Alaska Legislature: House Community & Regional Affairs, 4/9/26, 8am

The service area,

all owners of the real property in the service area have to consent in writing.

So there's really two different things in law.

Okay. Thank you.

Follow up.

To Mr.

Mr.

Yeah,

Mayor Hopkins,

you had mentioned a particular service area that had been rejected that potentially this legislation would.

would have helped fix. I was wondering if you could just get kind of flesh that out a little bit so I could understand it. I don't live in Fairbanks. And uh so if if this legislation has passed could have fixed that. You had mentioned one service area that was rejected. I was wondering if you could flesh out like what the proposal was, why it was rejected, so that I could understand it a little bit better.

Mayor Hopkins.

Certainly, just to clarify,

representatives of the chair,

you want the story of that specific election?

Yes, ma'am. It's the one that you mentioned and it sounded like a pertinent example because you brought it up. So yeah, I'd like to understand it

Yes, sir,

certainly.

So the borough assembly has to approve an election going forward in order for an election to happen. They have to approve it.

So previously,

college acres subdivision and an election to try to join the YAC subdivision, sorry,

campus acres.

It was that election failed.

The non-contiguous area, so campus acres does not actually touch YAC subdivision because as I believe it was the bill sponsor said,

we have a patchwork.

a service area covered across our borough and campus acres doesn't actually touch any existing service areas so that election failed a few years ago then when they tried again just this past calendar year the service area that they were looking to draw it was called our service area and they did not want to even have the election our service area has been around for decades and has created its own system and

um the um neighborhood processes for operating their service area how they give input to each other um and it's a tight-knit neighborhood and even though it would have been a financial benefit and mileage and and net property net taxable value our service area showed up and said please and testified in front of the assembly said please do not even hold this election we do not want this nearby but non-contiguous

neighborhood to join us because we like our service area so you weren't even able to hold that election um for that to to happen so um the campus acres one election didn't even happen and they were not able to get the service that they wanted because the assembly listened to the testifiers at the local level and said no we're not going to move forward with this election and I'll ask even if they had it probably would have failed

Um thank you to everyone online. I'm gonna wrap this uh discussion up for today. Um thank you Representative Carrick and Mr. Relay. Um we will be setting House Bill three seventy nine uh amendment deadline for Monday April thirteenth at noon and uh with that we will set the bill for a for a later date. Um and then uh we do also have House Bill two seventeen

Coming up today for public testimony, uh Representative Carrick and Mr.

Griffin, Sukayo welcome to the committee please approach the testifier table and give us a very brief recap of our transportation committee so

Thank you, Madam Chair and just again for the record, Ashley Carrick representing House District 35 in West Fairbanks and my staff and I are pleased to bring you again on behalf of the House Transportation Committee House Bill 217 relating to autonomous vehicles.

just as a brief reminder for the committee what this bill does is it um regulates the use of commercial and commercial is a really important distinction here commercial autonomous vehicles um

Mm-hmm.

providing requirements that these commercial autonomous vehicles um that are being used for interstate commerce, goods and passengers, have a human safety operator in the vehicle um and I'd be happy to answer further questions and I know we're taking testimony

Making testimony.

Um I'd like to get to the public testimony. Uh so with that I will open public testimony on House Bill two seventeen. Is there anyone in the room for testimony on this bill? No? All familiar faces? Uh so I will go online. So first off we'll start with Robert Singleton, senior director of policy and public affairs for the chamber of chamber of progress. Uh please uh

Put yourself on the record and two minutes,

please

Thank you.

Good morning, Co-Chairs, members of the committee.

My name is Robert Singleton. I serve as the Senior Director of Policy and Public Affairs at Chamber of Progress.

We are a tech industry association that supports inclusive innovation.

I'm here today in respectful opposition to HB 217 because it would impose a driver in requirement for all commercial autonomous vehicles in Alaska,

which would effectively ban the use of this highly beneficial technology at stand to create new jobs, improve road safety,

and improve transportation accessibility.

By hard coding a human driver requirement into every commercial AV operation,

with no pilot program,

no permit pathway,

and no sunset clause,

Alaska would be the only state in the country to impose such a requirement at a time when both automotive accidents and the shortage of commercial truck drivers are at an all-time high.

Research shows that 90% of car crashes are caused by preventable human error,

mainly distracted driving and driving under the influence.

Thus, by virtue of the fact that AVs cannot drive impaired,

let alone violate the...

look at programming and thus the rules of the road,

this is not a problem.

And in fact, the data supports this because when performing a miles-to-miles,

region-to-region comparison,

the 127 million rider-only miles performed last year recorded 90% fewer serious or fatal crashes,

meaning that every year that the deployment of these technologies is delayed means more preventable tragedies on Alaska's roads.

So I'll let my other colleagues talk about the potential for job growth and other considerations, but please, for the sake of saving lives and preventing bodily injury,

do not impose a de facto ban on commercial autonomous vehicles,

which is exactly what this bill would do while requiring a driver.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

So for the record,

Mr.

Singleton was calling in from Santa Cruz,

California.

Next up, we've got Rose Feliciano,

Executive Director of the Northwest for TechNet, calling in from Seattle,

Washington.

