Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
05/03/2021 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB87 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 87-ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLES
1:03:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 87, "An Act relating to electric-assisted
bicycles."
CHAIR CLAMAN informed the committee that a similar version of HB
87 had been introduced during the Thirty-First Alaska State
Legislature in May 2019, and it had been moved from committee.
1:03:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 87. He stated that a previous iteration
of this legislation had passed the full house in the previous
legislative session. He stated that HB 87 would define
electric-assisted bicycles in statute, for which no statutory
definition currently exists. He stated that there exist several
statutes governing motorized vehicles but none which govern
electric-assisted bikes. He stated that 44 states including the
State of California have laws governing e-bikes, some of which
use a three-tiered system. He stated that HB 87 would only
pertain to bicycles which require the rider to pedal. He noted
that the committee may learn during the discussion that there
exist bicycles which do not require the rider to pedal. He
stated that in 2018, the Municipality of Anchorage added a
definition for electric bicycles and other municipalities are
adopting similar regulations. He shared that the definition
proposed in HB 87 would apply to conveyances with not more than
three wheels in contact with the ground, which have operable
pedals, and which are equipped with a motor that does not exceed
750 watts. He stated that the definition would further specify
e-bikes as having an electric pedal assist motor that would
disengage once the bicycle reaches a speed of 28 miles per hour.
He shared an anecdote in which a constituent had been stopped by
the police while riding an electric-assisted bicycle and had
been informed that, since he did not possess a drivers' license,
he was not permitted to operate the e-bike.
1:06:59 PM
ASHLEY CARRICK, Staff, Representative Adam Wool, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Wool, prime sponsor,
presented HB 87. She drew attention to the presentation
[included in the committee packet] entitled " HB 87 PowerPoint
Presentation 4.20.2021," and explained that HB 87 would achieve
three main objectives: to regulate electric-assisted bicycles
as bicycles, to update statute to reflect technological
advances, and to bring clarity to consumers and retailers on
Alaska's electric-assisted bicycle laws. She recalled
Representative Wool's previous introduction of the definition of
electric-assistance bicycle to be a bicycle that is designed to
travel with not more than three wheels in contact with the
ground, has fully operative pedals for human propulsion, is
equipped with an electric motor that has a power output of not
more than 750 watts [1 horsepower], provides assistance only
when the rider is pedaling, and ceases to provide assistance to
the rider when the bicycle reaches a speed of 28 miles per hour.
MS. CARRICK drew attention to slide 3 of the presentation which
contained a map that depicted states that define electric
bicycles in statute. She explained that states depicted in the
green category define e-bikes in a manner similar to HB 87 and
that states depicted in the yellow category define e-bikes under
a three-tier system. She noted that there exist only 6 states
including Alaska that do not have a statute defining electric-
assisted bicycles. She drew attention to slides 4 and 5 of the
presentation which contained pictures of examples of electric-
assisted bicycles, and, as shown on slide 7, HB 87 would not
apply to mopeds or scooters.
1:10:38 PM
MS. CARRICK drew attention to the sectional analysis [included
in the committee packet] entitled "HB 87 Sectional Analysis v. A
5.3.2021," which read as follows [original punctuation
included]:
This bill amends Titles 19, 28, and 41 of the Alaska
Statutes.
Section 1 (page 1) Amends AS 19.10.399(9) to state
that the definition of motor vehicle excludes
electric-assisted bicycles
Section 2 (page 1) Amends AS 19.10.399 (16) to state
that electric-assisted bicycles are to be regulated as
bicycles in regards to operation on a way, path, or
area
Section 3 (page 1-2) Amends AS 28.05.011(a) states
that electric-assisted bicycles should be regulated as
bicycles in regards to rules of the road; also
includes electric-assisted bicycle under an existing
provision allowing municipal ordinances to separately
regulate in this area
Section 4 (page 2-3) Amends AS 28.10.011 to state that
an electric-assisted bicycle is not required to be
registered as a vehicle
Section 5 (page 3) Amends AS 28.90.990(a)(12) to state
that an electric-assisted bicycle does not fall under
the definition of an "electric personal motor vehicle"
Section 6 (page 3) Amends AS 28.90.990(a)(18) to state
that an electric-assisted bicycle does not fall
under the definition of a "motor vehicle"
Section 7 (page 4) Amends AS 28.90.990(a)(20) to state
that an electric-assisted bicycle does not fall under
the definition of a "motor-driven cycle"
Section 8 (page 4) Adds a new definition as AS
28.90.990(a)(34) to define an electric-assisted
bicycle as a bicycle that is designed to travel with
not more than three wheels in contact with the ground,
has fully operative pedals for human propulsion, and
is equipped with an electric motor that has a power
output of not more than 750 watts, provides assistance
only when the rider is pedaling, and ceases to provide
assistance to the rider when the bicycle reaches a
speed of 28 miles per hour.
