Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/24/2017 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 | |
| HB144 | |
| HB86 | |
| HB170 | |
| HB132 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 86 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 132-TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES
4:17:00 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 132, "An Act relating to transportation network
companies and transportation network company drivers."
4:17:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved to adopt Amendment 1, Version 30-
LS0522\J.3, which read as follows:
Page 10, line 4, following "Records.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 10, following line 11:
Insert new material to read:
"(b) Except for specific information about a
transportation network company rider, including the
rider's name, address, and telephone number, a
transportation network company shall provide a
transportation network driver information for each
ride the driver completes, including global
positioning data, the fare and tip paid by the rider,
and the rate charged.
Sec. 28.23.130. Collective bargaining agreement.
To the extent allowed by federal law and
notwithstanding AS 28.23.080,
(1) transportation network company drivers
may organize for the purpose of mutual aid and
protection and may designate a bargaining agent;
(2) a transportation network company and an
organization of transportation network company drivers
may negotiate, enter into, and administer a collective
bargaining agreement concerning wages, benefits, and
other terms and conditions relating to work performed
by the transportation network company drivers;
(3) a municipality where a transportation
network company operates may regulate conduct allowed
under (1) and (2) of this section.
Sec. 28.23.140. Prohibitions. A transportation
network company may not
(1) take adverse action against a
transportation network company driver, including
restricting the driver's tips or suspending or
terminating the driver's participation in the
company's digital network, as a result of the driver
(A) organizing or joining a driver
association or labor organization, including an
organization under AS 28.23.130, or participating in a
driver association or labor organization or the
activities of the driver association or labor
organization;
(B) decreasing the driver's participation
in the company's digital network; or
(C) generating less fare or tip income;
(2) change a compensation rate or other material term
of a contract with a driver without the driver's
voluntary prior consent, if the contract is based on
the driver providing a ride to a transportation
network company rider."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL objected.
4:17:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON explained that he had consulted with
labor lawyers and the legislature's lawyers, and although it is
not conventional, there is nothing prohibiting the option for
transportation network companies (TNC) workers in the state to
organize, even as independent contractors. He noted a First
Amendment right of association, mutual aid, and protection.
4:19:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON continued that the National Labor &
Relations Act concerns itself with employees, but it does not
speak to independent contractors. He explained his concern is
for the TNC drivers who may come to learn it is not the
lucrative profession they may have believed because they have to
pay for gasoline, any injuries sustained on the job, and any
repairs. This amendment gives drivers an option to organize,
and there is the potential for a much larger pool of people
statewide than taxi drivers. Frankly, he said, drivers need
authority to work collectively because individual drivers
working separately will have a hard time asking the TNCs for
anything.
4:21:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH spoke against the amendment noting a lot of
communication from AKTeamsters.com objecting to ridesharing and
TNCs, and this effort to propose an organizational structure is
a wrench in the works at this late date. He described that the
amendment was not constructive because, otherwise, there would
be organized taxi drivers everywhere. He said he could not
support the amendment because it is not reasonable or
constructive in the path forward enabling TNCs in Alaska.
4:21:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related that he does not support the
amendment and opined that under federal law collective
bargaining with independent contractors is not allowed.
Seattle, Washington did pass an ordinance about TNC drivers
organizing and he noted that the drivers have not successfully
organized at this point.
4:23:00 PM
CHAIR KITO commented that the discussion to organize TNC drivers
should encompass a larger discussion from actual drivers, and
since Alaska does not have drivers, there is not an opportunity
for TNC drivers, or possibly taxi drivers, to weigh in as to
whether or not they would prefer to organize. He suggested with
this larger discussion there should be in a more independent
piece of legislation, and because there had not been sufficient
discussion on this issue, he does not support this amendment, he
said.
4:23:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned whether or not it needed to be
put in statute because drivers would have the opportunity to
organize if they chose to go that route, without it being in
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL maintained his objection.
