Cities around The country has long been clamoring for more control over how autonomous vehicles are deployed on its roads. In California, they might finally get their wish.
A handful of AV-related bills that made progress this month on their long journey through the state legislature could put more restrictions on companies like Cruise, Motional, Waymo and Zoox.
an account, SB 915, stands out because it could give cities more power to set their own rules about robotaxi — things like hours of operation and appropriate pick-up and drop-off locations. The bill, which passed the Senate Transportation Committee this week, is one of several laws introduced this year in California dedicated to putting guardrails on the cutting-edge technology.
The stakes are high for almost everyone.
California, which is the fifth largest economy in the world, it must drop the regulatory needle to protect its residents without losing the kind of next-generation companies that have helped turn the state into a hub for tech talent. Waymo and Cruise, both based in California, risk more red tape that could hinder expansion — a key factor in achieving profitability. City officials, and the people they represent, are scrambling to get a say in how this all plays out.
The tougher rules could influence other states to take similar measures — a course that happened with California’s rules vehicle emission standards. It could also have the opposite effect.
“To go from city to city and make your case when you have like 500 cities in California that all apply slightly different standards, it’s really hard to understand why companies are subject to that, especially when you have multiple states on the other end that are also large population centers,” Jeff Farrah, CEO of the advocacy group Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (AVIA), told TechCrunch. “And they say, ‘Hey, we want you to come. We believe that AVs can solve many problems.”
It’s still early days for the handful of AV bills, which must go through a lengthy legislative process and could be vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. Here’s an explanation of the bills, where they are in the process and what it might mean for companies and the public.
SB 915 — Giving local governments greater authority over AVs
Author/co-author: State Sen. Dave Cortese (D) | Assemblyman Freddie Rodriguez (D)
Sponsors: California Teamsters and the California League of Cities.
Cortese introduced SB 915 on April 17. The bill passed the Senate Transportation Committee on April 23. It will go to the Appropriations Committee and, if approved, will reach the Senate floor.
What is SB 915?
“The bill allows governments to weigh the functions of autonomous vehicle services, or AVs, in their communities,” Sen. Cortese, whose District 15 includes much of Silicon Valley, said last week when the bill was introduced. “Currently AV functions are approved or rejected at the state level by the [Department of Motor Vehicles] or the [Public Utilities Commission]. Although they are conducting processes to gather public input, there is no guarantee that the state will consider local concerns.”
Under SB 915, once a state agency like the DMV or CPUC approves AV operations, local governments will be able to pass ordinances to regulate the vehicles within their jurisdiction.
For example, cities would have the power to regulate hours of operation or how many vehicles could be on the road at any given time. Cities will be able to create their own, separate licensing processes and penalties for AVs that violate local traffic laws. They will also be able to form coalitions with other local governments to jointly regulate services.
Important to note: The bill’s language states that if a local government fails to create ordinances (because many local departments are understaffed and overburdened), the default guidelines revert to whatever the state has approved.
SB 915 would also require all commercial AV passenger service companies to comply with handicap access laws, provide a bypass system for emergency responders, and train emergency responders on how to manually bypass vehicles.
A patchwork of regulations
Those against SB 915, which includes the lobby group Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (AVIA), various chambers of commerce and other technology and business groups, expressed concern that creating such a patchwork of local regulations would make compliance challenging for companies and would limit innovation.
“Cities are very limited in terms of the kinds of things they can get involved with, things like speed limits and local law enforcement,” Farrah said. “And so for human-driven vehicles, there hasn’t been a very strong role for cities in terms of regulation. And that’s something we think should be applied to the world of autonomous vehicles. It’s not at all fair to me that autonomous vehicles would be singled out for this kind of action.”
Speaking to TechCrunch in a phone interview, Cortese disputed the argument:
That’s the culture and the system we have now for vehicles in this situation in terms of setting up vehicles, so I feel like if this was on my Apple home screen, we just drag the AVs into the current shape. The CPUC will continue to regulate your rates. The DMV does your general license and registration. And then the local governments will do their best thing and let you know where to drop people off and pick them up from the airport, let you know where there are safe routes to schools, and if there are certain loading zones that aren’t OK for AVs.
