August 28, 2023 • 24 mins
Hilary Cain is a leading voice on autonomous vehicle policy in the United States – and she’s deeply concerned that federal inaction will cede American leadership in AV technology.
Hilary is Vice President of Technology, Innovation, and Mobility Policy at the Alliance For Automotive Innovation, where she oversees policy development on technology and future mobility issues, including regulation of connected and automated vehicles, data privacy, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and telecommunications.
Greg Rogers and guest co-host Sophie Jantz caught up with Hilary at the Transportation Research Board's (TRB) Automated Road Transportation Symposium 2023 (ARTS 2023) to discuss:
- The state of autonomous vehicle policy and the urgent need for federal policy action.
- How the lessons that recent supply chain challenges for chips and electric vehicles should inform America's approach to AVs.
- The risks that ceding U.S. leadership in AV technology poses for the American workforce and economy.
Resources
Follow Hilary on Twitter: @HilaryCainDC
Find Hilary on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hilarycain/
As always, you can follow us on Twitter: @MobilityPodcast, @MoveGreg, @Pete_Gould, @SmarterTranspo.
Help us grow: please rate, review, and subscribe!
Reach out with questions, ideas, and feedback: team@beyondstreets.org
Keep up with us on LinkedIn:
www.beyondstreets.org
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Hilary Cain (00:00):
If we decide to see leadership to say China, for
example, we're not going to doAVS in the US for now we're just
going to like put this all onpause while China proceeds. When
we decide that we want AVS1015 2030 years from
policymakers finally decide, oh,we need this. We will not have
(00:22):
the supply chain in the UnitedStates to support that industry,
we will be reliant like we areright now in the electric
vehicle space on Chinese supplychains. And so that's the part
of this competitiveness argumentthat makes me nervous and why I
think we really need to get thispolicy landscape figured out for
competitiveness reasons.
Greg Rogers (00:48):
All right. Hello, and welcome to the mobility
podcast. This is Greg Rogers,founder of area's public policy,
and I'm joined by my co host.
Sophie Jantz (00:56):
Hello, I'm Sophie Jantz. I'm also a public policy
professional and urbanists,
Greg Rogers (01:01):
and we are recording on site at the 12th
edition of GRBs automated roadtransportation symposium arts,
we'll just call it in SanFrancisco. And we're thrilled to
welcome our friend Hillary Kane,who is Vice President of
Technology Innovation andmobility policy. That's a title
at the at the Alliance forautomotive innovation. Hillary
(01:22):
has been on before so it's niceto see you. Nice to have you
back on the podcast.
Hilary Cain (01:25):
It's good to be here again.
Greg Rogers (01:26):
Yeah. So it's, before we jump in the
discussion, though, want tostart with what's now our first
question asking guess, which iswhat is your transportation
story? Why do you do what youdo?
Hilary Cain (01:38):
Yeah, it's a good question. So I've been working
now on sort of future mobility,transportation policy now for
about a decade with a primaryfocus on autonomous vehicles.
And for me, it's because I havea mother who is a wheelchair
user. And I have experiencedfirsthand the challenges that
(01:59):
she faces and getting to whereshe needs to go, whether it's a
medical appointment, out to seefriends, even go grocery
shopping. So for me, this isabout my commitment to this
technology is about findingmobility options for people like
my mom who have to rely onothers to get them around.
Greg Rogers (02:17):
Yeah, I love that.
And especially here, it's Ithink I've said this before on
the podcast, it is interestingthat I mean, it's there's such a
massive opportunity to improvemobility for obviously, our our
parents and our grandparents.
And one of the first moments ofbreakthrough and getting my
folks to understand what I do isI saw a segment on like, I don't
know, Good Morning America orsomething years ago. And they
(02:39):
said, Oh, we saw that autonomousvehicles can drive for us after
we take the keys away. And we'relike, yeah, that's that's kind
of the whole kind of whole bithere. We're not the whole thing.
So last time, we had you on youwere at Toyota. Right. And since
then, you moved over to theAlliance for automotive
innovation. So let's just startwith, could you tell us a little
bit about the Alliance? Yeah,sure. So innovators? Yeah,
(03:03):
exactly.
Hilary Cain (03:03):
So the Alliance for automotive innovation, or auto
innovators, for short, wasformed in January of 2020. It
was actually a merger of twopreceding organizations that
represented the auto industry.
So there was the Alliance ofAutomobile Manufacturers, and
the Association of Globalautomakers and they came
together under one roof, thatroof is the Alliance for
(03:23):
automotive innovation. So weessentially represent the auto
industry here in the UnitedStates. But we also have a
membership that expands beyondjust the automakers. So we also
represent automotive suppliersand technology companies that
are working in the automotivespace, including a number of AV
startups. Yeah, you've
Greg Rogers (03:44):
had a pretty massive expansion of membership.
Yeah, exciting. Yeah. And Imean,
Hilary Cain (03:49):
it's intentional, not just because you know, more
members makes you more powerful.
It's not that's not what this isabout. It's about a recognition
that the future of mobility isgoing to involve players other
than the automakers right, thatthis is an ecosystem approach,
right. It's going to end so inrecognition of like that, we
wanted to make sure ourassociation represented the auto
(04:11):
industry, as it's going to looktomorrow and not just the auto
industry as it looked before.
Greg Rogers (04:17):
Yeah. So let's, let's turn to Bullis, let's just
dive into federal AV policy.
Because we've been we've bothbeen working on AV policy for a
long time and we're in thetrenches together on self
driving. We started years andyears ago, where, where do you
feel like federal policy istoday versus let's say back we
had you on I think in 2018.
