Assembly Transportation Committee

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for your wisdom in making sure that there's plenty of dialogue when it comes to this issue. As you know, technology is moving fast, and as our communities continue to adapt to it, we have to make sure that we're leading with the best information possible, including what tradeoffs are we making when it comes to autonomous vehicles, both good or bad. Does autonomous vehicles help to make our streets safer or do they not? Do autonomous vehicles, are they a disruptor when it comes to our workforce? We have to make sure that we're taking a deep dive into these issues. I've certainly been waiting to hear from the DMV when it comes to their assessments, And I look forward to hearing what their assessments are when it comes to this technology. But I'm also looking forward to seeing, you know, what does this present to our future sectors in terms of transportation, in terms of goods movement, and in terms of all the other things that we're relying on as well. So thank you very much for your leadership on this issue. I'm looking forward to this robust conversation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. California continues to be a leader nationally and internationally in the regulation of autonomous vehicles. The California DMV's balanced approach, encouraging innovation while ensuring public safety, is guided by a comprehensive regulatory framework established to rules issued in 2014, 2018, 2019, and now in 2026. This framework is among the most rigorous, structured, and transparent in the United States, emphasizing safety, accountability, and strong coordination with law enforcement and emergency responders. California's approach remains aligned with the federal government's model in which manufacturers self-certify compliance with federal motor vehicle safety standards, while states oversee driver licensing, vehicle registration, insurance, and operational safety. The department currently administers three types of autonomous vehicle permits, testing with a safety driver, driverless testing, and deployment. Today, 27 manufacturers hold driver testing permits, six hold driverless testing permits, and three are authorized for deployment. The new regulations became effective on April 28, 2026. And throughout the rulemaking process, the department engaged extensively with local partners, including transportation agencies and first responder departments in Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and San Francisco. And we convened two statewide first responder roundtables to ensure operational concerns were fully incorporated. California remains the only state with a formal phased permitting structure that governs the full lifecycle of AV operations, from driver testing to driverless testing, driverless operation, and commercial deployment. This tiered system requires manufacturers to demonstrate readiness at each stage, including submitting safety cases, validating operational design domains, and providing comprehensive data reporting. For example, manufacturers must now test 50,000 miles for light-duty AVs and half a million miles for heavy-duty AVs, and they must submit a structured safety case demonstrating the safety of the vehicle's hardware, software, and operations. These new regulations establish a path for deployment, for testing and deployment of heavy-duty autonomous vehicles and strengthens the DMV's safety oversight. They removed the previous prohibition on autonomous vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. And heavy autonomous vehicles must still comply with all applicable state and federal commercial motor vehicle requirements including the CHP waste stations and inspections Manufacturers of heavy AVs like operators of human commercial motor vehicles must use roadways that are legal for the size, weight, and loading of the vehicle. AV manufacturers are prohibited from carrying oversized loads. They are also prohibited from transporting hazardous materials. Additionally, the regulations allow for AVs up to 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight to be operated by a public entity or university for passenger transit. These passenger operations must provide the department with any terminal evaluations from the CHP, and the department may restrict or suspend operations if the Federal Transit Administration issues a directive, restriction, or prohibition. At this point, I'll turn it over to Miguel Acosta, also from the DMV, who will speak to the reporting requirements of these new regulations. Miguel?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Ty Meeks with the California Highway Patrol Office of Special Representatives. With me is Lieutenant David Fossen, the commander of our Collision Investigation Unit. We're grateful for the opportunity to be here with our counterparts of the DMV. I can assure you that both DMV and the CHP have been laser focused throughout this process to make sure that both public safety and transportation safety has been at the forefront of these regulations and that through the collaborative process, law enforcement and AV industry have worked together to come up with what these regulations look like today. A multitude of public hearings have been held in an effort to address concerns and show transparency. and the process. We are confident that the regulations provide a mechanism for law enforcement agencies such as the highway patrol and local departments to hold AVs accountable when violations of the vehicle code are observed and when traffic violations of concern are realized. The CHP's commercial vehicle section provided subject matter expertise to the DMV regarding commercial vehicle operations and enforcement as it pertains to commercial vehicles and both federal and state laws. The department is ready for commercial vehicles to come through enforcement facilities in line with the current DMV regulations as outlined with test drivers. The CHP crash investigation unit provided assistance to the DMV reviewing and approving all of industry's first responder interaction interaction plans that are accessible to all first responders and each AV through each AV manufacturer's website. Some companies have gone so far as to place a QR code on the side window next to the side mirror to make it easily accessible to any first responder, any individual showing up at the scene. Additionally, the CHP has attended nationwide AV workshops and participated in AV working groups, which were attended by local law enforcement partners here in California and throughout the nation. These practices are utilized and improved, have helped us to improve the current regulations providing California with some of the most comprehensive regulations in the nation. These regulations are an example of our commitment to both hear and address concerns that have been raised by all. The regulations make sure that California remains true to its calling card of being a leader and the standard bearer in the nation when it comes to innovation. We provided presentations in person and online to several local agencies and city officials on how to utilize the notice of non-compliance for autonomous vehicles. Santa Monica, these are just a few, Santa Monica, San Francisco, Mountain View, San Jose, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, and Riverside. An online training video has been developed and is posted on YouTube and the DMV's website for quick access on how to utilize, complete, and what to do with the notice of non-compliance for autonomous vehicles when it's filled out. Both departments have prepared information bulletins and memos outlining the process on how to requisition the notice of autonomous vehicle noncompliance and step-by-step instructions on how to fill it out and what to do when it is once completed. Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As previously noted, California leads the nation when it comes to innovation, but we have been equally clear that innovation cannot come at the expense of public or transportation safety. The autonomous vehicle regulations reflect that balance. They are grounded in data, strengthened by continuous oversight, and built on the principle that every operator, whether human or autonomous, or automated must be held fully accountable on our roads. Our commitment is unwavering to ensure California remains a safe place to live, work, and travel for those who are visiting this great state and those who live within this state. We're happy to answer any questions as far as it comes to the enforcement portion of autonomous vehicles. Thank you.

From the data that you've all seen, I would love to hear from all of you on this. I mean, obviously, it's the question about safety and which type of driver is the safest driver. I must admit I'm not one of them. But do you get to know if you see me, you're in danger.

Are we finding that autonomous vehicles are yielding safer outcomes for – especially in our urban areas at this time? Do we have enough data to make that claim yet?

Just to expand on that some further, I mean, as what Bernard said is right, that the data that we had was really focused on testing. And the regulations that we have now are going to expand that crash reporting to just testing and deployment. But back to the testing data that we do have, of those about 983 collisions that we saw during testing, 40 percent or so were where the AV was rear-ended by a human driver. So it's where the human driver, and maybe for a variety of reasons, it could be the driver was not paying attention, but the AV was at a stoplight, and the AV was rear-ended by a human driver. And then other data to note is about 68% of crashes, this is during testing, resulted in minor damage. So these were very minor types of collisions. So there were no fatalities reported during that time But again this is a small data set but this is the data that we have available But I think it points to that in this new regulations we going to have much more data We going to continue to learn from what that data provides

And, I mean, obviously there's some of the most glaring complaints is the idea of when the technology goes wrong and it begins to stall and then it's just holding everyone up, including our first responders. Are we getting better at solving that issue when it comes to first responders and they're trying to get to where they need to go and how autonomous vehicles have been reacting to that. I've noticed that you're getting a little bit better on your requirements in terms of how to make sure the technology is talking to first responders. Can you elaborate more on that?