Section 9 (page 4) Amends AS 41.23.300 to state that
electric-assisted bicycles are to be regulated as
bicycles in regards to operation in public use areas.
1:12:01 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether HB 87 was significantly different
from the bill that had been introduced during the Thirty-First
Alaska State Legislature.
MS CARRICK answered that it was not significantly different than
the previous version.
1:12:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER referred to the committee packet item,
entitled "HB 87 Supporting Document - People for Bikes Factsheet
4.20.2021," and asked for further explanation on the requirement
of an operator's license depicted in that item.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that a main objective of HB 87 would
be to not require an operator's license [to ride an e-bike]. He
added that municipalities and park services may further regulate
e-bikes within their jurisdictions.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether electric assisted bicycles
make noise.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL answered that e-bikes do not make any more
noise than a regular bicycle.
1:14:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Representative Wool if he
could recall approximately by how many votes the previous bill
had passed the house.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL estimated the vote to be 35 [yeas] to 5
[nays], but he could not recall the specific vote count.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS made note of the three-tier system
used in other states and observed that HB 87 did not contain
such a classification system for e-bikes. He asked for an
explanation on the difference between a tiered system and the
broader definition proposed in HB 87.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that a tiered system had been taken
into consideration during the drafting of HB 87. He explained
that the three-tiered system originated in the State of
California, and other states had modeled [legislation] on it.
He explained that the rationale was to ensure that e-bikes, by
definition, should be those bicycles requiring the rider to
pedal. He stated that class 2 e-bikes that can be powered
without pedaling comprise approximately 10 percent of e-bikes
available. He added that 80 percent are type 1, which are bikes
that require the rider to pedal and have a maximum speed [at
which the electric assist will disengage] and type 3 e-bikes
have a higher maximum speed [at which the motor will disengage].
He said that HB 87 was drafted using the type 3 designation and
would encompass both the higher and lower speeds. He postulated
that the difference between pedal-assist and those which to not
require the rider to pedal could amount to a safety issue for
less experienced riders. He noted that Alaska does not have a
helmet law and that HB 87 does not address that matter.
1:19:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether class 2 e-bikes
would be categorized as motor vehicles since HB 87 remains
silent on class 2 in its definition of e-bikes.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL supposed that class 2 e-bikes would be a
"gray area" and that industry members would be available for
testimony and may address [tier 2 e-bikes]. He stated that,
during the discussion, a guiding principle that e-bikes should
be required to be pedaled by the rider, had been called into
question. He stated that, while tier 2 e-bikes are a smaller
segment of the market, it was not his intention to entirely
exclude them from the definition.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Representative Wool
had become aware of any anecdotes other than the one mentioned
in his introduction of individuals subject to potentially
arbitrary enforcement of unclear laws pertaining to e-bikes.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL answered that he had not been aware of other
such instances.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked, based on other states'
inclusion of a tiered approach, whether the sponsor had
knowledge of whether such a tiered definition could result in
tier 2 e-bikes being regulated differently than the others.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated his uncertainty whether any states
classify type 2 bikes separately. He noted that the practical
delineation would be that a bike has operable pedals and a motor
assist.
1:23:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that a previous version of the bill
had passed with a vote of 36 yeas and 0 nays. He asked the
sponsor to explain the changes in Sections 8 and 9 from the
previous version of the bill.
MS. CARRICK opined that the changes were in the drafting of the
bill and did not amount to substantive changes.
1:26:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to the committee packet item,
entitled "HB 87 Supporting Document - People for Bikes Factsheet
4.20.2021," which read, " E-bike riders must carry an operator's
license," and asked whether that was current Alaska law.
MS. CARRICK answered that the potential existed for operators of
e-bikes to be required to have an operator's license. She added
that the Municipality of Anchorage has an ordinance that
establishes e-bikes, but that e-bikes fall into a "gray area,"
and thus it could be required.
1:28:49 PM
JEFFREY SCHMITZ, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, answered that law pertaining to
bikes falls outside of the scope of the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV).
