Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

Thank you, everyone who's joining for today's Communication Conveyance Committee hearing on Transportation Network companies TNCs in California. My name is Tasha Boerner, and I serve as the chair of the committee. Joining me today on the dais are Assemblymember Chris Rogers, Patrick Ahrens, Leticia Castillo and Jessica Caloza.

We're also joined by Emilio Perez, the chief consultant of the Communications Committee. And you are not Daniel. Lauren. Lauren. Last name? Lauren Pritchard. From the Republican policy consultant area. Yeah, sure. I also want to recognize we don't have our committee secretary, Elizabeth Delgado, here, but this week she celebrated her 25th work anniversary with the assembly.

So where are you? There's Elizabeth. There she is. 25 years at the assembly. So before we begin our presentation, I'd like to take care of some logistical housekeeping as we proceed with the witnesses in public comment.

I want to make sure everyone understands the assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoints they express.

We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberations and decisions on the critical issues facing California. You could exit the hearing room once you're done testifying or return to your seat. Now, let's cover the ground rules for appropriate conduct.

The assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation which were posted outside the door in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public,

within the limits of our time. We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by the chair, me. Public comment must relate to the subject being discussed today. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please be aware that violations of these rules may be subject to your- may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. And so thank you so much for your cooperation on the housekeeping items. Now we can transition to the substantive portion of today's informational hearing on transportation, TNCs in California.

The purpose of today's hearing is to provide an opportunity for members and the public to gain a better understanding of transportation network companies in California. In shorthand, we refer to these companies as TNCs. The most commonly recognized companies are Uber and Lyft, who both provide 99% of the TNC trips in the state.

However, there are some smaller and more specialized companies that serve niche sets of riders such as minors and also autonomous vehicle TNCs, which are a new type of service.

Although in the year 2025 we probably take for granted the availability of TNC service in the state, it wasn't that long ago when this was a new type of service and the legislature was grappling with how to effectively regulate this industry while encouraging its growth.

It was only after about 15 years ago that Uber launched its first product here in California, the home of technology and innovation. About 11 years ago, the legislature passed the first law on TNCs, which imposed specific insurance requirements on these companies and codified the decisions.

The definitions of these companies that was previously adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission. In the years since, these services have continued to grow and evolve in a changing legal, regulatory and market environment.

One of the main takeaways I want members to get from this hearing is to better understand the history of the industry and the public policy issues that arise from it.

While TNCs are now part of the fabric of the transportation landscape, especially in urban and suburban areas of the state, questions remain about how to best manage their existence on our public roads and how to evaluate their impact on society in general.

As a member who strongly believes in the imperative of addressing climate change, I know that personal transportation continues to be one of the largest sources of emissions across the state. While TNCs did not create this public policy challenge, some evidence suggests that these services have contributed to it.

Therefore, I think our shared interest in a healthy planet depends on partnering and understanding how this industry impacts California. Over our three panels today, we will hear from first, from the Public Utilities Commission to provide an overview and history of TNC regulation in the state.

Secondly, we'll invite up Uber and Lyft to hear from the TMCs themselves, and our last panel will hear from stakeholders representing local government and the research community to provide some context for US Policymakers to think about as we think about this industry.

I look forward to hearing more from all these panelists and do I have any comments from our other members of the committee today before we begin? All good. With that said, I'd like to turn it over to the- oh vice chair isn't here. Where are we going? We're going to panel one, so we'll start with panel one.

California Public Utilities Commission Administration CPUC representatives, please approach the dais. The slide presentation from the CPUC is also available on our website. Today we have the following staff from the CPUC. Joining us, we have S.

Pat Sen, California Public Utilities Commission Deputy Executive Director for Consumer Policy, Transportation and Enforcement, and Terra Curtis, California Public Utilities Commission Director for Consumer Protection Enforcement Divisions. Before our guests begin, I want to inform members and public that some of the issues being discussed today are the subject of ongoing rulemakings and litigation at the CPUC.

Therefore, we should all understand that there are some issues that CPC and other panelists that are parties to those proceedings may not be able to answer as candidly as we may. Like having said that, I also encourage all of our speakers to do the best to answer comprehensively as they are able to do so.

With that, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Boerner, thank you and thank you for the opportunity for us to present on our regulation of the Transportation Network companies in California. My name is Pat Tsen. I am the Deputy Executive Director over Consumer Policy, Transportation and Enforcement at the Commission.

With me I have Terra Curtis, who is the Director over Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division at the Commission. She oversees the staff that supports both policymaking program oversight as well as enforcement in the transportation of passengers in California. This afternoon, we're going to be providing an overview of CPUC's regulation of transportation network companies, or TNCs.

We will start with an introduction to CPUC's role and the history of TNC regulations, and then share more about our TNC programs. Next slide, please. As you can see here, the CPUC regulates the transportation of passengers in California through authority that is granted by the California Constitution and the Passenger Charter Party Carriers Act.

Our authority to regulate TNCs specifically was affirmed by the California Legislature in 2014 in Assembly Bill 2293. TNCs include companies such as Uber and Lyft. CPUC also regulates other passenger transportation carriers such as autonomous vehicles, charter party carriers like black cars, limos and tour buses and ferries, and certain other type of bus transportation services. Next slide, please.

In our regulatory role, the CPUC established and enforced regulations for TNC service focused on safety, transparency and consumer protection. Since initiating a rulemaking in 2012, the commission has addressed major policy issues impacting TNC service, including the transportation of minors, driver's background check requirements, prevention of sexual assault and harassment, and data reporting and confidentiality. Next slide, please.

Through this process, the TNC- the CPUC has been regulating TNCs for over a decade. When we initiated rulemaking to address TNC issues following Uber's launch in California. The first TNC- The first TNC decision that was issued by CPUC was released in 2013. It established TNCS as a new carrier class and set initial requirements for permitting, background checks, driver's training, and insurance.

Shortly thereafter, Assembly Bill 2293 codified the definition of TNC in statute and established insurance and other requirements for drivers and TNCs.

Building on these early regulations, the commission has issued additional decisions, including decisions impleme- implementing legislative mandated insurance requirements, ordering release of certain TNC data, establishing rules related to the prevention of assault and harassment on these services, and mandating enhanced safety protocols for the transportation of minors.

And with that overview, I'm going to hand it over to Terra to go over the specific TNC programs.

Next slide please. So our TNC programs, including two key programs established by the Legislature in 2018, promote safety, accessibility and sustainability in passenger transportation. Our focus today is on our TNC Passenger Safety Oversight. Annual reporting to the CPUC plays a key role in supporting this goal.

We collect reports on safety issues such as driver training, zero tolerance complaints and suspended drivers, among other reports on TNC operations and safety.

Beyond our broad safety oversight role, we also implement the Clean Miles Standard Program from Senate Bill 1014 in 2018 and which supports reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from TNC trips, and the TNC Access for All Program Senate Bill 1376, also from 2018, which funds on demand wheelchair accessible services through a fee collected on all TNC trips.

Required Annual Reporting has also supported data driven policymaking and implementation in the context of these programs. Next slide please. So I'd like to provide more detail on our TNC Annual Reports over the next few slides, starting with an overview of the collection and use of the data. TNC Annual Reports have been required since 2014.

These reports are submitted each January by TNCs and then validated and prepared for analysis by CPUC staff.

In recent years, the CPUC CPC staff have improved the data submittal and validation process for these reports, including by refining the data dictionary and reporting templates and by implementing an online submission portal that performs an initial compliance check and data validation.

We collect data on every TNC trip taken in California and also require reports on safety and consumer protection issues such as trip requests that are not accepted by drivers, adherence to zero tolerance policies, sexual assault and harassment claims, consumer complaints, accessibility issues and incidents.

These re- These reports support our ongoing work to track industry wide safety trends, guide compliance and enforcement priorities, evaluate policy effectiveness, inform equitable access and environmental and social justice programs, engage in long range planning and implement the TNC Access for All and Clean Mile Standard Programs established by the legislature.

For example, TNC Annual Report data was used to inform setting appropriate emissions reduction targets in the Clean Miles Standard Program.

This TNC Annual Report data was also used to inform implementation of the Access for All program, including setting the access fee, which is a per ride fee that funds investments in on demand wheelchair accessible transportation as well as supporting setting the associated performance targets.

Throughout the entire process of intaking, analyzing and applying insights from this large data set, we carefully protect personally identifiable information and confidential data. Next slide, please. Any information submitted to the Commission, including the TNC Annual Reports, is subject to claims of confidentiality by the submitter.

CPUC General Order 66D provides a process for submitters to claim confidentiality over the information it shares with the commission and for the Commission to evaluate these claims. Confidentiality claims are made upon submission of information to the commission. The submitter marks the information they believe to be confidential.

The submitter also includes a confidentiality declaration that describes the legal basis for non disclosure, for example on trade secret or privacy grounds. If the Commission's procedures have been properly followed, that information is preliminarily treated as confidential.

When information is requested, such as through a Public Records Act request, the Commission's Legal Division will review the substance of the claims. Information determined to have a lawful basis of confidentiality will not be released.

If the legal analysis determines confidentiality claims are not valid and the information should be released, the commission will address the claims via a resolution or other commission order prior to disclosure. Next slide please. The Commission has issued several decisions relating to the confidentiality of the TNC data, finding that most TNC data should be disclosed.

Over the past five years, these decisions have eliminated automatic confidential treatment of TNC data and addressed rehearing applications from the TNCs affirming most data should be disclosed and in some cases aggregated before disclosure.

This represents a shift toward public access to data, which is on par with several other jurisdictions that use data data reporting as a key part of their regulatory oversight framework. Next slide please.

As we close these initial remarks, I'd like to briefly take a step back from the data reporting to highlight some of the commission's recent work to advance passenger safety in TNC service. Recent rulemaking activity has addressed two important safety issues, the transportation of unaccompanied minors and prevention of sexual assault and harassment.