There's an expectation that autonomous vehicles will obey the rules of the road rules of the road and that when confronted by emergency vehicles that they will yield appropriately. We have seen issues in the past and we I believe we will continue to see issues just as we do with human drivers. We see it with autonomous vehicles. However, the issues are different. Every every situation has one element that may be different from the previous one. And that's where, as Miguel mentioned, with CHP and DMV working together, working through with the manufacturers that are out there, we're able to to address those issues, hold them accountable for it so that some of the Issues we've seen maybe a year or two ago, we don't see today. However, we're seeing other issues that are coming forward, and that's where we have that open working relationship with them. With the inclusion now of the notice of AV noncompliance, this is a way for us now statewide to have the eyes of law enforcement officers to directly report to the DMV of the issues that we have. Prior to that, it was usually issues from other people, lay citizens out there, other people who see it, where it may or may not be an issue. Also, through our travels, we've seen that even in cities where CHP does not have primary jurisdiction, we do see that there are challenging roadway designs that do make it hard for these AVs as well to figure out where to pick up, where to drop off these people, and then as events happen, and then through also the introduction of our ability to put out the restrictions of locations, the geofence locations, that we believe will help reduce these issues as well.

Thank you. Okay, you got the question.

Well, I mean, the vehicles themselves need to adhere to the rules of the road, so whatever the posted speed limit is for the particular operating area. But really that varies from the operational area that the AVs are in. Like if they're providing, let's say, delivery services in a neighborhood, they would have to adhere to the 25 mile per hour lower. But if they're on the highways, right, freeway off speeds, they could travel up to that speed.

So the regulations do provide for that, that the AV has to follow the rules of the road or the vehicle code, except for instances like you just mentioned, and instances where it has to respond to situations for safety, for the safe operation. And obviously there are edge cases like that.

And then I guess my other concern again is we're talking about safety. Are our Caltrans workers out there working on the freeway? And we already know that it's a very dangerous job when they're out there. And we are now finally getting some cameras to hopefully slow people down. Is that a concern as well?

Thank you.

So I have a few questions. One of the things we have, some of this has to relate to legislation that is currently under review. So under the DMV regulations, a remote driver and a remote assistant are required to have a valid driver's license. So is a driver's license that's issued by a foreign government considered a valid driver's license?

Now, but there's a distinction between a remote assistant and a remote driver.

So if you had a foreign driver's license and you're a remote driver or operator,

So anywhere in the U.S., though, right?

Yes, so it's much more stringent license requirements for the remote drivers

Okay. Were you going to add to that at all or no? Okay. All right. And so I wanted to ask about the regulatory actions as it relates to getting a notice of noncompliance. And so do you all have DMV, an objective standard for when to take action based on the receipt of a notice of noncompliance?

Okay, thank you. And then in that same vein of the notice of noncompliance, you all determined that it was better to place the reporting requirement on DMV versus not the entity that issued the noncompliance. So what was the reasoning behind that?

Okay. Thank you. So this is to CHP, and this is really based on the fact that we just had the incident in December that made national, actually probably global news. And so if an AV experiences a critical detachment or software freeze that blocks a lane on an interstate, what specific authority and training do CHP officers have to manually move or override the vehicle? And including in that, are you seeing manufacturers responding within an acceptable time frame to clear these blockages?

incident was brought up earlier on. And what I can tell you is we received many of those calls dispatch-wise. We transferred those to San Francisco PD, but we did have a unit that came across one of those, the vehicles that were stopped in the lanes. The officers approached the vehicle, they called the operator, they called the emergency line, and the car was moved within a minute. So from the time that they showed up to the time that that car was cleared off to the right off to the curb, it was two minutes for that call specifically. That was just our experience.

them? So currently right now, even with human operators, we have what's called a bypass program, but we also have officers who are sitting at these facilities who are watching traffic as they come, the commercial traffic. If those commercial vehicles bypass the facility, whether it's human operator or automated, they take action, enforcement action. They'll make an enforcement stop and they will take the appropriate enforcement action once they make that stop. So that would be either the notice of autonomous vehicle noncompliance or it would be, if it's a human operator, a citation of notice to appear. We are prepared and ready for autonomous vehicles to come through those facilities with those test drivers. We are not currently prepared for full autonomy mode to go through those facilities. There are some things that still need to be worked out as far as locations to have them pull off and the proper inspections to be conducted there.

Correct. The standard does not change.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, thank you so much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. My name is Elise Sanguinetti. I am a past president of the Consumer Attorneys of California and a past president of the American Association for Justice, which is the national group. My experience includes working on legislation, regulation, and litigation involving autonomous vehicles for about the past decade, both in California and nationally. I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss the Department of Motor Vehicles' recently adopted autonomous vehicle regulations and specifically their relationship to AB3061, which was authored by Assemblymember Haney in 2024, which we co-sponsored with the Teamsters and the Consumer Federation of California. When AB3061 was introduced, one of its primary objectives was to ensure that California's autonomous vehicle oversight framework kept pace with rapidly evolving technology. At the time, the DMV's autonomous vehicle regulations had remained largely unchanged, as the chair had mentioned, since they were adopted in 2018, despite significant changes in the autonomous vehicle deployment, expanded testing, and increased public interaction and driverless vehicles on California roadways. The largest flaw that was that the DMV neither collected nor reported data once an autonomous vehicle permit holder shifts from testing to a full deployment permit. Cities have experienced driverless vehicles shutting down, blocking intersections, causing gridlock, and even at times obstructing emergency vehicles, as we've previously discussed. As California serves as a test case for AVs, there is a public interest in the highest level of transparency. CAOC's position has remained that the need for innovation must be met with public transparency and a priority of safety. In addition to these incidents not only being reported to DMV, on October 2, 2023, an autonomous cruise vehicle struck a pedestrian in San Francisco that was first struck by a human-operated vehicle. Cruise was not required to report this collision to DMV because it was operating on a deployment permit. AB 3061 sought to modernize California's approach By proposing reporting requirements for collisions, traffic violations, disengagements And other incidents involving autonomous vehicles operating on the public roadways The goal was to ensure that regulators policymakers local governments and the public Have access to meaningful information about how these vehicles perform in real conditions Transparency and accountability are critical regarding this rapidly evolving technology. I can speak as to civil litigation. Obtaining critical data and other evidence of the causes of incidents presents a significant challenge. Even in instances when someone has been seriously injured or killed, it takes years of discovery battles with companies. And I can speak to Tesla specifically, although they're not deployed here in California. It takes years to gather information within the company's control. The same is true for litigation against autonomous vehicle companies. This lack of transparency and accountability are an unnecessary drain on severely injured people, surviving families, and the courts. We were pleased to see that the DMV recently adopted regulations that address many of the same concerns raised by AB 3061. Both the bill and the regulations recognize the importance of collision reporting, traffic law compliance, disengagement reporting, and increased oversight of autonomous vehicle operations. In that respect, there is significant overlap between the policy objectives of AB 3061 and the final regulations. I'm sure I do want to address specifically trucks, although I know that there will be some discussion later panels on this issue. But I just want to remind the members that in instances where there are collisions, when we're talking about heavy-duty vehicles, they do significantly more damage than collisions involving light-duty autos. And that is something to just keep in mind when we're talking about safety of our roadways. The discussion surrounding AB 3061 highlighted concerns, again, regarding transparency and accountability. Many of those same concerns are reflected in these regulations that were ultimately adopted. However, and this is a big however, I want to urge that the public have access to the information that is collected. And that is not—

