June 22, 2026 · COMMERCE · 3,418 words · 7 speakers · 76 segments
I love this thing. You've got me.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Commerce Committee voting meeting this morning. Katie, could you please take the roll call? Chairman Lawrence. I'm here.
Barger. Marla Brown. Designation. Diorci. Gatos, Lime, Labs, Designation, Marcell, Designation, Ulsemer, Designation, Curran, Designation, Schaefer, Designation, Forsick, Here, Herman Conklin, Here, Bellman, Designation, Eamon Brown, Designation, Carroll, Designation, Zepeda Fertiz, Defis Designation Harris Designation Njada Designation Monroe Designation Nielsen Designation Parker Kelly Designation Rabb Designation Sanchez Designation
We have a quorum.
Thank you very much.
The chairman would like to call up House Bill 2013, printers number 2567. And Derek, could you please give us a summary?
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, everyone. House Bill 2013, sponsored by Representative Scott, permits electrical vehicle manufacturers to use a direct-to-consumer sales model.
Thank you. We're pleased to have Representative Scott. Representative, could you please give us a more in-depth overview of your piece of legislation?
Well, good morning, Chairman Conklin, and thank you, Chairman Lawrence, as well, for your attention on this issue and for bringing this matter before the committee today. Colleagues, House Bill 2013 is a straightforward bill about fairness, competition, and consumer choice. In 2014, the General Assembly amended the Board of Vehicles Act to allow an electric vehicle manufacturer to sell directly to consumers. However, that law was written so narrowly that only one company qualified for the exemption. More than a decade later, that same provision continues to prevent newer American electric vehicle manufacturers from operating under the same rules in Pennsylvania. House Bill 2013 simply updates our law to reflect today's marketplace. It creates a level playing field by allowing electric vehicle manufacturers that do not utilize a franchise dealer network to sell directly to consumers, just as one manufacturer is already permitted to do so today. I invited the committee out to visit some of these manufacturers and to see just how the impediment is with the way the current law is written. But it's important to note that this legislation does not alter or undermine Pennsylvania's traditional franchise dealer system. Existing protections for local dealerships remain fully intact. What it does do is encourage competition, expand consumer choice, attract private investment, create jobs, and keep economic activity and tax revenue right here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This concept is not new. Similar legislation has been introduced in prior sessions. I think, Chairman Lawrence, you had a version of the legislation as well. And many states across the country have already modernized their laws to accommodate evolving vehicle technologies and business models. At its core, this bill asks a simple question. If one manufacturer is allowed to operate under a direct sales model in Pennsylvania, why shouldn't other similarly situated manufacturers be afforded the same opportunity? I respectfully ask for your support of House Bill 2013, and I thank you so much for your consideration.
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative. Are there any questions or comments on the bill?
I neglected to add that this is in support from all electronic vehicle manufacturers, including the one who has the narrow provision that allows it.
Representative Katis.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm generally supportive of direct-to-consumer stuff, but I think that generally this deals with licensure, and this has to deal with the licensing of dealerships. And so I would like to make a motion to refer this to professional licensure, which I am on professional licensure, and the licensure committee is accustomed to dealing with issues of licensure. And, again, you know, I generally support direct-to-consumer activities, and, you know, I think that, you know, there's some safeguards that are involved in dealerships. But I'd like to make a motion to refer this to professional licensure.
Thank you very much, Representative. There's been a motion made to refer this. Is there any comments on that motion?
Second.
That's good. Chairman Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to discuss this legislation. I concur with the good lady from Allegheny County. This is legislation that has historically been taken up by the Professional Licensure Committee, and I support her motion to re-refer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Lawrence. Seeing no other comments, Katie, could you please take the roll? A yes vote would be to refer. A no vote would do vote on the bill here today.
Thank you. Chairman Lawrence?
Yes.
Barger? Marla Brown? Yes by designation Diorci Gatos Climb Labs Yes by designation Marcel Yes by designation De Orsi Gatos Slime Labs Yes by designation Marcel Yes by designation Paul Summer? Yes, by designation. Curran? Yes, by designation. Schaefer? Yes, by designation. He's here now. Torzic? Yes. Chairman Conklin?
We'll be no and seeing no, no votes on the Democratic side. All Democrats will be voting no. Okay. Then the motion fails. 14 to 12. Thank you very much. With that, do we have any questions for Representative Scott on the bill in chief before us today? Seeing no questions or comments, Katie, can you please
take the roll? Sorry. Chairman Lawrence?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the good gentleman, Representative Scott, for bringing forward this legislation. He's correct. I did have similar legislation a couple sessions ago, so I'm somewhat familiar with the issue and some of the challenges and opportunities that are in front of the broader industry. This bill is drafted a little bit differently than the bill I put forward. I am concerned about some of the unintended consequences that I think would come from, frankly, from the way that the bill is drafted. I think the way that the bill is drafted, it would allow legacy manufacturers the opportunity to sell newly introduced models under their existing marks direct to consumers, which I don't think is the intention of the bill, but I think that is how that would be permitted as it is drafted. This bill was added to the calendar for this committee meeting just a few days ago. I think this is a topic that would be ripe for a very interesting hearing and I think is one that we should have. But until that time, I will be a no vote on the legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Lawrence. Any other comments on the bill? Seeing no other comments, I'll just make a couple quick ones. I want to thank the chairman for coming forward. I think this is a great starting point to give those individuals that are entrepreneurs trying to start up. When I looked at the statistics, in fact, car sales in all the states that allow this by dealers have actually increased. And by no means is this against our dealers who I think do a great job out there. And as stated by Chairman Lawrence, that there may be some questions that perhaps we can get together. and if they make her the bill, we may even be able to have a hearing on it before it comes up for a vote. With that, Katie, please take the roll.
