03/18/2022 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB159 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 2022
1:23 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Liz Snyder, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Christopher Kurka
Representative Sarah Vance
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 159
"An Act establishing the Consumer Data Privacy Act; establishing
data broker registration requirements; making a violation of the
Consumer Data Privacy Act an unfair or deceptive trade practice;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 159
SHORT TITLE: CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY ACT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/31/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/31/21 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
04/23/21 (H) L&C AT 8:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/23/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/21 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
05/05/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
05/05/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/05/21 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
05/12/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
05/12/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/12/21 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
12/06/21 (H) L&C AT 1:00 PM ANCH LIO DENALI Rm
12/06/21 (H) Heard & Held
12/06/21 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/21/22 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
01/21/22 (H) Heard & Held
01/21/22 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/26/22 (H) L&C AT 5:15 PM BARNES 124
01/26/22 (H) Heard & Held
01/26/22 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/28/22 (H) L&C AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124
01/28/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
01/31/22 (H) L&C AT 4:30 PM BARNES 124
01/31/22 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/02/22 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/02/22 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/04/22 (H) L&C AT 9:00 AM DAVIS 106
02/04/22 (H) Moved CSHB 159(L&C) Out of Committee
02/04/22 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/04/22 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/04/22 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/07/22 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NEW TITLE 1DP 4NR 1AM
02/07/22 (H) DP: FIELDS
02/07/22 (H) NR: SCHRAGE, SNYDER, MCCARTY, SPOHNHOLZ
02/07/22 (H) AM: KAUFMAN
02/07/22 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/07/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/07/22 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/18/22 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
RYAN HARKINS, Senior Director
Public Policy
Microsoft Corporation
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a PowerPoint presentation during
the hearing on HB 159.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:23:37 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:23 p.m. Representatives Snyder, Claman,
and Kreiss-Tomkins (via teleconference) were present at the call
to order. Representatives Drummond and Eastman arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 159-CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY ACT
1:24:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 159, "An Act establishing the Consumer Data
Privacy Act; establishing data broker registration requirements;
making a violation of the Consumer Data Privacy Act an unfair or
deceptive trade practice; and providing for an effective date."
1:24:53 PM
RYAN HARKINS, Senior Director, Public Policy, Microsoft
Corporation, provided a PowerPoint, titled "HB 159 Additional
Document - Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation 3.18.2022.pdf"
[hard copy included in the committee packet.] He offered an
overview of the history and current landscape related to privacy
legislation in the United States. He referred to slide 2 of the
presentation and read Microsoft's mission statement, which is to
"empower every person and organization on the planet to achieve
more." He said that the execution of this mission is centered
around artificial intelligence (AI) technology. He added that
AI technology can be any sort of automated technology, online
services, or software which assists people or performs certain
functions. He recommended that public policymakers regard AI as
a confluence of three trends: a massive increase in processing
power, new and sophisticated algorithms, and data.
MR. HARKINS noted that in the 1970s, computer scientists had
created microprocessors which could process approximately 90,000
instructions per second. In comparison, current technology in
smartphones can process billions of instructions per second. He
explained that new and sophisticated algorithms are computer
programs adept at processing large volumes of unstructured data,
identifying patterns, and deriving inferences or conclusions
from large sets of data. He characterized data as the most
important development. He stated that people are creating,
processing, storing, and using much more data than ever before.
He stated that the ability to process and identify patterns from
extremely large sets of data very quickly leads to much
innovation. He offered examples of innovative uses of data,
such as programs which perform natural language translations,
spell checks, sequencing human genomes, and autonomous vehicles.
MR. HARKINS referred to the question of how rules and
regulations can be created which provide protection for
consumers while allowing the industry to innovate responsibly.
The question is a challenge because the creation of large sets
of data and the ability to process these pose obvious
difficulties regarding personal privacy.
1:30:04 PM
MR. HARKINS stated that the Microsoft Corporation has been
concerned with data privacy for decades. He noted that,
approximately 20 years prior, Bill Gates wrote a memo which is
referred to as the "Trustworthy Computing Memo." He stated that
the memo portended the rise of the commercial internet and
predicted that gaining the trust of consumers would be
incredibly important as more services migrated online. He added
that security and privacy would be the two issues which would
gain and earn consumer trust. He noted that concerns about
consumer privacy have risen along with distrust in technology
and in the technology industry. He stated that Microsoft's
position is that legislation is necessary to provide credible
privacy protections for consumers, so that trust can be earned
back. He suggested that the phenomenon of distrust was not a
new one. He drew attention to slide 7 of the presentation which
pointed out a Harvard Law Review article from 1890 written by
Samuel Warren and the future U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis
D. Brandeis. The article addressed the right to privacy. He
pointed out that the publication is the foundation for more than
one hundred years of development of privacy law.
