H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments: transcript

Thank you chair and members of the committee. I'll let you know. The, um, the original version of this bill, which maybe you've looked at, was a little bit more ambitious and it was trying to do a lot of things that its first substitute, um, has dramatically changed the, uh, the scope of this bill. So, effectively all this bill does now is it updates a, some of our, some of our definitions when it comes to level three, level four and level five autonomous vehicles. These vehicles are not technically or traditionally on the roads today. This is mostly future, uh, looking. And then instead of setting up the regulatory and the safety environment, we're sending out to RFI to contact, uh, many of the vendors and bring that information back to the transportation, um, committee during interim. Uh, so they can provide some details on what is necessary and what the technology is gonna look like. So we can integrate that within not only the UDOT infrastructure that's already being built, um, but within our code. Um, other than that, it makes an allowance for goo to, um, uh, issue grants, uh, to private, uh, companies that want to get involved in this space. There will be a second substitute that will clarify. There was never intended to set up a fund or to create an account, uh, for them. Um, and so this was simply going to remove, um, that substitute, remove that language and make it more just a permissive, uh, language in there without any funding or infrastructure essentially for it. Um, and essentially that's the entirety of the bill, updating the, uh, current definitions to match the current standards. Um, just some history to in 2018 or 2019. And I think, um, we had a good representative here that put kind of a first of its kind, um, autonomous vehicles laws into place in the state of Utah, and it really became a model for the whole country. Um, most states followed Utah, um, on that. Since 20 18, 19, we haven't actually done much of anything with that code, and many states have sur passed Utah, uh, in this tech. This is just getting those code back up to, uh, current standards, um, in order to allow the technology to, uh, enter in the market, uh, appropriately and safely. And I'm open to any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, looking at the fiscal note, if we move the second substitute, does it get rid of that 2 million or so of That's right. This. Okay. Thank you. Uh, could you, uh, could you ask that question again? I didn't hear that it's, Yeah. So I was looking at the fiscal note, it's just over $2 million and, uh, a lot of that is the fund that I, I thought the representative had said was going to be removed when he adopts a second substitute On the floor. So,

um, that's correct. It was never intended under the language of this for goo to actually, um, receive funding for this specif, uh, specific account. It was mostly just a permit, a permissive, uh, language to allow them to do this. Um, and, uh, the fiscal note essentially did not reflect that. So we have a second substitute that is not unfortunately ready this morning, but it will be ready, uh, on the floor that will just make a, uh, a couple of word changes there to indicate that this was not intended to be a funded, uh, item. So, yeah, that was exactly my question, and I feel much better about some of the changes without that. So if you're Essentially, we should have no fiscal note, or at least it'll below the 20,000 by the time the, It still gives, um, does it still give Goyo authority to expend some of their funds for this, or, that's correct, Yes.

Good morning. I just wanted to know, so where does go EEO get the funds? And is would this be considered kind of picking winners and losers?

So, thank you for the question. And so this would just come from their existing funding, uh, structure. They already have kind of broad authority to issue funding for a lot of economic development purposes. This is just simply saying that you can do it in this space as well, under whatever their priority and guidelines are. Um, the RFIs that we're issuing through udot, they're already working heavily and they've invested tens of millions already into different types of autonomous infrastructure in Utah called V two X. And, um, they're gonna be going out to RFI, uh, under this, uh, in order to collaborate with the private industry, um, to identify what, what are the actual pieces of this that we would need to either adjust and code or change with, uh, liability or safety requirements in, in order to bring that, uh, market into Utah. And Goia would just be basically incentivizing on, on the back of that if, if they so desire.

To be completely honest, I believe they can. I'm not a hundred percent certain. I'm not sure if, uh, our fiscal analyst is available to discuss about that, but this would, this isn't really targeted, uh, specifically to the industry. It's just more of a blanket right now. This allows them to kind of target a little bit better.