In response to Uber's launch of a product called Uber for Teens, which allowed for the transportation of unaccompanied minors, the CPUC implemented enhanced background check requirements for all TNC drivers transporting unaccompanied minors this supports safer transportation for minors in TNCs and ensures that these requirements are uniform across all TNCs in the state.

Annual reporting will allow the commission staff to monitor implementation of these rules and outcomes for consumers. The commission has also implemented additional requirements to support prevention of sexual assault and harassment in TNC service.

These include more robust reporting requirements for these types of incidents and requirements for anti assault and harassment training and investigation of claims of assault and harassment. Consistent with our regulatory mission and authority affirmed by the legislature in 2014, we continue to monitor TNC service and engage with the industry to address emerging issues as they arise.

Next slide, please. Thank you again for the opportunity to brief you this afternoon and we look forward to helping answer any questions you have.

Thank you. And I want to recognize that Assemblymember Mia Bonta has joined us. I would like to open up to my committee members for any questions before I launch into a series of mine. Assemblymember Rogers. I'd be disappointed if you didn't raise your hand.

First of all, thanks for the presentation. You kind of you talked a little bit about how we got to the regulatory aspect that we're at in the enabling statute. Does it specify which data you're able to collect or did that come from rulemaking and can it be changed via rulemaking should you see a need?

So the requirements for public disclosure of data is not specific to TNCs. All re- All requests for confidential data treatment goes through our regulatory process of General Order 66. So regardless of the industry that it is related to.

So short answer to the question is that it was not set out in the 2014 statute and our rules are pursuant to both statute that governs the treatment of data at the commission as well as the CPRA.

So kind of broadly speaking then do you feel like you have the authority you need to properly regulate the industry?

We have. Well, I think the authority that we have is the authority that we use to do the regulations. It's at a staff at the commission. It's really kind of not our role to determine whether or not something is or is not appropriate.

We kind of look at the rules as they are and that's what we do with it.

So you one of the data points that you get are complaints that come in from folks what currently kind of in the last couple of years does that data trend look like that most of the complaints are geared towards?

I don't have a answer as to the specific complaints just because complaints come in from a lot of different channels. So if they come in through the annual report, then those complaints are sort of delayed in terms of how they're reported to us. Right. We get it in January of the next year.

But we also get complaints directly from. We have a complaint page where people submit complaints or file informal complaints. When those informal complaints come in, every single complaint is assigned to an analyst in our transportation enforcement branch. And they contact the complainant, they find out what happened, TNC or otherwise.

Really every transportation service that is under our regulation. And there are many resolution paths, sometimes we contact the TNCs or not all complainants actually will respond when they are contacted. And there are some times when the complaint needs to be referred to outside law enforcement or other agencies.

That's really helpful because I think for even taking a step back, you collect the data, you have the data that's provided for you. How do you use that data? I think just sort of at a macro level.

Okay, I can start and then Terra will be the subject matter expert on sort of specific uses on these. But for example, on the complaint data, we do do an evaluation of trends. I don't know if we have that information available, but we have used that information to inform. For example, recently we have- we selected the okay.

We have selected the okay. We have recently selected a contractor who will help us implement the developing a taxonomy for sexual assault that occurs and complaints of assault that happens on the platform.

So part of that request for proposal and in our evaluation of the bidders was informed by the complaints that have come in as part of the annual reports.

Yeah, and I would just add to that to, I think, categorize the way we use the data into maybe three main types of uses and according to kind of our core responsibilities. So one of the core responsibilities we have with staff is to advise the commission on policymaking.

As you know, there's a currently open rulemaking proceeding relating to TNCs. And so one of the uses is to provide data driven advice to our commissioners in setting policy and spotting issues that they may want to address. The second piece is related to our program implementation.

And so the two key examples there are implementing the Clean Miles Standard and Access for All programs established by the legislature. And those annual report data have been really critical to providing a solid grounding for the policy decisions in those programs. And then lastly, the reporting provides a component of our compliance oversight.

And so there are baseline rules that TNCs and all of our passenger transportation carriers have to follow. And so analysis of this data can provide insight into compliance with some of those rules as well as.

So in general, do you feel like the TNC companies largely provide the data that you request and is there any additional data that would be helpful for you in that end that you are not currently able to capture or that hasn't been contemplated through rulemaking or statute?

Yeah, I would say by and large, we are able to get the data that we need. And the TNCs have been responsive both to their requirements and to data requests that we issue.

There are some issues that come up just in terms of operational constraint and being able to for the TNCs to provide data, but I think they should speak directly to that. But overall, I think we have the authority to request data that we need and have been using it effectively.

Great. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Anybody else?

Okay, so I'm very interested to know how TNC, sorry, how TNCs affect our climate and emissions. Can you speak in a little bit more detail about how the Clean Miles Standard Program is reducing emissions in the sector and what the specific goals of the program are?

Absolutely, yeah. Yes. Senator Skinner authored legislation in 2018 to establish this program. And that statute directed the Air Resources Board to work together with the CPUC in implementing the program. Specifically, it tasked the Air Resources Board with establishing targets for the emissions reduction in TNC fleets and for the CPUC to implement those targets.

Since that time, CARB has established targets which relate to greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile with a target to reduce that to zero by 2030 and to increase the fraction of vehicle miles traveled in these fleets provided by zero emission vehicles to 90% by 2030.

So those are the underlying targets and our work to implement this program is ongoing. We have open rulemaking currently in progress.

We have also established what we call a driver's assistance program that is going to provide incentives to low and moderate income drivers to help them transition their personally owned vehicles to zero emission vehicles used in the TNC fleets.

And can we expect that the CPUC will publish an analysis or report to evaluate the program? And which entities are you partnering with to complete those reports?

Yes, absolutely. There's a couple of key components in the program that will provide an analysis and evaluation. Firstly, the statute calls for a biennial unanticipated barriers report which is looking at market forces that may have changed since that time that affect the ability to meet the original targets.

And so that is, I believe, to be published in 2026. And secondarily, the commission has hired a contractor. The name of the firm escapes me, but they will be an evaluator of this driver's assistance program and will be able to provide an analysis of the effect and the impact that has had on the success of the program.

And moving on to the Access for All Programs, this committee is advancing a bill AB 1532 that would extend the Access for All program, which has been successful in expanding access to TNC services to disabled Californians. Can you say more about how this program is helping disabled Californians across the state and specifically in rural counties?

Yes, absolutely. Thanks for calling attention to that bill. We are excited about this program so far. To date. Since its implementation began in 2019, over 300,000 on demand wheelchair accessible trips have been provided to Californians and about 63,000 trips provided through partnerships with local what we call local access providers, non TNCs.

These are local transportation organizations that receive funding through the program. And while those programs currently are mostly focused on urban and suburban areas of California, we've also recently contracted with what we call a statewide access fund administrator that will receive any funds left over from the initial implementation to provide programs in the other counties across California.

I think it's 40 or so other counties and that pot of money is around $17 million.

Thank you for that. Moving on to the other part of your presentation around data and transparency. Although the CPUC has made an effort to ensure transparency of TNC data, some of those decisions continue to be challenged. Is it correct that the only data from the year 2021 is available and that even that data is heavily redacted?

Yes, that is true.

Okay. And can you speak in more detail about how the CPUC is administering the process to evaluate how or when the trip data could be released? For example, what are the steps being taken and what steps remain? If you can just walk us through that process.

So the Commission issued a decision which I think was in 2024, which said that trip data could be released if it were aggregated.

That decision was then appealed through the Commission's rehearing process and the rehearing decision found in part for the rehearing on minor points and then directive for the issuance of a new decision that addressed some of those concerns.

And so actually in May 6, the Commission issued another decision in response to the rehearing decision where in the 30 day period of comments for the impacted entities to submit any additional appeal and or rehearing. So we also. And that Decision addresses the first tranche of data which relates to the 2014-2019 period.

And then there are other pending actions related to the second tranche. And the reason that there's been tranches has to do with when appeals were filed. And also there were times in which the staff at NCPED changed the format and sort of the reporting requirements on an annual basis as more information became available.

So yes, we are still in active engagement on those processes. And the General policy at the Commission is that we favor disclosure unless the interest in preserving confidentiality outweighs the public interest in getting access to that information.

Okay. And so although the CPUC has not been able to publish the data for the public, it seems like maybe going to get something soon, which would be

hopefully.

Let's hope. Let's hope. How regularly is the CPUC publishing its own data analyses or utilizing the data internally for regulatory purposes?

We do. We use it all the time.

Okay.

We use it regularly all the time. It is used to really have informed advice being made to the Commissioners and to the judges in identifying trends and identifying issues and recommending, you know, further scoping of what upcoming or current rulemaking looks like. So we definitely are using it internally.

There's location data, which, as I mentioned in my testimony, can be particularly scary to share. There's PII, personally identifying information, which is very scary to share. And these are people, right? The data submissions are that of Californians. Right? This is data that we're sharing about real people.

Okay. And what, if anything, can we expect to see related to data issues, the data issue over the next six months? So what can this Committee expect?

So you'll see now maybe, if you're following the rulemaking docket, you'll see that the last order extending statutory deadline runs until September, meaning that that proceeding needs to be closed by September or another order of extension has to be issued.

The only remaining issue in that proceeding right now that is open and actively being engaged on is the data issue. So we would expect for the something to come out before then.

Well, we wait with baited breath on this Committee. Any other questions from my Committee Members? Assembly Member Rogers?

Yeah, sorry. Just as a quick follow up, and you may have said it, but for the Clean Miles program, how is that going to be funded?

I can speak to that. The initial decision that came out in that proceeding established a regulatory fee set at 9 cents per ride.

So as a customer of a TNC in California, if you take a trip, you pay 9 cents into this pot of money that will be used to fund these incentives for low and moderate income drivers.

Perfect. Thank you.

Assembly Member Caloza.

Thank you, Chair Boerner. Thank you both for your presentation. Super helpful. Just to kind of echo off of what my colleagues mentioned, you named off a number of bills from the Legislature that we've passed over the few years.

