Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
05/05/2021 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 | |
| SB65 | |
| HB87 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 87-ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLES
2:46:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 87, "An Act relating to electric-assisted
bicycles."
2:47:16 PM
ASHLEY CARRICK, Staff, Representative Adam Wool, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of prime sponsor, answered questions
during the hearing on HB 87. She referred to questions that the
committee had requested follow up on pertaining to HB 87 and
recommended that Legislative Legal and Research Services provide
answers to those. She referred first to questions that were
posed on Section 2 of the bill which pertained to municipality
regulations for e-bikes used on sidewalks.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the question pertaining to Section 2 of
the bill was whether municipalities would be prohibited from
regulating the use of e-bikes on sidewalks, should HB 87 pass.
2:48:43 PM
ANDREW DUNMIRE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Alaska State Legislature, answered questions during
the hearing on HB 87. He opined that, should HB 87 pass,
municipalities would not be restricted in regulating the use of
e-bikes on their own pathways. He referenced Section 3 of the
bill that specifies that municipalities may enact regulations
for e-bikes for their locality.
2:49:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled an earlier question posed by
Representative Vance whether it would be beneficial to include
the three-tiered classification such as exists in the State of
California.
2:50:13 PM
MR. DUNMIRE stated his understanding of the question to be
whether an amendment classifying e-bikes in a three-tiered
structure would be beneficial, and he suggested that such an
amendment would be a policy decision to be determined by the
legislature. He suggested that, should the legislature deem
such a classification system to be unnecessary, his
recommendation would be not to include a definition since it
would limit how e-bikes are defined.
2:51:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE added that her constituents had endorsed
including the three-tiered definition of e-bikes as proposed by
the People for Bikes to achieve uniformity among different
states' regulations. She suggested that the question of whether
to amend the bill to include the three-tiered classification
should be at the discretion of the bill sponsor, and she offered
her understanding that including a three-tiered definition may
not provide any legal benefit.
2:51:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, answered questions during the hearing on HB 87. He
offered additional information to describe the various types of
vehicles and assisted bicycles. He stated that there exist
bikes which can be operated by a throttle without pedaling and
that those are not considered in the proposed bill. He added
that it remained a policy decision for the legislature to
determine whether to include the three-tiered classification
system or to combine class 1 and class 3 e-bikes. He added that
it would be difficult to ascertain motor size and whether a
pedal assist to engage a motor by simply looking at an e-bike.
He added that motor size would be capped at [a maximum] of 750
watts and the speed capped at 20 miles per hour.
2:53:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled an earlier question posed by
Representative Eastman pertaining to vehicles that have two,
non-tandem wheels and how they relate to the proposed bill.
MR. DUNMIRE explained that a Segway, which consists of two
tandem wheels on which a rider balances, would be included in
the definition, and that a three-wheeled mobility cart, such as
one might see at a grocery store, would not.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated his understanding of the intent of
the bill would be to allow devices such as a Segway be allowed
to operate on a sidewalk and asked why [a three-wheeled mobility
cart, such as one might see at a grocery store] would not.
During the discussion, he asked whether HB 87 would forbid
grocery store scooters from being operated on a sidewalk.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL answered that HB 87 permits only those
devices which have operable pedals to be classified as e-bikes,
and that neither a Segway nor an assistive cart would be
classified as an e-bike [should HB 87 pass]. He added that a
tricycle with an electric assist might be included in the
definition should it have operable pedals.
2:56:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled an earlier question posed by
Representative Snyder in which she referenced assistive
technology as defined in AS 45.45.600 and whether HB 87
pertained to any of those devices, which she had suggested that
it would not.
MR. DUNMIRE stated his belief that Representative Snyder's
assertion that HB 87 would not pertain to assistive technologies
described in the statute was correct.
2:57:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that replacing the word
"bicycle" with "cycle" would allow for devices with one to three
wheels to be categorized as e-bikes under the proposed bill and
would include tricycles and unicycles.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether Representative Eastman had
suggested that e-cycle be the referenced terminology instead of
e-bikes for devices with one to three, but not four, wheels as
currently written in the proposed bill. He offered to consider
the change to the language if there existed sufficient public
interest on the matter, and if there existed many individuals
operating electric assisted three-wheeled bikes. He stated his
preference to maintain the word "bicycles" in the proposed bill.
2:59:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Carrick whether the committee and invited
testimony had answered all the questions previously posed by the
committee.
MS. CARRICK stated her belief that, for the most part, it had,
and she invited additional questions should they arise. She
added that Representative Kurka had asked whether gas- or fuel-
operated motors would be included in the definition of e-bikes.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL explained that fuel-driven assisted bicycles
with an engine size of 50 cubic centimeters (cc) or less are
classified as a motor-driven cycle.
3:00:19 PM
MS. CARRICK explained that terms are defined in the bill. In
Section 5, on page 3, line 22 is the definition of an electric
personal motor vehicle that differentiates between a Segway and
a motorized grocery cart. She added that in Section 6, on page
3, line 28 motor vehicle is defined, and on page 4, line 2,
motor-driven cycle is referenced. She explained that an engine
which is 50 cubic centimeters (cc) or less would be covered and
those greater than 50 cc would be classified as a motorcycle.
She pointed out that there exists a difference between a
"motorcycle" and a "motor-driven cycle" and suggested that there
exists some confusion between the two.
[HB 87 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 65 v. W 5.5.2021.PDF |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Sponsor Statement 2.4.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 5/4/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Sectional Analysis ver. W 5.5.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Explanation of Changes ver. A to ver. W 5.5.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Supporting Document - Letters Received by 4.28.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Additional Document - Warren v. Dinter Supreme Court of Minnesota April 17, 2019 (Distributed by HJUD Committee).pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 2.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| 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 5.5.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Fiscal Note DOA-DMV 4.16.2021.pdf |
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 |