For sure, we, we've spent tens of millions, uh, locally with the government level on this, what's called V two X technology that allows autonomous infrastructure on a networked sort of basis. Um, but the solution as far as, um, when you get, uh, the last mile issues, so we've got all this infrastructure we're planning for the Olympics, for example, we've got a tremendous amount of growth where you're looking at double tracking tracks. We've, and, and front runner, we looked at a lot of different, uh, methods of improving kind of our, our transportation infrastructure. But the biggest bottleneck to all of that is always that first and last mile. And if you happen to live or work close to some of those transit hubs, then that's accessible and those can be utilized. But outside of that, currently they're not. So currently that infrastructure that U DOT's working on is looking to expand that branching out using only government funds and government programs. There is a huge desire, and you are completely correct that the private industry will fill those gaps a lot better, a lot quicker, and a lot more efficiently. This is just saying to goo that while you can already do this, um, in a, uh, in, in their current structure, that we're just giving them some specific code to say that as we get these RFIs back and these, um, this information from the private industry, that if goo would like to make more targeted, um, pushes to the private industry in that space than they can.

Thank, thank you. Uh, I wonder if you could, could talk about the grant programming and, and what's in place, what guard are there guardrails in place so that, I guess to, to the representative Cha's comment about winners and losers and, and, and, and, and folks doing some sort of crony crony capitalism kinds of things. What, what, what, what's in place to help lessen that or prevent that?

The current, uh, issue perhaps with that is, is the technology is pretty new and there's very few that are actually pursuing it. The, the level three, four, and five technology. Um, for the most part, the level three technology is, is a technology that it rarely you would ever see. Actually, I think Mercedes had one vehicle that was certified for level three. Um, most of the tech for three, four, and five just doesn't exist. Um, so this is really future looking. Um, it's difficult to say how you would actually design something, um, that would benefit or detract from any particular company or technology or vendor, because most of this technology is emerging and we're just, we're a slow moving body, the law. Um, so this is really try to set up to create some definitions that match with other states and with the feds when it comes to what the technology looks like. And then provide a, um, the RFIs the request for information that go out to the vendor community. And that would be the, the, the entirety of it to bring that information back to identify what is the technology, what are the, um, the vendors, who are the people that work in this space, what, what technology is emerging. And then to build a, uh, a plan basically. So next year that my hope would be to come back and write a bill that would actually, um, design around those requests for information from the vendors, um, a plan that would actually put our safety infrastructure into place, our legal infrastructure into place. There's a lot of questions, even from law enforcement, how you interact with these types of vehicles on roadways. A lot of that stuff we can't answer right now. We don't know. And, and the information that we get back might help us decide how to move forward. This is just really setting in place the building blocks, but it's really difficult to say how this could even be utilized right away because, um, most of the technology just doesn't exist yet, but it is emerging very quickly.

Okay. Ask a follow up. Sure. And how, how about, um, to prevent though, how about to prevent, uh, how about to prevent, uh, go we from providing grants to people that are, that are their friends?

Um, if you'd like, I'd like to ask up, uh, maybe a, a call, a phone, phone a friend to see if she would like to come up and maybe ask, uh, answer some of these if that's appropriate. Mr. Chair.

Um, I will answer, at least for my part is that, um, currently they could do this already. Um, this is trying to put some guidelines in place and what that would look like. Um, but again, it's, it's difficult to set total guardrails when you don't know exactly what the industry looks like.

Hi. Good morning. Uh, hello, Mr. Chair. Crystal Young, representing Century Financial and a bunch of other of my clients. Good morning, mayor. Uh, so the, uh, to the question as whether or not cango EO grant funds to incentivize research, which is the biggest need right now, um, and charging infrastructure and things like that, uh, some aspects of autonomous driving vehicles would co be covered within AI being one of their targeted industries. But some of the needs that the private industry needs to be able to come here and to deploy, which is largely what everybody wants, we think, uh, we need to be able to give them some specifics here, which is what this bill does of saying use for research, testing, deployment, and operations. And then if you go a little bit further down, it talks about charging, connectivity, research, things like that, that the industry still needs to really fully fulfill what it is we want them to fulfill as far as whether it could become cronyism. Um, I do trust our partners at co I think they do a pretty great job, but you can see that this, uh, underneath number five, there's quite a few steps for transparency, uh, in the process. Um, as well as the application and the review, uh, they are able to rule make, so this will go into their, uh, reporting requirements, if that makes sense. That then they take it to, uh, their committees to all of you, uh, to the general public. Does that answer your question? It did.

It did. Thank you. Thank you. I Guess that would mean it's up to us to ensure that doesn't happen. Mm-hmm. At the end of the day, you're the purse strings.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Mackay Johnson. I'm with the local lobbying firm, Fox and Pagan Alley, who is proud to represent the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which is the trade association of all domestic and international car manufacturers. Um, we appreciate the representative's atten intentions with this legislation, but we just wanted to express some, um, industry concerns with some definitions and how this bill, um, works and operates with another bill that addresses similar concepts. But, um, we look forward to working with the sponsor on this, and we appreciate your time today. Thank you.