That is not currently identified in these regulations. The public have access to that information, and that is critically important. So with that, I thank you for noting my time. Thank you for having me here, and I'll remain for any questions that the members have.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Renee Gibson, and I'm the Vice President of Government Affairs for the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, which represents the world's leading AV companies operating in California and across the country. AV companies have collectively driven more than 360 million autonomous miles across the United States. Those miles represent years of testing, validation, and continuous improvement. California has long been at the forefront of AV development and regulation, but AVs do not appear on California roads overnight. They are the product of a long and highly regulated process and has taken nearly 15 years to reach this point. Over a decade ago, the DMV adopted the nation's most stringent regulations for AVs. After multiple workshops, hearings, and comment periods between 2023 and 2026, the DMV adopted revised rules which set an even higher bar for AV companies. The regulations established strict permit requirements for AV companies to even qualify for testing ongoing data reporting requirements during operation and broad authority for the DMV to restrict or suspend operations No other state approaches AV policy with this level of permitting, reporting, and enforcement. The DMV exercises oversight at every stage of AV operations. There is a progression through multiple permit stages designed to demonstrate operational readiness. It starts with driver testing, then driverless testing, and then companies are eligible for deployment. Before advancing to each stage, companies must meet specific mileage thresholds. Light-duty AVs generally must test 50,000 autonomous miles, while heavy-duty AVs must test at least 500,000 autonomous miles. At each step, companies must submit detailed safety case information about vehicle design, the AV's operating conditions, testing and validation, remote operations, and first responder interactions, just to name a few. The regulations also require notification to local agencies, submission of detailed first responder interaction plans, and coordination with emergency personnel within an AV's operating area. This just touches the surface of the requirements, and I'll focus on a few specific aspects of the regulations. With respect to data reporting and collection, the new regulations expand California's already robust transparency and reporting requirements. First, collisions must be reported consistently with longstanding federal collision reporting requirements for AVs. This means that companies have to submit the same information to the DMV that is submitted to NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, on the same timeline that NHTSA requires. To be clear, the reporting threshold for that is very low, and companies have to report collisions regardless of fault. But the DMV's requirements go well beyond collision reporting now. Companies must also report system failures, vehicle immobilizations, harsh breaking events, notices of noncompliance, and vehicle miles traveled. These reports must be provided monthly during testing and quarterly during deployment.

Thank you. Thank you to you both. Now I'll turn it over to members of this committee to ask any questions, starting with Assemblymember Hart.

That's an excellent question. It would if the information that's being collected by the DMV is publicly available. If it is not publicly available, then the same battles will exist in the courts to obtain the information that's necessary. So that's the question for the panel that left us, but they'll be back, I think, at some point. Thank you for that.

I don't think there's a gap. Thanks for the question. I think, you know, there is a reason that the system exists today. There still needs to be investigations done. There needs to be fact patterns that need to be explored. You know, I think that what is definitely true is that California has the most robust reporting requirements in the country, and that is going to tell us a lot of information once it's all in effect, which is very soon.

I think the industry acknowledges that transparency is important. I think we recognize that we have to – we are asking a lot of the public, right, to trust the technology. And in showing our safety data is going to be helpful in earning that trust.

And just to note, the limited data that was collected in the past was made available. But we will follow up the DMV to see if now this very much expanded information will also be made available. And we'll get that to you.

Thank you. I think my question is for Renee. I just wanted to, if you go into a little more detail for me on how you feel like California's DMV regulations sort of compare to other states and what you see as sort of the national landscape on this testing as well.

All right. Did you have any others? Okay. Any other questions? I'll ask a couple. I appreciate the question from my colleague to you, Ms. Sanguinetti. I apologize for saying your name wrong at the beginning. Because I do think it important that you all have the information you need when there is an incident to be able to do that absent you know that under a company control Because I know that the hardest thing when there is an issue Getting information from the company is hard having been a part of private industry. And so if we're going to be collecting this information on behalf of the public, you know, I support that it should be made available. To the industry, a couple of questions. First, has it been clearly communicated to you all? what steps your members would have to take in order to have a DMV action reversed once there's been this whole notice of noncompliance?

Clear enough for you all?

Thank you. And then the incident in December, there were over 1,000 reported AV vehicles coming to a stop to more than two minutes. And so the question is, is that would that have, in your understanding of the regulations, qualified as something that had to be reported just on its own, not a law enforcement giving some type of notice of noncompliance or noting an issue, but just on its own? Do you believe that the company would have to have reported that?

So when a vehicle is mobilized, not retrieved, but is immobilized for some period of time, that would not qualify according to the regs and your understanding of the regs.

Okay, thank you. I just wondered from you all's point of view, not DV or CHP.

Good, good. I'm glad you feel that way about those. Last but not least is so we know at the federal level lots of advocacy is happening. And so I just wanted to understand the position of advocating at the federal level to preempt state regulations of autonomous vehicle. And is that as is that you all's standard, right, of that you would prefer to see this done at the federal level versus the state?

Just to confirm, you said design, construction, and performance standards. And do you all feel that any part of the regulations that just came out from the DMV weigh into those three, any one of those three?

Right. It's all about interstate commerce. Yeah. OK. Thank you. Looking from the members, not seeing any others. Thank you so much. I appreciate the discussion back and forth as well as your initial testimony. Thank you, Madam. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And moving on to our second panel, I would like to now invite Deputy Chief Rabbit with the San Francisco Fire Department, as well as Allison Dredges and Rob Patrick with Waymo to the table. This is now an opportunity to speak about the requirements for first responder interactions, remote operations, and requirements for notices of noncompliance. All right, you may begin at your convenience, and there are five minutes for each group.

this committee for your commitment to ensuring that AV companies, fire departments, EMS agencies, and all emergency personnel can continue to coexist safely. Thank you. All right.

