. He read, "Ride-sharing
programs, or transportation network companies/TNCs, use an
online service to connect passengers with drivers who use their
personal vehicles for pre-arranged taxi-like transportation
services for hire. The Division wants Alaskans to know that
these programs may result in a denial of insurance for
participating vehicle owners, drivers, and passengers."
4:07:20 PM
MR. WINTERS continued to read, "Personal auto insurance is not
intended to cover individuals who use their vehicles for
commercial purposes. Most personal auto policies will not cover
an accident that occurs when someone uses their personal
vehicles for commercial purposes."
MR. WINTERS said that other regulators refer to various "gaps in
insurance" that exist with this new emerging industry. One of
the gaps is of concern in this bill. He stated that commercial
activities of a TNC driver do not begin when the passenger is
picked up or when the passenger calls; instead, commercial
activities that are not intended to be covered by personal auto
insurance begin the moment that "app" is turned on. He
suggested that typically the TNC driver turns the "app" on and
either drives around or sits on the side of the street "roaming"
for customers. He offered his belief that the aforementioned
period of time was not contained in the definition [in the
bill]. He characterized it as being similar to when a taxicab
driver turns on his light to indicate the cab is for hire. At
that point, the taxicab driver does not have a customer;
however, he is engaged in a commercial activity, just as any
Uber driver or TNC driver who has turned on the "app" and is
roaming around for passengers.
4:08:58 PM
MR. WINTERS suggested for TNC drivers it was arguably the most
dangerous time because they are engaged in the app, roaming for
customers and some tragic accidents have occurred during this
time; for example, the death of a six-year-old in which a TNC
driver did not have a passenger, but the "app" was on when the
driver ran into a family and the young daughter was killed. He
stated that in that high-profile accident, the TNC took the
position that since a passenger connection had not yet been made
the TNC was not responsible.
4:09:42 PM
MR. WINTERS expressed concern that "transportation network
services" are defined too narrowly. He referred to page 3, line
6, to paragraph (5), "transportation network company services"
means transportation of a passenger between points chosen by the
passenger and prearranged with a transportation network company-
endorsed driver through the use of a transportation network
company's digital network or software application." He stated
that it was unclear if TNS starts when passenger is picked up,
or is engaged, but it doesn't include the "roaming" period.
MR. WINTERS characterized this bill as a workers' compensation
bill. He expressed concern that this narrow definition would be
used to preclude the injured party. The concern was two-fold;
first, because that was what TNCs have argued in the past, which
is that even though the app is on, it is before any passenger
was engaged, and thus would not be a TNC activity. If this
legislation passes, it will be the only law in Alaska that
defines TNCs. From his experience as a defense attorney, he
opined that the courts will look at this definition to determine
whether workers' compensation will apply or not. He said he was
working with the sponsor on language that would broaden the
definition to include "app on." When the app was on it would
become a TNC enterprise, he said.
4:11:41 PM
MR. WINTERS said that TNC's are evolving, which he viewed as a
good thing. Certainly legislation can evolve over time;
however, what must be "gotten right" from the start was the
definition of the TNC. He asked members to consider broadening
the definition in this workers' compensation bill. Lastly,
although he agreed he is not a workers' compensation expert,
when an industry attempts to put in statute an exemption for
workers' compensation responsibility, the industry should want
it to be as broad as possible, therefore, he found the liability
aspects in the bill to be very troubling.
4:13:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said Mr. Winter's proposal seemed like
a "win-win" situation. He noted that Uber was very effective
since its service is cheaper, but the externalities not being
absorbed by the transaction. He related his understanding that
the insurance industry wants to make money, but it is willing to
cover people for injuries. He suggested that under Mr. Winter's
proposal drivers of Uber cars would have more protection from
the courts and their passengers would be better protected, but
the whole enterprise would cost more.
MR. WINTERS answered that he thinks that characterization was
accurate, but added that if personal auto insurance were to
cover the commercial policy and activities, everyone would be in
the "pool" and it will cost everyone more for that coverage.
Instead, the cost of coverage should rest with the enterprise
engaged in the commercial activity, which is the TNC. He
recalled earlier testimony that stated part of the business
model was to leverage the use of the personal auto policy to
avoid having to pay for insurance. He acknowledged that
highlighted the issue. He said a person's personal auto policy
does not cover commercial activity and the insurance industry
wants to fill that gap. At the end of the day, a more
comprehensive liability bill has been passed in four other
states, which states that from moment the "app" is on it is
clear that the personal auto policy does not apply. This would
it require the TNCs to basically obtain commercial insurance for
their activities at that point.