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL added that the line of questioning is
demonstrative of the need that would be met by the proposed
legislation. He added that a motorized vehicle is well-defined
[in statute] when operated on roadways. He said that HB 87
would define e-bikes as "not a motorized vehicle" under a
certain size and speed and would instead be categorized as
bicycles.
1:31:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated her confusion regarding the
source material she cited earlier and asked whether the
potential exists that the regulations in the committee packet
item were those of the Municipality of Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered to follow up with the People for
Bikes organization for additional explanation.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that a representative of People for Bikes
would participate in public testimony during the hearing.
1:32:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER expressed her support for the intent of HB
87 and asked whether a municipality could impose additional
limitations at its discretion regarding speed, safety, or other
concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL answered that a municipality [or any
jurisdiction] that controls a trail system may establish
additional regulations. He noted that the classification of e-
bikes in the proposed legislation would limit the capability of
an e-bike to engage a motor assist at speeds in excess of 28
miles per hour [and still qualify as an e-bike]. He suggested
that differentiation among the classifications of e-bikes would
be difficult to enforce.
1:35:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA noted that there exist gasoline powered
motors that can attach to a bicycle and asked whether the bill
sponsor had considered expanding the definition to include them.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL answered that he had not. He noted that
mopeds may have a 50 cubic centimeter motor and can propel the
bike, with motor power only, at higher rates of speed. He
suggested that mopeds are classified as motor vehicles. He
noted that electric motors are quieter than gasoline motors and
are gaining in popularity.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA allowed that that gasoline motors may
[emit] more noise and suggested that gasoline powered [bicycles]
should be included in the definition in order to avoid
discriminating against them.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL cautioned that he would not categorize the
omission of gasoline powered bicycles as discrimination against
them. He explained that an e-bike can recharge its electric
motor with a braking system, and it is not required for the
rider to refuel the motor. He allowed that gasoline may power
certain bicycles and recommended against conjecture that could
amount to e-bikes being categorized as electric vehicles.
CHAIR CLAMAN shared his experience on a mountain bike trail in
which a gasoline powered bicycle was present and that the noise
from it was out of place in the setting. He reminded the
committee that public testimony would likely include additional
information to aid in the discussion.
1:40:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to page 4, line 17, which
further defines an e-bike as having an electric motor that stops
aiding the rider when the bicycle reaches a speed of 28 miles
per hour. He asked whether challenges may exist with any type
of bike, including e-bikes, should a bicycle reach speeds that
exceed 28 miles per hour.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL answered that any bicycle may reach speeds
in excess of 28 miles per hour and clarified that the motor
assist would be restricted when 28 miles per hour is exceeded to
assist the rider pedaling.
1:41:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed her question to be answered by
Legislative Legal and Research Services, who were not present at
the hearing, to ascertain whether the three-tiered
classification system should be implemented to anticipate future
changes in technology of e-bikes.
CHAIR CLAMAN requested the bill sponsor follow up with the
committee with an opinion from Legislative Legal and Research
Services. He suggested that 28 miles per hour is a high rate of
speed and that some downhill bike trails have riders traveling
in excess of 40 miles per hour.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL allowed that he did not know what proportion
of power is put forth by the rider compared to what proportion
of power is put forth by the electric assist but qualified that
the rider must exude effort to pedal for speeds under 28 miles
per hour.
1:43:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 87.
1:44:03 PM
DALE BANKS testified in support of HB 87. He stated that he
owns a retail bike store in Homer and that HB 87 would provide a
framework for him to advise his customers regarding e-bikes. He
referred to language in HB 87 on page 4, line 14, "provides
assistance only when the rider is pedaling" and stated that all
the e-bikes that he sells have an electric motor with a sensor
that engages only when the rider is pedaling. He added that
most of the e-bikes that he has for sale are 750 watts or less
in size. He added that most also have a throttle mechanism, and
the language in HB 87 would exclude this type. He added that
most models' electric assist is limited to 20 miles per hour,
which he described as an appropriate speed for bike paths. He
described the function of the throttle feature as useful due to
the additional weight of an e-bike, and explained that, if a
rider is stopped [at an intersection] the rider may elect to
engage the throttle. He added that the assist feature requires
the rider to rotate the pedals to engage the motor. He
recommended that the committee consider deleting the proposed
language on page 4, [lines 16-17] and ensuring that language is
incorporated into the bill so that the regulation is drafted
based on wattage and speed. He opined that 28 miles per hour
may be a higher speed than should be allowed. In response to a
request from Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, he agreed to submit
his written testimony.
