The Mobility Podcast

AVs & American Competitiveness - Hilary Cain, Alliance for Automotive Innovation (TRB ARTS 2023)

• The Mobility Podcast

Share episode

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.

Keep up with us on LinkedIn:

Or find us on Twitter:

Hilary Cain:

If we decide to see leadership to say China, for example, we're not going to do AVS in the US for now we're just going to like put this all on pause while China proceeds. When we decide that we want AVS 1015 2030 years from policymakers finally decide, oh, we need this. We will not have the supply chain in the United States to support that industry, we will be reliant like we are right now in the electric vehicle space on Chinese supply chains. And so that's the part of this competitiveness argument that makes me nervous and why I think we really need to get this policy landscape figured out for competitiveness reasons.

Greg Rogers:

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:

Hello, I'm Sophie Jantz. I'm also a public policy professional and urbanists,

Greg Rogers:

and we are recording on site at the 12th edition of GRBs automated road transportation symposium arts, we'll just call it in San Francisco. And we're thrilled to welcome our friend Hillary Kane, who is Vice President of Technology Innovation and mobility policy. That's a title at the at the Alliance for automotive innovation. Hillary has been on before so it's nice to see you. Nice to have you back on the podcast.

Hilary Cain:

It's good to be here again.

Greg Rogers:

Yeah. So it's, before we jump in the discussion, though, want to start with what's now our first question asking guess, which is what is your transportation story? Why do you do what you do?

Hilary Cain:

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 primary focus on autonomous vehicles. And for me, it's because I have a mother who is a wheelchair user. And I have experienced firsthand the challenges that she faces and getting to where she needs to go, whether it's a medical appointment, out to see friends, even go grocery shopping. So for me, this is about my commitment to this technology is about finding mobility options for people like my mom who have to rely on others to get them around.

Greg Rogers:

Yeah, I love that. And especially here, it's I think I've said this before on the podcast, it is interesting that I mean, it's there's such a massive opportunity to improve mobility for obviously, our our parents and our grandparents. And one of the first moments of breakthrough and getting my folks to understand what I do is I saw a segment on like, I don't know, Good Morning America or something years ago. And they said, Oh, we saw that autonomous vehicles can drive for us after we take the keys away. And we're like, yeah, that's that's kind of the whole kind of whole bit here. We're not the whole thing. So last time, we had you on you were at Toyota. Right. And since then, you moved over to the Alliance for automotive innovation. So let's just start with, could you tell us a little bit about the Alliance? Yeah, sure. So innovators? Yeah, exactly.

Hilary Cain:

So the Alliance for automotive innovation, or auto innovators, for short, was formed in January of 2020. It was actually a merger of two preceding organizations that represented the auto industry. So there was the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the Association of Global automakers and they came together under one roof, that roof is the Alliance for automotive innovation. So we essentially represent the auto industry here in the United States. But we also have a membership that expands beyond just the automakers. So we also represent automotive suppliers and technology companies that are working in the automotive space, including a number of AV startups. Yeah, you've

Greg Rogers:

had a pretty massive expansion of membership. Yeah, exciting. Yeah. And I mean,

Hilary Cain:

it's intentional, not just because you know, more members makes you more powerful. It's not that's not what this is about. It's about a recognition that the future of mobility is going to involve players other than the automakers right, that this is an ecosystem approach, right. It's going to end so in recognition of like that, we wanted to make sure our association represented the auto industry, as it's going to look tomorrow and not just the auto industry as it looked before.

Greg Rogers:

Yeah. So let's, let's turn to Bullis, let's just dive into federal AV policy. Because we've been we've both been working on AV policy for a long time and we're in the trenches together on self driving. We started years and years ago, where, where do you feel like federal policy is today versus let's say back we had you on I think in 2018.

Hilary Cain:

Yes. So the the bad news, right, is that not much has changed, right. So we're still trying to get a federal AV bill through Congress. We are still looking to the US Department of Transportation to finish updating its existing Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to accommodate AVS And yeah, so so a lot of still, we're we're not much of a different position than we were a number of years ago. I will say, earlier today there was an announcement about some work at NITSA that we're, we are excited about it auto innovators. This is this morning, Acting Administrator Carlson announced the AV step program as a new exemption pathway for AVS to deploy at a higher scale or greater scale than they've been allowed to deploy so far. So we're pretty enthusiastic about that, it seems to us at least there's some innovative new thinking coming out of the department and maybe some serious thought being given to how we can sort of get out of this, like, trough of disillusionment or whatever that we'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 to come together to give us this federal regulatory framework we've been seeking now for many, many years.