Hilary Cain (04:37):
Yes. So the the bad news, right, is that not much
has changed, right. So we'restill trying to get a federal AV
bill through Congress. We arestill looking to the US
Department of Transportation tofinish updating its existing
Motor Vehicle Safety Standardsto accommodate AVS And yeah, so
(05:02):
so a lot of still, we're we'renot much of a different position
than we were a number of yearsago. I will say, earlier today
there was an announcement aboutsome work at NITSA that we're,
we are excited about it autoinnovators. This is this
morning, Acting AdministratorCarlson announced the AV step
(05:25):
program as a new exemptionpathway for AVS to deploy at a
higher scale or greater scalethan they've been allowed to
deploy so far. So we're prettyenthusiastic about that, it
seems to us at least there'ssome innovative new thinking
coming out of the department andmaybe some serious thought being
(05:47):
given to how we can sort of getout of this, like, trough of
disillusionment or whatever thatwe're in right now. So that's
exciting. But other than that,we're, we're still there's a lot
of pieces that still need tocome together to give us this
federal regulatory frameworkwe've been seeking now for many,
many years.
Greg Rogers (06:02):
Yeah, yeah. And I was I was really excited to hear
about this discussion oflaunching step, because we've,
we've already seen the slow paceof reviewing and approving
exemptions, you know, Cruz hasbeen waiting for a long time any
other manufacturer has waitedfor a long time. And without
exemptions are currently done,you're limited up to 2500
(06:23):
vehicles per manufacturer. Sothere's obviously some friction
that's created when we'relooking at okay, one of the
biggest opportunities with ABSis rethinking vehicle design,
right, how we, how we usevehicles, whether they're built
for shared rides, whetherthey're built for delivering
goods, more efficiently,whatever it is, and it feels
(06:44):
like that is I mean, as far asI'm concerned, that's one of the
most tremendous opportunitieswith ABS just challenging what
the conception of a car is.
Sure, and how we use it. Do yousee in so looking at what's
happening on the hill, I mean,do you do you see opportunity
for forward progress this year?
Or in the coming years? How,what do you think it takes to
(07:08):
move to move this forward?
Unknown (07:09):
Yeah, I wish I knew.
And, you know, to be honest withyou, I've been working on this
stuff for, you know, 12 years orso. And I start to question my
effectiveness, right, becausewe're still we still haven't
gotten to
Greg Rogers (07:21):
where, where maybe we're just preserving your job
security?
Unknown (07:23):
I don't know. But I wish I knew the answer. I mean,
and you know, we were talkingabout this a little bit before
we were before we startedrecording. But yeah, you know, I
I'm honestly very concernedabout where we are from a
federal and state policylandscape right now. I'm very
(07:44):
cognizant that we're at afragile time for the AV industry
that where we are in terms ofthe economy, there just isn't
the same, you know, cashflowthat there was a few years ago,
and companies are at a reallycritical stage and in their
maturity, and they need to beable to deploy this technology
in a commercially viable way.
And right now, we do not havepolicy at the federal or state
(08:08):
level that allows that tohappen. And I think we're at a
very, there's a very significantrisk that we will see the
funding dried up for thesecompanies, we've already seen it
in some cases, and that thethese companies will go belly
under and it's not, or belly up.
But it's not because thetechnology isn't mature, I am
(08:30):
blown away at the progress thatsome of these companies have
made in a short period of time,and the capabilities of the
technology, I am more optimisticabout the technology and its
capabilities today than I'veever been, and maybe least the
least optimistic I've ever beenin the ability of the government
to do what it needs to do toallow this industry to flourish
(08:51):
and this technology to get ontothe roads and the scale it needs
to get onto the roads to make adifference.
Greg Rogers (08:57):
Yeah, I completely agree. And, you know, it's it's
funny, because five years ago,we were what we were saying was
that we need to start workingthis regulatory framework,
because it's going to take sometime to do if you look at the
timelines that were on selfdriving at start, for example,
would it be done with a goodnumber of these rulemakings?
Ideally, at this point, we wouldhave a little bit more
(09:17):
certainty. But the fact thatthis has dragged on for, you
know, years and years and years,we've seen little Ford progress,
while the same time Yeah, it'sit is incredible, the
technological progress we'veseen and, you know, I think that
it's easy to criticize some ofthe rosy projections I were
given, you know, 510 years ago.
But we are at, you know, whatfeels like a big inflection
(09:39):
point for not just moving thetechnology forward generally,
but but for the US as globalleadership and developing and
maintaining it. And we're seeingthis, I think, really across the
board, and it you know, Ithonestly feels like a big deal.