1:47:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for Mr. Banks to illustrate approximately how
many e-bikes he sells, and which models may reach speeds of 28
miles per hour.
MR. BANKS answered that there exist only a few models; there is
a mid-drive which engages the [pedal] crank, and a hub drive
which engages the wheel. He estimated that the models that may
reach speeds of 28 miles per hour comprise approximately 10
percent of those sold, and that he cautions his customers
against using the e-bikes at the high rate of speed on bike
paths out of concern for safety.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the manufacturers are building more
bikes [capable] of speeds of 20 or 28 miles per hour and whether
Mr. Banks could explain their rationale.
MR. BANKS answered that manufacturers are building e-bikes
mostly in the 20 mile per hour and 750-watt range, and that the
rationale was likely based on the State of California's e-bike
regulations. He added that he was unfamiliar with e-bike models
comprised of throttle-only, which is in alignment with the class
2 designation. He offered his recommendation to regulate e-
bikes based on wattage and speed, and that different localities
may further regulate e-bikes based on local conditions.
1:49:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN posed a hypothetical situation in which an e-bike
rider is on a flat trail and asked whether the rider would have
difficulty achieving 28 miles per hour, and whether the rider
would be able to engage the throttle only while pedaling with
effort.
MR. BANKS answered that some models can measure rider effort
output and respond accordingly, and some models can sense only
whether the rider is pedaling [at all] and respond accordingly.
He added that a throttle feature is most often engaged by riders
to "get going" such as if they are stopped at the bottom of a
hill.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if it was Mr. Banks' opinion that the e-bike
manufacturers, like automobile industry manufacturers, acquiesce
to the State of California's regulations in their manufacturing
processes due to its large market, regardless of other states'
regulations.
MR. BANKS agreed with Chair Claman's hypothesis and added that
the e-bike market had originated mainly in California. He
stated his belief that the 750-watt regulation was reasonable
and encouraged consistency among the proposed and existing
regulations. He added that speed and wattage are more easily
enforced than particular features of different models.
1:53:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked for an explanation of the rationale
to regulate e-bikes according to wattage.
MR. BANKS explained that higher wattage bikes are faster, and
the designation of 750 watts was reasonable and consistent with
other existing regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL added that the intent of regulating by
wattage would be to categorize e-bikes as non-motor vehicles and
would restrict operating speeds. He noted that 750 watts is
comparable to 1 horsepower.
1:55:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for additional clarification on the
hypothetical in which a rider is at a full stop and whether it
is typical that a rider must make an effort to pedal.
MR. BANKS offered that typically a rider would be required to
pedal to engage the electric assist.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN discussed a scenario in which a rider
would be required to make an adjustment in the position of the
stopped bike in order to engage the assist.
MR. BANKS agreed.
1:58:13 PM
WAYNE ADERHOLD stated that he was a member of the League of
American Bicyclists and the Homer Cycling Club, and that he was
a certified elite cycling instructor. He shared that he was 71
years of age, and he did not own an e-bike. He suggested that
there exists a need to identify e-bikes in statute due to the
increase in numbers of e-bikes. He encouraged the 3-tiered
approach endorsed by the People for Bikes. He referenced an
existing code in which bicycles are prohibited on sidewalks
within business districts. He suggested that e-bikes should not
be allowed on sidewalks. In response to questions to confirm
his sources on existing regulations, he stated that he had
submitted written testimony.
2:01:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the proposed language in HB
87 defines e-bikes in accordance with Mr. Aderhold's
understanding of e-bikes.
MR. ADERHOLD answered that, during a meeting he had attended
with his local police on the matter of laws and how they pertain
to e-bikes, the definition of e-bikes as described by People for
Bikes was the standard that they incorporated into the
discussion.
2:02:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Mr. Aderhold to explain his
endorsement of the inclusion of a three-tiered definition of e-
bikes.
MR. ADERHOLD explained that the three-tiered system had been put
forth with industry input and would provide a detailed framework
that could be interpreted by both law enforcement and the
bicycle user communities. He concluded that he had been working
in cooperation with a group in Fairbanks, and they collectively
recommended aligning regulations of e-bikes throughout statute
and code.