Can you just kind of go over, you know, any challenges or successes that you found in any of those legislations? Anything that you find that would be worth sharing with us as we have, you know, informational hearing.

And I think that's something that our chair has been so great at since these issues are super technical, to give the opportunity for the Committee to be able to really dig deep before taking any votes on things.

Yeah, I can chime in. I think in general, what's been very helpful in both of the examples we provided today is providing enough of a structure but some flexibility to the Commission to determine implementation details.

So things like how to set the regulatory fee, how much to set it at, that's another thing we've used the annual report to inform. And so I think that's been a helpful kind of approach in the legislation.

And then just in terms of program successes, I think with the access program, we've seen, we've heard directly from customers and we've seen so many trips, provided that this is a service that wouldn't have otherwise been available.

So I think we're looking at that as a success and we would hope it to be able to continue with the Clean Miles Standard. The building blocks are there, but it hasn't been fully implemented yet, so there's not much to comment on in terms of success. Yet. But I look forward to reporting back.

Thank you. And I can follow up with you as well to pick your brain a little bit more on past legislation. And in terms of, I know we talked about as an industry, but in terms of maybe the workforce, can you share any trends that you've seen as it relates to workers in the workforce in this industry?

Has there been a fluctuation or what? Have any trends that you've seen that would be helpful to share?

That's a good question. I mean, I think the thing that is top of my mind related to the workforce is in the implementation of the Clean Miles Standard, because that so inherently relates to the drivers of the TNCs.

And so it's been important to the Commission and it's been important to staff to implement as quickly as possible this driver's assistance program to support their transition, kind of, given their unique employment status with the TNCs.

Have you seen a growth in the industry or is there, I'm just curious what trends you're seeing specifically with the workforce.

Yeah, we have definitely seen growth. There was a notable dip that was consistent across all the passenger transportation industry during 2020-2021 during the COVID pandemic that has been steadily rebounding across all of our types.

As of very recently, I think overall we have around 8,000 passenger transportation companies in California that we issue licenses to, and that's up from a pre-pandemic high of around 6,000. So it's not only rebounded, but it's grown beyond that initial benchmark.

Got it. Thank you. And kind of bouncing off of what Assemblymember Rogers said and how maybe some of this is passed down to the consumer? I feel like every time I take a trip, the receipt has gotten much longer.

Can you explain to what extent you've done any analysis on how costs are passed on to the writers, to consumers? How much that's changed? Or is that something that you regulate specifically of how that's noticed to customers?

Fares in the transportation, these types of passenger transportation companies are not something that the Commission has exerted authority over. However, that was a sensitivity in establishing the regulatory fee and the Clean Mile Standard program, for example.

Ultimately, the Commission decided that $0.09 per trip was a an appropriate amount to Fund the program and support its success without unduly burdening customers.

And same thing for the Access For All program. There is also a fee that is charged and those are kind of the two only legislatively mandated fees that are assessed on the receipt. So you'll actually see the two lines. The access for All. And the clean mile standard. The other, the other line items.

I think the representatives from Uber and Lyft would be able to answer that question.

Got it. Okay, thank you both. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Any other questions from Committee Members?

Nope.

Okay. Thank you both for your answers and your participating today. Very helpful. And now we'll continue over to panel 2. Transportation Network Companies representatives, please approach the the dais. The slide presentation from Panel 2 is also available on our website for those watching remotely.

I know this is a very, you know, exciting hearing that was been watching by many people today. We have the following TNCs joining us. We have John Finley from Ube,r Public Policy for California, David Case, Uber, Regulatory Operations for California. Janie Weaver, is that correct?

From Lyft, Jana Weaver.

Janae. Sorry. Janae Weaver, Lyft. Senior Counsel for regulatory and Malcolm Mcfarland, Lyftpublic policy manager. Thank you for being here. And we've allotted up to eight minutes for each of you to present and we'll take questions after your presentation. So go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is David Case. I'm here representing Uber Technologies Incorporated, one of the transportation network companies that are regulated by the CPUC here in California. I lead our ride share operations in California and a few other states. I'm also here with my colleague John Finley, Public Policy.

He leads public policy from, from right here in Sacramento. And thank you very much for the opportunity to present today. As has been noted, in 2013 California became the first state in the nation to regulate technology based rideshare companies like Uber, which connect individual private drivers to riders across the state.

That initial regulatory structure is largely still in place today and includes active driver requirements, mandatory background checks, vehicle specifications, vehicle inspections, many other many other requirements, as well as minimum insurance levels.

The CPUC also administers two programs enacted by the Legislature related to the operation of TNCs in California, the Clean Miles Standard and the Access for All program.

These programs are funded through additional per trip fees that are levied on TNC customers, as just noted, and riders can see in their receipts the portion of a fare that went to any given program.

While there have been a few changes over the last 12 years, the statewide framework administered by the CPUC has overall been a success, preventing a complicated patchwork of regulations across California's many different jurisdictions in which TNCs operate.

As a result, TNC businesses are able to effectively operate connect drivers to riders throughout the state wherever Californians need a ride. California's Uber's global headquarters. We are proud to have been founded here and we continue to grow and evolve our business from our home here in San Francisco.

What began mostly as an app-based black car service in ten cities has evolved into the world's foremost mobility and delivery platform. In 2014, Uber completed 140 million trips, mostly in the United States. This year that has grown to 3 billion trips taken worldwide just in the first quarter of 2025.

The statewide regulatory framework for TNCs has helped to enable that impressive growth while also advancing the state's growing need for dynamic transportation solutions. An essential part of continuing this positive trajectory is effective oversight and ongoing collaboration with the CPUC.

As part of its oversight, the CPUC collects substantial data from TNCs, including information on trips, driver activities, safety incidents, accident data, vehicle types, among many other types of reports. This report is submitted annually and is one of the most robust regulatory reports in the nation.

The most recent annual report included 18 distinct reports, each of which can include up to 85 columns of data for a given entry. For context, that's that can be up to 150 or 200 gigabytes of data just for the trip files alone.

We are also in support of clear guidelines and standards from the CPUC regarding its data handling and confidentiality protections that prioritize consumer privacy. We have consistently opposed legislative efforts to turn sensitive customer data over to private companies or government entities.

As privacy experts have warned in debates about Uber's data requirement data sharing requirements, location data is among the most sensitive forms of information related to a person's privacy collected over time.

People's movements from place to place reveal a good deal about them, where they work, where they play, where they worship, their political leanings and even personal and familial relationships.

We appreciate that this Legislature has consistently recognized the sensitivity of location data, explicitly defining geolocation in the CCPA and CPRA as personal information and affirming that any data reasonably linked to a consumer qualifies as such. When it comes to safety, regulatory framework provides a solid foundation in California to ensure Uber is available as a trusted option.

We've built safety into every part of the rideshare experience, from always on background checks to in app features that keep users connected and in control. Plus 24/7 safety support team ready to help whenever it's needed most we're incredibly proud of the impact Uber has had on safety.

Independent research has shown that Uber has a direct role in reducing DUI, saving more than 600 lives per year in the US alone. Our most recent US safety report also shows that safety incidents are extremely rare.

Of the 1.8 billion trips in the United States from January 2021 to December 2022, 99.9% of those ended with no safety incident at all. The motor vehicle fatality rate, also on the Uber platform, remains substantially lower than the national average.

We know each safety incident represents an experience of a person and impacts individuals, families and communities, which is why our work on safety continues. We have invested technology, rigorous standards and many safety features that go beyond what is required by law.

We track every trip, offering emergency assistance if needed, and give riders and drivers tools like trip sharing, pin verification to feel secure. In addition to Uber's multi step screening process, we also use our real time ID check to ensure drivers are the same person who passed our screenings.

We also use technology to help safety for all road users, not just our drivers and riders.

For example, reducing the number of left turns in our IN app navigation, reminding drivers to watch for cross traffic when they approach an intersection, alerting riders to wear their seatbelt before trips begin, and alerting riders and drivers when a pickup or drop off is near a bike lane.

California is also an incubator for policies that we see track across the country and beyond. In fact, TNC legislation created here now exists in almost every state in America.

The California Clean Miles Standard, established by Senate Bill 1014 in 2018, sets targets on TNCs to increase the number the percentage of zero emission vehicle miles traveled, otherwise known as evmt, on their platforms and meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. Uber continues to engage positively in the process and is committed to a successful program.

Today, Uber is proud to run the world's most widely available platform for zero emission rides, with over 230,000 active zero emission vehicle drivers completing more than 105 million trips each quarter globally. That's 130 emissions trips each second on average.

Right here in California, Uber drivers outpace those the rest of North America on EV adoption by nearly double. Maximizing the effectiveness of this program requires great partnership with the CPUC.

While Uber remains committed to achieving the Clean Mile Standard goals, which requires TNCs to average 30% EVMT over the next year and 90% EVMT by 2030, we would like to take this opportunity to flag that there are potential significant headwinds in the future.

It remains unclear whether California rideshare drivers will have access to enough affordable EV options in the market to support the aggressive targets of CMS. For reference, CMS set far more aggressive targets for EV use by rideshare platforms than the new sales EV targets mandated for automakers.

The state's authority for the latter program was recently put into question by Federal Government which could directly impact CMS outcomes. Uber continues to work towards electrification and we've invested hundreds of millions of dollars to help interested drivers make the switch to EV through incentives, partnerships and product enhancements.

Climate is a team sport and progress depends on a collective action. We could fall short of CMS target without better public and private investment.

At the end of the day, Uber never wants to have to tell low income Californian who is simply looking for income opportunities that they're not allowed to drive on the Uber platform because they can't afford an electric vehicle.

Moving on to the Access for All program created by SB 1376 in 2018 which focuses on improving transportation access to individuals disabilities. Uber is committed to providing inclusive transportation options and continues to expand its efforts in this area.