And good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Rob Patrick, and I lead Waymo's public safety outreach program. I joined Waymo after 30 years with the California Highway Patrol for the specific purpose of working with the company and assisting us with working with first responders in the cities where we operate. While Allison has detailed a legal architecture on the new regulations, my focus will be on how these requirements translate into real-world safety on California roadways. At Waymo, we understand that regulations are only as effective as the operational partnerships we build on the ground. Our goal is to give first responders the tools they need to do their job and to design our vehicles and operations to fit their needs in emergency situations not to rely on them to be AAA for AVs To date Waymo has trained more than 12 public safety professionals in California from fire, law enforcement, and emergency medical services. This includes collaboration with California Highway Patrol and the California Office of traffic safety. And we've worked with first responders nationally. We've trained over 35,000 first responders. These are not one-and-done or one-way communication exercises. These are the foundation for extensive, ongoing engagement, a two-way collaborative learning that constantly informs and improves our operational safety plans. Central to this effort is our first responder interaction plan. Waymo publishes and continuously maintains this document, providing public safety agencies with explicit instructions on how to safely approach, recognize, and interact with our vehicles. The plan specifies our dedicated toll-free 877 first responder line, routes calls directly to our emergency response liaisons, and provides clear protocols for onsite support. The plan also addresses vehicle capabilities. Our vehicle features clear visual indicators inside the cabin so that an officer can immediately confirm whether autonomous mode is actively engaged. If an emergency requires immediate physical intervention, our interaction plan details how first responders can access the vehicle and manually override the system to safely disengage the car. Finally, our automated driving system is engineered to positively detect and respond to active emergency vehicles. Whether via line-of-sight sensors or advanced audio perception, the Waymo driver is designed to pull over, yield right away, and comply strictly with all traffic control directions from law enforcement. We are committed to maintaining consistency across the industry and ensuring the technology remains a trusted partner to California's emergency services. Alice and I would be happy to take any questions you may have Thank you

Assemblymember Hoover Thank you I think my question would be for Deputy Chief Rabbit I just wanted to get your perspective on How things have been going since the passage of AB 1777 The creation of this dedicated line between AV companies and first responders and wanted to sort of see your thoughts from the public safety perspective.

Thank you so much And then I guess I would pass it as well to both of you or whoever wants to answer But I guess you know what are your what is Waymo and to the extent that you have knowledge other companies doing to really ensure that, you know, there's better interaction going on between your company as well as first responders?

Have you seen a reduction in any of the data of incidents involving emergency vehicles since the passage of 1777?

Appreciate it. Thanks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Waymo's been operating with the general public for about five years in California, correct? What's your overall safety record in those five years?

And then my next question is, what's the difference between remote assistance and remote driving?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Assemblymember Hart? The first time I'd heard about sleeper calls, that is a fascinating problem. Is there anything that Waymo is considering to address that?

What is it you can do? I'm not even sure. Would you shake the vehicle?

And to follow up on that, because that was going to be one of the things I asked, What are you doing prior to calling the fire department for those calls?

Do you change the temperature of the vehicle in terms of?

I wish I could sleep that well. Hydraulics might be in order. I think this is a perfect time to go old school and bring back the hydraulics. Is there anything else when you are collaborating, you know, it sounds effectively that, you know, you've identified that needs tweaking in the regulations that we are, you know, trying to implement in California that you see around the corner? And like what five years from now, what would success look like in collaboration? Have you figured out a problem that you've been talking about?

Okay. And, Chief Rabbit, do you feel like you're on that path?

Thank you. Assemblymember Papin.

How are you able to access? Is it that Waymo remotely unlocks the vehicle so that you can get in? We could speak through the AVs. They're all a little bit different, just like all of us who have vehicles. Probably have a different make model of a vehicle, but the autonomous vehicles do have a remote microphone, and we could get the attention of the remote operators through that microphone and speak with them directly if we're at an incident with an AV that's experiencing some kind of trouble. Okay.

I have a couple questions for Deputy Chief Rabbit and then following up for Waymo. So for Deputy Chief Rabbit, you noted that it was your desire to build out notifications directly from dispatch. Can you spend a little bit more time on that?

yes right away okay thank you that um it's very helpful um secondly um you have a lot of waymos Yes. Waymos are built like a typical vehicle, meaning that if you had to get in and do a manual override, you're going to be able to see a steering wheel.

Yes, thank you for the question.

But we are still in communications with Zoox as they are expanding their services in our city as well. But I have no definitive answer for you right now, and I could get that for you, Madam Chair, if you'd like later.

Yeah, so we have, you know, confirmed that any of our agents who are, regardless of where they're located, they have to have a valid driver's license. In terms of international presence outside of the United States, we specifically chose places where we knew that we could verify that they had good driver's licenses and their driver records. That was part of the selection criteria. So we also monitor their driver's licenses like you would with a United States-based license. So we do that for both. And with respect to remote assistance, as we mentioned, there is not a requirement that they are physically present in the United States or licensed in the United States. With respect to remote drivers, if we were to have a remote driver, they would be located in the United States and would have a United States license. Sorry. So there are no remote drivers which operate the vehicle based on the new definition or defined definition. there's no remote drivers living in other countries they all there's that's correct

I think that's not something that we when I said they'd be in the United States, that's Waymo's position.

But, OK, yeah, we'd have to confirm what the parameters are there.

That's right. For all of our remote assistants. Yes.

So I think it depends on which aspect of this we're talking about. So in terms of supporting the vehicle, our Waymo vehicles are capable of operating for some period of time without connectivity in order to achieve what we would call minimal risk condition, come to a safe stop. If during that short period of time where they're still able to drive, if connectivity is then restored, they could just continue driving without any interruption. in the event of, you know, for whatever reason, there's a longer term connectivity issue. Cars are designed to come to a safe state and come to a stop and then be recovered at some point later by we have a roadside assistance team. We also partner with tow operators and all the places where we operate. So that would be kind of what happens to the vehicle. As far as reaching Waymo, that's where the number would come into play. So the toll free number could be a way to reach us. If a first responder, for example, were to encounter a stopped vehicle trying to reach out and connectivity from the vehicle itself was not available, that's where the phone number could be useful or we have QR codes as well that they can use to reach out. So that would be kind of the best way, I would say, to reach out in that context in addition to the vehicle being in a stop safe position.

Vice Chair Davies.

Thank you for the question, Vice Chair. As I understand, if our communication was discontinued with the remote operator, is that how we're – We have not had any documented incidents of where we're communicating, and we lost comms with the remote operator of AV.

Thank you. It depends on which role we're talking about. With respect to remote assistance, we do, at Waymo, do require certain drug and alcohol testing. including pre-employment and random and for-cause sort of checks. So it really depends on the role in terms of what the requirements are. But the regulations do address the requirements for each type of role remote assistance remote driving for light vehicles remote driving for heavy vehicles et cetera All right.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What is your projection as to when these autonomous vehicles will be available for consumers for purchase?

No pre-orders yet?

All right.