2:04:40 PM
REID HARRIS, President, Juneau Mountain Bike Alliance, stated
that he is the president of the Juneau Mountain Bike Alliance,
which has a memorandum of understanding with the City & Borough
of Juneau (CBJ) for bike trails in the local area. He stated
that the Alliance is in support of HB 87 and advised that an
amendment should be adopted to include the three-tiered
classification system since it reflected industry standards. He
explained that adherence to the industry standard would allow
for an individual to purchase an e-bike in one location and
avoid confusion regarding the legality of operating a certain
type of bike in different locations. He offered that e-bikes
have gained popularity and that, to date, the CBJ had not yet
instituted any regulations pertaining to e-bikes on local
trails. He postulated that CBJ and other municipalities would
seek guidance from state statute prior to instituting
regulations pertaining to e-bikes.
2:06:25 PM
ALEX LOGEMANN, People for Bikes Coalition, testified in support
of HB 87 on behalf of the People for Bikes Coalition (PFBC). He
stated that PFBC was a trade organization based in Boulder,
Colorado, representing manufacturers, distributors, and
suppliers of bicycle products including electric bicycles. He
suggested that HB 87 would provide important updates to Alaska
traffic laws. He recommended the HB 87 be amended to reflect
the three-tiered classification system. He stated that wattage
limitations are regulated at the federal level and are consumer
products subject to the Consumer Products Safety Commission. He
allowed that regulations had been initially adopted in the State
of California, but that 31 additional states had since adopted
similar regulations. He postulated that tier-2 e-bikes comprise
approximately 30 percent of the total national market share.
MR. LOGEMANN suggested that there exist challenges in
classifying e-bikes based on the variety of features and
technology among different models and that the three-tiered
classification system would provide a framework for
municipalities to further regulate e-bikes for use in certain
areas or with certain speed limitations. He added that new
technology was being developed in the tier-two category of e-
bikes and that managers of soft-surface trails would benefit
from the existence of the tiered classification system to
further regulate for appropriate application based on local
conditions. He recalled an earlier line of questioning
pertaining to the 28 mile per hour limit and suggested that it
had been conceived at the federal level with the intention of
aligning policy with that which exists in Europe.
2:12:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Logemann to offer
remarks pertaining to the requirement of an operator's license.
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to the committee packet item entitled "HB
87 Supporting Document - People for Bikes Factsheet 4.20.2021"
which references Alaska-specific regulations.
MR. LOGEMANN suggested that there exists uncertainty in the
existing law and that the analysis detailed in the factsheet was
the People for Bikes' interpretation of existing Alaska law with
its collective understanding of other state laws and academic
studies. He welcomed alternate interpretations from DMV.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS allowed that the discussion and
the People for Bikes' interpretation of existing law was
illustrative of the existence of the need for clarity.
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled that, when asked for an opinion [on e-
bikes], the DMV offered none.
2:14:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to the committee packet item,
entitled "HB 87 Supporting Document - People for Bikes Factsheet
4.20.2021," and asked whether there existed any differentiation
between e-bikes and e-mountain-bikes.
MR. LOGEMANN explained that mountain bikes are likely to be
categorized in the tier-one category since they have pedal-
assist-only technology. He further explained that mountain
bikes likely have suspension and other features [that
differentiate them from other e-bikes]. He suggested that the
terms "mountain e-bike" and "class 1" would likely become
synonymous due to manufacturing standards.
2:16:27 PM
CARY SHIFLEA, Owner, Alaska eBike, testified in support of HB 87
on behalf of his small business. He shared that he serves on
the Municipality of Anchorage's Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory
Committee. He stated that the Municipality of Anchorage had
established e-bikes in regulation in 2016, which reflected the
Consumer Products Safety Code. He recommended the federal
safety code prescribes that e-bikes are restricted to be 750
watts, with operable pedals and a maximum throttle speed of 20
miles per hour. He opined that trail and path types in
different localities would dictate trail speed [limits]. He
suggested that most riders of e-bikes that have a throttle
feature are not motivated to ride at high rates of speed but are
more motivated by mobility issues in navigating obstacles or
hills. He added that all Municipality of Anchorage area trails
allow all three types of e-bikes.
2:21:07 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN ascertained that there was no one else who wished
to testify and closed public testimony on HB 87.
2:21:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Section 5 of HB 87 and asked
whether only devices such as the brand of self-balancing
vehicles known as Segways be categorized as "electric personal
motor vehicle" or if another type of self-balancing vehicles was
meant to be included in the definition.