There is already precedent for such arrangements.
Cities already have the ability to set their own regulations on many transportation-related issues, such as the operation of rental vehicles, a category that robotics certainly falls into, according to the California Vehicle Code. Cities can also regulate traffic at construction sites, move vehicles parked in fire lanes and set maximum speed limits.
“And [local governments] we meet every week,” Cortese said. “This is the piece of industry resistance that I haven’t fully wrapped my head around. As a businessman myself, I’d rather have the agility of local government to deal with these problems than the state of California, this huge bureaucratic, bipartisan system that only comes out once a year.”
Cortese said he understands industry concerns that providing more power to the sites would threaten the ability of AVs to operate there. However, he noted that the bill does not give cities the right to ban driverless vehicles.
“Fundamentally, what we’re trying to get across to elected officials — who are put there by the people — is that we shouldn’t leave the decisions about how to develop AI technology, including autonomous vehicles, to the very companies that are creating this technology. technology because those people will achieve the benefits,” Peter Finn, Western Region Vice President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, told TechCrunch in a phone interview. “If we put all the decision-making in the hands of companies, they will try to maximize shareholder value.”
For Finn’s view, AVIA recently published PRINCIPLES OF TRUST, an industry standard for how AV companies should safely expand their operations in US communities, including recommendations on transparency, community engagement, cybersecurity and privacy standards, and more but. The principles act both as guidelines for companies and as a statement to governments that the AV industry is perfectly capable of self-regulating, thank you very much.
California’s remaining autonomous vehicle pipeline
AB 2286 is a revival of AB 316, the bill that would require human safety operators to be in the driver’s seat of autonomous heavy-duty vehicles. In November 2023, Governor Newsom vetoed the bill despite overwhelming support, so Assembly members Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D), Laura Friedman (D), and Ash Kalra (D) reintroduced it in February.
The revamped bill passed the Senate Transportation Committee on April 15 and has been referred back to the Communications and Transportation Committee.
The Transportation Committee voted April 22 to move forward AB 1777, which would amend the current vehicle code with regard to AVs. The bill, which was introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D) in January, requires the manufacturer to certify that the AV can respond to and comply with specified geofencing protocols. It also requires the manufacturer to clearly display a work phone number on the monitored AV at all times to allow communication between the companies and law enforcement, emergency services and traffic control officers.
AB 1777, like SB 915, also opens the door to fining AV manufacturers if a vehicle operating without a human driver commits a violation.
Farrah told TechCrunch that the AV industry never assumed that self-driving business cars would be exempt from issuing traffic tickets. He pointed out that most other states with AV regulation, excluding California, assume that the vehicle manufacturer is the driver and therefore responsible when there is no human driver.
AB 1777 would also require AV manufacturers to prepare and submit quarterly reports to the DMV summarizing the activity of their vehicles. If manufacturers don’t do that, the bill empowers the DMV to either completely suspend or revoke a testing permit, or gradually impose measures that limit where the vehicles can be operated, how fast, in what weather and more.
The latest bill going through the California legislature is AB 3061which would require AV manufacturers to provide more robust reporting to the DMV by July 31, 2025. Currently, AV companies must report crashes to the DMV and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, but this bill would force them to report traffic violations and releases, as well as any incident of discrimination or barrier to the access of a disabled passenger.
Manufacturers should submit detailed reports at the time of any incident, as well as regular reports that include vehicle miles traveled, unscheduled stops and wheelchair accessible services.
AB 3061 would also require the DMV, as well as other agencies such as the CPUC and the California Highway Patrol, to create and publish regular AV incident forms and reports that would be available to the public. If companies do not comply with the reporting provisions, the DMV will have the power to impose fines or suspend or revoke licenses. Members of the public with direct evidence of an incident will also have a route to submit AV incident reports.