Over the last two years, we've invested over $20 million in California in expanding access to wheelchair accessible vehicles in California. We've consistently met Access for All's program offset eligibility criteria in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Mateo for six consecutive quarters, a testament to our significant investment in expanding wheelchair accessible vehicles and outreach to the disability community.

However, in 2025 we've encountered challenges in meeting performance metrics, although that has not come to fruition yet. Because of the increased cost of wave service supply as well as significantly increased demand.

Over the last year or two, Uber has increased completed wave trips by 3x while simultaneously increasing reliability by 3x, which is typically two metrics that counteract each other. We're very proud of this, but our but like I said, demand and supply are now no longer matching.

Our recent partnership with taxi services, particularly RAM taxis, offer a promising path forward to advance the program's goals similar to the Clean Miles Standard, we feel strongly that in order for this program to be successful in achieving the goals set out by the Legislature, it's going to take more than Uber alone.

With more help from the state and more participation from others, we can revamp our services to better and more more be more accessible for all Californians. Ride sharing has been constantly evolving since we pioneered since it was pioneered in California over a decade ago. And that evolution is accelerating in the state and beyond.

It continues to offer earnings opportunities to millions of Californians and convenient rides to millions more across the globe we are seeing the deployment of autonomous vehicles as a new transportation option, and in California we know that there are major events coming soon that will require massive amounts of flexible transportation options.

With the World Cup and Olympics happening just in the next few years, all of these opportunities require close collaboration between the private sector and government. And we're excited to keep building on the success of the last decade of innovation in the state.

We at Uber are dedicated to collaborating with the CPUC and the Legislature and to ensure all Californians have access to safe, reliable, sustainable transportation. We believe the balanced regulatory framework is key for innovation while protecting consumers. We appreciate your time and my colleague John Finley and I open it up to questions. Thank you very much.

John, you have six minutes now, because he ate two of yours.

I have nothing further to add than my colleague David Case laid out, but I'm happy to take any questions from the Committee.

Thanks. We'll go ahead to Lyft. Go ahead.

Fantastic. Thank you for the slides. Good afternoon, Chair Berner and esteemed Committee Members. My name is Malcolm Mcfarland II and I'm here representing Lyft, joined by our senior regulatory compliance counsel, Janae Weaver. We are glad to be here today to discuss the current State of the TNC industry in California with this Committee. Next slide, please.

Lyft's purpose is to serve and connect. We measure our success by understanding in evaluating the impact we have on drivers, riders, partners and communities where we operate. In 2024, we delivered more rides to more passengers nationwide than ever, and we facilitated more opportunities for drivers to earn than any time in the previous half decade.

More than 44 million people nationwide and 8.6 million people in California use the Lyft platform to find a driver, a bike, or a scooter. More than 1 million drivers and 195,000 drivers in California earned almost $9 billion on our platform last year, which was a new record. Last year, 2014, or sorry, 2024.

Lyft surveyed more than 29,000 riders and they told us that they go out more, stay out longer, visit new areas of their cities, and spend more at local businesses because of Lyft. They also agree that Lyft gives them a safe way to get home after a night out.

Specifically, 87% of riders say Lyft increases their access to transportation, 61% use Lyft when they are planning to drink alcohol or use another substance that could impair their driving ability.

64% use Lyft to get to and from entertainment and recreation, 39% are more likely to attend community events, and 46% explore more areas of their city because of Lyft. Next slide, please. Rideshare is a critical facet of California's transportation ecosystem.

Through our social impact work under the Lyft up program umbrella, we can provide access to affordable, reliable transportation for all for example, earlier this year we provided tens of thousands of rides to support La Wildfire recovery as part of our Disaster response program.

What's more, through our partnerships with Goodwill and United Way, we've provided transportation access to tens of thousands of job seekers throughout the state, helping them get to and from job interviews and the first few weeks of a new job while they await their first paycheck.

The Lyft platform improves access to transportation for riders of all incomes and identities, especially those who have been historically underserved. With almost 40% of rides starting or ending in low income areas, lower income riders are significantly more likely to use Lyft for commuting to work or school, job interviews, health care appointments and other errands.

And pardon me, riders with disabilities are significantly more likely to use Lyft for health care and errands as well. What's more, driver and rider safety are paramount at Lyft, and we're committed to continually improving safety.

To inform this work, Lyft has established a Safety advisory council in 2020, which has grown to 13 partner organizations that provide expert advice on safety initiatives, features, processes and educational tutorials.

This council includes representatives from the Human Rights Campaign, ADT, the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, the National Sheriff's Association, It's on Us, the Governor's Highway Safety Association, and several others. Even one incident is too many and we will continue investing in technology, policies and partnerships to try to prevent and detect unsafe situations. Next slide please.

As it pertains to LIPT's reporting requirements, the TMC industry has been regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission since 2014. Since then, Lyft has collaborated collaborated with the CPUC to maintain continuous compliance with the Public Utilities Code, General Order 157e and TNC Commission decisions.

Annually, Lyft submits a comprehensive report to the CPUC detailing all trip requests and completed trips in addition to the annual reporting requirements. The CPUC, the state Legislature has passed legislation over the past few years that targets specific policy objectives that require more interaction and oversight by the CPUC.

Next, since July 2019 to present, Lyft has offered wheelchair mode in Los Angeles and San Francisco counties under Senate Bill 1376, the Access for All program. This feature directly provides dedicated Wheelchair accessible Vehicle or WAV as we call it WAV services via the Lyft app catering to individuals using fixed frame wheelchairs.

Our service that we provide is available from 7am to midnight. Lyft completes an average of 5,000 to 7,000 trips quarterly in Los Angeles County and 800 to 1,000 trips in San Francisco County. In regions where wheelchair mode is unavailable, passengers are directed to other local wave vendors via Lyft's help center.

However, riders with wheelchair access enabled in their settings also receive a text message with the link to a list of local wave vendors after each ride request. Last. under California Senate Bill 1016, TNCs are required to achieve a zero greenhouse zero greenhouse gas emissions from their operations by 2030.

In response, Lyft is actively promoting EV adoption on its platform, which includes offering EV bonuses totaling an estimated $45 million to date to Lyft drivers and facilitating access to electric rental cars. Through its partnerships, Lyft's electrification efforts are proving successful, exceeding California's statewide EV adoption rate.

Specifically, in the fourth quarter of last year, 2024, over 13% of ride miles on the on Lyft's platform were in EVs, significantly higher than the 5% of electricity electric vehicles statewide. Nevertheless, the transition of TNCs to electric vehicles faces similar industry, infrastructure and policy challenges as the broader State of California.

Lyft is maintaining a close working relationship with the CPUC and CARB to navigate these difficulties while meeting the original intent of the Clean Mile Standards program. Next slide, please. Thank you for your time today. The Lyft team appreciates this Committee's leadership organizing a hearing around such important topics specific to TNCs in the state. Thank you.

I have no further comment.

Okay, thank you so much. Questions from Committee Members no questions from Committee Members. Assemblymember Rogers.

Hello everybody, fun to have a conversation. Just following up on the questions that I asked in the previous panel. It was mentioned that there might be a technical issue around some of the data sharing. Can you go into that a little bit? What that actually means and is.

I'm happy to go.

You can go first. Yes.

I wouldn't necessarily refer to it as a technical issue or a challenge. This is simply a lot of data, and we're talking about hundreds of millions of rows by 85 columns. We're talking about billions of cells.

And the CPUC's new portal, which they introduced within the last year or so, has been very helpful in submitting the data, and it's a matter of producing it and handing it over safely. Not only is it a lot of data, it's a lot of very sensitive data.

And it's easy to think like, zero, this is just rideshare data. This is just data from Uber and Lyft. That's not necessarily true, tight? These are people where they're going, where accidents are occurring. There's a lot of scary privacy risks there. But the technical challenge has largely been overcome.

And I don't worry about that so much anymore as I do about the privacy of the data and the sensitivity of the data.

That's helpful. Thank you.

I don't think we have anything to add.

Liv does not have a comment to add.

Okay, so with that I have a... Yeah, yeah, yeah, there's a lot. Okay. The TNCs were once viewed as a disruptive industry that pushed the market into new areas and challenged long standing public policies. To each of the TNCs, what has been the most impactful policy decision that has impacted your company's operations?

I know we're getting philosophical here.

Most impactful. I'll go ahead and take a stab at that. So most impactful policy decision by the Legislature, you mean?

Sure. You could also do regulatory. Why don't you do one of each if you have opinion on one of each?

Sure, sure. So I will, I will take the Legislature first. I think there is simply no other choice than for us to embrace the fact that climate is a team sport.

And so the Clean Miles standard, while it's had a significant impact on our operations and certainly it's a per trip fee that customers have to pay and then take, there is no other choice for society than to move in that direction.

And so for us, I would certainly describe that as the most impactful policy that the Legislature has passed. And for us, we are very dedicated to making sure that is a successful program. And that, as we said in our testimony, that requires great and successful collaboration and partnership with the CPUC.

But that is something that the headwinds on that are something we're very concerned about in terms of the General public being able to access these types of vehicles, access electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Our drivers who choose to earn on the Uber platform come from the General public.

And so if we are all as Californians and as Americans, if we're not ready for an electric future, then certainly people who choose to drive for Uber and Lyft also can't access that.

And as we said, the worst thing would be if we told a low income Californian, because you can't afford to purchase your own ev, you can't drive for this platform. This is a really effective earning opportunity. It's the fastest way to make a little money quickly, Right.

When you need to pay a Bill next week, is to earn on platforms like this. So that applies to this, the General climate problem. As far as regulatory, I would say the same thing that is the future that impacts all of us, but also the CPUC.

This data privacy conversation is very essential and protecting, as my colleague David Case was saying, these are people's movements, these are people's families where they're going in their lives. And so just recognizing that, and I think, I think we're in a good place with California's robust privacy protections.

Thanks, John, and thank you for your question. One piece of legislation comes to mind that I think hits on both the regulatory dynamic in addition to how the Legislature is proactive in terms of supporting Californians, and that's specifically Senate Bill 1376, which is the Access for All program.