It feels like a big lostopportunity. For the US that
(09:59):
we're dragging on,
Hilary Cain (10:03):
right? So the competitiveness thing is a
really a really compellingargument here. And what I want
to dig into it for a second,because I think sometimes it's
this frame just just well, wedon't want China to have it and
us not to have it. But I thinkit's way more significant than
that. And why would I want bythat? I mean, I think we have
lessons that we can learn fromthe semiconductor shortage
(10:25):
crisis we went through a fewyears ago, and lessons that we
can learn from what we'reexperiencing right now in the
electric vehicle space, whichis, the company or the countries
that lead on this technologywill develop and maintain the
supply chains for thistechnology into the future. So
if we decide to see leadershipto say, China, for example,
(10:48):
we're not going to do AVS in theUS for now, we're just going to
like put this all on pause whileChina proceeds. When we decide
that we want AVS 1015 2030 yearsfrom policymakers finally
decide, oh, we need this. Wewill not have the supply chain
in the United States to supportthat industry, we will be
(11:10):
reliant like we are right now inthe electric vehicle space on
Chinese supply chains. And sothat's the part of this
competitiveness argument thatmakes me nervous and why I think
we really need to get thispolicy landscape figured out for
competitiveness, competitiveness
Greg Rogers (11:27):
reasons. Yeah, I mean, that really resonates with
me, because especially the whenyou look at what happened on the
Eevee side, I mean, I've, I wasthe crazy person walking down
the hill five years ago, when Iwas at save, telling members of
staff for members of Congressand senators how important
critical minerals are, and Ifelt like eyes were glazing
over. And they were think aboutwhat they're gonna have for
(11:48):
lunch. And now, it's one of ourbiggest questions. I mean, and
this isn't just abouttransportation, it's not just
about transportation, when itcomes down to critical minerals,
it's everything else in theeconomy, really. And I think
you're right, that when it comesdown to AVS and the future of
EVs, we need to think about thefact that being in the pole
position with this technologymeans that we are also able to
(12:09):
unlock all the benefits of thatfor onshoring. And investing in
our domestic capacity, but alsomaking sure that our values and
our principles as a country areembedded in this technology.
Right. The the automobile is thesymbol of freedom in the US
where it was for a long time,right. I think in many ways, it
still is, we want to preservethat idea of freedom of
(12:31):
movement. Yeah. Well,
Hilary Cain (12:33):
and I'll also say, too, right. So there is no doubt
in my mind, and I think in themind of Otto innovators, that
the future of transportation isautomated and electrified.
Right. And so if that's thefuture of the auto industry, you
know, and right now, the US autoindustry, like the auto industry
in the US is a leader on, youknow, our has been a leader, at
(12:56):
least on the sort of the safetyand advanced sort of safety
technology side of things. And Ireally want that, you know, that
expertise and that leadership tostill stay within the auto
industry here in the unit us andnot see that leadership as well.
You know, the auto industry inthe US employs, you know, 10
(13:16):
million people, and as you know,5% of GDP and I think we all
have a, you know, right, like areally strong national security
interest and keeping an economicsecurity interest in keeping
that. Yeah,
Sophie Jantz (13:30):
I think this is kind of leading into one of the
other questions that we had foryou, which is you lead policy,
auto innovators, and autoinnovators represents the
collective of the automaker,automakers and the industry.
They're their policy views. Sowhy is it important that these
(13:50):
companies that are in many waysdirectly competing with each
other collaborate on policydevelopment?
Unknown (13:57):
Yeah, it's a good it's a good question. And I mean, it,
it's always not so pretty,right? Because certainly there
there we see from time to time,individual companies trying to
use policy to create competitiveadvantages and disadvantages
from the self. But at the end ofthe day, you know, what drives
us and what drives our companiesand why I think collaboration on
policy is so important is, isit's really about setting a
(14:17):
level playing field and creatinga policy landscape that allows,
you know, all companies,whatever their, you know, sort
of business models and plans areto flourish. And there is
absolutely interest across theentire industry right now.
Including among the leaders andin the laggards, I would say on
on AV policy to make sure thatthere is a clear federal
(14:41):
framework in place that allowsfor this technology to move
forward. Right? And it's justjust it's that level playing
field, right? The level playingfield that allows all boats to
rise. I'm mixing my metaphorsnow. But you know what I mean,
so yeah, there's Absolutely astrong commitment throughout the
(15:03):
industry to working together toget this right.
Greg Rogers (15:05):
So Hilary, one thing that I've noticed is that,
you know, we've we're startingto see more tension between the
federal government and stategovernments in terms of
regulating AVS. How do you? Howdo you How would you think
through reconciling some of theconfusion or maybe the conflicts
between them?
Hilary Cain (15:21):
Yeah, no, it's definitely something that seems
to be more consistently there.
But I feel like it's bubbling upto the surface, again, in sort
of a more significant way oflate. So the way I've been
thinking about this is, youknow, we've sort of got three
different things that are comingtogether to make and nav right,
like we've got the vehicleitself, we've got the operation
(15:43):
of that vehicle on publicroadways, and then we've got the
driver, right, like this is sortof how you can think about
vehicle and operate, you know,operational sort of regulation
generally. And traditionally,the way it's been is that the
federal government regulates thevehicle, the state and local
governments regulate theoperation of that vehicle on
(16:05):
public roadways, and under sortof conventionally driven
vehicles. The states alsoregulate the driver. Right. And
so the question is, do we takethat sort of wholesale and bring
it to AVS? I think the answer issort of right. So when we're
talking about the vehicle, I, Ithink there should be consensus
(16:25):
around the federal governmentregulating the vehicle stuff we
could talk, I think in a momentabout why that so I don't think
there's I also think there'scomplete consensus, at least
everybody that I've talked tothat the states and local
governments should maintainresponsibility for regulating
the operation of AVS on publicroadways, that's within their
(16:47):
authority. When we get to thedriver, it's obviously a little
complicated, because we're nownot talking about a third entity
of you know, a human driver onthe vehicle, we're actually
talking about the vehicledriving itself, right. And the
way I think about it, going backto why the Federal Government
has regulated the vehicle, it'sbecause it was out of a
recognition that automanufacturers could not be
(17:10):
expected to manufacturedifferent vehicles for different
states, right, the thecomplexity of that, and the cost
of that just made it anuntenable outcome. Right. So a
decision was made that thefederal government would
regulate vehicles in that waymanufacturers could make one
vehicle and they could sell itin all 50 states, right? What as
(17:31):
I'm thinking about this, as asthe driver becomes the vehicle,
the driver is the vehicle, thevehicle is the driver, that same
sort of baseline argumentapplies, right, like we cannot
get into a situation now wheremanufacturer a has to
manufacture a different vehiclefor California that it
(17:52):
manufactures for Mr.
