Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the TNC Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lyft urges committee to keep TNC framework separate from motor‑carrier law; PUC and DOT detail split jurisdiction
Summary
Lyft told lawmakers motor‑carrier statutes were not written for app‑based platforms and urged retention of the existing TNC permitting framework; PUC said motor‑carrier law is under its jurisdiction while enforcement was described as a two‑part function involving DOT.
Francisco Avalos, senior public policy manager for Lyft, told the committee the company respectfully opposes HCR 120/HR 112 and argued transferring transportation network companies (TNCs) to motor‑carrier law is the wrong fit.
"Motor carrier law was designed for fixed‑route carriers that own their vehicle, employ their drivers, and file rates with the PUC," Avalos said. "Lyft is a technology platform connecting independent drivers and riders through an online marketplace app. We believe the regulatory framework already established by the Legislature and DOT permitting launched in 2024 provides consumer protections — such as our commercial insurance coverage — and is better suited to this model."
Jade Wong, Consumer Affairs and Compliance Officer with the Public Utilities Commission, clarified that motor‑carrier law is under PUC jurisdiction but that enforcement functions have in practice been coordinated with DOT: "They would come under the motor carrier law… we would require the requirements by law…and then the DOT would take care of enforcement," she said. Committee members asked both agencies to spell out how day‑to‑day enforcement and permitting would work under the proposal; DOT said it would follow up with specifics.
Chair and members agreed to defer HCR 120/HR 112 for further work among DOT, PUC, and TNC representatives to craft a path forward that addresses jurisdiction, enforcement, and safety without duplicative regulation.
Next steps: Committee deferred the resolution to allow inter‑agency and stakeholder discussions to continue and requested DOT and PUC provide clarifying follow‑up about enforcement roles and any gaps the proposed change would create.