4:16:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO said Mr. Winters mentioned ride-share. It
made him think about carpooling in which people pay $5 for gas.
He said as the vehicle owner, he has provided rides to work and
was reimbursed for gas. He asked whether personal auto
insurance covers that activity since it happens five days a
week.
MR. WINTERS answered that carpooling does not put the vehicle
"out for hire." He offered his belief that the activity would
be covered under the personal auto policy. The distinction was
that the TNCs are commercial enterprises that make money and
carpooling does not.
4:17:45 PM
BRYCE BENNETT, Senior Operations Manager, Uber, stated that this
bill has a much narrower scope, which specifically addresses the
workers' compensation piece being evaluated.
MR. BENNETT explained that Uber was a platform that connects
drivers and riders through a mobile application [or "app"]. He
stated that Uber brings an unprecedented level of accountability
to the transportation industry since riders know who will come
to pick them up. The system is a cashless system with riders
paying for the service with their credit cards, which removes
danger for drivers. On top of that Uber provides a continuous
feedback look and a rating system after every single trip. He
described Uber drivers as independent contractors who may
provide a couple of trips a week to 30 or 40 trips per week.
These drivers must apply on line, submit basic documents,
including registration, proof of insurance and driver's
licenses. Driver must obtain a 19-point vehicle inspection at a
local certified mechanic, such as a Midas shop. The drivers
must submit to a stringent and thorough background check that
spans seven years and considers motor vehicle records, criminal
background check, sex offender data base registry check, and a
social security trace that pulls local and multi-state court
records. Only after taking all of these steps can any driver
have access to the platform. One of the things that drivers
said when polled was that one of the greatest things about Uber
was the flexibility that it provided them, rather than the
money. They can come and go as they please, he said.
4:20:29 PM
MR. BENNETT stated that drivers could sign on once a week or
choose to offer services on Friday and Saturday nights. He
characterized the drivers as part-time drivers or "stay at home
moms," but the main theme was the complete flexibility Uber
drivers have. He said that Uber drivers own their own personal
vehicles and drive an average of 20 hours a month with the "app
on", which he contrasted with taxicab companies, whose drivers
are dispatched, often working on a set shift, and leasing their
vehicles from permanent owners. In the case of Uber, drivers
have an option to receive a request. These drivers receive a
request via their smart phones, and can decide whether to pick
up the passengers or not. It depends on the city, but typically
drivers are required to obtain business licenses. Drivers are
not furnished any equipment. He offered his belief that one of
the conditions for exemptions for taxicab companies was due to
the rate-based fare by mile or minute, which is also how Uber is
calculated. He stated that the [drivers] take 80 percent of
share and do not work any shifts or for any hourly rates.
4:22:35 PM
MR. BENNETT stated that the partners receive an IRS 1099 form
each year since there isn't any tax withholding. In other
cities that have Lyft and Sidecar, Uber doesn't have any
exclusivity. The Uber drivers can have all three applications
on their phone and can be affiliated with all three companies.
MR. BENNETT said that this bill looks at workers' compensation
portion. He said that no other state has classified Uber
affiliated partners, or drivers, as employees. He acknowledged
that other states, including Arkansas and Florida are evaluating
workers' compensation. In terms of insurance, there are not any
gaps. He directed attention to a chart in members' packets that
describes every level of insurance, beginning with period 1, in
which the application is on, but there isn't any transaction
taking place and the rider is not connected to the driver.
4:24:18 PM
MR. BENNETT referred to the tragic case that was previously
mentioned that occurred in San Francisco. He stated that the
accident occurred during period 1 and personal auto insurance
settled by offering to pay up to the limits of the insurance
policy. He explained that period 2 will cover the timeframe one
the driver receives a beep and taps the screen to accept the
ride, which is the point when the driver is considered en route
to pick up the rider. At that point, period 2, the Uber primary
$1 million insurance starts and continues through period 3, when
the rider is in the car. This $1 million coverage extends to
uninsured motorists, underinsured motorists, and collision. He
said that Uber hoped to address narrow scope addressed by the
bill. Uber has been working with the MOA to reach a more
comprehensive solution that will allow Uber to operate in
Alaska, he said, noting that Uber paused its operations after
providing five months of free rides in the Anchorage area,
partnering with almost 100 small businesses and providing rides
to thousands of people.
4:26:04 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification that Uber
drivers are logged on for an average of 20 hours per month.