4:24:27 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Josephson voted in
favor of adopting Amendment 1. Representatives Stutes, Wool,
Birch, Knopp, Sullivan-Leonard, and Kito voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-6.
4:24:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved to adopt Amendment 2, Version 30-
LS0522\R.1, which read as follows:
Page 11, line 25:
Delete "or"
Insert "and"
Page 11, line 27, through page 12, line 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 8. AS 29.35 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 29.35.148. Regulation of transportation
network companies. (a) Notwithstanding AS 28.01.010, a
municipality may by ordinance
(1) prohibit a transportation network
company or driver from conducting activities under
AS 28.23 within the municipality; or
(2) regulate the operation of a
transportation network company or driver in a manner
that is at least as restrictive as or more restrictive
than the provisions of AS 28.23.
(b) This section applies to home rule and
general law municipalities.
(c) In this section, "transportation network
company" and "driver" have the meanings given in
AS 28.23.180."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL objected
4:25:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON advised that less than 72-hours ago,
the Anchorage Assembly passed a 23-page ordinance with "much
more detail than the bill," by a vote of 8-3. The ordinance
listed any manner of things the assembly wanted to regulate in
the event this bill does become law. The ordinance requires
that: customers would be informed when they are riding under
dynamic or surge pricing; the Municipality Inspection Division
would inspect cars annually; insurance would be cancelled, and
an application would cease to operate if any of the regulations
promulgated in the ordinance were not complied with; TNC would
have an insurance schedule comparable to the taxi insurance
schedule. In addition, there would be an agent for service of
process, a system for lost and stolen items; a system for
handling complaints, a system to handle post-incident drug and
alcohol testing, and issues of violations of alcohol and drug
testing. The ordinance requires that: TNCs would be required to
check that the driver is not included on National Sex Offender
Registry; the city would receive a list of all TNC drivers;
there would be drug and alcohol testing if there is an accident
or incident; the city would be notified of any report of traffic
accidents or injuries; the city would preclude the use of a
vehicle for solicitation or prostitution; TNCs could not be used
to tow or carry a trailer. The ordinance also stipulates that
for vehicles that can carry more than seven people, there would
be a higher rate of insurance. Page 20 of the ordinance
describes that in the event of an accident or litigation, there
would automatically "be all this discovery." He stated that the
ordinance: requires a process for hearings of appeals of denials
of licensure; establishes that disabled [riders] could not be
charged more; and lists a 27-item fine schedule, similar to a
bail schedule.
4:28:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered that local governments, due to
its taxis and "boots on the ground," are in a better position to
regulate. Local governments are cut out and that is the problem
with the bill, he said.
4:30:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH spoke against Amendment 2, noting that
while it is encouraging that the Anchorage Assembly and
community is supportive of TNCs, there was significant prior
testimony pointing out the problems in having a patchwork of
different nuances in every different community. He said that
during his ten years on the assembly, it had long standing
issues in trying to accommodate public transportation
requirements into Chugiak, Eagle River, and the Matanuska-
Susitna areas. The patchwork problem comes to a head when it
becomes necessary to direct the service areas into different
nuances on how services could be delivered. He described the
bill as a good workable product to carry forward and stated that
the safety and security issues have been addressed, and
Amendment 2 would get the committee needlessly "tangled up."
4:31:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP spoke in support of Amendment 2, expressing
that unique issues arise in the various communities "they
operate in" and there is no better place to fix the issues. The
rules written in the bill are lenient and not especially
restrictive, yet in reality, people do not get to operate
without some type of rules. He stated concern about rating
passengers, such as in the instance of a passenger not being a
big tipper and therefore rated a "one," leading to those people
waiting a long time for the next Uber ride. Also, he noted
concern about the "mini-suite" application as to buying 12 cars
and putting drivers in them because now they are actually
employees and he stated that he was unsure how that would work.
The point, he said, is that there will be issues that arise, and
this amendment provides the opportunity for those issues to be
addressed.