Greg Rogers:

Yeah, yeah. And I was I was really excited to hear about this discussion of launching step, because we've, we've already seen the slow pace of reviewing and approving exemptions, you know, Cruz has been waiting for a long time any other manufacturer has waited for a long time. And without exemptions are currently done, you're limited up to 2500 vehicles per manufacturer. So there's obviously some friction that's created when we're looking at okay, one of the biggest opportunities with ABS is rethinking vehicle design, right, how we, how we use vehicles, whether they're built for shared rides, whether they're built for delivering goods, more efficiently, whatever it is, and it feels like that is I mean, as far as I'm concerned, that's one of the most tremendous opportunities with ABS just challenging what the conception of a car is. Sure, and how we use it. Do you see 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 move to move this forward?

Unknown:

Yeah, I wish I knew. And, you know, to be honest with you, I've been working on this stuff for, you know, 12 years or so. And I start to question my effectiveness, right, because we're still we still haven't gotten to

Greg Rogers:

where, where maybe we're just preserving your job security?

Unknown:

I don't know. But I wish I knew the answer. I mean, and you know, we were talking about this a little bit before we were before we started recording. But yeah, you know, I I'm honestly very concerned about where we are from a federal and state policy landscape right now. I'm very cognizant that we're at a fragile time for the AV industry that where we are in terms of the economy, there just isn't the same, you know, cashflow that there was a few years ago, and companies are at a really critical stage and in their maturity, and they need to be able to deploy this technology in a commercially viable way. And right now, we do not have policy at the federal or state level that allows that to happen. And I think we're at a very, there's a very significant risk that we will see the funding dried up for these companies, we've already seen it in some cases, and that the these companies will go belly under and it's not, or belly up. But it's not because the technology isn't mature, I am blown away at the progress that some of these companies have made in a short period of time, and the capabilities of the technology, I am more optimistic about the technology and its capabilities today than I've ever been, and maybe least the least optimistic I've ever been in the ability of the government to do what it needs to do to allow this industry to flourish and this technology to get onto the roads and the scale it needs to get onto the roads to make a difference.

Greg Rogers:

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 working this regulatory framework, because it's going to take some time to do if you look at the timelines that were on self driving at start, for example, would it be done with a good number of these rulemakings? Ideally, at this point, we would have a little bit more certainty. But the fact that this has dragged on for, you know, years and years and years, we've seen little Ford progress, while the same time Yeah, it's it is incredible, the technological progress we've seen and, you know, I think that it's easy to criticize some of the rosy projections I were given, you know, 510 years ago. But we are at, you know, what feels like a big inflection point for not just moving the technology forward generally, but but for the US as global leadership and developing and maintaining it. And we're seeing this, I think, really across the board, and it you know, It honestly feels like a big deal. It feels like a big lost opportunity. For the US that we're dragging on,

Hilary Cain:

right? So the competitiveness thing is a really a really compelling argument here. And what I want to dig into it for a second, because I think sometimes it's this frame just just well, we don't want China to have it and us not to have it. But I think it's way more significant than that. And why would I want by that? I mean, I think we have lessons that we can learn from the semiconductor shortage crisis we went through a few years ago, and lessons that we can learn from what we're experiencing right now in the electric vehicle space, which is, the company or the countries that lead on this technology will develop and maintain the supply chains for this technology into the future. So if we decide to see leadership to say, China, for example, we're not going to do AVS in the US for now, we're just going to like put this all on pause while China proceeds. When we decide that we want AVS 1015 2030 years from policymakers finally decide, oh, we need this. We will not have the supply chain in the United States to support that industry, we will be reliant like we are right now in the electric vehicle space on Chinese supply chains. And so that's the part of this competitiveness argument that makes me nervous and why I think we really need to get this policy landscape figured out for competitiveness, competitiveness