Through this program, we're able to serve two of the largest counties in the State of California, this place we all call home, by providing equitable service, transportation, access to folks who need it most by way of our wheelchair accessible vehicle program in the state. And as my colleagues mentioned, these are actual people.

These are folks who need to get to grocery store, medical appointments, run errands.

And the ability to offer that service is something that I think my colleague and I value highly in the work that we get to do at Lyft and learning and working closely with the CPUC on the regulatory framework, ensuring that we're hitting metrics in terms of ride volume, ETAs, how we're talking about our WAVE service, how we're marketing our WAVE service, and actually hearing from disability rights advocates in the state about how we can better and improve our services is something that I think benefits all Californians specifically from a proactive lens.

And we're happy to be a part of that program.

Okay. And that gets us to this. One of the criticisms of the TNCs is that they have negatively impacted public transit. And I'm curious to get your thoughts on that criticism. And if you can say more about how you've partnered with local transit.

I'm happy to jump in. Thank you for your question. One of the issues that we navigate is folks feel as though TNCs are not a part of the transportation ecosystem by way of taxes and fees.

And how we work with local governments to ensure that TNCs are part of the conversation related to how to best serve local communities. One specific program comes to mind that we have with the City of Monrovia. It's a first mile, last mile public private partnership that essentially subsidizes rides.

I think it's three bucks for anybody living in a specific geofence to get to the Amtrak station, so so they can get to LA County or to LA to get to work.

And that is a prime example of how the public and private sector come together to serve, to solve transportation issues specifically from this first mile, last mile trend or dynamic in a state where public transit is iffy at best in a lot of areas as well.

So we utilize TNCs and rideshare to get people to actually utilize public transportation instead of just getting them to where they need to go. So it's a perfect partnership, in my opinion.

To expand on that a little bit from Uber's perspective. We have a number of significant partnerships with transit agencies in the State of California and we are always looking to grow those, I think, as we envision ourselves as being the way you can go anywhere in the state.

And so if you want to get across town, we map out an option for the first mile of getting to public transit. And you can do it in the app by utilizing a transit option for taking an Uber.

And, and that has been really impactful, not only for individuals, but I think for cities when they need to rely on additional options to help people utilize public transit. I'll give an example. As a San Diegan, I was in San Diego, with apologies to Assemblymember Coloza and her LA Dodgers sticker.

One of the biggest events in my life was when we beat the Dodgers in the playoffs, right? And we were all partying in the streets in downtown San Diego. It was a big deal for us Padre fans that one time we beat the Dodgers and many of us took public transit out to the stadium.

But public transit service ended at midnight. Many, many people were still downtown after public transit service, after the trolley had shut down. And over the loudspeaker, people were making announcements. It's time to call your Uber. Time to call your Lyft. Get out of downtown.

So that's an example of how Uber and Lyft transportation network companies collaborate with transit. Right? And if we can kind of formalize these partnerships, then that's even better. But in, in the moment, in real time, when a city needs to clear, this is, this is a solution. And transit can get people there.

And transit, if, if it can run all night, that's great. If it can't, we can help fill the gap.

Then going back to the Clean Miles standard program that we've talked about a little bit. It started its implementation last year. Can, can you each speak to a little bit more specifically about how you're complying with those regulations and, and helping drivers get into zero emission vehicles?

I'm happy to speak first on behalf of Lyft. Lyft is very much committed to meeting the targets that are outlined in the Clean Miles standard. We have rental partners that we work with to help facilitate our drivers getting into EVs when they are on our platform.

We also have what is known as green mode, so that an individual, when they are requesting a lift, that they can specifically request to receive a ride in an EV.

And in addition to that, we also have a partnership with EVGO charging so that we can help provide charging infrastructure for our drivers so that when they are driving on our platform, they have access to low cost charging. We also have what's called trip range management system.

And so one of the barriers that we've seen with our drivers is their fear of getting onto the Lyft platform and receiving a trip request that is several miles away. And they fear that their charging will not last for that particular trip.

And so what we do is we've come up with a system where we identify the charging range of that particular vehicle and we match it with the trip request so that drivers feel confident that when they accept a trip that they are also able to complete that trip and have enough charging on their vehicle.

And then last, we also provide bonus incentives to our drivers to encourage them to, to get EVs and to perform trips on our platform.

Thank you. And really quickly, Madam Chair and John, I'm not going to speak to your comment about the Dodgers and Padres now. I'm trying to bite my tongue on there. Go Dodgers. Either way...

Go Padres.

To speaking of how Lyft provides transportation service to folks to get to public transit, don't just hear it from us.

As mentioned in our previous 2024 Economic Impact Report, 87% of riders say that Lyft increases their access to transportation. So I just wanted to put another finer point on the previous comment I made, but I'll kick it over to Dave.

Yeah, somewhat similarly to Lyft, we provide the green product, Uber green, very similar to their Green mode. And in those products and trips requested, there are additional incentives provided to drivers to make, to make the switch to EVs more economically viable currently. And this number is getting closer and closer every year.

But currently the total cost of ownership of an EV still outpaces the total cost of ownership of internal combustion engine and even more so of a hybrid vehicle. And this range anxiety that was mentioned by Janet. Sorry, Ms. Weaver is a very real thing.

So we've also partnered with the, the, with, with various charging infrastructure companies during the CEC Carts grant Sprint several years ago to acquire several over $10 million in funding.

That, that funding did go to the charging infrastructure companies, but we provided data during that process to show them where demand is greatest and where those charging, those charging stations would be most useful. Here Sacramento, there's one of them actually. And you know, I think that pretty much wraps it.

There's a lot and I apologize for not being able to speak to every single thing that, that we do, but that that generally wraps it okay.

And then switching a little gears. I want to talk about competition from autonomous vehicles. Autonomous vehicles are a new class of TNCs that have begun expanding across the state. And while they face their own issues, many have reported positive experiences. How is Uber and Lyft positioning itself from a competitive angle compared to AVs?

Yeah, I'm happy to jump in and thank thank you for your question. While I'm not the subject matter expert on our autonomous vehicle work at the policy level, I'm happy to read a quick prepared statement we have regarding that dynamic. So at Lyft, drivers will always have a place on the Lyft platform.

Hard Stop As Lyft looks to the future, AVS are revolutionizing rideshare by offering a safe and engaging and innovative transportation option. Lyft anticipates a hybrid keyword hybrid transportation network by 2030 where AVs and human driven vehicles are integrated on the Lyft platform, aiming to create human centric experiences that cater to diverse riders needs.

For example, this summer Lyft is launching ABS on its platform in Atlanta through our partnership with May Mobility, which is a crucial milestone and plans to expand to cities like Dallas in the coming year.

Furthermore, our powerful fleet management lift's capability in terms of the product and marketplace capabilities position us as a preferred partner for AB companies seeking to scale and commercialize their technology. As AB technology becomes more widely available, Lyft aims to ensure every self driving car is seamlessly integrated and Lyft ready.

And just to build on that. I think we second a lot of those comments, but you're actually highlighting something that is a competition not just between us and autonomous vehicle companies, but between Uber and Lyft as well.

These are all individual private companies competing in this marketplace and for us our vision is whatever way you want to get around, you can do so on the Uber app.

So a hybrid approach where all of these things are available for you is the vision that we have and we recognize the excitement that comes with the new technology. We are a company that, as was highlighted earlier, was once an unknown and new technology and the regulatory framework allowed for that to grow from right here in California.

And so we support continued innovation and continued growth. But having these types of rides available on the platform in the future is something that we are looking at. And there are current partnerships available. I don't believe there are any in California, but outside of California we've begun to have autonomous rides on the platform.

And in the future though, I think something for this Committee to consider is that we have begun legislative programs and mandates that apply to human driven rides that don't yet apply to various other types of rides. Right. So whenever we're setting regulations, the importance is to look to the future, generally speaking.

And we can't always envision how things will change and grow. And so that's the need for adopting and thinking about new types of regulations.

We'll get the popcorn. And the last question is around data and insurance. So the TNC industry has TNC industry has launched a public information campaign to inform drivers about how insurance costs might be raising the cost of tnc. There is also a report that was recently published on the topic.

Does the TNC industry share any information with regulators that might be able to confirm or corroborate the findings of that report?

So in the annual report fares data is shared with the CPUC, but specifically within that fairs data. I don't believe there's a breakout of what percentage of is paid to insurance. That being said, the booking fee on Uber trips which you could see on your receipt is the cost of insurance.

So in many cases this can be over 45% of the of the riders fare, which is obviously not ideal for for drivers in particular because that's earnings that could be in their pocket of course for Uber as well. And then for riders. Right. It's just pricing people out and people who may need this transportation.

So I don't believe the CPUC or other government entities in California would be able to have that direct insight through the data that is currently shared. But it is visible in the Uber app for the most part.

As far as Lyft's response, as part of the CPUC's annual report, one of the sub reports that we provide is an accident incident report and within that report we provide data on location of a particular incident and that includes census block, census track and a zip code.

And then as far as legal proceedings related to accidents, we provide information in regards to proceedings that are in progress. And then for financial information related to accidents we do provide to the CPUC the amount paid by a TNC. And then we also provide information in regards to the collision severity.

There are other data points that are included in that report that we do not provide to the CPUC because we simply do not have that data available in our system at the time that that report is due to the CPUC.

As you know, when someone files an insurance claim it's a very arduous process to work that claim and you work through our insurance provider. And so the CPUC requires us to report on an annual basis incidents that occur within that 12 month period. And, and so a lot of incidences are still going through that claims process.

And so we don't have information related to the incident party, the court file number, the proceeding status, the amount being paid and the amount being paid by the driver's insurance because of that. And then Malcolm, do you have anything to add?

No, nothing further to add.

Do you separately list out like Uber does, the booking fee, which is the insurance fee on lift? We, we're actively working on doing that, making that visible for, for riders on the platform.