4:33:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES spoke in support of Amendment 2, and that
she is in favor of seeing Uber come into communities and
commented that her rural Alaska community is confined to an
island. She said that both the borough manager and city manager
are "exceedingly concerned" about these drivers coming in with
no regulation, when Kodiak's taxi cabs are seriously regulated.
She has heard from many of her constituents, living in both the
city and the borough, who believe that it is alarming to think
there would be no regulation and they would have no input as to
what went on with these drivers, she said.
4:34:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL spoke in opposition to Amendment 2, and said
he understands the concern of municipalities, although, the case
in point is that three individuals on the committee support
municipal regulations, all of which are from different
municipalities, and patchwork is part of the problem. He
referred to Lyft, noting that it will not go into a state
without statewide legislation, and stressed that Alaska wants to
be current and innovative, and this technology platform is used
in 49 states, with 38 or 39 states under statewide legislation.
Some Alaskans can practice exceptionalism, and not care how
things are run outside of Alaska, and be without the TNC service
except, he said, most Alaskans want the TNC service. He
referred to the Anchorage ordinance and advised that the Lyft or
Uber contract contains much of what was listed, and drug and
alcohol tests are performed by law enforcement following an
accident. As far as suites, he opined, a group of drivers are
not allowed to work under a driver. The rating system is a very
good system, he described, because rating makes the TNC service
far superior to the experience of people riding in taxis, and
pointed out that over many hours of testimony, not one testifier
complained about TNC service. Historically, larger cities had
local control when the service was rolled out, but that is not
going to happen in Alaska. He offered that statewide control is
good and more language could be added to the bill in addressing
some of these concerns, but he stated that he does not intend to
make the bill basically a contract for TNCs. He asked that
Annabel Chang address the issue of suites.
4:39:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered a point of order, noting that the
committee is addressing the amendment, and asked whether Chair
Kito planned to open it up to public testimony.
CHAIR KITO ruled that there is a question as to the impact of
the amendment and Lyft is being asked to respond.
4:39:28 PM
ANNABEL CHANG, West Coast Director, Public Policy, Lyft, asked
that the question be repeated.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked about drivers subcontracting with
other drivers.
MS. CHANG explained that each individual driver on the Lyft
platform must go through an individual background check process,
including the vehicle they drive. For example, in the event a
family shares a vehicle and the wife wants to drive for Lyft and
it is under her husband's name, she must be approved to drive
that vehicle and must be listed on the insurance. The wife's
husband cannot drive that vehicle because he was not approved to
drive on the Lyft platform unless he goes through a separate
background check, driving record check, and identity check. Of
course, she said, when opening the app, the photo of the actual
approved driver pops up so the passenger is aware of who is
actually picking them up before they even get into the vehicle.
4:41:05 PM
CHAIR KITO asked if an individual is operating as a Lyft driver
when they activate the app, and whether there is a policy
regarding whether or not that has to be the individual that is
authorized.
MS. CHANG agreed, and she said it would be against the terms of
service to have anyone not approved to drive on the platform
using the platform, and the approved person would risk
deactivation at that point. Of course, she noted, passengers
would have notification because they would know when they are
picked up whether the driver matches the photo on the mobile
app.
4:42:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to the last time she spoke to the
committee when the issue of "mini-suites" was brought up and Ms.
Chang had agreed that it was possible, and asked how it would
work if someone was to buy six cars and put drivers in the cars.
MS. CHANG responded that Lyft partners with General Motors and
Enterprise wherein they actually lease out vehicles in
partnership with Lyft. In that situation, she explained, an
individual can lease out a vehicle for a few weeks at a time to
drive on the Lyft platform, and prior to their approval to drive
on the Lyft platform, they must go through a background check,
driving record check, and their name and face must be linked to
that vehicle on the mobile app. There is always a connection
between the approved individual and the vehicle before a person
is allowed to drive and be activated on the mobile app, she
explained.
4:43:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered a scenario wherein someone leases a
car from Hertz, Budget, or Enterprise and their names are not on
the title or with the insurance company.