MR. HARKINS noted that the authors were responding to the
development of new and invasive technologies and new business
models. He revealed those technologies to be instantaneous
photography and listening devices which could be used to capture
personal information and make this information more broadly
available. He drew a correlation to these technologies and the
rise of "yellow journalism," or tabloid journalism. This led to
the need for common law reform to include a tort concerning the
right to privacy. He referenced the writing of William Prosser,
on slide 8, which summarized the development of case law in the
70 years interceding the original article by Warren and
Brandeis. He noted that the organization of this case law fell
into four individual torts, which are still in existence in the
United States.
MR. HARKINS noted that these developments took place before the
rise of new computer technology and the internet. He noted a
U.S. Department of Health and Welfare report from the 1970s
which addressed the growing concerns regarding the use of
computers to collect and store information about individuals, as
seen on slide 9. He stated that the report had produced the
Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs), which govern and
provide rights to individuals regarding the collection and use
of their information. He noted that these principles are the
basis for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development's (OECD's) principles, released in 1980. He added
that these are the basis for the first comprehensive privacy
laws passed in the European Union (EU). He stated that FIPPs
had been developed first in the United States; however, no
comprehensive privacy law has been passed to address privacy
issues across industries and subject matters. He explained that
certain narrow, industry-specific privacy laws have come into
existence, such as the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology
for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, both pertaining
to privacy in healthcare. He added that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act pertains to privacy in the financial sector, and the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA) pertains to
the online collection of information on children under the age
of 13. He stated that there are consumer protection laws, such
as the Federal Trade Commission Act, Section 5. He also pointed
out various state consumer protection laws barring unfair or
deceptive trade practices. He reiterated that in the U.S. there
has not been a comprehensive or omnibus approach to privacy
laws.
1:37:18 PM
MR. HARKINS surmised that the lack of a comprehensive privacy
law in the U.S. is in direct contrast to the 1995 EU's Data
Protection Directive omnibus privacy law. He reiterated that
the EU law was based on FIPPs, and it created a regulatory
regime which applies to privacy issues across industries. He
added that from this the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) was created. He noted that GDPR has become the global
"gold standard" for data protection laws, with many countries
adopting laws based on its fundamentals. Noting again that the
U.S. does not have a comprehensive data privacy law, he stated
that Microsoft has been calling on the U.S. Congress to pass
such a law since 2005. He added that several states have
enacted laws, the first being passed in California in 2017. He
stated that the real estate developer, Alastair Mactaggart, had
organized a team which drafted a ballot measure. In 2018 the
ballot measure resulted in the first comprehensive data privacy
law in the U.S. He added that Mr. Harkins had characterized the
law as an imperfect, yet significant achievement. He continued
that Microsoft was supportive of the passage of this law, and it
worked behind the scenes to advance it. He said that in 2019,
in Washington State, the Washington Privacy Act (WPA) was
proposed. This effort would have expanded provisions for
consumer protections beyond California's law, as it had included
terminology and concepts from the EU's GDPR. He stated that
Microsoft has suggested that some of these concepts should be
clearer and align with those in the EU, as this would aid
companies doing business with EU countries.
1:42:06 PM
MR. HARKINS noted that this bill was never adopted in Washington
State, though its legislature has passed similar versions of the
bill. He added that a wave of proposed privacy legislation
across the country has begun, pointing out that in March 2021,
Virginia passed a comprehensive privacy law which was modeled on
the proposed WPA. He added that Colorado also passed a privacy
law which is similar to WPA. He characterized Colorado's law as
stronger than the law passed in Virginia. He added that Utah
has also passed a law which purports to be based on WPA;
however, Microsoft has expressed concerns whether it will offer
actual consumer protections.
MR. HARKINS stated that Microsoft is tracking an estimated 70
comprehensive data protection laws proposed across 30 states.