Chairman Lawrence?
No.
Barger? Carla Brown?
No, by designation.
D'Orsi? Gatos? Lime? Labs?
No, by designation.
Marcel?
No, by designation.
Oldsummer?
No, by designation.
Turin?
No, by designation.
Jaffer? Borzik?
No.
Chairman Conklin?
Yes, and all Democrats will be voting yes.
Okay.
The ayes are 14, the nays are 12. The bill will be reported as committed. Thank you very much. Thank you, Representative Scott. Next up, we have another superstar waiting in the audience. Representative Cerisi, could you please come up? I'd like to call up House Bill 2643, printers number 3622.
Indira, could you please give us a summary of the bill? Thank you, Chairman. House Bill 2643, sponsored by Chairman Cerise and Representative Hambridge, establishes statewide licensing and regulations for virtual currency kiosk.
Representative Cerise, the floor is yours, sir.
Well, thank you so much, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I want to take a minute and thank Indira for all of her hard work in helping us get to the bill here today. You know, as we all know, these crypto coins and currencies and bitcoins, we're seeing all this information that's out there. It's overwhelming for so many people. And we've seen time and time and time again in my office where some of our people have been scammed by this technology. So we've come up with one of the most aggressive bills, I would say, in the United States to stop the scam. And our attorney general even came out and basically made the statement of saying that these should be banned completely. But we're trying to allow business to be business in the Commonwealth. But we want to put safeguards in place. And this bill puts in a lot of different safeguards. We worked with banking. We worked with a lot of different organizations. Like I said, Indira and my ED, Alex Teplikoff, worked hard to come up with legislation for this. So I'd ask everyone for an affirmative vote.
Thanks, Representative. Are there any comments or questions on the bill? Representative Barger?
Thank you. I have a couple of questions for the maker of the bill, if you don't mind. so walk me through the process of how these kiosks are used so a consumer like myself um goes into goes to the cock to the to the cock the kiosk and i put some money in there right then what happens well from that point there a transaction fee once the money goes in under the current machines and correct me if I wrong anywhere Indira you jump in Once the money goes in the transaction takes place you can get the money out So what we seeing a lot of scams about it not like an ATM with a guarantee So when you say the transaction takes place, do you mean that at that point a cryptocurrency is purchased or at that point a cryptocurrency is exchanged? It depends on which way this transaction is going. So if they're putting the money in, they're purchasing it for their accounts. So then at that point that the cryptocurrency is purchased, who holds the coin? Whose wallet is it? Is it the kiosk manufacturer? Is it the person? Is it mine as I put the cash in? Who's holding that cryptocurrency at the moment that I exchange my U.S. dollar for that currency? What should happen, and you could jump in here. I can see you want to. Go ahead. Thank you.
Excuse me. Thank you, Representative Barger. So there's a couple of different instances. Sometimes the money is put in and it is exchanged for a cryptocurrency, which at that point, if it were you, hypothetically speaking, you would own it. The uptick that Chairman Cerise has seen with his constituency is when that occurs, there may be, say, an elderly or older adult in the Commonwealth, and they're on the hook or they're on the phone with someone who is attempting to scam them or attempting to bribe them or creating a false narrative of, hypothetically speaking, your grandson is in danger, and if you don't do this, then there could be some graver repercussions, if you will. And so then at that point, sometimes some older adults are on the phone while they are doing this under the thought process that a beloved family member is in danger.
Okay, so I understand that part. What I'm trying to wrap my head around is when the currency moves because I think that makes a difference in how we craft this legislation. If I'm holding the currency, then when does the person I'm paying receive it? Is it immediately? Is it days later? Because in a world of volatile crypto value, an hour or two could change the value of that coin by a lot. So is it held for a couple of hours? Is it an instant transfer? When does that transfer of cryptocurrency take place?
Well, right now it's instant. That's one of our arguments of the bill is that it's instant right now. Once the money goes in, that's it. So you instantly have it once it goes in the machine, if it's legitimate. But what we're seeing is there's so much that isn't legitimate that we're trying to protect the consumer against this issue.
What is then the 72-hour cooling-off period?
So that period right now is for the consumer if they've been scammed and figure it out within those first 72 hours.
So who holds the currency during that 72-hour period?
if it's legitimate, you hold the currency. It's yours. If it's legitimate, that's the big if. And that's the problem that we've been having.