Massachusetts that itmanufactures for Texas. And so
as I'm thinking about this, Ithink that that needs to be sort
of in the same bucket as thevehicle. And that needs to be
something that we defer to thefederal government to for
regulation. Yeah, I
Greg Rogers (18:07):
mean, I couldn't agree more. I mean, for for the
longest out there will know thisterm, I mean, this is about
interstate commerce, right. Andthis is, this is constitutional,
at the end of the day, which isthat you can't be inhibiting the
free flow of interstatecommerce. And whenever you're
regulating ABS or a vehicle invery different ways in different
states, you shouldn't have toget out of, say, your car and in
(18:30):
California and between Nevadafor a highway patrol officer to
measure your bumper to make sureit's meeting, you know, Nevada
standard apps. And that's justnot how commerce in this country
has worked. And it's alsoincredibly inefficient. And what
has made America such a economicpowerhouse is the ability to,
(18:51):
obviously the free flow of, ofgoods and people has been
essential. But it is thecertainty that you will be
treated effectively the sameyour vehicle be treated the same
when you're driving from stateto state, whether you're in a
truck, whether you're in a car,whatever it is, is that freedom
of movement that you that youhave.
Unknown (19:08):
Yeah, and I mean, and, you know, the one thing I'll
add, though, is that that wholeconstruct that we just laid out
is sort of predicated on NITSAand the federal government
occupying the field right on, onthe regulation of the vehicle.
And that is going back to youknow, what we're talking about a
few minutes ago, that's what'sunfortunately, still lacking
(19:30):
here. Right. So so we really doneed NITSA to, you know,
occupied the field, so to speakin that space to make it clear
that they are exercising theirauthority and their
responsibility, right forvehicle regulation. And so, all
the more reason for them to tocontinue the work that they've
(19:52):
started and get it done asexpeditiously as possible.
Greg Rogers (19:54):
Yeah, and it doesn't help we have not had an
insert administrator confirmedin staying there for me For
period of time for many, manyyears know,
Unknown (20:02):
that continues to be a challenge.
Sophie Jantz (20:04):
So in that void of federal like meaningful federal
regulation for abs, have we seenany movement at the state level
to perhaps implement arulemaking that would contradict
this interstate commerceprinciple that we have? Have we
(20:25):
seen that pop up? Have thoserisks occurred?
Hilary Cain (20:28):
Yeah, I think we've seen a few places where states
have implemented some vehiclerelated requirements. The one
that comes to top of mind is ina couple of states, right?
There's recording requirementsfor event data recorders or or
the, you know, equivalent fordata that may be recorded in
connection with a collision ofsome sort. There's some
(20:50):
specifications about how long ofa recording that needs to be
that those that's the one thatpops to mind. out of the gate,
Sophie Jantz (20:58):
right. Oh, and I think till operation as well, I
think that yeah, I think you'reright.
Greg Rogers (21:04):
All right, Hillary, so let's turn to my favorite
part of every podcast episode,which is our lightning round of
fun question. Okay. What is thefuture of mobility? cleaner,
safer,
Unknown (21:17):
smarter.
Greg Rogers (21:18):
That was pretty concise. Okay.
Unknown (21:20):
I think that's also our tagline at
Greg Rogers (21:21):
auto innovate.
Okay,
Sophie Jantz (21:23):
that's the bumper sticker. Okay, so and if that is
the future of mobility, what isabsolutely not the future of
mobility? Ooh,
Unknown (21:36):
that's a good one. What is not the future of mobility? I
don't know that I have an answerto that.
Greg Rogers (21:45):
There's a lot riding on this question Hilary.
Unknown (21:51):
Maybe it's a sign of my glass half full nature. I'm just
thinking about like, what can beand not what should
Greg Rogers (21:59):
love it? What if we are also punting? Yeah, we're
about to, it's day three orfour? The conference? I can't
remember anymore. It's day two.
Yeah. Well, it's Wednesday.
Unknown (22:13):
Okay, it's day three.
Day three. Yeah. Okay, so thisis gonna be probably a little
controversial, but I'm gonnasay, the future of mobility. I'm
not talking about liketomorrow's future mobility. I'm
talking about like, 50 yearsfrom now, future mobility will
not be human driven vehicles. Ireally believe that at some
point in the future. Some of thevery same safety advocates that
(22:35):
are actually expressing concernand skepticism about AVS will be
advocating that humans not beallowed to drive vehicles
anymore. Yeah. And what astrange world that'll be. Yeah,
I think it will happen.
Greg Rogers (22:52):
What is your favorite fictional form of
mobility?
Unknown (22:55):
Oh, I fictional I really am still holding out hope
for like the Jetsons, like,flying car ish thing. Right. You
know, you know, you don't worry.
Well, you know, I'm talkingabout Yeah.
Greg Rogers (23:10):
Yeah. Well, I feel
Unknown (23:11):
like that's not really fictional. Right? There's like,
a lot of work going intosupplying, yeah,
Greg Rogers (23:15):
there's the Beatles stuff happening right now. They
need to talk to some planners.