So how is it the insurance fee currently do. There's no visibility. If I were to ride, take a lift somewhere, what percentage goes to insurance versus what's going to the driver, et cetera.

Yeah, we, we don't currently bucket out. And, and I'm, I'm happy to get back to you kind of with exactly how, how it's what it looks like. We don't currently bucket that out in terms of insurance at this time, but our team is actively working on that for whatever it's worth.

It's six bucks on average in California per ride for insurance alone, plus other government taxes and fees, including CMS access for all, et cetera.

If I may, Madam Chair. Thank you. Also, I think you highlighted something very important, which is not just transparency on the fees to the rider, but also to the driver. Right. These are earnings that otherwise a customer pays. An Uber driver can ask, hey, how much did you pay for this ride?

And, and then they assume that the Delta, they don't know where it's going. Right.

And so breaking that out for drivers in their earnings is also something that we've started to do as this problem has gotten worse in California of insurance costs really driving up increased fares on rideshare and letting drivers know how much of money that would otherwise be going to their earnings is going instead to insurance is an important part of the equation in addition to transparency to the rider on how much they paid.

Okay, other Members. Yeah. Oh, Vice Chair Hoover.

Now you guys got me thinking. So first of all, I'm always happy to see the Padres and the Dodgers lose, but we'll. I did want to ask kind of a follow up on that point and I think it was a great question on the insurance part.

But I think more generally speaking, you know, one of the concerns I have is sort of the ongoing cost increase, right... Of a ride share ride. So, you know, in addition to insurance, you know, what are some of the main cost drivers for your. For the rides? And are there any regulatory sort of relief, Right.

That the Legislature could provide to help reduce some of those barriers or a lot of them, you know, exterior, like for example, rising insurance rates and things like that?

Yeah, happy to jump in and thank you for your question. Go Dodgers. So just for broader context, we fully recognize that there's an affordability issue in this place we all call home. Lyft has demonstrated its commitment to improving driver pay and helping drivers keep drivers safe through our earnings guarantee, which was recently launched.

So we guarantee that drivers will earn 70% or more of rider payments each week. And this is again after external taxes and fees. These are local government fees, insurance, et cetera, and costs, including insurance. And to Madam Chair's point, we're going to bucket that out so drivers can see that very clearly.

And yeah, we want to ensure that, you know, drivers have the ability to not only see their earnings, but we're doing everything in our power to ensure that the drivers are equitably paid again through our earnings guarantee, which is again, 70% to the driver. And our take home is only 30%. Full transparency in California.

We're only taking about three bucks per ride in California.

Yeah. So to clarify, the question was what other than insurance are the primary cost drivers of trips? Just.

Yeah. What are your General cost drivers? I mean, you can include insurance in that, but I think just obviously that's one of them, but you know, other, other costs as well.

Yeah, thank you. The short answer is insurance. Right. That's... That's it. And I don't know if, if Lyft is in the exact same position, but for Uber, that is the primary cost driver, especially recently, especially in the Larger cities in particular LA.

That being said, there are other cost drivers, like the various fee per trip fees that are levied on rideshare riders, but these, that's like the access for all fee or the Clean Mile standard fee. But these are pennies compared to insurance and fees that, by the way, we don't necessarily disagree with either.

Those are for a good cause and for the most part certainly welcome on our app. Beyond that, you're talking driver earnings, driver benefits, but again, those are also costs that we support. So really the cost drivers extend beyond insurance. But the only one that's particularly difficult to manage is that of insurance.

I appreciate that and that's really helpful to know. Obviously. You know, I think the question earlier on the transit piece, you know, I think there's A lot of ways where rideshare, TNCs and transit can not only coexist but actually support one another.

You know, in a lot of ways I do though worry about the, you know, the 10 minute ride costing $20 or more. You know, that sort of thing definitely makes it harder for those things to sort of interact. So I do appreciate that and I think that's my only question for right now.

Okay, Assembly member Bonta then Assembly member Caloza. Did I see you had a question? No. Yeah.

Okay, thank you. Can you share a little bit? Just project out what kind of savings each company would stand to have in the event of a conversion of the insurance formula first and then second.

Just going back to the comment about the interaction of autonomous vehicles and the commitment to ensure that drivers, that there are human drivers still involved.

Have you all provided any kind of a formula for the number of drivers relative to the number of vehicles you intend to have out in the State of California to be able to give us a sense of, of how many people, humans would actually still ultimately be involved in your platforms?

I'll go ahead and go first. I think your second question is an excellent one and an excellent forward looking question. I don't know that I have that answer for you right now, but we can, we can compile some of that information and get back to your office.

I think that's a, that's a really forward looking approach you're taking there on and I just don't know that we're there quite yet. On your first question of insurance savings, since that's looking back, I do have that answer.

I know this is an informational hearing about CPUC regulations, but there is an active proposal right now to reform a specific insurance requirement that is driving a lot of these costs.

And our analysis showed that if that requirement, which is $1 million in uninsured and underinsured motors coverage, if that requirement had been lowered in the year 2024, that we could have seen $700 million in savings for Californians. So that's all money coming out of Californians pockets.

That is not going to the driver, that is not going to the ride share company. It's going to this black hole of insurance. 700 million is probably a conservative estimate. It's in the hundreds of millions of what this costs Californians and it's on a per trip basis, right?

I mean Lyft estimated $6 per trip for us, we're doing it in a percentage. Where in Los Angeles County is the worst? It's now up to 45% of a given ride going towards government mandated insurance costs. We've seen that particular policy be the primary cost driver, but overall insurance would be significantly higher than that 700 million.

So that's savings that could be recouped if we were to address that.

Just about...

So there's this basic conceptual model that if we are able to alter the insurance formula, it would allow for there to be savings associated with each ride that would enable your companies to be able to pour more money back into individual riders pockets as well as to be able to cultivate your drivers who are on the platform.

So I just don't want to lose sight of this second question that I asked, which really has to do with making sure that we are still having a critical mass of actual human drivers who depend on your platform in order to be able to sustain themselves.

So I'm hoping that you've done some modeling at some point around this and...

Perhaps Lyft has.

At Uber, there are experts in this area. John and I are just not those experts. And we can certainly get back to you on the answer. And there's no doubt that some form of modeling that you've proposed has occurred. It's just not something that I'm privy to at this moment.

Okay, yeah, thank you. Similarly, and thank you for your questions. We want to ensure that we're accurate and we do have subject matter experts on autonomous vehicles.

But to your point, we're only moving as fast as we can from the regulatory environment in terms of how we understand the number of AVs allowed on the road, when they're going to be allowed on the road, and what that actually looks like from a regulatory and how the state is approaching that.

And so we'll be happy to follow up with you after I confer with folks on my team internally about that. And then to the previous question that you had, I want to be again accurate as well. So I can follow up with you in writing with that, with that exact figure.

But just to confirm with you that any results in savings would be reinvested back into the financial betterment of drivers and riders related to insurance.

Thank you. Assemblymember, Bonta. Assemblymember, Caloza. Thank.

You, Chair Boerner, thank you all so much for the presentation. And thank you to my colleagues for super insightful questions.

You know, I think for me just to kind of add on to what my colleagues mentioned, some of the issues that I really care about representing parts of Los Angeles and Glendale are one, obviously ensuring that, as Assemblymember Bonta mentioned, we retain and continue to protect the jobs that you all provide.

You are all job makers, job providers. And that's super important to me and I know to many of my colleagues here as well as you know, the benefits and the quality of life that you all allow for workers to have given the flexibility of the schedule.

You know, your industry has transformed transportation, and it's crazy to think that it's only been around for what, less than two decades. So if you told me 20 years ago that I would be going into a stranger's car to go to Dodger Stadium, I would say you're crazy. But that's how people get around nowadays.

And so just want to also commend all of you all for the growth of your industry that you're all shaping together along with the Legislature, the CPUC, and all the stakeholders involved.

But want to just point to those two issues around the workers and the jobs that are really important to me, and then around the affordability piece that was already been touched on. Just to kind of add on kind of relative to. And you obviously have talked about insurance a lot already.

Can you just share, like, what that looks like relative to other vehicles on the road. Can you just give us an analysis of what that looks like. You know, obviously ride share folks who are on your network, they use our own personal vehicles and you also rent vehicles to them. Right, am I understanding correctly.

So, relative to other folks on the road, what does that look like as it relates to insurance. Can you give us a snapshot of that.

I'm sorry, I don't think I did. You want to make sure I'm understanding your question?

Yeah. Let me restate it. I guess I'm trying to understand relative insurance was brought up as it relates to affordability, how those costs are passed on to the rider and to the consumer.

Are those, what are those insurance requirements like for rideshare companies, for TNCs, relative to other drivers on the road, just so you can give us a snapshot of what that looks like relative to other drivers.

Yeah, absolutely. And John, feel free to jump in on this as well. And thank you for your encouraging statement about how we think about transportation more broadly and just for clarity or Context Rather, in 2024 for Lyft, specifically in this EIR report that I mentioned, 90% of Lyft drivers work or students in addition to app based work.

And so these are folks who have other jobs, these are folks who go to school, these are folks who are caregivers, et cetera, as well as. And about 82% drive less than 20 hours a week. So that flexibility and that ability to work when it makes sense for them, their families, their other priorities are paramount to them.

And we're happy to be a part of that ecosystem for actual Californians. But as it relates to insurance, as John mentioned, what we're currently working to is right size, one specific part of our insurance requirements, which is uninsured and underinsured motorists insurance. No other private vehicle on the, on the road is required to have that insurance. Just TNCs.

If I Yeah, just, just to expand.

Actually, if I could as chair just chime in, I think you asked the question about how does do TNC's insurance compare to other vehicles on the road. I think it's probably appropriate for this conversation to also say it's not just passenger vehicles, but other charter party carriers because they're regulated in that charter party carrier space.

So if you can direct it towards that as well, I think that would give us comprehensive answer and I don't have to ask again.