Greg Rogers:

reasons. Yeah, I mean, that really resonates with me, because especially the when you look at what happened on the Eevee side, I mean, I've, I was the crazy person walking down the hill five years ago, when I was at save, telling members of staff for members of Congress and senators how important critical minerals are, and I felt like eyes were glazing over. And they were think about what they're gonna have for lunch. And now, it's one of our biggest questions. I mean, and this isn't just about transportation, it's not just about transportation, when it comes down to critical minerals, it's everything else in the economy, really. And I think you're right, that when it comes down to AVS and the future of EVs, we need to think about the fact that being in the pole position with this technology means that we are also able to unlock all the benefits of that for onshoring. And investing in our domestic capacity, but also making sure that our values and our principles as a country are embedded in this technology. Right. The the automobile is the symbol of freedom in the US where it was for a long time, right. I think in many ways, it still is, we want to preserve that idea of freedom of movement. Yeah. Well,

Hilary Cain:

and I'll also say, too, right. So there is no doubt in my mind, and I think in the mind of Otto innovators, that the future of transportation is automated and electrified. Right. And so if that's the future of the auto industry, you know, and right now, the US auto industry, like the auto industry in the US is a leader on, you know, our has been a leader, at least on the sort of the safety and advanced sort of safety technology side of things. And I really want that, you know, that expertise and that leadership to still stay within the auto industry here in the unit us and not see that leadership as well. You know, the auto industry in the US employs, you know, 10 million people, and as you know, 5% of GDP and I think we all have a, you know, right, like a really strong national security interest and keeping an economic security interest in keeping that. Yeah,

Sophie Jantz:

I think this is kind of leading into one of the other questions that we had for you, which is you lead policy, auto innovators, and auto innovators represents the collective of the automaker, automakers and the industry. They're their policy views. So why is it important that these companies that are in many ways directly competing with each other collaborate on policy development?

Unknown:

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 competitive advantages and disadvantages from the self. But at the end of the day, you know, what drives us and what drives our companies and why I think collaboration on policy is so important is, is it's really about setting a level playing field and creating a policy landscape that allows, you know, all companies, whatever their, you know, sort of business models and plans are to flourish. And there is absolutely interest across the entire industry right now. Including among the leaders and in the laggards, I would say on on AV policy to make sure that there is a clear federal framework in place that allows for this technology to move forward. Right? And it's just just it's that level playing field, right? The level playing field that allows all boats to rise. I'm mixing my metaphors now. But you know what I mean, so yeah, there's Absolutely a strong commitment throughout the industry to working together to get this right.

Greg Rogers:

So Hilary, one thing that I've noticed is that, you know, we've we're starting to see more tension between the federal government and state governments in terms of regulating AVS. How do you? How do you How would you think through reconciling some of the confusion or maybe the conflicts between them?

Hilary Cain:

Yeah, no, it's definitely something that seems to be more consistently there. But I feel like it's bubbling up to the surface, again, in sort of a more significant way of late. So the way I've been thinking about this is, you know, we've sort of got three different things that are coming together to make and nav right, like we've got the vehicle itself, we've got the operation of that vehicle on public roadways, and then we've got the driver, right, like this is sort of 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 the vehicle, the state and local governments regulate the operation of that vehicle on public roadways, and under sort of conventionally driven vehicles. The states also regulate the driver. Right. And so the question is, do we take that sort of wholesale and bring it to AVS? I think the answer is sort of right. So when we're talking about the vehicle, I, I think there should be consensus around the federal government regulating the vehicle stuff we could talk, I think in a moment about why that so I don't think there's I also think there's complete consensus, at least everybody that I've talked to that the states and local governments should maintain responsibility for regulating the operation of AVS on public roadways, that's within their authority. When we get to the driver, it's obviously a little complicated, because we're now not talking about a third entity of you know, a human driver on the vehicle, we're actually talking about the vehicle driving itself, right. And the way I think about it, going back to why the Federal Government has regulated the vehicle, it's because it was out of a recognition that auto manufacturers could not be expected to manufacture different vehicles for different states, right, the the complexity of that, and the cost of that just made it an untenable outcome. Right. So a decision was made that the federal government would regulate vehicles in that way manufacturers could make one vehicle and they could sell it in all 50 states, right? What as I'm thinking about this, as as the driver becomes the vehicle, the driver is the vehicle, the vehicle is the driver, that same sort of baseline argument applies, right, like we cannot get into a situation now where manufacturer a has to manufacture a different vehicle for California that it manufactures for Mr. Massachusetts that it manufactures for Texas. And so as I'm thinking about this, I think that that needs to be sort of in the same bucket as the vehicle. And that needs to be something that we defer to the federal government to for regulation. Yeah, I