MS. CHANG answered that the individual is listed on the
insurance, and insurance is provided through General Motors or
Hertz.
4:44:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD said she echoes Representative
Birch's comments because in the taxi industry their ability to
travel through the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, as an example, is
rather limited. As to the arrival of TNCs, its freedom of
movement and moving passengers in and around the south-central
area is an important component, and the thought of actually
delineating between each municipality is an incredible patchwork
that should be avoided, she said. The current bill contains
regulations in place, there will be a requirement for business
licensing, sales tax collection, and disbursement to the cities
requiring those collections and, she stated, she does not
support Amendment 2.
4:45:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES acknowledged that she was mistaken in
thinking there was an opt-in clause for a municipality and have
the opportunity for local control. She suggested a friendly
amendment adding an opt-in clause.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON advised that Amendment 2 would allow
municipalities to opt-in and referred to Amendment 2, page 1,
lines 8-9, which read as follows:
Sec. 29.35.148. Regulation of transportation
network companies. (a) Notwithstanding AS 28.01.010,
a municipality may by ordinance
4:46:58 PM
CHAIR KITO referred to Amendment 2, page 1, lines 8-11, Sec.
29.35.148, which read as follows:
(a) Notwithstanding AS 28.01.010, a municipality
may be ordinance
(1) prohibit a transportation network
company or driver from conducting activities under AS
28.23 within the municipality; or
CHAIR KITO described that Amendment 2 would allow a municipality
to opt-out.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether that is opposed to opting-
in.
CHAIR KITO answered in the affirmative.
4:47:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented that while he appreciates the
testimony of Ms. Chang, his concern still stands when looking no
farther than the language in this amendment which speaks to
prohibiting and regulating a TNC. He opined that it is
commendable that there is support for the TNC, and if the
committee wants TNCs to operate in Alaska, it needs to be in a
uniform manner. That responsibility rests with the legislature
and the oversight and regulation would be incumbent upon the
legislature, and he does not believe this amendment adds value,
he advised.
4:48:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the opt-out provision, and
advised that Fairbanks is a city and a borough, and the city and
borough are sandwiched on top of each other, it would be
complicated if the city chose to opt-out. For example, he
explained, he lives in the City of Fairbanks and if he wanted to
be picked up by a TNC, he must then walk to the city border. He
expressed that for that reason alone the amendment is
unacceptable, on top of the other previously stated reasons.
4:49:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP remarked that he did not view it as an opt-
out, but rather an opt-in because it read, "a municipality may
by ordinance regulate or prohibit." Therefore, it is not
inclusive until adopting an ordinance, it does provide the
option to address issues when they come up, that is all it does,
he said.
4:50:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed frustration with the
legislation because this could be a great victory for everyone
and opined that most cities would not prohibit it and would opt
for paragraph (a)(2) in the amendment, and would want something
more restrictive. Although, he noted, cities could opt for
paragraph (a)(1) and be able to prohibit a TNC, local
governments want more local control as was reflected in the
Anchorage ordinance.
[The committee treated the objection as maintained.]
4:51:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes, Josephson,
and Knopp voted in favor of adopting Amendment 2.
Representatives Sullivan-Leonard, Wool, Birch, and Kito voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3-4.
4:51:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved to adopt Amendment 3, Version 30-
LS0522\R.2, which read as follows:
Page 10, line 14:
Delete "one year"
Insert "two years"
Page 10, line 17:
Delete "one year"
Insert "two years"
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL objected for the purposes of discussion.
4:52:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON remarked that under the bill, records
are to be retained for one year, yet there is a statute of
limitations in tort law, or personal injury, of two years and
the bill should match that statute. For example, let us say a
TNC driver assaulted a passenger by hitting them on the jaw, the
passenger believed he would heal; except one year and one day
passed and the passenger required jaw surgery. That passenger
would not have access to the records that otherwise would have
been available, yet he would be allowed to sue for another 364
days because the statute of limitations runs for a full two
years. The records could be information that would exculpate or
exonerate the driver, records are retained in other cities for
three years, and the TNCs would accommodate, he opined.
4:54:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that Representative Josephson made
good points and he removed his objection.
MS. CHANG, in response to Representative Birch, advised that
Lyft has no objection to this amendment.
4:55:10 PM
CHAIR KITO noted that the objection had been removed, there
being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
4:55:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved to adopt Amendment 4, Version 30-
LS0522\R.3, which read as follows:
Page 11, lines 11 - 12:
Delete "and related services"
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL objected.
4:55:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to CSHB 132, Version R, page
11, lines 11-12, and said some stakeholders are concerned that
the language "and related services" is vague. As written, TNCs
could work in connection to potential passengers and related
services and, he said, stakeholders do not know the meaning of
that language. For example, could a person with a semi-truck,
without a CDL, be hired at a reduced rate because this becomes a
pebble thrown in the preverbal pond that moves further and
further into the workplace.
4:56:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH remarked that there was testimony regarding
passengers potentially ordering up a driver, for instance, to
deliver a teen-age child from a junior high school to an
appointment. In this instance, the person may not be the
passenger but they have ordered up the TNC to provide a service.
One of the benefits of ridesharing is the potential for a
scheduled and known person and vehicle to transport someone who
may not be "yourself" to an appointment. Therefore, he said he
has concerns and is not comfortable with Amendment 4.
4:58:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD reminded the committee that this
issue was discussed previously with Ms. Chang, and she asked Ms.
Chang to reiterate aspects of what "other related services"
would be with regard to a TNC.
MS. CHANG reiterated that Lyft often works with hospitals or
senior centers and someone at the front desk who is not the
passenger will order a Lyft for a patient or a resident. For
instance, an 85-year-old grandmother, not familiar with smart
phones, can receive a ride through a Lyft ordered by the front
desk attendant, or her granddaughter, for instance.
4:59:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted other services in ridesharing, such as
carpooling and such. He referred to the concern about trucks
and hauling freight being considered part of the "other related
services" and stressed that that certainly was not his intent
with this legislation. In the event that were to happen, he
described that he would certainly draft a new bill to make sure
that did not happen, but at this point that is a bit preemptive.
CHAIR KITO turned to Mr. Matthews of Uber, referred to related
services, and asked whether calling a ridesharing service to
deliver a birthday cake from one location to another location
and not actually carrying a passenger, was possible with the
Uber platform.
5:00:57 PM
MITCHEL MATTHEWS, Senior Global Operations Manager, Uber,
responded that Chair Kito's scenario was possible, but not
intended. From Uber's perspective, the "other related services"
relates more to activities relating to the transportation of
passengers. For example, Uber's view on related services is
that TNCs help facilitate the payment stream or facilitate
communication between riders and drivers through its anonymized
channels.
CHAIR KITO surmised that Uber's related services are related to
what the app provides in facilitating passenger and driver
activity.
MR. MATTHEWS answered in the affirmative, and he reiterated that
it would be helping to facilitate payments or communications
between rider and driver at the time they were connected for a
trip.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL maintained his objection.
5:02:39 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Josephson voted in
favor of adopting Amendment 4. Representatives Knopp, Sullivan-
Leonard, Stutes, Wool, Birch, and Kito voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 4 failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-6.
5:03:04 PM
CHAIR KITO clarified that Amendment 5, Version 30-LS0522\R.4 had
been noticed but was not being offered at this time.
5:03:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved to adopt Amendment 6, Version 30-
LS0522\R.6 which read as follows:
Page 6, line 17:
Delete "$50,000"
Insert "$100,000"
Delete "$100,000"
Insert "$300,000"
Page 6, line 18:
Delete "$25,000"
Insert "$50,000"
Page 6, lines 19 - 20:
Delete "as required under AS 21.96.020 and
AS 28.20.440"
Insert "in the amount of at least $100,000 for
death and bodily injury for each person, $300,000 for
death and bodily injury for each incident, and $25,000
for property damage"
Page 6, line 31, through page 7, line 1:
Delete "as required under AS 21.96.020 and
AS 28.20.440"
Insert "in the amount of at least $1,000,000 for death
and bodily injury for each person, $1,000,000 for
death and bodily injury for each incident, and $25,000
for property damage"
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL objected.
5:03:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON explained that the amendment read that
a driver will pick up a passenger who presumably the driver has
no relationship. "But, remember, we're not calling them
commercial carriers so it's a whole new relationship." He
opined that during period one, the driver is not at home
thinking about engaging the application, the driver could
actually be driving and looking for the next ride. Therefore,
the driver could be a distracted driver, except the insurance in
that period is the same as for private individuals in the State
of Alaska, and yet the legal duty is there. The vehicle could
be moving and passenger-less and, he explained the first part of
Amendment 6 mirrors the $100,000 for each injury and$300,000 for
aggregate injuries, of which is located in the taxi code of the
municipality. He said that taxi cab drivers are independent
contractors, TNC drivers are independent contractors, "so do
that for the insurance as well." The $25,000/$50,000 reflects
property damage which mirrors the taxi rates required in
Anchorage. He referenced uninsured motorists and noted that
rather than defaulting to the statute, which would only mirror
this smaller $50,000/$100,000 number, the latter part of
Amendment 6 language would instead mirror what Uber itself wants
to offer, $1 million for periods two and three, and $100,000 and
$300,000 for period one. Essentially, he said, this is designed
to insure people in a more legitimate manner, noting that the
$50,000 and $100,000 numbers had not increased over a long
period of time. There will be accidents, he said, and the
Anchorage ordinance read that if there are seven passengers in
the vehicle the insurance would be even higher, stressing that
he wants this "new thing" properly insured.
5:07:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to Representative Josephson's
statement that a TNC driver might be driving around looking for
a fare and explained that TNC drivers do not drive around
looking for fares. He further explained that according to the
contract, fares only arrive to the driver through their phone
app; he expounded that a forthcoming committee substitute will
state that the only way a passenger can get a ride on a TNC is
through a phone app, and not through a phone call or being waved
down on the street. He pointed out that during period one, the
driver could be doing anything, such as being parked and
drinking a cup of coffee. Basically, he remarked, the limits
set in the proposed statute are as high as any other area in the
country, and as high as required by the state for any individual
driving in the State of Alaska. The $1 million requirement far
exceeds what the state requires of taxi drivers, and he
commented that the committee has already had this discussion
many times and he maintained his objection.
5:09:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP surmised the numbers in the draft are the
state minimum requirements, and between his work trucks and
personal vehicles he probably has 13, maybe 14 vehicles covered
in damages. He related that he has never had an insurance agent
recommend the minimum the state requires because the agents
advise it is just too low, and the amount is not anywhere close
to what would truly be necessary. He referred to Amendment 6,
page 1, line 14 and line 19, and suggested deleting $25,000, and
inserting $50,000 for property damage on both lines. He asked
whether that was Representative Josephson's intent.
5:10:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved to adopt Representative Knopp's
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 6, page 1, line 14 and line
19, to delete $25,000 and insert $50,000 on both lines.
CHAIR KITO noted there being no objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 6, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
5:12:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that he owns vehicles through his
business and insures them for more than the minimum requirement,
and anyone driving for a TNC can certainly insure their car for
more than the minimum. In the event the vehicle is new, the
driver has to have full coverage, and this is just a fallback
because in the event someone does not have insurance, the TNC
will cover everyone in all phases.
5:13:09 PM
CHAIR KITO clarified that the discussion now is regarding the
three periods of operation as follows: period one is when the
driver is in the vehicle and the app is not engaged; period two
is when the driver is in the vehicle and the app is engaged but
no passengers are being transported; and period three is when
the driver has accepted a fare and is engaged in the transport
of that individual. He noted that the insurance changes
recommended by Amendment 6 appear to be for period two, when the
vehicle is not occupied by a passenger but the app is engaged.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD advised that Chair Kito's
clarification was incorrect.
5:14:48 PM
JARED EBER, Associate Counsel, Uber, responded as follows:
during period one, the driver is engaged in the app but has not
yet accepted a ride; period two is when the driver has accepted
the ride until the point they pick up the passenger; and period
three is when the passenger is actually in the vehicle until
they exit the vehicle. Amendment 6 would raise the insurance
limits for period one when there are no passengers in the
vehicle and the driver has the app turned on but has not yet
accepted a ride. He noted that during that period, over 40
states have adopted statewide legislation for insurance being at
the same limits as in the bill, $50,000 for an injury to one
individual, $100,000 for more than one individual, which is
third-party liability, and $25,000 for property damage. Other
than the States of Alaska and Vermont, every other state has
significantly less limits, at roughly $15,000 - $20,000 per
injury for one person, $25,000 - $40,000 for multiple
individuals per accident, and $15,000 - $25,000 for property
damage. He pointed out that the limits listed in the bill have
been accepted by the National Conference of Insurance
Legislatures together with the largest insurance trade groups in
the country agreeing that those limits are sufficient for period
one. He said that someone drinking a cup of coffee with the app
on is one piece, but the other piece is the moral hazard wherein
if raising limits that are not the minimum limits in Amendment
6, then the driver can turn the app on 100 percent of time they
are in their vehicle, even if they have no intention whatsoever
of accepting a ride. The would put the liability on the
transportation network company (TNC) regardless of whether the
driver actually has any intention of accepting a ride.
Therefore, the driver knows they have higher limits they are not
paying for which, inherently, makes them a more dangerous driver
because they have no risk.
5:19:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON remarked that another way to view this
is that a driver could transport a passenger to Eagle River and
not have a passenger driving back to Anchorage and this driver
could be under a great incentive to make a living, and in that
window of time hurry back up the Glenn Highway just as fast as
they can travel. He described that "You're taking on this
mantle" of effectively being a commercial carrier, and even if
the committee carved out and pretended that drivers are not
really commercial carriers, "they are this other thing." He
commented that the drivers and passengers do not know each
other, but the drivers are making money driving passengers
around and it appears reasonable to charge the same rate as the
Municipality of Anchorage. He argued that the limits in the
bill are not sufficient.
5:20:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH spoke against the amendment, and he
referred to prior discussions regarding an established
acceptable base rate. There was a comment about a driver
transporting a passenger from Eagle River to Anchorage and
driving back without a passenger and, he said, that is the
current practice which is part of the problem. In the event
someone drives to Anchorage from the Matanuska-Susitna Valley,
they are prohibited from "a back haul." Certainly, he offered,
the TNC option preserves that ridesharing and makes good use and
utility of the equipment and resources available.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL maintained his objection.
5:22:10 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Knopp and Josephson
voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 6, as amended.
Representatives Birch, Sullivan-Leonard, Stutes, Wool, and Kito
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 6 failed to be adopted
by a vote of 2-5.
[HB 132 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB170 DCCED Presentation 3.23.17.pdf |
HL&C 3/24/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Fiscal Note DHSS-SDSA 3.17.17.pdf |
HL&C 3/24/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Fiscal Note DCCED-DBS 3.13.17.pdf |
HL&C 3/24/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Repealers List 3.21.17.pdf |
HL&C 3/24/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Sectional Analysis 3.21.17.pdf |
HL&C 3/24/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Sponsor Statement 3.21.17.pdf |
HL&C 3/24/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB086 ACPE Response HLAC 3.23.17.pdf |
HL&C 3/24/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 86 |
| HB141 DOLWD Response HLAC 3.10.17.pdf |
HL&C 3/24/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB170 DCCED Whitepaper 3.20.17.pdf |
HL&C 3/24/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 DCCED Presentation 3.23.17.pdf |
HL&C 3/24/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 170 |