In Michigan, Those Efforts Were Successful

A high-profile skirmish between prominent developers of self-driving technology begins next month in a California courtroom, when arguments in Waymo鈥檚 lawsuit against Uber over allegations of stolen trade secrets gets underway. Another one, which involves some of the autonomous-vehicle industry鈥檚 biggest players, so far overlooked, is already occurring in state capitals across the country. Lawmakers in at least five states are considering legislation that, if passed in current form, could prohibit companies that are not traditional motor-vehicle manufacturers from deploying autonomous vehicles. In Massachusetts, Maryland, Georgia, Tennessee, and Illinois, lawmakers have proposed legislation that contains provisions that would limit the deployment of self-driving fleets to automaker-led or automaker-affiliated projects. At least three other states have mulled similar proposals, but resulting bills have not contained the restrictive provisions. The legislation worries the likes of Uber and Waymo (the company spawned from Google鈥檚 self-driving-car project). 500 million investment in ride-hailing service Lyft. The two companies are currently testing autonomous Chevrolet Bolt EVs. That vehicle has become a central component in their planning for the era of autonomous travel. It鈥檚 no surprise, then, that General Motors has been instrumental in pitching and promoting the legislation.

There are slight differences in the bills depending on the state, but they鈥檙e all based on draft versions of a Michigan law known as the Safe Autonomous Vehicles Act (SAVE). Given the contentious nature of the legislation, GM鈥檚 role in the proliferation of proposed SAVE Acts popping up in state houses across the country raises questions. Emails obtained by Car and Driver via a public-records request in Colorado show the company and the Capstone Group, a lobbying firm working on GM鈥檚 behalf, urging lawmakers to use the SAVE Act as model legislation there. Further, the Associated Press details campaign contributions GM made to state lawmakers, who subsequently all sponsored SAVE Act legislation. Multiple lawmakers told the news outlet that GM lobbyists requested they introduce the bills. The tactic seems to echo GM鈥檚 earlier state-to-state strategy of endorsing legislation that ensured only dealerships could sell cars, which has effectively prevented Tesla, which does not operate dealer networks, from selling cars in states that enacted the legislation.

Harry Lightsey, an executive director of federal affairs for GM, says the company has only presented the SAVE Act as a starting point for legislative discussions. He disputed the idea the company is attempting to elbow competitors aside and said GM is amenable to removing provisions that would render other companies ineligible to compete. 鈥淭here has continued to be this drumbeat of allegations that somehow we鈥檝e been engaged in a public-policy environment not conducive to certain companies participating, and I think that鈥檚 disingenuous,鈥?he said. Competitors are still crying foul. Fighting the legislation has become a key priority for the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, an autonomous-technology lobbying group of which Waymo, Uber, Lyft, Ford, and Volvo are members. In Michigan, those efforts were successful. The version of the law ultimately enacted by Michigan lawmakers scrapped the provisions that restricted autonomous-vehicle deployment. Nonetheless, the draft version of that bill, complete with the provisions that have raised objections, has become the blueprint for the legislation in Massachusetts, Tennessee, Maryland, Georgia, and Illinois.

While the changes in Michigan showed the coalition鈥檚 efforts can reap rewards, Chan Lieu, senior legislative adviser for the group, says that鈥檚 no guarantee of success elsewhere, although potential compromises are afoot in Tennessee and Georgia. If anything, he says his job has grown more complicated as the number of bills has grown. The specific language varies by state, but it generally calls for 鈥減articipating fleets鈥?to be part of something called a 鈥淪AVE project.鈥?That sounds innocuous, but it鈥檚 at the crux of what the Self-Driving Coalition finds alarming. In Maryland, for example, Senate Bill 902 calls for autonomous and connected vehicles operating on state highways to be part of SAVE projects鈥攚hich are owned and controlled by automated- and connected-vehicle manufacturers. These SAVE projects govern autonomous operations in certain geographic areas, such as university campuses or certain downtown corridors or retirement communities鈥攅xactly the type of limited-scale deployments where most experts say autonomous vehicles will first be launched.

By limiting deployments to traditional manufacturers, states could tilt the race to put self-driving cars on the road. There are some ambiguities in the way SAVE projects are presented, but whatever the obfuscations, Lieu said it鈥檚 easy to read between the lines and see their intent. 鈥淲e disagree with the idea states can just stand by and let people put vehicles on the road. 鈥淚f you look at who is advocating and supporting this and who鈥檚 against it, it becomes abundantly clear,鈥?he said. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 believe that manufacturers, or any one industry or any one company, for that matter, should have a monopoly on this. The SAVE Act-based bills are a small slice of the overall activity in statehouses working on legislation related to self-driving vehicles. Twenty-eight states currently have legislation pending on autonomous transportation technology, according to records kept by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Eleven states, plus the District of Columbia, have already enacted laws or regulations, while two have authorized autonomous testing via executive orders.