Sure, sure. Thank you. Happy to jump in on that. So we are the most insured vehicle on the road, period. Compared to other personal vehicles, compared to other other forms of transportation of passengers. The state's mandates on insurance are significantly high on rideshare.

Not just for accidents where we or the Uber driver or rideshare driver rather would be at fault, but for even for incidents where another party is at fault and hits a ride share vehicle. That was the uninsured underinsured motorist coverage that I was referring to earlier.

To my knowledge, there is no other requirement for UMUIM in the state at all personal vehicles for all of us driving our car.

It is up to us if we want to purchase that in order to account for anybody who may be uninsured or or may have less insurance than is available to cover the accidents that we cause. The state recently increased its mandatory minimums of personal liability to $30,000 per person, $60,000 per accident.

Our insurance requirement for rideshare is $1 million for anybody. And so it's dramatically higher than what is required of personal vehicles. There is no other requirement like that on any other type of transportation for passengers either, not school buses, limousines, taxis.

There are a few local requirements occasionally throughout the state that I'm not fully aware of, but to my knowledge that is the only statewide mandate is actually on rideshare. So that is something that we see could be addressed if the Legislature wanted to.

But it is a significant cost driver, as we've said, and it's only on our industry.

Thank you. And any data points that you can share on that would be super helpful. And the last point I just wanted to say is also to thank your teams for your work around the wildfires.

Being in Southern California, I know you all provided a tremendous service to allow for folks who have been impacted to use your service at no cost. So thank you for doing the right thing and for doing that.

So I just have a clarifying point. I said I was going to ask a question, but now I'm going to ask a question because it's me, It's UM-UIM.

Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. I just learned all of this this year.

We're just, we're going to call it UM-UIM in TNC area. There you go. I didn't say tsunami. I said umami. You know that like somebody just tuned in right now. Okay.

It's foreign to you because no one else is required to have this insurance.

It's not foreign to me. I just never remember the acronym. And what you're saying is limo drivers, taxis, charter party buses, none of them are required to have it.

That specific requirement. Correct.

Are they required to have. And if you don't know this, we could ask the CPUC. They probably know. Are they required to have a different type of insurance, because one of the things is you're regulated differently because you're you're not like a personal driver.

Like, you're not a personal, you're not like it's not my own car that I'm driving and I'm driving my friends or family. Right. You're providing a service. Do they. Are those other carriers required to provide. Have some other type of insurance assurance if it isn't UM-UIM insurance. I got it.

Thank you. Yes so to answer your question on UM-UIM, which is about accidents, where our drivers are not at fault. Right. Where you're, you're riding in a TNC and it is hit by a third party who either has no insurance or not enough insurance to.

To cover the damage that they caused. There is no other form of transportation that's required to carry that. And I think we would argue that there's nothing about rideshare specifically that mandates that kind of coverage. Right. Of somebody else hitting this.

It's just as easy for a third party who's uninsured or underinsured to hit a school bus or to hit a limousine or to hit a shuttle that's carrying multiple passengers, right. But the state has not mandated that on those forms of transportations. Transportation simply because it hasn't mandated that.

This was, this was just part of the legislation that we've all been talking about that created the regulatory scheme for rideshare about 12 years ago now. So I don't think we've had the conversation about right sizing it yet because we simply weren't aware of how much it cost.

until recently we've been seeing the cost, the cost go up. And to follow up on whether we should require other types of transportation, do have other forms of insurance that they're required to carry. Like mostly it is personal, it is liability insurance for when that driver is actually at fault causing an accident.

And we think we absolutely should carry that, by the way. And we would, for any proposals that we are currently considering, we would still remain the most insured vehicle on the road by far.

Okay. Want to thank all our panelists for your thorough answers. And with that, we're going to go on to panel three, understanding the impact of TNC operations in California. Representatives, please approach the dais. We have a slide presentations also available on our website. For those viewing remotely, we have Drew Cooper from SFCTA, Principal Transportation Modeler.

And Dr. Elliot Martin from UC Berkeley Go Bears Transportation Sustainability Research Center. And you may go ahead and begin when you're ready. And we'll start with Drew.

Good afternoon, Chair Berner and Members of the Committee. My name is Drew Cooper and I am here on behalf of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. The Transportation Authority is the designated county congestion management agency for San Francisco. And in that role, we monitor the city's multimodal transportation network and conduct planning, funding and coordination for its development.

Since at least 2015, the transportation authority staff have engaged with industry and advised city leaders on the rise of transportation network companies and their role in our transportation system, as well as analyzing their impacts to it. Next slide, please.

At that time, the Commission had just started collecting annual reports from TNCs and had established A presumption that they would be filed confidentially, with the purpose of improving data reporting requirements and expanding access to them to the public. We became a party to that rulemaking proceeding.

But there was also an urgency to understanding the impacts of TNCs in San Francisco. So we partnered with academic data scientists to gain access to a one time only, highly detailed set of TNC trip data from the fall of 2016. Next slide, please.

With that data, we developed a profile of TNC activity in San Francisco and built upon it to estimate the impacts to congestion and to transit ridership. These impact studies were peer reviewed and published in academic journals. The findings were significant. Next slide, please.

Between 2010 and 2015, we estimated that TNCs led to a 10% loss in transit ridership in San Francisco on offsetting the gains that they would have seen from a growing population and economy and increased transit service.

At the same time, we also estimated the TNCs caused half of the increase in congestion, with the other half coming from an increase in population and jobs. This work led the city to create the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Tax approved by San Francisco voters in 2019.

This is a 3.25% tax on most fares and has amounted to about 8 million per year in revenues over the last three years. The Transportation Authority and the SFMTA use these funds to improve road safety and muni transit services in San Francisco.

In 2020, the Commission made a momentous decision to reverse its rules, presuming confidentiality for TNC annual reports, instead presuming that these reports would be public. This shift acknowledged the needs of cities, researchers, and the public at large in better understanding the impacts of TNCs to our transportation systems.

Later that year, the Commission ruled that the TNC annual reports for 2020 would not just be presumed public, but were in fact public. With narrow exceptions, the Transportation Authority requested these reports. That request was treated as a Public Records Act request and resulted in the release of the 2020 Annual Reports for Uber and Lyft.

Uber's reports were largely complete. However, Lyfts were almost entirely redacted. Next slide. yes, this one. Thank you. Using that data, we published the TNC's 2020 report, which revealed, among other things, that Uber and Lyft trips are highly concentrated in San Francisco.

500 times more trips per square mile than the rest of California, followed by Los Angeles and San Diego counties. Those three counties collectively account for two thirds of all TNC trips in the state. The following year, in 2021, the Commission ruled that the 2021 Annual Reports were also public with narrow exceptions.

Consistent with our 2020 ruling. Earlier this year, the Commission upheld an earlier decision that the annual reports from 2014 to 2019 should also be public. Lyft has challenged these rulings in a process which has dragged on for years, but Lyft has now exhausted most of these challenges and the Commission has upheld their rulings.

Lyft exhausted their challenges to the 2020 and 2021 annual reports years ago. However, despite the clear, consistent and reaffirming rulings and decisions of the Commission over the last five years explicitly designating 8 of the 11 annual reports submitted so far, only 1 year's worth of TNC annual reports have been published by the Commission.

If you go to the data portal today, you will only find the 2021 TNC annual reports, and they are heavily redacted in clear contradiction to the standards established by the rulemaking. And they're only available for Uber and Lyft and not for the 8 other TNCs whose reports have been listed as forthcoming since 2023.

As the Commission's role has expanded to include autonomous vehicle passenger services, they have adopted similar reporting requirements and public disclosure presumptions. In contrast to TNCs, these reports are regularly published, but just as with TNCs, they are highly redacted.

Confidentiality claims first made by Waymo when they filed their first quarterly reports in 2022 are still listed on the data portal as under review. Since then, Waymo has gone from reporting about 4,000 trips per month in 2022 to over 700,000 trips per month in 2025 across the State of California.

Due to the way these reports are redacted, we cannot say how many of these trips are happening in San Francisco. The lack of timely and complete disclosure leaves us and the public unclear about how to analyze the rapid increase in operations to gauge performance and to gauge performance of AB passenger services.

Our research experience informs us that TNCs have local impacts to our transportation system and suggest that AVs may have some of the same impacts. However, our understanding is frozen in time as the pandemic has upended, the TNC industry and AB passenger services have continually expanded operations.

The Commission has acknowledged the value of this data for serving the planning needs of local officials, and these data are also needed by researchers and regulators to inform policy development and oversight of this important and rapidly growing sector.

It is therefore critical that the Commission take steps to ensure the timely release of data that is already determined to be public. Transparency and accountability underpin public trust and confidence in the industry and California has the ability to continue to lead in development of new mobility services while upholding the public interest through effective regulation.

Thank you for this opportunity to share a perspective and we remain eager and able to assist in this important work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Chairwoman, Members of the Committee. My name is Elliot Barton. I'm a senior researcher with the Transportation Sustainability Research center, and I am I'm here on behalf of our center and directed by Dr. Susan Shaheen, Professor of Civil Environmental Engineering,

And I'm here representing the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California as well as the California Resilient Innovative Mobility Initiative, which is funded by the Legislature and we're very grateful for that funding to support the work that we do, including the evaluations related to TNCs.

I'm here to talk just about understanding the impact of TNC operations and insights from the data and support of data designs that we would believe would be useful for research. Next slide. So, to begin, TNCs do play a prominent role in our transportation system, providing mobility to urban, suburban and rural areas.

And because of their large role in the state and nation, their measurement of impacts is similarly important. TNCs have impacts on vehicle miles traveled, air and GHG, greenhouse gas emissions, user mobility and accessibility, driver income and livelihood, congestion, travel safety, labor markets, and other key sectors of the state, economy, and society. Next slide.

Measuring impacts of TNCs require multiple types of data that are used together that include, but are not limited to, survey data describing the travel behavior and auto ownership of TNC users and drivers, Trip activity data cataloging the trips that users make using TNC services as well as TNC fleet mix data through delineating the vehicles that are delivering the TNC services.