Have you told people but yeah,maybe they'll get there. But I'm
excited for that. Yeah. Yeah.
The dog and the robot made?
Yeah. So where can people findyou online?
Unknown (23:33):
Um, so I am on Twitter.
Still, I know Hard to believe,right. I'm still on Twitter, at
Hillary Kane, DC. And then allof our work. The association's
work is obviously available onour website, which is autos
innovate.org.
Greg Rogers (23:52):
Awesome. And we'll put all that in the show notes.
Thanks to you for joining us andpowering through on the
afternoon of the third, fourthor fifth day, whichever one it
is to live here now. Awesome.
Thanks, everyone for tuning into another episode of the
mobility podcast.
If we decide to see leadership to say China, for
example, we're not going to doAVS in the US for now we're just
going to like put this all onpause while China proceeds. When
we decide that we want AVS1015 2030 years from
policymakers finally decide, oh,we need this. We will not have
(00:22):
the supply chain in the UnitedStates to support that industry,
we will be reliant like we areright now in the electric
vehicle space on Chinese supplychains. And so that's the part
of this competitiveness argumentthat makes me nervous and why I
think we really need to get thispolicy landscape figured out for
competitiveness reasons.
Greg Rogers (00:48):
All right. Hello, and welcome to the mobility
podcast. This is Greg Rogers,founder of area's public policy,
and I'm joined by my co host.
Sophie Jantz (00:56):
Hello, I'm Sophie Jantz. I'm also a public policy
professional and urbanists,
Greg Rogers (01:01):
and we are recording on site at the 12th
edition of GRBs automated roadtransportation symposium arts,
we'll just call it in SanFrancisco. And we're thrilled to
welcome our friend Hillary Kane,who is Vice President of
Technology Innovation andmobility policy. That's a title
at the at the Alliance forautomotive innovation. Hillary
(01:22):
has been on before so it's niceto see you. Nice to have you
back on the podcast.
Hilary Cain (01:25):
It's good to be here again.
Greg Rogers (01:26):
Yeah. So it's, before we jump in the
discussion, though, want tostart with what's now our first
question asking guess, which iswhat is your transportation
story? Why do you do what youdo?
Hilary Cain (01:38):
Yeah, it's a good question. So I've been working
now on sort of future mobility,transportation policy now for
about a decade with a primaryfocus on autonomous vehicles.
And for me, it's because I havea mother who is a wheelchair
user. And I have experiencedfirsthand the challenges that
(01:59):
she faces and getting to whereshe needs to go, whether it's a
medical appointment, out to seefriends, even go grocery
shopping. So for me, this isabout my commitment to this
technology is about findingmobility options for people like
my mom who have to rely onothers to get them around.
Greg Rogers (02:17):
Yeah, I love that.
And especially here, it's Ithink I've said this before on
the podcast, it is interestingthat I mean, it's there's such a
massive opportunity to improvemobility for obviously, our our
parents and our grandparents.
And one of the first moments ofbreakthrough and getting my
folks to understand what I do isI saw a segment on like, I don't
know, Good Morning America orsomething years ago. And they
(02:39):
said, Oh, we saw that autonomousvehicles can drive for us after
we take the keys away. And we'relike, yeah, that's that's kind
of the whole kind of whole bithere. We're not the whole thing.
So last time, we had you on youwere at Toyota. Right. And since
then, you moved over to theAlliance for automotive
innovation. So let's just startwith, could you tell us a little
bit about the Alliance? Yeah,sure. So innovators? Yeah,
(03:03):
exactly.
Hilary Cain (03:03):
So the Alliance for automotive innovation, or auto
innovators, for short, wasformed in January of 2020. It
was actually a merger of twopreceding organizations that
represented the auto industry.
So there was the Alliance ofAutomobile Manufacturers, and
the Association of Globalautomakers and they came
together under one roof, thatroof is the Alliance for
(03:23):
automotive innovation. So weessentially represent the auto
industry here in the UnitedStates. But we also have a
membership that expands beyondjust the automakers. So we also
represent automotive suppliersand technology companies that
are working in the automotivespace, including a number of AV
startups. Yeah, you've
Greg Rogers (03:44):
had a pretty massive expansion of membership.
Yeah, exciting. Yeah. And Imean,
Hilary Cain (03:49):
it's intentional, not just because you know, more
members makes you more powerful.
It's not that's not what this isabout. It's about a recognition
that the future of mobility isgoing to involve players other
than the automakers right, thatthis is an ecosystem approach,
right. It's going to end so inrecognition of like that, we
wanted to make sure ourassociation represented the auto
(04:11):
industry, as it's going to looktomorrow and not just the auto
industry as it looked before.
Greg Rogers (04:17):
Yeah. So let's, let's turn to Bullis, let's just
dive into federal AV policy.
Because we've been we've bothbeen working on AV policy for a
long time and we're in thetrenches together on self
driving. We started years andyears ago, where, where do you
feel like federal policy istoday versus let's say back we
had you on I think in 2018.
Hilary Cain (04:37):
Yes. So the the bad news, right, is that not much
has changed, right. So we'restill trying to get a federal AV
bill through Congress. We arestill looking to the US
Department of Transportation tofinish updating its existing
Motor Vehicle Safety Standardsto accommodate AVS And yeah, so
(05:02):
so a lot of still, we're we'renot much of a different position
than we were a number of yearsago. I will say, earlier today
there was an announcement aboutsome work at NITSA that we're,
we are excited about it autoinnovators. This is this
morning, Acting AdministratorCarlson announced the AV step
(05:25):
program as a new exemptionpathway for AVS to deploy at a
higher scale or greater scalethan they've been allowed to
deploy so far. So we're prettyenthusiastic about that, it
seems to us at least there'ssome innovative new thinking
coming out of the department andmaybe some serious thought being
(05:47):
given to how we can sort of getout of this, like, trough of
disillusionment or whatever thatwe're in right now. So that's
exciting. But other than that,we're, we're still there's a lot
of pieces that still need tocome together to give us this
federal regulatory frameworkwe've been seeking now for many,
many years.