MS. CARRICK stated that during the drafting of the bill,
collaborative research between her and Legislative Legal and
Research Services had revealed only the Segway brand style of
vehicle was available on the market. She added that the
definition for a motor-driven cycle is broader and encompasses
more than the Segway style vehicle. She allowed that there may
exist other examples [available in the marketplace].
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked to what category an electrical
conveyance such as one that might be offered at a grocery store
would belong.
MS. CARRICK answered that it would likely be categorized as a
motor-driven cycle like mopeds, scooters, dirt bikes, and other
small engine [vehicles].
CHAIR CLAMAN, after confirming Ms. Carrick's characterization of
a conveyance such as one that might be offered at a grocery
store as a motor-driven cycle, asked why it would not be
categorized under Section 4, subparagraph 12 as an electric
personal motor vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN elaborated on his question to specify
that the language that defines an electric personal motor
vehicle as having "two non-tandem wheels" may need to be amended
to read "two or more non-tandem wheels" to include the vehicle
types under discussion.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Carrick to follow up with additional
information to the committee regarding this type of vehicle.
2:24:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Ms. Carrick held the belief
that it was in the public interest to prioritize electric
assisted bicycles in favor of oil or gas assisted bicycles.
MS. CARRICK stated that she held the belief that the bill
sponsor's intention was to address a particular type of bicycle
component in regulation. She speculated that other types of
bicycles such as the ones that Representative Eastman described
had not been considered as part of the original intent of the
sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA recommended that Ms. Carrick follow up with
further information on electric wheelchairs within the context
of HB 87.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Carrick to follow up with the committee
to explain more fully the definition of "two non-tandem wheels."
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER suggested that grocery store carts may be
defined under AS 45.45.600 as assistive technology.
2:27:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that a previous version of the
bill had included a definition of "bicycle" and suggested that
it would be sensible to include it in HB 87 and asked whether
there existed a reason for not including it.
MS. CARRICK stated that she would follow up with Legislative
Legal and Research Services to determine why it had been
omitted.
2:28:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that HB 87 was heard and held for further
review. He offered the committee members an opportunity to
consider a reasonable deadline by which amendments should be
received because of other legislative priorities.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated his interest in offering an
amendment after hearing the follow up discussion offered by Ms.
Carrick.
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Ms. Carrick to provide input at the next
House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting and amendments could
be brought before the committee at the subsequent meeting.
2:30:19 PM
MS. CARRICK offered further explanation that Section 2 of the
bill would define e-bikes to be regulated in the same manner as
bicycles, and that it would not permit e-bikes to be allowed
where bicycles are not.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether, should HB 87 pass, municipalities
would be able to either allow for more or further restriction
where e-bikes are allowed.
MS. CARRICK stated that a municipality could further restrict or
allow e-bikes within their regulations.
MS. CARRICK stated that, during a previous hearing on HB 87, a
question had been asked whether state parks or state lands could
regulate e-bikes differently than bicycles, and it had been
determined that the Department of Natural Resources would be
within its authority to designate trails as either non-motorized
or motorized trails. She referred to the committee packet item,
entitled "HB 87 Supporting Document - People for Bikes Factsheet
4.20.2021," and stated that it contained the opinion of People
for Bikes, and she recalled the experience of the constituent
concern brought to Representative Wool in which the local law
enforcement interpreted [exiting law] the same was evidence of
the need for clarification in statute to allow for e-bikes to be
categorized as either a motor driven cycle or as a motor
vehicle.
2:33:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that People for Bikes had
submitted recommendations for amending HB 87 and asked whether
Ms. Carrick was generally in support of the recommended changes.
MS. CARRICK answered that the intent of the bill would be
defining e-bikes as written, and that it has a limited
definition of e-bikes.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that multiple entities providing public
testimony had advocated for a three-tiered classification system
and asked whether the sponsor did not have the intention to
amend the bill to include it, which Ms. Carrick confirmed as
correct.
2:35:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE encouraged the committee to await a legal
opinion on the question of any legal benefit for the
classification system to be included or not.
[HB 87 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 87 v. A 2.18.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM HTRA 4/20/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Sponsor Statement v. A 4.20.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM HTRA 4/20/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Sectional Analysis v. A 5.3.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Supporting Document - People for Bikes Factsheet 4.20.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM HTRA 4/20/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Supporting Document - JMBA Letter 4.27.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Supporting Document - Testimony Received as of 5.3.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 PowerPoint Presentation 4.20.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM HTRA 4/20/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Fiscal Note DOA-DMV 4.16.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |