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.]