Greg Rogers (06:02):
Yeah, yeah. And I was I was really excited to hear
about this discussion oflaunching step, because we've,
we've already seen the slow paceof reviewing and approving
exemptions, you know, Cruz hasbeen waiting for a long time any
other manufacturer has waitedfor a long time. And without
exemptions are currently done,you're limited up to 2500
(06:23):
vehicles per manufacturer. Sothere's obviously some friction
that's created when we'relooking at okay, one of the
biggest opportunities with ABSis rethinking vehicle design,
right, how we, how we usevehicles, whether they're built
for shared rides, whetherthey're built for delivering
goods, more efficiently,whatever it is, and it feels
(06:44):
like that is I mean, as far asI'm concerned, that's one of the
most tremendous opportunitieswith ABS just challenging what
the conception of a car is.
Sure, and how we use it. Do yousee in so looking at what's
happening on the hill, I mean,do you do you see opportunity
for forward progress this year?
Or in the coming years? How,what do you think it takes to
(07:08):
move to move this forward?
Unknown (07:09):
Yeah, I wish I knew.
And, you know, to be honest withyou, I've been working on this
stuff for, you know, 12 years orso. And I start to question my
effectiveness, right, becausewe're still we still haven't
gotten to
Greg Rogers (07:21):
where, where maybe we're just preserving your job
security?
Unknown (07:23):
I don't know. But I wish I knew the answer. I mean,
and you know, we were talkingabout this a little bit before
we were before we startedrecording. But yeah, you know, I
I'm honestly very concernedabout where we are from a
federal and state policylandscape right now. I'm very
(07:44):
cognizant that we're at afragile time for the AV industry
that where we are in terms ofthe economy, there just isn't
the same, you know, cashflowthat there was a few years ago,
and companies are at a reallycritical stage and in their
maturity, and they need to beable to deploy this technology
in a commercially viable way.
And right now, we do not havepolicy at the federal or state
(08:08):
level that allows that tohappen. And I think we're at a
very, there's a very significantrisk that we will see the
funding dried up for thesecompanies, we've already seen it
in some cases, and that thethese companies will go belly
under and it's not, or belly up.
But it's not because thetechnology isn't mature, I am
(08:30):
blown away at the progress thatsome of these companies have
made in a short period of time,and the capabilities of the
technology, I am more optimisticabout the technology and its
capabilities today than I'veever been, and maybe least the
least optimistic I've ever beenin the ability of the government
to do what it needs to do toallow this industry to flourish
(08:51):
and this technology to get ontothe roads and the scale it needs
to get onto the roads to make adifference.
Greg Rogers (08:57):
Yeah, I completely agree. And, you know, it's it's
funny, because five years ago,we were what we were saying was
that we need to start workingthis regulatory framework,
because it's going to take sometime to do if you look at the
timelines that were on selfdriving at start, for example,
would it be done with a goodnumber of these rulemakings?
Ideally, at this point, we wouldhave a little bit more
(09:17):
certainty. But the fact thatthis has dragged on for, you
know, years and years and years,we've seen little Ford progress,
while the same time Yeah, it'sit is incredible, the
technological progress we'veseen and, you know, I think that
it's easy to criticize some ofthe rosy projections I were
given, you know, 510 years ago.
But we are at, you know, whatfeels like a big inflection
(09:39):
point for not just moving thetechnology forward generally,
but but for the US as globalleadership and developing and
maintaining it. And we're seeingthis, I think, really across the
board, and it you know, Ithonestly feels like a big deal.
It feels like a big lostopportunity. For the US that
(09:59):
we're dragging on,
Hilary Cain (10:03):
right? So the competitiveness thing is a
really a really compellingargument here. And what I want
to dig into it for a second,because I think sometimes it's
this frame just just well, wedon't want China to have it and
us not to have it. But I thinkit's way more significant than
that. And why would I want bythat? I mean, I think we have
lessons that we can learn fromthe semiconductor shortage
(10:25):
crisis we went through a fewyears ago, and lessons that we
can learn from what we'reexperiencing right now in the
electric vehicle space, whichis, the company or the countries
that lead on this technologywill develop and maintain the
supply chains for thistechnology into the future. So
if we decide to see leadershipto say, China, for example,
(10:48):
we're not going to do AVS in theUS for now, we're just going to
like put this all on pause whileChina proceeds. When we decide
that we want AVS 1015 2030 yearsfrom policymakers finally
decide, oh, we need this. Wewill not have the supply chain
in the United States to supportthat industry, we will be
(11:10):
reliant like we are right now inthe electric vehicle space on
Chinese supply chains. And sothat's the part of this
competitiveness argument thatmakes me nervous and why I think
we really need to get thispolicy landscape figured out for
competitiveness, competitiveness
Greg Rogers (11:27):
reasons. Yeah, I mean, that really resonates with
me, because especially the whenyou look at what happened on the
Eevee side, I mean, I've, I wasthe crazy person walking down
the hill five years ago, when Iwas at save, telling members of
staff for members of Congressand senators how important
critical minerals are, and Ifelt like eyes were glazing
over. And they were think aboutwhat they're gonna have for
(11:48):
lunch. And now, it's one of ourbiggest questions. I mean, and
this isn't just abouttransportation, it's not just
about transportation, when itcomes down to critical minerals,
it's everything else in theeconomy, really. And I think
you're right, that when it comesdown to AVS and the future of
EVs, we need to think about thefact that being in the pole
position with this technologymeans that we are also able to
(12:09):
unlock all the benefits of thatfor onshoring. And investing in
our domestic capacity, but alsomaking sure that our values and
our principles as a country areembedded in this technology.