Please put yourself on the record and you have two minutes for public testimony.

Good morning. Good morning, Chairs.

I'm shooting the ears. My name is Rose Feliciano.

I'm here on behalf of TechNet.

TechNet and our members have a priority for the safety of our AV companies and invest heavily in testing and are already operating in other jurisdictions with robust federal oversight. I'm not going to repeat what my colleagues said,

but I want to express concerns about

about June 1-7 in large part because I believe that this will inadvertently restrict or even prevent even the testing of AVs. We want to acknowledge that Alaska roads are different than the lower 48 and what our members are interested in is being able to test

provide some opportunities in Alaska.

I think one of the concerns that folks have is that number one there are driver shortages,

we have supply chain reliability issues,

but there are also the opportunity for new jobs with the AVs, the logistics,

the maintenance, the operations.

You know, you have to have folks at either end loading and unloading.

And I think that there's some opportunity that unfortunately the way HB 217 is framed is it kind of cuts off the ability to even try to test it out and figure out how AVs could work in Alaska.

I don't think that anybody is assuming that they're going to be a complete replacement of human drivers.

I think that's always going to be the case. This could help alleviate some of that burden.

And then just a couple of concerns.

Obviously we're concerned about the requirements for the human safety operator.

The other big concern we have is the liability that assumes its fault.

the human to the operator I think that's counter to how we always figure out traffic accidents determining who's at fault because it very well could not be the autonomous vehicle it could very well be somebody else so I just want to kind of put those out there for your consideration we would certainly welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor of the bill

the committee on figuring out a path forward for Asians in Alaska.

Thank you for your consideration.

Um thank th thank you Ms Feliciano for your testimony. I'd also like to acknowledge that uh Senator Rob Myers has joined us in the committee room. Uh our final testifier online we have Renee Gibson, the Vice President of Government Affairs for Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association from Washington DC. Please put yourself on the record and provide your two minutes of testimony.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Renee Gibson.

I'm the Vice President of Government Affairs for the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association,

which represents the world's leading autonomous vehicle companies deploying AVs across the country,

also here in respectful opposition.

Nationwide AVs, including autonomous trucks,

have built significant safety record and they've driven hundreds of millions of autonomous miles on U.S. public roads alone.

This bill would foreclose opportunities for Alaskans to reap the many benefits,

safety,

economic,

environmental, and workforce benefits of autonomous trucks.

Safety is paramount to our members'

mission,

and I know Robert already discussed this a bit.

Importantly,

AVs do not just drive distracted,

impaired,

and they never fall asleep.

Autonomous trucking also has an important role to play in strengthening our supply chains.

Freight demand in the United States is expected to increase dramatically over the coming decades, while the trucking industry already faces significant driver shortage.

Autonomous trucks can help move goods more efficiently while also creating new jobs.

And we're already seeing this in states that have welcomed AV trucking.

These types of jobs are growing in areas like fleet operations,

maintenance,

mapping,

and remote assistance.

HB 417 would jeopardize the future of AVs in Alaska and prevent the state from reaping the full benefits of AV technology.

In effect,

the bill would ban autonomous trucks by requiring a human observer in these vehicles,

as companies cannot scale their technology with these restrictions.

This bill would also make Alaska a national outlier as no state has banned driverless operations.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to vote no, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Seeing that we are at the end of our meeting time today,

I will close public testimony.

Well, I would just like to ask the testifiers,

there is specifically, there was a concern that this would prevent even testing.

And I don't see that in a if somebody could send us a note explaining where in the bill how that prevents testing, I would be interested in reading that.

Thank you, Representative Prokes. If anyone has got an answer to his question, um we've got a committee email: h-c-r-a at a-k-l-e-g dot gov. So

Uh

Also, recognise that Representative Himesh you has joined us. Um I said you were coming. Uh so with that um oh not quite that. I wanted to set a a amendment deadline.

I'll let you finish that bill quickly.

Okay. Uh amendment deadline for House Bill 217 will also be noon on Monday April thirteenth.

Representative Nelson.

Thank you, Madam Co-chair. A couple quick comments. One is I think I have, you know, I've had concerns with 217. I think some of the testimony today misconstrued the increased danger that this would create on Alaskan roads. So

Side comment, thrown shade,

I apologize. We can engage with it later.

One question I had was on 162. Are we, like, the amendment deadline is removed from that at this point, right?

Like, we're still working on the CS and

So that is for right to

right

repair.

to repair,

Um,

yeah.

yes, we're waiting for a CS from the bill sponsor.

Okay, and then last question was on the we'd heard on the IDs.

unlike the um IDs for Yes. 18 and 26.

Yes.

Is that amendment deadline

Amendment deadline

still?

for Friday.

So tomorrow.

So tomorrow.

Do you need more time? We could Let's

I honestly

let's let's talk off let's let's talk offline if we need to make

Honestly—

Respectfully

an extension.

I would like to extend that.

And then we'll and then we can we can update the group by email, which we will also be doing for next week's schedule. Um so um

Uh and also if there's m more needed time for um either the two bills we heard today um we'll plan to leave a little bit more time in the schedule for uh discussion on uh House Bill uh 217.

Uh with that with no further business before the committee the meeting is adjourned it is 10 a.m.