Okay. I think that there needs to be clarification as to what the role of the kiosk owner is because I do see unintended consequences with not defining exactly when that cryptocurrency stops belonging to me and starts belonging to you, especially in light of the 72-hour cooling-off period, and because the intent is to keep people who don't understand how this works from being scammed by evildoers that we all know is out there. So that's my concern with the bill as it is written right now. But thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Representative. Are there any other questions or comments before Chairman Lawrence? Representative Schaefer?
Thank you for bringing this, Bill. I know you mentioned the Attorney General is in favor of banning the machines in some other states, Indiana, Tennessee, and I think Minnesota is working on a ban as well. I'd be interested in exploring that as well. Your thoughts maybe on why to go down the regulation path versus just outright maybe at least putting a pause on them until we can develop a better structure. We went back and forth on the whole thing of banning them completely and thought that we don't know if we'd be able to get it completely passed. We don't know if we'd be able to have the votes to get it passed in the House and the Senate. And we needed regulation on this no matter what. So, I mean, if someone wants to amend it and say let's ban it and we can get the votes, I would give it that vote too. We went back and we did speak a lot about should we just do an all-out ban. According to what we put forth in the industry, they're going to feel that this is a ban, that they can't exist under these conditions. And we've heard that time and time and time again.
Any other questions or comments? Representative Gatiss.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Cerisi, so if you had identified the number one problem that you are seeing within the kiosks, not related to what you're claiming as fraud, because clearly they're the middleman, are there any problems specifically with the people or the agencies or the entities that run these kiosks that you see a problem with? It predatory really is what we seeing that they understand that these issues are going on even the if they place them within the businesses that they at they in corners where it dark You really can see who going there or who coming with them So we've seen it time and time again, and we've heard from people telling us that these things are going on. And I've witnessed it myself to see where some of these machines are. We can't call them ATMs, whatever we want to call them, devices. So there are problems all over with these. And how many of these companies that do exist that have these kiosks? Thank you for your question, Representative Gatos.
Why we don't have the exact number in front of us, we'd be more than happy to get that and provide to you.
Is it like single digits or is it like hundreds of them?
I mean, people can just go ahead and put a single kiosk. Well, if I may, Chairman, the concern is it could be one company that has 20, or it could be multiple companies, so like 20 companies with one individually. The issue is these virtual currency kiosks do not fall under Regulation E, the Federal Regulation E, which is the same governing document that regulates ATM. So like your regular PSCCU, PNC, I see our community banker folks here. So these virtual currency kiosks, while they look and while they act like an ATM, they don't have any sort of rules like an ATM does.
Okay, and that's generally, I think, the answer that I was looking for. And I do believe that there are some issues with some of these machines and locations, et cetera, and I think it's good consumer protection to be taking a closer look. So thank you very much.
Thank you, Representative Serisi. Thank you, Representative. And we're joined today by Representative Kiata. Thank you, Representative. Representative D'Orsi for comment.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I truly understand the risk of fraud with these machines. I really do. And we should act. What makes me uncomfortable about this bill is we're seeking to regulate virtual currency, and we're lumping Bitcoin in with that. It's commonly known as a digital asset. So I think that ought to be considered separately. And I just wanted to voice my concern. That's what gives me pause here, not that we're trying to protect consumers, but we're lumping in what's commonly known and understood as a digital asset with currency, which it's not. Thank you.
And I appreciate that. And I'd say to anyone who wants to add an amendment, if we can get this done where we're protecting the consumer and protecting the interests that you bring up, let's do it. But the longer we wait, the more scams we've all seen. I mean, I can't believe we all watched that one video. I think it was in Indiana where the police officer tried to stop the senior citizen from putting money into the machine on the phone with a kid saying this is not real. And it's just not in Indiana. It's everywhere. So whatever we can do to prevent this from happening in our state and continuing, I'm open to those suggestions, but I really would like to see this happen. Thank you, representatives. Are there any other comments or questions before Chairman Lawrence? Seeing none. Chairman? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Representative Serisi, I appreciate you bringing this legislation before the committee today. This is legislation that I think I could support. I do have some concerns with the bill as it's currently drafted. This bill was dropped several days ago and scheduled for this committee hearing two business days ago. It is lengthy. It creates a new regulatory structure with significant fines and fees, and that may be appropriate. and certainly as has been brought up previously by several of my colleagues we've seen several states from really across the political spectrum take the step of banning these machines entirely so i do think it's an issue that needs to be looked at i do think it's an issue that really would make for a very good hearing but this is something that has not gotten really much in the way of review since it was introduced two short days ago. So with that, I'm going to be a no today, but I am certainly willing to work with the good gentleman, the maker of the bill, and the others who have expressed concern today to try to strengthen the bill to get to the point where we can see it move forward on a strong bipartisan basis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Lawrence. Katie, could you please do a roll call vote on House
Bill 2643? Chairman Lawrence? No. Barger Marla Brown
No by designation
Dorsey Gaydos Lime Labs
No by designation No by designation
Scherren
No by designation
Schaefer Korzik
No
Herman Conklin
Yes, all Democrats will be voting yes
Okay, the ayes are 17, the nays are 9, the bill be canceled The bill will be reported as committed. Thank you, Katie. Is there any other business or comments to come before the committee? Seeing none, the meeting is adjourned.
Thank you.