Right. The the automobile is thesymbol of freedom in the US
where it was for a long time,right. I think in many ways, it
still is, we want to preservethat idea of freedom of
(12:31):
movement. Yeah. Well,
Hilary Cain (12:33):
and I'll also say, too, right. So there is no doubt
in my mind, and I think in themind of Otto innovators, that
the future of transportation isautomated and electrified.
Right. And so if that's thefuture of the auto industry, you
know, and right now, the US autoindustry, like the auto industry
in the US is a leader on, youknow, our has been a leader, at
(12:56):
least on the sort of the safetyand advanced sort of safety
technology side of things. And Ireally want that, you know, that
expertise and that leadership tostill stay within the auto
industry here in the unit us andnot see that leadership as well.
You know, the auto industry inthe US employs, you know, 10
(13:16):
million people, and as you know,5% of GDP and I think we all
have a, you know, right, like areally strong national security
interest and keeping an economicsecurity interest in keeping
that. Yeah,
Sophie Jantz (13:30):
I think this is kind of leading into one of the
other questions that we had foryou, which is you lead policy,
auto innovators, and autoinnovators represents the
collective of the automaker,automakers and the industry.
They're their policy views. Sowhy is it important that these
(13:50):
companies that are in many waysdirectly competing with each
other collaborate on policydevelopment?
Unknown (13:57):
Yeah, it's a good it's a good question. And I mean, it,
it's always not so pretty,right? Because certainly there
there we see from time to time,individual companies trying to
use policy to create competitiveadvantages and disadvantages
from the self. But at the end ofthe day, you know, what drives
us and what drives our companiesand why I think collaboration on
policy is so important is, isit's really about setting a
(14:17):
level playing field and creatinga policy landscape that allows,
you know, all companies,whatever their, you know, sort
of business models and plans areto flourish. And there is
absolutely interest across theentire industry right now.
Including among the leaders andin the laggards, I would say on
on AV policy to make sure thatthere is a clear federal
(14:41):
framework in place that allowsfor this technology to move
forward. Right? And it's justjust it's that level playing
field, right? The level playingfield that allows all boats to
rise. I'm mixing my metaphorsnow. But you know what I mean,
so yeah, there's Absolutely astrong commitment throughout the
(15:03):
industry to working together toget this right.
Greg Rogers (15:05):
So Hilary, one thing that I've noticed is that,
you know, we've we're startingto see more tension between the
federal government and stategovernments in terms of
regulating AVS. How do you? Howdo you How would you think
through reconciling some of theconfusion or maybe the conflicts
between them?
Hilary Cain (15:21):
Yeah, no, it's definitely something that seems
to be more consistently there.
But I feel like it's bubbling upto the surface, again, in sort
of a more significant way oflate. So the way I've been
thinking about this is, youknow, we've sort of got three
different things that are comingtogether to make and nav right,
like we've got the vehicleitself, we've got the operation
(15:43):
of that vehicle on publicroadways, and then we've got the
driver, right, like this is sortof how you can think about
vehicle and operate, you know,operational sort of regulation
generally. And traditionally,the way it's been is that the
federal government regulates thevehicle, the state and local
governments regulate theoperation of that vehicle on
(16:05):
public roadways, and under sortof conventionally driven
vehicles. The states alsoregulate the driver. Right. And
so the question is, do we takethat sort of wholesale and bring
it to AVS? I think the answer issort of right. So when we're
talking about the vehicle, I, Ithink there should be consensus
(16:25):
around the federal governmentregulating the vehicle stuff we
could talk, I think in a momentabout why that so I don't think
there's I also think there'scomplete consensus, at least
everybody that I've talked tothat the states and local
governments should maintainresponsibility for regulating
the operation of AVS on publicroadways, that's within their
(16:47):
authority. When we get to thedriver, it's obviously a little
complicated, because we're nownot talking about a third entity
of you know, a human driver onthe vehicle, we're actually
talking about the vehicledriving itself, right. And the
way I think about it, going backto why the Federal Government
has regulated the vehicle, it'sbecause it was out of a
recognition that automanufacturers could not be
(17:10):
expected to manufacturedifferent vehicles for different
states, right, the thecomplexity of that, and the cost
of that just made it anuntenable outcome. Right. So a
decision was made that thefederal government would
regulate vehicles in that waymanufacturers could make one
vehicle and they could sell itin all 50 states, right? What as
(17:31):
I'm thinking about this, as asthe driver becomes the vehicle,
the driver is the vehicle, thevehicle is the driver, that same
sort of baseline argumentapplies, right, like we cannot
get into a situation now wheremanufacturer a has to
manufacture a different vehiclefor California that it
(17:52):
manufactures for Mr.