Madam Chair Wilson and committee members, thank you for having me today. Thanks for your flexibility to participate remotely as I help my parents move into their house that was burnt down in the Altadena fires about a year ago. So I'm a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Hopefully you can see my slides. We can. Okay, great. So I'm a professor of civil environmental engineering. I'm also the acting director for Berkeley's Institute of Transportation Studies. I'm also the director for a Drive AI consortium that brings together industry and California government agencies together around autonomous systems. I am also the co-principal investigator for a USDOT national center focused on autonomous freight. First, I just want to let you know my own perspective, which is that as a university a professor, hence slides, where really at ITS Berkeley and UC ITS, our mission is to drive innovation that shapes transportation in California and beyond through leading-edge research and active collaboration with policymakers and practitioners. So I deeply appreciate this opportunity to participate in the conversation and learn from all the other panelists. Okay, so this panel is focus on heavy-duty autonomous vehicles and I first want to start out with why do heavy-duty autonomous vehicles matter and the first point I'd like to make is that freight movement is absolutely essential to California's economy I'm talking about ports and logistics agriculture manufacturing interstate commerce obviously California has the the largest ports in North America with the Port of LA and Long Beach just as one example The other important point that I wanna to mention about these new regulations that allow heavy autonomous vehicles is that large trucks represent a small fraction of registered vehicles but are involved in a meaningful share of fatal roadway crashes nationally. So their profile in terms of crashes and injury inducing crashes is different than light-duty vehicles, robo-taxis and the like and we need to think carefully about that and that can be simply understood by the following fact is heavy-duty vehicles generally have much they have greater weight by definition when they operate at higher speeds they're up there they have more kinetic energy so then they have much longer stopping distances which means that if there is a crash there's greater consequences this is why we have drivers that are highly trained human drivers that are highly trained in how to operate these types of machinery in the event of an incident. And the last point, and perhaps even the most important, is what this could mean in terms of improving freight efficiency, but also safety, which are crucial public policy objectives. What I always like to say is that autonomous vehicles make sense if they accomplish three things. They improve safety on US roadways, number one. Number two, they improve safety on US roadways. Number three, they improve safety on US roadways. If autonomous heavy-duty vehicles also have the benefit of improving our freight efficiency, we can think of the supply chain crisis during the COVID era, then that could be an added benefit too. But we have to think about what it does to economic development, how it distributes, you know, economic development within California's ecosystem. Now, what are the new regulations accomplished? So for the first time, California now has a pathway for regulated deployment of autonomous heavy duty commercial vehicles. And so this simple graphic just at a super high level shows that, you know, AV manufacturers will put together safety case along with other pieces of information that'll go to the Department motor vehicles for review they then can do testing graduate eventually to deployment and there's ongoing oversight with the different reporting requirements the key features as highlighted earlier work with the safety case review I think very very critical operational design domain restrictions so defining how and when these vehicles can can operate the permitting requirements are now much more granular in what the requirements are in terms of miles they need to drive. For example, heavy-duty vehicles will need to accumulate half a million miles before they can graduate to the proceeding level in those three levels. There's ongoing reporting requirements as we've heard and then the new regulations really provide enforcement authorities both on DMV side and some action for notice of non-compliance by peace officers. So those are positive directions for these new regulations. But really I want to highlight that the real test of a regulatory framework is not whether it allows or prevents deployment, it's whether it generates the evidence needed to advance California's policy goals. So that's where I'm really focused, is how are these regulations generating evidence to determine if we're advancing policy goals and I focused on safety and we can also talk about freight efficiency economic development now there a shift towards more informative safety metrics that we already talked about Before there really just three categories disengagements crashes and vehicle miles traveled Now, after the new regulations were implemented, we now have this concept of dynamic driving task failures, vehicle mobilizations, heartbreaking events, and then, of course, crashes and vehicle miles traveled remain. importantly for crashes now when you're in the deployment stage you need to report crashes as well. Okay this is the important piece, the context for heavy duty AVs with respect to these new safety metrics. The first thing I want to mention is regarding immobilizations. If we're talking about heavy duty vehicles like long-haul freight on highways, when there's immobilization on highway travel lanes, that can be exceedingly dangerous, right? There isn't always a shoulder where they can pull over safely. So it's unlike a robo-taxi in a city or urban environment where you could pull over to the side to the curb and potentially be out of the way from the flow of traffic. In a highway setting, there's much higher risk. So we need to consider that more carefully. Heavy-duty AVs, as I mentioned before I have much longer stopping distances. They also accumulate vehicle miles traveled much faster. So we can't compare the safety of vehicles operating in a higher speed freeway environment the same way that we do in an urban environment. The denominator is just different for that different use case. So we need to be careful when we assess safety. The other thing is that while most highway driving with heavy duty vehicles is relatively boring. It's straight at constant speed. When there is an incident that could cause a crash, they tend to be more rare, but more consequential. And I think one of the previous panelists, at least Sanguietti mentioned this point. So the risk profile for heavy duty vehicles is different. The other point I wanna make is the need for leading not lagging indicators. that is some of these indicators identify an issue after the consequence has occurred. We need metrics that really identify issues before a high-impact consequence can occur. And so some of these metrics, dynamic driving tasks, failures, vehicle immobilizations are towards that. So I see that as a positive step forward. And as was mentioned earlier, I also want to highlight this, is data should be public to allow peer-reviewed research. So previously, with all the data on disengagement crashes, it allowed a lot of peer-reviewed research with even the limited data that was available to assess safety. And so you can allow the research community to help assess if that data is open. A couple more points, learning from other states. So heavy-duty vehicles, commercial vehicles already operate in other states. Five, to my knowledge, Texas is the strongest example. But the California context is, of course, different because we have these dense urban freight quarters. I think of 710, where I grew up in Southern California, going from the ports up into the Inland Empire. You're going through an urban environment there. Now, while other states are generating operational experience, and we have a panelist here who can probably talk about that from their company's experience. California I think is generating regulatory experience and how do state entities work with these private companies to do this in a way that that as safe as possible So I to leave you with I think four questions here right that California should continue to evaluate Safety and I think it was Dr Corey Jackson who asked the question at the very top which I think is the question that needs to be asked over and over again. It is, are, in this case, autonomous trucks improving safety performance on roadways? Are we reducing those 40,000 deaths on U.S. roads every year? Data. So the data that's being collected, the question to ask is, are the reporting requirements producing meaningful insights that we can assess these policy goals? The third is scalability. So when and under what conditions should operational restrictions evolve or be loosened as they improve? And I think there's a lot of positive movement in the regulations to provide much more granularity to move forward or backward, depending on what the case might be for the appropriate AV OEM. And the fourth one I'm just going to leave you with as a food for thought, maybe you ask a question about it, is California also has zero emission vehicle goals. So how do these come hand in hand? Can heavy duty AVs accelerate heavy duty zero emission vehicles? There's some intersections there that I think are worth discussion, but I'll stop there. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. My name is Matt Broad, and I'm here on behalf of Teamsters California, representing 250,000 workers across the state. This is probably unsurprising to you all, but I have a less rosy perspective on these regulations and believe the Department of Motor Vehicles has taken California down a dangerous path. On April 28th, the DMV formally adopted regulations opening California's public roads to the testing and deployment of heavy-duty autonomous trucks. These rules remove the longstanding prohibition on autonomous vehicles weighing over 10,000 pounds, vehicles that can gross up to 80,000 pounds on our highways. This means for the first time ever, trucking companies are gearing up to put self-driving big rigs on California's roads. Teamsters California believes these regulations are fundamentally defective legally, analytically, and as a matter of public policy. We raised these objections throughout the rulemaking process. They were not adequately addressed. Let me explain why. To start, the DMV's economic analysis is fatally flawed and attempts to skirt California's Administrative Procedure Act. Under the APA, an agency must assess the costs and benefits to businesses and individuals in California, and if those costs or benefits exceed $50 million in the first year, the agency must conduct a detailed standardized regulatory impact assessment known as a SRIA. Here, the department claimed that the deployment of heavy-duty autonomous vehicles would result in zero job loss for California workers. We challenge that at every step, in written comments, at hearings, and before the Office of Administrative Law. It's not a serious position. Heavy-duty trucking employs hundreds of thousands of Californians, and the explicit purpose of this technology is to replace them. The notion that removing drivers from commercial trucks at scale produces zero-employment impact defies logic, it defies economic literature, and it defies the lived experience of workers who have watched automation hollow out industry after industry. The DMV also ignored the most basic implementation costs, standing up these operations in California, training law enforcement. first responders, the remote operator technology, and so on and so forth. But the flawed economics are only part of the problem. The safety framework is equally deficient, relying on self-certification rather than independent validation. The DMV accepts a safety case prepared by the manufacturer itself, with no independent audit, no external verification, no enforceable performance threshold. We are asked to trust that companies will police themselves when the stakes are human lives. That's not how we regulate aviation. It's not how we regulate pharmaceuticals. And it should not be how we regulate 80,000-pound vehicles on California's public roads. These regulations compound this problem by keeping the public in the dark. This legislature passed AB 3061 legislation Teamsters California co-sponsored to ensure Californians could at least see the data, including mandatory public reporting on all collisions, citations, unplanned stops, and disengagements in open, machine-readable format with real financial penalties for violations, and the ability for the public to submit incident reports directly. The governor vetoed this bill. What the DMV adopted in its place is closed, manufactured to regulate a reporting structure. The public cannot see the data, the legislature cannot easily access the data, and there is no independent fine schedule to enforce compliance. Nor do the regulations establish meaningful operation limits tied to California's actual conditions. Companies can accumulate the vast majority of their testing miles in Arizona or Texas and then deploy here in our mountain passes, our fog, our wildfire smoke, our dense urban corridors. That's not a safety standard. It's a loophole that puts speed to market ahead of public safety. And that loophole did not appear by accident. These regulations were rushed through with little opportunity for public transit transit or excuse me, public challenge. The DMV held only one public workshop before proposing them. The comment periods were narrow and short. And the April 2025 draft to the final adopted text, the department consistently retreated from stronger safety requirements, every change running in the same direction towards whatever industry wanted. The consequences of getting this wrong are not abstract. Monthly crashes reports reached a peak of 110 incidents in May 2025. The DMV has received nearly 1,000 collision reports, and that's before a single heavy-duty autonomous vehicle has been commercially deployed. We've already seen AVs block emergency responders, drive into crime scenes, make illegal U-turns during DUI enforcement. And now apparently our firefighters are babysitters for drunk passengers. That's a new one for me. Now imagine those failures at 80,000 pounds at highway speed. The DMV has made its choice. Now this legislature must make its own, and we cannot stand by while heavy-duty autonomous vehicles are deployed under conditions that endanger our communities and eliminate good-paying jobs with no independent safety validation, no honest accounting of economic harm, and a rulemaking process that prioritizes market signals over public safety. If the DMV will not put people first, this legislature must by enacting strong requirements for the safe testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles and protection of middle-class jobs. Thank you.

Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Davies, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I'm Chris Ermsson. I'm the co-founder and CEO of Aurora. Over two decades ago, my team at Carnegie Mellon University took part in the DARPA Grand Challenge. I was in the desert trying to prove that we could get a truck to drive 100 miles across sand and rock with no human at the wheel I took part because I thought it would be fun and interesting As my work progressed the massive opportunity to drive 100 miles across sand and rock with no human at the wheel I took part because I thought it be fun and interesting As my work progressed the massive opportunity of this technology became clear 40,000 people are killed on U.S. roads every year, mostly due to human error. That's not acceptable, and we must do better. When I think about Aurora's technology, I think about my own children. I remember the day they started driving. I want them to share the road with drivers that never get tired, that never look at a phone, that never have a lapse in judgment. This is why I co-founded Aurora in 2017. I believe then, as I do now, that deploying automated driving at commercial scale is the most important contribution I could make to society. Since Aurora's founding, we've had deep roots in California. Our employees live and work here. I've been proud to call the state home for the last 17 years. When we think about where this technology should operate, California is not an afterthought. It's central to what we're building. We're here not just as a company, but as Californians working to do things the right way. In April 2025, Aurora became the first company in the world to commercially launch autonomous trucks without safety drivers. This launch was the result of a careful and thoughtful process. Our safety case relies on millions of pieces of evidence, and we've had independent experts review our safety processes. We also engage with federal and state regulators, including regular briefings for CalSTAT, the California DMV, CHP, and members of the legislature. Importantly, we did not launch until we knew that our trucks were going to be safe on public roads. Since then, we've driven over 370,000 miles. Over those miles, we've seen that the safety, sustainability, and economic benefits are real. Even so, I know there are questions about the impact this technology will have on Californians who drive trucks for a living. I want to address those directly. First and foremost, we should appreciate and thank anyone who is willing to drive a truck. The trucking industry is the backbone of our economy, and drivers endure grueling schedules, face some of the highest injury rates of any profession, and suffer on-the-job fatality rates that are 10 times higher than the average American. When I talk to leaders of trucking companies, they always lead with the importance of safety and follow that with how essential drivers are to their business and how they see automated driving complementing, not replacing, the people who drive their trucks. They see AV technology enabling a better quality of life for their people, their employees. Our recent partnership with McLean is a perfect example. Their president talked about how autonomous trucks will allow their drivers to focus on the critical last mile, remaining the face of the company to their customers. I also believe that autonomous trucks are not coming to displace workers. They will be deployed on the routes that are the least desirable, most dangerous, and most demanding. I'm confident that as we introduce automated trucks, we will see the role of our logistics professionals elevated. And as the Aurora driver rolls out, drivers will enable to focus on short-haul routes where they are sales reps, customer service agents, and the face of their company. And importantly, they'll be able to get home tonight to their families. Automated trucks are not coming overnight. They will integrate into logistics businesses over years. I'm here today because as California implements this new pathway to autonomous trucks, we want to share our real-world experience, having engaged in the DMV's years-long regulatory process. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this and what the gradual integration will look like. I first participated in DMV workshop on automated vehicles almost 15 years ago when AV legislation was first introduced When the DMV shifted to focus on autonomous trucks about five years ago or continue to engage with the DMV public information sessions spoke at workshops, and participated in several rounds of comments. I appreciate the deliberative and thoughtful process that the department has taken to ensure that California voices have been heard. And while I believe the resulting regulations are onerous in some regards, they provide the clarity and certainty that enables us to continue to build and invest in California. ROAS technology will make logistics safer, more efficient, and more sustainable. And we'll work through the regulatory process to bring these benefits to California. Most importantly, we look forward to building the future deliberately, transparently, and shoulder-to-shoulder with partners in industry, labor, and government. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and look forward to answering any questions.