MR. BENNETT answered yes; the average was 5 hours a week or 20
hours per month.
4:26:24 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES asked whether people were using their vehicles
for other purposes.
MR. BENNETT answered that typically people use their personal
vehicles as they see fit.
VICE CHAIR HUGHES said she was surprised the average was so low.
4:26:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked for further clarification that
the commercial transaction starts when the driver picks up the
passenger.
MR. BENNETT answered that the commercial insurance begins when
the driver accepts the connection.
4:27:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked how many instances of litigation
have occurred when something happens during period 1 prior to
the "app" connection.
MR. BENNETT answered that there have not been any issues in
period 1 in Alaska.
4:28:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his belief that each state
would essentially have a case if their statutes didn't make
period 1 clear or else the court will need decide when coverage
actually began. He asked whether there was not any dispute that
the insurance coverage begins from the time the Uber app
[application] was activated, which was basically the receipt of
the trip request until the end of the trip.
MR. BENNETT answered that the period 1 timeframe was when the
Uber driver has the Uber app on, but prior to the request being
received by the potential passenger. He clarified that this
timeframe is the period for the contingent liability coverage.
He said the issue is who provides the primary coverage, and in
this instance the personal insurance provides the primary
coverage. He reported that Illinois actually passed
comprehensive legislation that aligned with that, but he offered
his belief that most other states are working on that aspect as
well. Again, during the time period when the Uber driver is
logged on and available, if there were any issues with the
driver's personal auto insurance, the Uber contingent liability
coverage would then "kick in." He added that Uber has provided
these insurance policies to multiple cities and states around
the country, including the Municipality of Anchorage.
4:29:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO related a scenario in which a driver has
multiple apps on, including the Uber app. He asked how the
insurance gets determined if an incident occurred during period
1, prior to the driver accepting a trip if three different apps
were activated.
MR. BENNETT replied that there have not been any issues during
period 1. He offered to follow up with the legal team since
Uber has been operating in California for a longer period and
more competition exists so that specific issue may have arisen.
4:30:14 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification that in
Illinois the commercial coverage begins at the point of
purchase.
MR. BENNETT agreed that was correct. He said the Illinois
legislature passed legislation that identified the contingent
coverage as well identifying the primary commercial coverage
begins when a ride is requested, which also aligns with the
language in this bill.
VICE CHAIR HUGHES asked whether any states have passed that the
defining moment was the point at which the app was activated or
"app on."
MR. BENNETT answered that California transitioned to an "app on"
and Colorado also considers [primary coverage] when the app is
turned on [or "app on."
VICE CHAIR HUGHES recapped her understanding that two states
[California and Colorado] consider "app on" as the defining
moment for commercial coverage and one considers it to be the
point of purchase [Illinois], when the passenger pays for the
ride via a credit card. She asked whether this issue was also
currently being considered in other states.
MR. BENNETT answered that a wide range of legislation was
currently being considered in multiple states.
4:31:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said there was nothing magical about
when the clock begins, but states were making pure policy
decisions. Prior to the existence of Uber, insurance companies
such as State Farm Insurance and Farmers Insurance did not cover
this sort of activity. He asked why the burden be shifted to
them during the period when the driver might be distracted by
trying to identify whether a potential rider has requested a
ride. He offered that these drivers were on the streets since
they were offering rides. He asked for further clarification
since the courts will ultimately determine whether that would
constitutes an economic activity absent a statute.
MR. BENNETT answered that he was not familiar with a situation
in which the courts made such determinations. He suggested that
most states have addressed this in one form or another.
4:33:14 PM
ARMAND FELICIANO, Vice-President, Property Casualty Insurers
Association of America (PCI), offered that State Farm
Insurance's testimony was "spot on." He said that the real
issue was that the transportation network companies (TNCs)
definition of service is so narrowly defined [in the bill]. He
related a scenario in which an Uber driver was "roaming" ["app
on"] without a passenger and was involved in an accident. He
offered his belief that the courts, using the narrow definition
of TNCs, would determine that the driver was not providing
transportation network services and therefore Uber is "off the
hook." He asked to next respond to Uber's testimony.