Massachusetts that itmanufactures for Texas. And so
as I'm thinking about this, Ithink that that needs to be sort
of in the same bucket as thevehicle. And that needs to be
something that we defer to thefederal government to for
regulation. Yeah, I
Greg Rogers (18:07):
mean, I couldn't agree more. I mean, for for the
longest out there will know thisterm, I mean, this is about
interstate commerce, right. Andthis is, this is constitutional,
at the end of the day, which isthat you can't be inhibiting the
free flow of interstatecommerce. And whenever you're
regulating ABS or a vehicle invery different ways in different
states, you shouldn't have toget out of, say, your car and in
(18:30):
California and between Nevadafor a highway patrol officer to
measure your bumper to make sureit's meeting, you know, Nevada
standard apps. And that's justnot how commerce in this country
has worked. And it's alsoincredibly inefficient. And what
has made America such a economicpowerhouse is the ability to,
(18:51):
obviously the free flow of, ofgoods and people has been
essential. But it is thecertainty that you will be
treated effectively the sameyour vehicle be treated the same
when you're driving from stateto state, whether you're in a
truck, whether you're in a car,whatever it is, is that freedom
of movement that you that youhave.
Unknown (19:08):
Yeah, and I mean, and, you know, the one thing I'll
add, though, is that that wholeconstruct that we just laid out
is sort of predicated on NITSAand the federal government
occupying the field right on, onthe regulation of the vehicle.
And that is going back to youknow, what we're talking about a
few minutes ago, that's what'sunfortunately, still lacking
(19:30):
here. Right. So so we really doneed NITSA to, you know,
occupied the field, so to speakin that space to make it clear
that they are exercising theirauthority and their
responsibility, right forvehicle regulation. And so, all
the more reason for them to tocontinue the work that they've
(19:52):
started and get it done asexpeditiously as possible.
Greg Rogers (19:54):
Yeah, and it doesn't help we have not had an
insert administrator confirmedin staying there for me For
period of time for many, manyyears know,
Unknown (20:02):
that continues to be a challenge.
Sophie Jantz (20:04):
So in that void of federal like meaningful federal
regulation for abs, have we seenany movement at the state level
to perhaps implement arulemaking that would contradict
this interstate commerceprinciple that we have? Have we
(20:25):
seen that pop up? Have thoserisks occurred?
Hilary Cain (20:28):
Yeah, I think we've seen a few places where states
have implemented some vehiclerelated requirements. The one
that comes to top of mind is ina couple of states, right?
There's recording requirementsfor event data recorders or or
the, you know, equivalent fordata that may be recorded in
connection with a collision ofsome sort. There's some
(20:50):
specifications about how long ofa recording that needs to be
that those that's the one thatpops to mind. out of the gate,
Sophie Jantz (20:58):
right. Oh, and I think till operation as well, I
think that yeah, I think you'reright.
Greg Rogers (21:04):
All right, Hillary, so let's turn to my favorite
part of every podcast episode,which is our lightning round of
fun question. Okay. What is thefuture of mobility? cleaner,
safer,
Unknown (21:17):
smarter.
Greg Rogers (21:18):
That was pretty concise. Okay.
Unknown (21:20):
I think that's also our tagline at
Greg Rogers (21:21):
auto innovate.
Okay,
Sophie Jantz (21:23):
that's the bumper sticker. Okay, so and if that is
the future of mobility, what isabsolutely not the future of
mobility? Ooh,
Unknown (21:36):
that's a good one. What is not the future of mobility? I
don't know that I have an answerto that.
Greg Rogers (21:45):
There's a lot riding on this question Hilary.
Unknown (21:51):
Maybe it's a sign of my glass half full nature. I'm just
thinking about like, what can beand not what should
Greg Rogers (21:59):
love it? What if we are also punting? Yeah, we're
about to, it's day three orfour? The conference? I can't
remember anymore. It's day two.
Yeah. Well, it's Wednesday.
Unknown (22:13):
Okay, it's day three.
Day three. Yeah. Okay, so thisis gonna be probably a little
controversial, but I'm gonnasay, the future of mobility. I'm
not talking about liketomorrow's future mobility. I'm
talking about like, 50 yearsfrom now, future mobility will
not be human driven vehicles. Ireally believe that at some
point in the future. Some of thevery same safety advocates that
(22:35):
are actually expressing concernand skepticism about AVS will be
advocating that humans not beallowed to drive vehicles
anymore. Yeah. And what astrange world that'll be. Yeah,
I think it will happen.
Greg Rogers (22:52):
What is your favorite fictional form of
mobility?
Unknown (22:55):
Oh, I fictional I really am still holding out hope
for like the Jetsons, like,flying car ish thing. Right. You
know, you know, you don't worry.
Well, you know, I'm talkingabout Yeah.
Greg Rogers (23:10):
Yeah. Well, I feel
Unknown (23:11):
like that's not really fictional. Right? There's like,
a lot of work going intosupplying, yeah,
Greg Rogers (23:15):
there's the Beatles stuff happening right now. They
need to talk to some planners.
Have you told people but yeah,maybe they'll get there. But I'm
excited for that. Yeah. Yeah.
The dog and the robot made?
Yeah. So where can people findyou online?
Unknown (23:33):
Um, so I am on Twitter.
Still, I know Hard to believe,right. I'm still on Twitter, at
Hillary Kane, DC. And then allof our work. The association's
work is obviously available onour website, which is autos
innovate.org.
Greg Rogers (23:52):
Awesome. And we'll put all that in the show notes.
Thanks to you for joining us andpowering through on the
afternoon of the third, fourthor fifth day, whichever one it
is to live here now. Awesome.
Thanks, everyone for tuning into another episode of the
mobility podcast.
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!