First, before my question, our majority leader had to leave, so I just wanted to read some comments that she wanted to make sure was on the record. And so our majority leader wanted to thank UCITS for always being a resource on this and other issues. The Teamsters for their years of collaboration and Aurora for taking the time to explain all of their work on safety over the years. I am concerned that we will see heavy duty autonomous vehicles in our neighborhoods and on our city streets because of how these regulations are drafted. These vehicles can still go on streets with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour or less if the truck is traveling to a shipping, distribution, fueling, charging, or hub facility. This leaves a lot of uncertainty for communities. I am also worried that autonomous trucks would be traveling on high-speed rural roads that do not have a shoulder or as many safety markers as a freeway might. Can you just share with the committee more about how the conditions on the roads and risk factors will be accounted for in the permitting process? Sure. Happy to. Thank you for the question.

You know, one of the only things that I've obviously the question that I continue to harp on is the idea of what is a safer way of delivering goods. Is it with human drivers? Is it with automation? Is there a mix of both? You have, Aurora has also operated in other states or have been going through the testing phase in other states. What is your, what does data tell you? And I think at some point, Madam Chair, we really probably just need an objective data to really answer the question. once enough data is available in terms of what produces the best safety and prevents the most fatalities. Because I think for me at least that's a central question because we also need to make sure that we are balancing between technology, workforce, and safety at the same time. And I think that at some point we need to get to that point. But what is your thoughts in terms of safety issues? And Teamsters are more than welcome to chime in as well. I think Professor Mora may have thoughts on it. Oh, and Professor as well.

It's quite aligned with it. And we end up having millions of points of evidence that we look at to get to conviction that it's safe to put this vehicle on public roads. We've also run studies to understand the safety implications of this directly. So we did a study looking at fatal accidents on I-45 between 2018 and 2022 that involved heavy trucks. And I think there was 24 of them. And we took the police reports. We recreated the accidents in our simulation system and then asked what would have happened if the Aurora driver was driving the initiating vehicle, effectively the vehicle that caused the crash. And the answer is none of them. Every one of them would have been avoided. And not one of them was due to the driver making some miraculous Mario Andretti-esque swerving maneuver. It was really because the driver has this superhuman ability to pay attention consistently and constantly. One of the ones that sticks with me is two light vehicles had a fender bender on the side of the road. The people got out to exchange information. The truck came along. The operator of that truck saw the collision late, avoided onto the shoulder, and drove through the people. That's two families that will never whole. It's tragedy. In contrast, when we ran the simulation, what happened was the Aurora driver slowed down, moved over two lanes, and everybody would have gone home. And that's an impact that you just can't understate. We did a similar experiment looking at the I-5 corridor near Sacramento over the same time period, 28 to 22. There was, I think, 15 or 18 collisions that involved heavy trucks that led to fatalities. And once again, we had the same outcome, that because of its vigilance, the Aurora driver is able to avoid this. And it is equipped with capabilities that people can't have. Our first light LIDAR allows us to see further beyond headlights than a person can see. The fact that we have 360-degree vision means that the Aurora driver can see all around it and not just see all around it, where I would have to turn my neck if I were attempting to see there, but can actually pay attention to all of it. And that means that it can do things that a person can't to keep the public safe on the road and, of course, to keep itself safe. So while we don't yet have the statistical evidence for this, the analysis and emphasis that we put in our safety case process and then the anecdotal evidence we're beginning to see on the performance in real-world conditions is pretty profound.

Thank you. Through the chair. Sure. I would say safety is a huge priority for us, right? We're a labor union. We represent workers that have to be on the road, whether they're driving in their personal or professional capacity. And we share that commitment and would argue there are lots of ways to continue making the road safer without necessarily needing to remove a human safety operator from the vehicle. Of course, there are infrastructure changes. There are also hours of service restrictions that we fought for that have been turned over by various administrations. And so I think there's a lot of work always to be done on safety, and we're committed to that. I would actually commend Mr. Urmson and welcome the comments that he made about believing that humans have a place within the driving world, particularly in the short-term capacity. That's great to hear. I have a hard time reconciling it with the fact that our majority leader has a bill, AB33, that requires a human safety operator for local commercial deliveries, and his company has consistently opposed those bills. And so actions speak a little louder than words to me, and we would welcome continued partnership with them if that's something they want to talk to us about, about actually making sure that workers are protected. And then if the technology can't do local driving because it's not there yet for the reasons that he specified, that we're making sure that a human safety operator is there for the safe deployment. So I would say that I would also welcome sharing public data and see if the companies are willing to commit to that. I think there's a lot left to be desired about the data reporting, a lot of, frankly, spectacular claims about what simulations have shown and not shown. And I'm not trying to disparage those. I'm just going to say that in real world driving conditions, when you talk about things like mud splattering on LIDAR and no one there to clean it, how does that impact the technology? These are things that we're not going to see, frankly, until this technology is actually deployed. and in the process of testing and deploying it, why would a company oppose having a human safety operator as an added layer of security and safety until we can actually verify the claims that are being made by these companies Thank you for that I not sure if Professor if you had anything you like to add Just a quick comment on your question

Yeah, this is one of the really insightful points to make here, I think. So thank you. Automated vehicles have an immense number of opportunities to improve the quality of life for us. So, obviously, safety is critical and core to this, and it's kind of the foundation that we build off of. But the sustainability benefits are real. So, today in our fleet, we see a 14% improvement of fuel efficiency relative to the 2023 kind of national fleet average of fuel consumption. That's profound, right? That's the equivalent of one in eight trucks off the road in terms of emissions. And so that's great for our customers because that reduced their fuel costs, but it's also great for the environment in terms of emissions. And so when I think about us being able to deploy this broadly, do that safely and have that kind of impact, it's really kind of incredible. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm listening to both of you. We have like a tale of two cities here about what the future is going to be. And I hear both of these points of views in my town halls in Silicon Valley where a lot of the innovation is created for the world. And I guess my question would be, you know, human drivers experience over years behind the wheel. I certainly didn't wouldn't admit it at the time. But when I started driving at 18, I definitely got into a lot more accidents. And I guess my question is how does Aurora use these sort of simulations And how can you more specifically speak to the concern you know, that Teamsters, that my constituents or others are bringing up about deploying this technology? Because I really do think that there are major differences of opinion here. but I just wanted you to maybe more pointedly speak to some of the criticisms of this technology. And I would love, Matt, if you could sort of help respond more pointedly as well, because I do think even to the professor's point, it could be, you know, and, and, but I really would like to get more pointed answers from both of you in terms of how this technology is being used, how it has improved in the past five, eight years. And honestly, what concerns would you have that maybe, where are we missing the mark? And we talk a lot in the legislature about, in a bipartisan basis, about the legislature not exerting our authority enough or giving it away too much and how the legislative branch is not as strong-willed as perhaps it should be, especially in not even ever being able to really anticipate how quickly this technology has moved forward. At the same time, we don't want to stifle that innovation. And Madam Chair, if I can just combine questions for the sake of time, my last question would really be, I'm worried about workforce. I'm worried about augmentation versus replacement is what we often talk about with innovation and technology and safety. And I'm wondering if the both of you could speak to how prepared our workforce can be in the future. I know one point of view is that it's going to lead to job loss, as a lot of innovation and technology and advancements has led to. Another point of view is that it creates workforce. It creates jobs. I'm wondering if you both can speak to that more pointedly because that is probably on top of mind when I'm thinking about how we adapt this technology is what is the future of work? What is the future of how, you know, more pointedly, what types of jobs will this create? Are we prepared for that? Is our education system prepared? Are our community colleges or other institutions prepared for these jobs of the future? And how do we grapple with this? Because the legislature is grappling with these issues. Silicon Valley is grappling with moving forward. My primary concern is keeping jobs in the state of California, making sure that our tech jobs stay in the state of California, but making sure that not everyone from Silicon Valley works in tech. And so how are we keeping people employed for the future? And is there a way to adopt this technology and still keep good-paying jobs? Because that's the bottom line of, I think, what is most concerning to me is, how do we not stifle innovation, but how do we not really lead to that job loss? So I think these are obviously important questions to wrestle with So maybe I start There was a triple whammy of questions so maybe I start with the first one I know you can do it