I'll just clarify. My good friend didn't have time to look at it yet, but we took all of that out. Um, for this round, it needs to be studied further along. Are you saying it's out of the second substitute, or out in the second substitute, or the first one? First, We Look forward to working with the bill sponsor on this.

I move that we, uh, do we need to adopt this sub? No, I move that we adopt HB 5 81 first sub. You mean pass out? Pass out. Sorry. Pass out HB 5 81 favorably.

Thank you. I feel similar to the chair. I mean, I think that's a great thing. It's something that we need. Um, I'm also concerned about the, the involvement of GOO in providing incentives, incentives, incentives. We've, we've over incentivized too many things, and the result of that is higher housing prices. Let's just, just at the end of the day, I'm like, I, we just, I'm not, I'm not sure that I'm ready to, to go down that path.

You Chair members of the committee. I appreciate the conversation on this. Uh, you are right. We do need update some of these definitions. These do revert back to the federal definitions. So the definition concerns, I think are, uh, have been resolved. We had some additional definitions under the original bill that, uh, were perhaps a little too ambitious and we're waiting for the RFI to determine how to really set those moving forward. So this reverts back to federal definitions. Also, the RFIs are important to collect the information to get updated standards. Um, I do have that second sub that's looking to ensure that there's not additional funding being provided to go EO and just saying to, to create kind of the reporting guardrails. But if the committee would like to pass this bill out and would like me to work on substituting actually removing the, um, the, uh, incentives altogether and which GOO could keep in mind, continue to do today if they so decided, um, I'm still happy to make those adjustments. It's not critical to the bill other than getting our definitions updated.

If that is the desire of this committee, I'd be more than happy to do that. 'cause it's more important that we get the RFIs and get some updated definitions, then we put some language into go on how they issue, um, uh, uh, grants essentially under this, under their existing program. The reason I'm asking you this at this stage is because if we vote no, it's, it's dead. If we vote to go forward, then we've got one chance to, we've got another, another chance to look at it. And so If that is, uh, if, if there needs to be more discussion on the committee, but I'm happy to, again, that's not the critical piece of this bill, and I actually don't think it, it, it does exactly. I think what everyone fears, I think go acon already do this. Um, this is trying to more hone and when they do it on what it looks like. But I'm happy to take that out if there's concerns about it. 'cause it's not critical. Could I, and I have a substitute coming essentially to, to adjust that section anyway.

Uh, can we, My analyst is here as well and heard it from my lips. Let's go ahead and adjust that.

it sounds like if you're gonna make a commitment to, uh, taking that language out, I think you're gonna get support and I'll support it here and on the floor. Thank you.

You Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt Second substitute.

Briefly. We took out all the goo components that would've included the entire fiscal note and that was by recommendation of the committee as we passed it through the

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very simple. Bill. We're updating the definitions of certain types of autonomous vehicles, uh, levels three, four, and five. Um, these technologies don't technically really exists today. Also sends out to RFI through, uh, UDOT to, uh, collect some information from vendors so we can get more information on how to design our code around this emerging technology. And that's the bill.

Chew We'll. Sponsor yield Representative MacPherson, will you yield?

Yes. Yes. Representative. Chew. So

Is your, uh, cyber truck, is it autonomous?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question. I believe that would fall under a level two, uh, uh, definition, which is currently in code.

I'll, I'll waive summation has been waived.

Motion encircle HB 6 0 4.

You Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt Second substitute. That motion is in order. We'd like to speak to it. Just Briefly. We took out all the goo components that would've included the entire fiscal note and that was by recommendation of the committee as we passed it through the

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very simple. Bill. We're updating the definitions of certain types of autonomous vehicles, uh, levels three, four, and five. Um, these technologies don't technically really exists today. Also sends out to RFI through, uh, UDOT to, uh, collect some information from vendors so we can get more information on how to design our code around this emerging technology. And that's the bill.

Chew We'll. Sponsor yield Representative MacPherson, will you yield?

Yes. Yes. Representative. Chew. So

Is your, uh, cyber truck, is it autonomous?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question. I believe that would fall under a level two, uh, uh, definition, which is currently in code.

I'll, I'll waive summation has been waived.