Greg Rogers:

mean, I couldn't agree more. I mean, for for the longest out there will know this term, I mean, this is about interstate commerce, right. And this is, this is constitutional, at the end of the day, which is that you can't be inhibiting the free flow of interstate commerce. And whenever you're regulating ABS or a vehicle in very different ways in different states, you shouldn't have to get out of, say, your car and in California and between Nevada for a highway patrol officer to measure your bumper to make sure it's meeting, you know, Nevada standard apps. And that's just not how commerce in this country has worked. And it's also incredibly inefficient. And what has made America such a economic powerhouse is the ability to, obviously the free flow of, of goods and people has been essential. But it is the certainty that you will be treated effectively the same your vehicle be treated the same when you're driving from state to state, whether you're in a truck, whether you're in a car, whatever it is, is that freedom of movement that you that you have.

Unknown:

Yeah, and I mean, and, you know, the one thing I'll add, though, is that that whole construct that we just laid out is sort of predicated on NITSA and the federal government occupying the field right on, on the regulation of the vehicle. And that is going back to you know, what we're talking about a few minutes ago, that's what's unfortunately, still lacking here. Right. So so we really do need NITSA to, you know, occupied the field, so to speak in that space to make it clear that they are exercising their authority and their responsibility, right for vehicle regulation. And so, all the more reason for them to to continue the work that they've started and get it done as expeditiously as possible.

Greg Rogers:

Yeah, and it doesn't help we have not had an insert administrator confirmed in staying there for me For period of time for many, many years know,

Unknown:

that continues to be a challenge.

Sophie Jantz:

So in that void of federal like meaningful federal regulation for abs, have we seen any movement at the state level to perhaps implement a rulemaking that would contradict this interstate commerce principle that we have? Have we seen that pop up? Have those risks occurred?

Hilary Cain:

Yeah, I think we've seen a few places where states have implemented some vehicle related requirements. The one that comes to top of mind is in a couple of states, right? There's recording requirements for event data recorders or or the, you know, equivalent for data that may be recorded in connection with a collision of some sort. There's some specifications about how long of a recording that needs to be that those that's the one that pops to mind. out of the gate,

Sophie Jantz:

right. Oh, and I think till operation as well, I think that yeah, I think you're right.

Greg Rogers:

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 the future of mobility? cleaner, safer,

Unknown:

smarter.

Greg Rogers:

That was pretty concise. Okay.

Unknown:

I think that's also our tagline at

Greg Rogers:

auto innovate. Okay,

Sophie Jantz:

that's the bumper sticker. Okay, so and if that is the future of mobility, what is absolutely not the future of mobility? Ooh,

Unknown:

that's a good one. What is not the future of mobility? I don't know that I have an answer to that.

Greg Rogers:

There's a lot riding on this question Hilary.

Unknown:

Maybe it's a sign of my glass half full nature. I'm just thinking about like, what can be and not what should

Greg Rogers:

love it? What if we are also punting? Yeah, we're about to, it's day three or four? The conference? I can't remember anymore. It's day two. Yeah. Well, it's Wednesday.

Unknown:

Okay, it's day three. Day three. Yeah. Okay, so this is gonna be probably a little controversial, but I'm gonna say, the future of mobility. I'm not talking about like tomorrow's future mobility. I'm talking about like, 50 years from now, future mobility will not be human driven vehicles. I really believe that at some point in the future. Some of the very same safety advocates that are actually expressing concern and skepticism about AVS will be advocating that humans not be allowed to drive vehicles anymore. Yeah. And what a strange world that'll be. Yeah, I think it will happen.

Greg Rogers:

What is your favorite fictional form of mobility?

Unknown:

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 talking about Yeah.

Greg Rogers:

Yeah. Well, I feel

Unknown:

like that's not really fictional. Right? There's like, a lot of work going into supplying, yeah,

Greg Rogers:

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 find you online?

Unknown:

Um, so I am on Twitter. Still, I know Hard to believe, right. I'm still on Twitter, at Hillary Kane, DC. And then all of our work. The association's work is obviously available on our website, which is autos innovate.org.

Greg Rogers:

Awesome. And we'll put all that in the show notes. Thanks to you for joining us and powering through on the afternoon of the third, fourth or fifth day, whichever one it is to live here now. Awesome. Thanks, everyone for tuning in to another episode of the mobility podcast.