You know, I just reiterate that the jury is still out on the efficacy of the technology. Don't take my word for that. Take the professor's word. There's lots of literature out there, particularly when you look at miles driven by humans every year in this country versus what's been done by autonomous vehicles. There have been several high-profile instances. I believe Aurora may have been one of them where there was driverless technology, and then one of the client companies, I think it was PACCAR, requested that drivers go back into the vehicle. And so, again, we're looking at a very short amount of time to kind of make these decisions. At the same time, I want to touch on intangibles, right, because since we've seen the deployment of this technology, we're learning about the ways that they may operate longer, right, or be able to not drive drunk. But they also can't close doors when passengers leave them open for Waymo. They can't wake up drunk passengers. They can't put emergency cones out if they have to pull over for the side of the road on the highway. There are a million things The Waymo incident with a thousand vehicles that went out We not going to be able to sort of anticipate these novel events until they happen which speaks to sort of the need for as policymakers you should be wanting to do the most to okay, we're going to explore where this technology goes and its promise. Then we ought to do it in a way that maximally protects safety and jobs. And, you know, on that point, I would just say that we have to be real about what the technology is about. It's partially about safety, but it's about eliminating labor costs. That's the selling point. Eliminating labor costs for long haul. We believe also eliminating labor costs for short haul. We have, like I said, a piece of legislation by a committee member that this committee has seen that requires a human safety operator for that short term that we're talking about. And so this is the opportunity for the legislature to step up and not just take Mr. Urmson's word for it, but actually create a statutory precedent that allows for the deployment of this technology in a safe way, but also allows for the deployment in a way that's protective of the jobs that he claims he wants to see protected. Well, the debate continues then, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think, you know, to Mr. Urmson, you have sort of dove in already to the simulation and explaining those. I think my question would be, you know, I think we have a lot of data on crashes that are caused by human factors, right? Distraction, fatigue, impairment. What is the data that you have seen in other states, as I believe Aurora is testing more extensively in other states? Have you seen an actual reduction in the data similar to what Waymo has presented, for example, where you can actually compare autonomous vehicle miles directly to human-driven miles and see an improvement?

presented on the data that we have currently on whether these trucks are safer. I think my question for you would be, will they be safer? Or maybe a better way to frame that is, do they have the potential to be safer? Because to me, as policymakers, I really think that is the more important question. I think this technology is obviously at a very infant stage even today. And so there's certainly not going to be conclusive data yet that these trucks are safer on the roadways today. But I think the question is, do you believe they have the potential to be safer? And what data points would you be looking for to determine if that is indeed the case?

information in that answer as we continue discussing this topic moving forward. I think lastly, I guess I'll ask Matt a question just to close this out. This example of the bank teller, we obviously don't know what the future holds when it comes to workforce, when it comes to potential job opportunities. I will say that while there has been in the past technologies that have displaced jobs, I think that's undeniable. In many cases, those technologies actually didn't fully replace workforce. They actually expanded economic opportunity, maybe grew the economic pie, for example, and created new jobs that workers could go and do. What do you see in response to that bank teller example? Do you see a world where that is possible? And if not, why is the replacement of jobs the most likely outcome versus maybe an increase in workforce needs?

Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Hoover. Assemblymember Lackey.

Assemblymember Lackey. I want to thank all the panelists today, not just the three. Oh, Assemblymember Cito.

And then they're available whenever. So if the harvest is coming in late in the evening, the vehicle can be there and ready to go. If it's first thing in the morning, it can be there ready to go. The level of flexibility that will come along with that I think is pretty profound. And the other thing that I just kind of wanted to elaborate on is if I'm hearing claims, that there's some people that are claiming the whole process through the DMV and the legislature and the agencies felt rushed. But it seems pretty extensive from what I've seen. So can you just give me like a Cliff Notes version of, A, why you think that it's been adequate, that we've had this oversight, and then, B, just what you've been through to get your product to market? Yeah. So thank you. I think that's a great question. And I think it's really important to not lose sight of the fact that this whole process started in 15 years ago when the legislature invested in the DMV the opportunity to put in place regulations for automated vehicles. at that time. Perhaps even appropriately, the DMV said, well, folks on light vehicles, there's nobody working on heavy vehicles today, but we will come back to heavy vehicles because that was the intent of the legislature. Like I said, that was 15 years ago. Aurora has been working on automated trucks for eight years. And along that path, the company's been around for almost 10 years now. Now, we regularly engaged with CalSTAD, CHP, DMV, and talked about the importance of this, the importance of having this technology serving Californians. It took another three years before the Department of Motor Vehicles was able to seriously engage on the topic. And then it's been a five-year conversation where all stakeholders, industry, safety advocates, labor, have been involved in part of that conversation. It's gone through, as far as I can tell from the outside, multiple internal rulemaking revisions that ultimately led to public comment process So as a company we have been forced to go invest in other places rather than California because there been no certainty or clarity Now that we have it, we may not love all elements of the regulations, but we know what we have to do. And when I think about the opportunity for safety, I think we're all on the same side of the table. But we want to see our roads safer. Our colleagues in labor want to see the roads safer. and as a policy maker I assume you all want to see the roads safer. So we're excited to finally have made it through that extensive process.

I do not think this is a replacement For the wonderful men and women that work in the supply chain And otherwise So I wish you the best of luck And thank you for being here today

I've been cutting sentences out. We're adaptable. But, yeah, thank you. Hi. Mark Watts representing Contra Costa Transportation Authority tonight. They're very pleased to see that the regulations have been developed as a true collaborative, and they have long relied on their Gomentum Station facility, AV testing facility in Concord, to better understand the world of connected and autonomous transportation through pilot programs. In particular, CCTA is encouraged by the regulations as they apply to AV transit and large vehicle applications in the regulation. Many transit agencies face challenges, including operational costs and others, but the management of CCTA sees that AV technologies can help expand citizen access to transit and improve transportation safety and better serve a range of communities And I conclude with that I have much more to go but thank you very much That was perfect That was 60 seconds Yes thank you

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the comments.

Thank you, Mr. Grosso.

Thank you for your comments. The last word. The last word.

Thank you, John. And we are adjourned.