He noted that Ohio, Florida, and Oklahoma, each have serious
efforts to pass privacy legislation. He offered that
Microsoft's standpoint is that a credible privacy law should
provide for strong corporate responsibility, and it should
include "affirmative obligations" on companies to responsibly
steward the data they collect, regardless of whether consumers
elect to exercise their right to privacy. He described an
"affirmative obligation" as conducting data protection impact
assessments to evaluate processing activities which analyze
risks to consumers. He added that a credible privacy law should
also provide consumer rights so consumers can control access to
their data, with the right to delete information, correct
inaccuracies, port personal data from one service provider to
another, and provide consent for the activities which increase
the risk of harm.
1:46:08 PM
MR. HARKINS offered that Microsoft's standpoint is that a
credible privacy law should provide transparency obligations and
include a strong enforcement component. He added that the
challenges associated with enforcement are a significant
hindrance to getting such laws passed. He posed the
consideration of whether a privacy law should include a private
right of action. He stated that the laws passed in Colorado and
Virginia do not provide private rights of action and include
enforcement solely by the state's attorney general. He stated
that the law in California has been updated by a ballot
initiative passed November 2020, which provides enforcement by a
data protection agency, in addition to enforcement by its
attorney general. He added that California currently allows for
a limited private right of action related to data breaches
resulting from negligent security practices. He offered that
the conversation is a difficult one and attributed this
difficulty to the business community's reluctance to support a
consumer's right to seek relief in court. He added that other
stakeholders hold the belief that a broad, class-action
liability with statutory damages should be included. He offered
that the private right of action is not "all or nothing," and
policymakers may consider many different elements to provide
consumer protections, such as injunctive relief, attorney fees,
and damages related to violations of consumer rights, in lieu of
the private right of action. This would allow lawsuits in cases
of "forgetting to dot the 'i' or cross the 't'" in privacy
policies.
1:48:41 PM
MR. HARKINS offered that additional considerations may include
whether the law would cover modern data sets, the way data is
collected, and the way consumers are tracked online. He added
that any credible privacy law should apply to identified data
and data that is "identifiable data." He explained that
"identifiable data" is data associated with a cookie, an
internet protocol (IP) address, a device identifier, or another
consistent identifier. He added that these types of data sets
are used to track consumers online to serve consumer targeted
advertising.
MR. HARKINS recommended that the term "pseudonymous data" not be
used, as it is confusing and prone to abuse. He offered that
the set of consumers rights in legislation should consider
whether consumers are allowed to truly control their
information. He offered the example of the "right to delete"
and stated that the laws in California, Virginia, and Colorado
each contain this provision. He explained that the law in
California only applies to personal information collected from a
consumer and does not apply to data collected by a third-party
source, nor would it apply to data which has been derived from
personal data. He suggested that targeted advertising profiles
should not contain raw, web-browsing data, but could contain the
inferences derived from the data, such as demographic
information. He stated that the law passed in Utah does not
provide consumers with the right to correct inaccuracies in
personal data, and he recommended the inclusion of this language
in the proposed bill.
MR. HARKINS asked the committee to consider the role of consent
in the proposed legislation and suggested that sensitive data
should be governed by opt-in consent. He offered examples of
sensitive data associated with geolocation and biometric
information. He stated that GDPR and the law in Colorado
provide this protection, and that the law in California provides
for notice and the right to opt-out. He asked the committee to
consider how to define a set of activities which pose a
heightened risk to consumers, and once defined, consumers should
be provided with the ability to exercise choice or consent
regarding the same. He offered that the proposed bill should
emphasize opt-out provisions regarding the sale or exchange of
data, though the sale and exchange of data for targeted
advertising may extend to data associated with, whether a
consumer is fit for insurance, housing, or credit, or not. He
suggested that these profiles exist regardless of whether they
are exchanged or sold. He suggested that the phrasing in the
bill may result in some competitive advantage.
1:56:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER referenced the National Research Act,
which protects human subjects in biomedical and behavioral
research and provides guidelines for the ethical conduct of
research. She suggested that data collected may be used to
develop AI to predict consumer behaviors or group associations,
and this data could have been collected to analyze human
behavior. She stated that the Institutional Review Boards
(IRBs) protect privacy and offer guidelines for those seeking
approval to conduct research. She asked whether the National
Research Act has been used to inform the development of privacy
legislation and whether there exists any overlap.
MR. HARKINS stated that ethical concerns are relevant to
permitting the use of data for public research, even in the
furtherance of the public interest. He stated that other laws
have been passed which attempted to address these concerns. He
offered that a "carve out" could exist for data to be used in an
institutional setting, consistent with ethical considerations.
He stated that he could not answer whether the National Research
Act has informed the debate on consumer privacy laws. He
expressed the opinion that the privacy laws have been more
closely associated with FIPPs and the EU's Data Protection
Directive. He stated that GDPR has been the leader and primary
foundation for discussion.
2:00:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked why states are not more closely aligned with
GDPR, since it is the "gold standard" for international privacy
laws.
MR. HARKINS offered that GDPR has a completely different
orientation. He explained that GDPR and the Data Protection
Directive assume that personal data may not be processed unless
there is a demonstrated good reason for doing so. He explained
that GDPR outlines that a company, or "controller," which
intends to collect and use or share personal data, is required
to establish a lawful basis for doing so. He stated that such
bases include consent and legitimate interest, which balances
the benefits against the risks to a consumer. He added that the
orientation of GDPR appears to be "foreign" to most U.S.
audiences. He offered that, in the U.S., there is an assumption
that one may process data unless one is told that one may not.
He offered that there are similarities in other respects, such
as the distinction of entities which are subject to the law and
their obligations to comply, and similarity in the distinction
between controllers and processors, and those who process data
only for controllers. He stated that the laws in Colorado and
Virginia have adopted the controller/processor model, while
California uses the terminology of "business" and "service
provider."
MR. HARKINS explained that other similarities include those of
consumer rights. He stated that GDPR has a "consent right"
which correlates to "opt in," and a "right to object." He
stated that a "right to object" is the same as an "opt out." He
added that each member state in the EU has its own data
protection agency responsible for implementing and enforcing
data protection in its country. He stated that California has
also created a data protection agency; however, creating a new
agency is costly. Other states have declined to create
agencies, relying instead on their attorneys general to develop
and enforce regulations.
2:05:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether GDPR has a private right of action
provision or whether this concept is only in the U.S.
MR. HARKINS responded that the private right of action is more
of a concept in the U.S., although individuals may file suit
under data protection laws in the EU. He stated that the EU
does not have an equivalent to class-action liabilities and
suits as the U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how HB 159 would achieve its
jurisdiction, applying to some businesses but not to others.
MR. HARKINS answered that HB 159, like other bills, would
establish thresholds, with the law applying to companies of a
certain size or to those that process a certain amount of data
for a certain number of consumers. He added that the threshold
may also include companies which process sensitive data for a
low number of consumers. He stated that the goal of such
thresholds is to try to ensure small businesses are not unduly
burdened. He expressed uncertainty on an optimal set of
thresholds which would cover the businesses that process a large
amount of data and the small businesses that sell data. He
pointed out the example of Cambridge Analytica, which is a small
business, despite having very sensitive data on a very large
number of people. He offered to participate in discussions to
aid in establishing thresholds which may meet the committee's
priorities. He offered that thresholds could include a
percentage of revenue from the sale of data.
2:10:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that the definition of "business"
in the statute does not include nonprofits. He asked how the
proposed bill would apply to nonprofits which deal with personal
data.
MR. HARKINS answered that some nonprofits process very large
amounts of data. These nonprofits would be defined as entities
which process the personal information of 100,000 consumers or
households, or more, or that derives more than 50 percent of its
annual revenue from selling or sharing personal information. He
suggested that the decision to apply the law to nonprofits would
be one of policy. He noted that the same personal-data-handling
risks involve nonprofit as for-profit businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Mr. Harkins what reasons Microsoft
Corporation has for supporting this type of legislation.
MR. HARKINS answered that, because there exists growing distrust
among consumers and customers regarding personal information,
Microsoft has been calling for comprehensive privacy legislation
since 2005. He stated that, if the concerns are not addressed
in law, some people may elect to not use technology, and,
because of the growing distrust, laws could be passed which
interfere with responsible data management and innovation. He
stated that it is in the best interest of the industry and
consumers to create clear rules to regulate, use, and share
personal data.
2:14:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned the number of Alaskans which
would be protected by the passage of the bill. He questioned
how the proposed legislation would apply to businesses operating
outside of the state.
MR. HARKINS answered that, if a company is processing the data
of Alaskan consumers, the proposed legislation would apply. He
stated the Alaska Consumer Protections Act would add protection
along with protections in the state's constitution; however, no
comprehensive data privacy protection laws exist in Alaska. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated that, if a company
is collecting personal data of Alaska consumers online, they are
doing business in Alaska. He continued that, if companies are
collecting or processing personal information of Alaska
consumers, then Alaska may pass a law to regulate this activity.
2:18:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, in relation to consumer protection, questioned the
private rights of action compared with enforcement by attorneys
general in the different states.
MR. HARKINS explained that California is the only state to allow
consumers to sue for data breaches resulting from negligent
security practices. He suggested the committee consider the
discussions in other states when drafting legislation which
includes a private right of action. This could include
injunctive relief, actual damages, or attorney fees. He noted
that consternation has been expressed among members of the
industry concerning large damage awards for cases in which no
actual harm had occurred. He suggested that the committee
consider the creation of a data privacy commission, as done in
California and Washington. This would allow a state agency or
administration to enforce the law via administrative hearings,
and this would eliminate the need to file a lawsuit in court.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the proposed bill would impose
a 3 percent tax on revenue from selling or sharing data. He
questioned the calculation regarding shared data.
MR. HARKINS responded that concerns exist regarding attempting
to calculate and levy a tax on these transactions. He stated
that the proposed bill devises an opt-out provision regarding
the selling, sharing, or disclosure of information. He offered
his interpretation that the language is both too broad and too
narrow. He suggested that the bill defines "personal
information" broadly enough to cover online data sets based on
basic computer information, such as an operating system;
however, allowing individuals to opt-out of disclosing such
information could implicate data related to navigating from one
website to the next. He questioned whether the committee would
want an opt-out provision for information which is necessary to
make the internet work. He added that some of that information
is not being used to profile consumers. He explained that
California's law addresses cross-context behavioral advertising,
or targeted advertising. He stated that the proposed bill would
allow individuals to opt out of sharing this type of data. He
stated that third-party sharing of data is one way cross-context
behavioral advertising is developed, but this data exchange
could also occur directly from a first party. He stated that
including a provision regarding third-party data collection and
exchange, while not including the same for a first-party
collection, could allow for a loophole for a competitive
advantage for the largest platforms on the internet.
2:27:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the bill differs from other
states regarding the role of the attorney general. He stated
that Alaska's attorney general is appointed and not elected, and
would be permitted to draft regulations, which he suggested
would be tantamount to an appointed official writing law.
MR. HARKINS offered that the Virginia's attorney general does
not have rulemaking authority, but in Colorado and California,
the attorney general does. He added that the rulemaking
authority in California is set to transfer to the newly created
state data protection agency. He stated that this rulemaking
authority is an effort to address laws regulating technology
which could ossify quickly as technology evolves. He offered
that one benefit of the rulemaking authority would be to allow a
regulatory body, such as an attorney general, to keep up with
the pace of technology. He stated that the attorneys general in
Colorado and California are elected officials, and he allowed
that limiting rulemaking authority for an appointed official to
discrete areas of the law could be considered.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that some challenges exist in the state
with fully staffing the attorney general's criminal and civil
divisions. He expressed hesitation in adding additional burden
to the office, which could be a factor when considering a right
of private action provision. He mentioned the federal provision
allowing a qui tam lawsuit, by which an attorney general would
receive notice and shall decide whether to file suit so that a
citizen may bring a private right of action. He asked whether
any states had considered this approach to the private rights of
action.
MR. HARKINS offered that the legislature in Washington State
discussed proposals to allow consumers to file suit after review
by a proposed data commission, which would determine whether the
consumer had suffered actual harm, and he noted that no such law
has been passed.
CHAIR CLAMAN observed that the hearing has revealed information
underscoring the complexity of the proposed bill.
[HB 159 was held over.]
2:32:26 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 159 v. G 2.7.2022.PDF |
HJUD 2/7/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 v. G Sponsor Statement 2.3.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 v. G Sectional Analysis 2.3.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/4/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Summary of Changes from v. I to v. G 2.3.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/4/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Supporting Document - New York Times Article 6.3.2018.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM HL&C 12/6/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Supporting Document - The Financial Times Article 1.17.2019.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM HL&C 12/6/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Supporting Document - New York Times Article 1.13.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Supporting Document - Nature Magazine Mobility Study 3.25.2013.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Supporting Document - Vice Article 7.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Supporting Document - The Verge Article 4.27.2021.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 2.10.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 3.11.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Opposing & Amend Document - Letters Received as of 3.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Additional Document - Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation 3.18.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 159 |