Uber and Lyft cite safety investments and EV progress, warn insurance costs and supply could slow electrification

Representatives of Uber and Lyft told the California State Assembly Communications Conveyance Committee that the companies have invested in safety features, wheelchair‑accessible service and electrification, but that rising insurance costs and limits on affordable electric vehicles for drivers pose significant near‑term challenges.

David Case of Uber and Malcolm McFarland and Janae Weaver of Lyft said their platforms provide safety tools, long‑running background checks and emergency support and cited program metrics and investments. Uber offered a company figure that 99.9 percent of U.S. trips from January 2021 to December 2022 had no reported safety incident; the company also said it is running incentives and programs to accelerate driver adoption of electric vehicles.

Both companies described participation in the CPUC’s Clean Miles Standard and the Access for All program. Tara Curtis of the CPUC said the Access for All program has supported more than 300,000 on‑demand wheelchair trips since implementation began in 2019 and about 63,000 trips were provided through partnerships with local access providers; CPUC staff also said there is roughly $17 million in an available statewide access fund to extend services to additional counties.

But the testimony turned to cost pressures. Company witnesses said the single largest cost driver for TNC trips is insurance — specifically the industry’s uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage requirement. Uber witnesses said a proposal to change that coverage could yield hundreds of millions in savings statewide; company representatives said in some areas the per‑trip insurance component is large enough to push a substantial share of fare dollars to insurance rather than drivers. Lyft told the committee the average insurance portion is about $6 per trip in California; Uber witnesses said in Los Angeles the insurance component can reach an estimated 45 percent of a given fare.

Both companies said they support transparent, standards‑based handling of sensitive trip data by the CPUC and urged careful measures to protect location‑based privacy. Uber said location data are among the most sensitive forms of consumer information and argued for strict privacy protections before broad public release. Researchers and local officials in the hearing urged controlled access and modest geographic blurring to permit analysis while reducing re‑identification risk.

Committee members asked about the effect of insurance reform on drivers’ pay and on workforce continuity if autonomous vehicles expand. Industry witnesses said they cannot speak to long‑term AV workforce models in detail at the hearing but offered to follow up; they said any savings from insurance reform could be reinvested to benefit drivers and riders but no specific binding mechanism was proposed during the hearing.

Public commenters raised caution. Luis Costa, representing a rail industry group, warned that lowering TNC insurance minimums could affect rail crew transportation operators and railroad employees who now use third‑party carriers. Sabina Tucker of the Consumer Attorneys of California urged caution and said the state now has a decade of claims data that should inform any proposal to change insurance minimums.

No formal action was taken. Committee members and industry representatives said they would follow up in writing on specific figures and modeling questions raised at the hearing.