4:34:11 PM
MR. FELICIANO directed attention to the "gap" issue. He said
that 22 state regulators have already deemed that personal auto
insurance does not cover the period described as period 1. The
main debate surrounds turning the Uber "app on," the point at
which the driver is engaging in commercial activity. He agreed
this was a matter of opinion, but PCI's opinion is different
than Uber's opinion. He related his understanding that Uber
believes period 1 is considered personal use, but PCI believes
it falls under commercial use. He characterized this as the
"heart of the issue." The Uber insurance was contingent on
personal auto insurance, but PCI disagrees and believes that
personal auto insurance simply does not cover that activity. In
fact, that is exactly what a gap is, he said. If an accident
happens and the driver indicates the Uber app was on during the
investigation, personal auto insurance will not cover it;
however, Uber disagrees with this determination. He suggested
that drivers really shouldn't want auto insurance coverage based
on the court stepping in and determining the coverage. Having
Uber services as an option for transportation is great; however,
he disagreed that insurance law should be so gray. Uber
testified that incidents have not yet happened in Alaska, but
why wait until they do.
4:35:46 PM
MR. FELICIANO suggested that in Uber's home state of California
an Uber driver did have an accident during period 1. He
reported that 36 states are currently debating this type of
insurance coverage today. He stated that PCI has been involved
in this nationally, and California, Colorado, the District of
Columbia, and West Virginia have agreed that transportation
network company services (TNC) services begin when the Uber app
is turned on [app on]. He suggested that if Uber was willing to
consider that the service occurs during "app on" in California,
why not extend that same level of protection in Alaska. He
offered to work with Uber on this issue, just as his company has
done in California. He suggested that the California model will
work in Alaska. He remarked that Illinois represents the
minority since it considers TNC happens when the Uber driver
accepts the rider. He said this captures what is happening at
the national level.
MR. FELICIANO recalled questions raised earlier, including one
asking what will happen to insurance rates. In California, Uber
agreed to a hybrid insurance policy to make it affordable, he
said, noting the hybrid policy was not personal or commercial
insurance, but was insurance based on metro mile provided.
Another question was raised about someone providing rides
[carpooling]. He said the distinction was that the person
providing rides and collecting money for gas does not make a
living out of his/her car. The driver sharing rides does not
log on for five hours a day to make money. He concluded by
stating that PCI is opposed to HB 120, but is willing to work
with Uber on the insurance issues, similar issues have been
settled in other states and those solutions should be extended
to Alaska.
4:38:06 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES related a scenario in which commercial
insurance started at "app on," but it was a slow day and the
Uber driver decided to pick up his/her dry cleaning and then
pick up his/her child from school. She asked whether the
commercial coverage would cover any accident since it seemed
like it would fall under personal use even though the Uber app
was turned on.
MR. FELICIANO answered that was the reason a hybrid policy is
needed. He said that from the moment of "app on" that a hybrid
policy should be in place to protect the driver. One suggestion
was that it shouldn't be difficult to develop a kill switch;
however, if the app has been on for an hour and there isn't any
movement, the Uber driver is not working, just hanging out, he
said. He identified the multiple app issue as one that needs to
be considered, especially if this type of ridesharing becomes
popular in Anchorage, since some drivers will have three phones
on. This issue has not yet been addressed in other
jurisdictions and he characterized it as being a real "legal
mess." He predicted it would be a "legal mess" if something
happened when all three apps were turned on.
4:39:53 PM
SUSAN GORSKI, Executive Director, Chugiak-Eagle River Chamber of
Commerce, said that it has been interesting to listen to
discussion on the transportation network companies (TNCs) and
how they might safely operate in Alaska. She recognized that
these represent new challenges for everyone since the technology
was rapidly changing. She supported the sponsor's comments that
the community needs to increase its transportation options,
noting the Chugiak-Eagle River community has been working since
the 1990s on various scenarios. However, the taxicab industry
as it is regulated in the MOA, cannot serve the Chugiak-Eagle
River area nor it does it make any financial sense. Thus the
Chugiak- Eagle River area has been totally lacking in intra-
community transportation and transportation within the
community. Transportation network companies, such as Uber, are
innovative private sector concepts. She hoped the insurance
issues would be resolved since the Chugiak-Eagle River area
consists of 35,000 people without transportation networks in
place. She said that the TNCs are a multi-billion dollar
industry that provide services in over 200 cities and in 47
countries. She offered her belief that Alaska also needs TNCs,
which will bring efficiencies to the market. Some communities
have implemented safety measures for drivers and passengers and
have also instituted rigorous background checks, which are the
issues the public is concerned about. She encouraged members to
work on this issue for a positive resolution, which can be a
"win-win" situation for all of us.
4:42:20 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES said it was clear that Ms. Gorski is a fan of
transportation network companies (TNC). She asked to leave
public testimony open on HB 120.
[HB 120 was held over)