Next slide. There are many examples of research that has evaluated the impacts of TNCs in California and beyond. This is one example of outputs from such research combining multiple data sets. This research evaluated the impact where TNCs were contributing to net GHG emissions within three major metropolitan markets, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, DC.

It put together impacts that were assessed from behavioral change, per passenger, per year as well as operator GHG emissions per passenger per vehicle year.

Taking those two data sets combined and those values, we were able to assess that TNCs had increased GHG emissions in the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco, but had decreased GHG emissions on a net basis in Washington, DC.

This is one example of how we use research and data from both operators and from surveys of users to make an assessment of how the overall effect of GHG emissions are changing as a result of TNC operations. Next slide as another example, we can look more deeply into the subject matter of TNC Electrification.

Research can show us the financial pathways and operating conditions through which TNC drivers can acquire electronic electric vehicles.

Here's an example of a matrix of decisions that show what are the dominant pathways for selecting a vehicle, depending on how much a driver drives and also how long they've been driving, whether what their best decision would be for acquiring an ICE or an internal combustion engine versus an electric vehicle.

And this data directly uses trip activity data that is based on TNC travel. Next slide. But there are issues with TNC data. Useful data was provided by operators for the GHG study, but it was aggregated and averaged over the population.

More detailed questions require trip activity data of greater precision, but there are concerns with PII, personally identifiable information and trade secrets and have prevented the data with this resolution from being more readily accessible.

A simplified data structure that I might show here is just shows for example of trip activity data that is de-identified passenger ID, de-identified vehicle ID, Trip request time, Trip start time, Trip end time, origin destination in the form of a latitude and longitude, destination in the form of a latitude and longitude as well as trip cost.

So very simplified data structure that would be very useful for answering a lot of policy related questions with regards to TNC operations. Next slide. with regards to TNC data that are available that are publicly available today.

As been mentioned previously, during this session, the California Public Utilities Commission has published trip activity data of TNCs for the year 2021. Much of this General structure of the data are consistent with what we would need for social and energy environmental analysis, but these data are heavily redacted.

In some cases the data posted is simply 40 gigabytes of the word redacted. Next slide. There are a number of concerns, legitimate concerns. Posting this data to the public. Number one is compromising personally identifiable information. Precise data on time and location of travel could potentially identify a user even if a name is not included in the data.

Number two Exposing usable market data such as trade secret or otherwise called trade secrets to competitors. The same data that is useful for researchers to answer important policy questions would also be useful to competitors to understand operations and develop competing strategies. Number three Exposing data to markets that could potentially permit an estimate of revenue or cost data.

Precise trip activity data can provide information on costs and revenue that operators may not wish to reveal to the public or to their competitors.

Next slide. But there are ways to address these concerns somewhat through data design and through other different designs of access concerns with PII come with the ability to match outside information such as home address and perhaps known travel times, with information in the data that could plausibly identify a person who made a given trip.

This issue can be addressed by inserting some randomness and imprecision that moves the origin and destination by some distance in a random way that isn't large, but can alter the actual address but still preserve the General travel patterns expressed in the data. The same approach can be taken with travel time.

Such modifications, if not excessively large, will generally preserve the value of that data for public policy research. Next slide. With regards to addressing data concerns with exposure of competitive information, de-identified trip data, even without exposing PII, will show competitors where the operator is earning revenue and approximately how much.

This issue is harder to address with data design without compromising its value for policy research.

Rather than posting the data on the Internet, agencies could consider more carefully curating data access for those who have a verifiable need for for policy purposes of analysis, markers can be placed in the data set, or the data set could be analyzed within a cloud based system that leaves it secure on a cloud based server. Next slide.

So in conclusion, TNCs are essential players in our transportation system. The research community needs access to this data about TNC operations to continuously measure its impacts as well as address questions that directly inform policy questions and and related metrics.

There are ways to design data and data access to allow the research community to address these questions while significantly mitigating the risk associated with PII and exposure of competitive information. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here.

Thank you. Any other questions from Committee Members before I start. Okay, so thank you. And first I want to talk about local coordination for San Francisco. Your county has a special statute that authorized attacks on TNC trips originating in the city and County of San Francisco.

Can you speak to more more about the types of projects that those revenues Fund and are they specific to transportation?

There are two major categories of funding. One of them is for safety projects, so things like bike lanes, intersection improvements to improve pedestrian safety, things like that. And the other goes to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency for transit service projects.

And given the State of the data transparency conversation, I know some of the research community and local governments believe that we're missing a better understanding of TNCs from the state. Can you speak more specifically about where you think the gaps are.

And also other than what was suggested in the presentation, what information could help policymakers reach out reach our public policy objectives. So you talked about basically randomization and also limiting who has access. Are there other things that we should be considering as policymakers.

Because I think it is important that we have this data and we have people like you guys who use it to help inform what it means. If we looked at the previous panels and we thought about how autonomous vehicles are entering the market, what is that doing to it. How is that really impacting transportation agencies.

You know, we have budget discussions every week about what are the impacts to our transportation agencies. And you know, some people think it's related to TNC's, other people think it's related to something else. So do you have any that.

And we can combine that with any final remarks of other ideas maybe you came up since before you did the presentation and any parting recommendations for U.S. policymakers.

Well, I think it would be a great first step if we, if the data that is structured now was simply accessible in the format that, you know, we discussed here, and we've proposed here some plausible approaches to address many of the concerns that have been limiting our access to that data.

So I would start with those specific applications and the General approach of effectively. One major point I'd like to make here is that the data does not have to be incredibly precise for it still to have value with respect to travel demand behavior.

We need to know the General neighborhood where trips occur, we need to know the General area, we need to know the General origin destination so that we can model questions such as, you know, what's the complement compete with respect to fixed route transit, which was asked previously.

But I would start with those two recommendations to build on first.

May I? Yeah, please. From our perspective, the most valuable piece of data that the CPUC has and would be sufficient for the vast majority of our planning needs is detailed trip level data. And the Commission has dealt with the issues of personally identifiable information, specifically around geography by obscuring precise latitude and longitude from public disclosure.

So those are among the narrow exceptions what cannot be published with the rules as they have been established. And instead they are reported at census geographies like census blocks and block groups, and that is more than sufficient for planning needs.

So under the rules as they have been established and with an eye to protecting personal aid identifiable information, it's our position that that data can and should be released as it is.

Thank you. Well, I want to thank our third panel for your contributions. Very thoughtful. I should have known from my political science training about randomization. And it was a good thing I looked at that. I was like man, that was a long time ago. But I remember that technique. So I want to thank you.

And now we're going to move on to the public portion or the portion of public comment. Anybody in the room. We have a couple people still in the room. You may approach the microphone with the name, affiliation and any concerns. Please limit your comment time to one minute. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Committee Members. Louie Costa with SMART Transportation Division. I just want to raise a concern. The crew transportation operators which were created to who under SB 757 which was approved by this Committee and approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor created a specific carrier for railroad a specific type of carrier to carry a railroad crews around.

Every, almost every railroad crew Member during the course of his day of employment gets into a third party contracted carrier. They're not covered by workman's comp. If they're involved in an accident caused by a third party. Oftentimes they're solely can only recuperate lost wages, pain and suffering medical costs. Because of that third party's insurance.

There is no requirement for the carrier the railroads to cover them under the Federal employees liability act. SB 757 required 5 million of General liability coverage and 1 million of uninsured underinsured motor coverage.

We're concerned that lessening the amount of insurance for TNCs may have a negative impact on railroad employees because the railroads have embraced using TNCs to transport crews now. So I just wanted to raise that concern. In the event that there is legislation pending that is going to be heard by this Committee.

We believe that it's going to have that request to lower that that insurance maximum for uninsured or underinsured motorists. Just wanted to raise that concern. So thank you so much.

Madam Chair, Members. Saveena Takhar with the Consumer Attorneys of California here to testify specifically on the UIM insurance piece. There was a lot of conversation about this with the TNC representatives and I know we'll have more conversation when SB 371 comes to this Committee. But I wanted to raise just a few short points.

We are in active conversations with Senator Cabaldon, Lyft and Uber we were actually talking to Uber at 2:30 today and exit from the room trying to really nail down this issue of the lack of data. And we understand that back in 2014 the limits were based on nothing because Uber didn't exist.

But now we have 10 years of data and we should be able to see, you know, where the claims fall, what limits should be. And that's where this hearing did highlight the lack of transparency through the CPUC. And the issues that we're having with the reports not being published in the redactions.

So we're working through those issues now to try to have an informed decision on what the limit should be this year. Second, there were comments made about pay to drivers and a benefit that could be given to drivers based on insurance decreasing. CoC has not seen a proposal to date that would tie insurance decreases to drivers revenue.

We fully support improved working conditions for drivers, transparency for driver pay, increased driver pay, but there has no been, hasn't been a proposal correlating the two. Second point on autonomous vehicles, Uber CEO said in January of this year he expects to go fully autonomous in 10 years. They've wound that back.

He's made a lot of different statements on this. But again, if insurance goes down today and drivers go away in a decade like that should be brought into the conversation. And then lastly, there was conversation comparing Uber's UIM requirement, which we admit is unique to Uber, to taxis, limousines, buses. Uber is a very profitable company.

It's important that if I'm in an Uber, I have additional protections. And Uber's profits were reported for last year as 2.8 billion in operating profits. So again, you know, there's a lot of factors to play here.

We are looking forward to your leadership on this issue and talking to the Committee about 371when it's amended up, but just wanted to flag those today.

Thank you. And I want to thank again all the Members of the Committee who participated today. We had a robust hearing and the Members of the public who tuned in and made public comment. Thank you to our witnesses for sharing their knowledge with this Committee. I found this conversation very illuminating.

I didn't make as many jokes as I normally did, but I didn't have as many opportunities. So next time you can open up more opportunities. We didn't hear a pun from Assembly Member Rogers, so I'm quite disappointed. And with that, this meeting is adjourned.