Insights

The Update on Connected and Automated Vehicles at the Minnesota Legislature

Joe Harrington

Joe Harrington

March 20, 2026

Waymo driving on the street with a line of cars behind it.

On Wednesday, March 18th, the Senate heard four bills that will decide the future regulatory framework of Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs) in Minnesota. Unlike recent conversations in the House, where meaningful conversations on Waymo and other CAVs have stalled, the Senate Transportation Committee has had broader discussions to ensure future policy frameworks don’t undercut the interests of Minnesotans across the state.

Two Visions for Regulatory Frameworks

The Senate heard four bills that outline various elements of automated vehicles.

The first two bills set out different approaches to regulate Waymo and other similar vehicles, which will likely form the basis for whatever framework emerges from the legislature.

The first, SF 4010, held by Senator John Stewart, is the Senate companion bill to the autonomous vehicle regulations bill heard in the House (HF 3513) led by Waymo lobbyists.

The second, SF 4618, held by Chair Dibble, presents a stronger, more thoughtful regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles that takes steps towards protecting workers, transit, and other local concerns.

Two additional bills were heard that add critical worker protections to the conversations on various frameworks.

SF 4014, led by Senator McEwen, requires a natural person to be present in the vehicle when a commercial vehicle over 10,001 pounds is operated by an automated driving system.

SF 4381, led by Senator Maye Quade, establishes an advisory board to study the impacts of the implementation of commercial autonomous vehicle operations on Minnesotans at large and workers across the state.

What is Different About the Two Main Regulatory Frameworks?

The Waymo Industry Bills and Chair Dibble’s Package present two different visions for regulating automated vehicles.

Chair Dibble’s bill (SF 4168)

Requires a traffic study before autonomous vehicle fleets can operate, mandates a plan to coordinate with public transit, and includes equity provisions to ensure service beyond high-profit corridors.

Waymo Industrial Bill

No study traffic study is required or exists.

Chair Dibble’s bill (SF 4168)

Creates a per-vehicle fee to fund displaced worker programs, acknowledging that autonomous vehicles will eliminate driving jobs.

Waymo Industrial Bill

Does not include worker protections.

Senator Dibble’s Bill (SF 4168)

Requires independent third-party verification that the autonomous driving system works safely in Minnesota-specific conditions like snow, ice, and low visibility before it can operate without a human driver.

Waymo Industry Bill

Requires no independent safety testing and relies on self-certification by the company.

Senator Dibble’s Bill (SF 4168)

Sets the insurance minimum at $10 million and makes the operator, vehicle manufacturer, driving system manufacturer, and network jointly liable for any collision.

Waymo Industry Bill

Sets insurance at $1 million and doesn’t address joint liability.

Senator Dibble’s Bill (SF 4168)

Explicitly preserves the authority of cities and counties to regulate autonomous vehicle networks, require permits, and charge fees.

Waymo Industry Bill

Preempts local governments from imposing any autonomous-vehicle-specific requirements, permits, or fees. This does the opposite of Senator Dibble’s bill.

Our Streets believes that autonomous vehicles like Waymo should not be operating on Minnesota streets. However, if a regulatory framework is going to move forward, it must set a high bar: one that protects workers, preserves and strengthens transit, ensures safety, supports local regulatory authority, and holds companies accountable.

Senator Dibble’s bill moves meaningfully in that direction and could be the foundation of a successful framework. We will continue to advocate for the strongest possible framework to protect Minnesotans and the transportation systems they depend on, stopping Waymo from undercutting our progress towards a transportation system for all.

A strong regulatory framework like this could also make it less attractive for companies to operate in Minnesota on terms that prioritize profits over public interest. This opens the door for local communities to impose additional restrictions, rather than handing the industry a blank check the Waymo bill seeks.

Similarities Between the Two Frameworks

While the two frameworks differ significantly ins cope and regulatory strength, some language found across both bills where the two frameworks overlap.

Definitions that are identical or nearly identical

Both bills define automated driving system, autonomous vehicle, dynamic driving task, dynamic driving task fallback, human driver, minimal risk condition, on-demand autonomous vehicle network, operational design domain, and SAE J3016 (a set of guidance on definitions for connected and automated vehicles). Much of this is essentially the same language drawn from the SAE J3016 standard, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles.

Minimal risk condition requirement

Both require an autonomous vehicle to achieve a “minimal risk condition” if the automated driving system fails. 

A “minimal risk condition” is what happens when a vehicle safely pulls itself over or stops because something has gone wrong and the trip can’t continue safely — like a controlled pullover rather than a crash. This applies whether a human driver or the automated system itself is the one bringing the vehicle to a stop.

SF 4618 adds a second layer for vehicles with a human driver — requiring a request for a human operator to intervene first — while the Waymo Industry Bill only addresses the driverless scenario.

Federal safety standards

Both require autonomous vehicles to bear the federal manufacturer certification label when required by federal law.

First responder interaction plan

Both require a first responder interaction plan that covers communication with a remote support person, how to remove and tow the vehicle, and how to recognize autonomous mode. 

SF 4618 is more detailed, requiring the commissioner to issue guidance on minimum content by a specific date and adding safety/maintenance operations and broader public safety risk information. The Waymo Industry Bill defines the plan in the definitions section with less specificity.

Authorization to operate without a human driver

Both require a person to obtain authorization from the commissioner before operating an autonomous vehicle without a human driver, and both require an application that includes applicant information, vehicle details, and a certification of compliance.

SF 4618 requires a stricter process and enforcement for this provision and creates a fee for this permit.

Automated driving system as “driver”

Both treat the automated driving system as the legal driver when no human driver is present, and both deem it to electronically satisfy all physical acts required of a driver. Both also consider the automated driving system licensed under Chapter 171 once authorized.

On-demand autonomous vehicle network operating requirements

Both include nearly identical provisions requiring that network vehicles cannot accept street hails, must display distinctive signage, must disclose fares before a ride, must transmit an electronic receipt showing origin/destination/time/distance/fare, and must undergo annual vehicle inspections with documentation retained for three years. Both also address unlawful parking for passenger pickup and dropoff, though the Senate bill is slightly more permissive in its language.

Differences Between the Two Frameworks

Senator Dibble’s package goes further than the Industry Bill to regulate connected and autonomous vehicles. Here are the provisions that appear in this bill and not SF 4010, the Waymo Industry Bill.

Both require proof of financial responsibility at the same baseline level under sections 65B.48 and 65B.49. Both add a higher combined single-incident liability limit for driverless operation, but the amounts differ significantly: SF 4618 sets it at $10 million, while SF 4010 sets it at $1 million.

Additionally, the Senate bill makes the operator, vehicle manufacturer, driving system manufacturer, and network jointly liable for incidents, holding all parties accountable.

Before a company can operate without a human driver, an independent third party has to verify that the system actually works safely, and specifically in Minnesota conditions like snow, ice, low visibility, and road salt. The company pays for this but doesn’t get to control the outcome. This is basically a requirement to prove your technology works here before you’re allowed to use it here.

Someone senior at the company, a corporate officer, general partner, or equivalent, has to personally sign the application for an operations permit. This means a real person is putting their name on the line for the accuracy of everything in it, creating individual accountability.

If a CAV is involved in an accident, the operating company must report any collision involving one of its autonomous vehicles that results in injury, death, or property damage, as well as any instance where the automated driving system receives a traffic citation or other penalty. This reporting has to take place within 24 hours of an accident. Essentially, if someone gets hurt, something gets damaged, or the vehicle gets a ticket, the state has to know about it within a day.

The commissioner can pull a company’s authorization if their system causes a crash, breaks traffic laws, or makes a driving decision no reasonable human would make. The commissioner must pull authorization if a court finds the system caused serious injury or death. Before getting back on the road, the company has to demonstrate that the system has actually improved. 

Companies have to report not just crashes, but also near misses, disengagements (when the system gives up and hands control back), mapping errors, remote human interventions, and traffic law violations the system notices itself, even if no one issues a citation for them. 

The commissioner has to publish this data on a public website within five business days. This creates a transparent, ongoing public record of how these vehicles are actually performing.

Before a fleet can operate in an area, a traffic study of that area has to be completed which the company will pay for. This is meant to understand the baseline conditions before autonomous vehicles are added to the mix. Though, as written, it doesn’t specify what the study has to cover.

Municipalities in the proposed service area get to review the traffic study and submit comments, and the commissioner has to consider their input. This gives cities a formal seat at the table before a fleet starts operating in their community.

The network has to serve neighborhoods outside of high-profit corridors, can’t discriminate based on race or income, serve people without smartphones, and provide accessible vehicles for passengers with disabilities — or pay a fee if it can’t. This is designed to prevent a scenario where autonomous vehicles only serve wealthy, easy-to-navigate areas and ignore everyone else, while undercutting transit services for those same marginalized groups.

The network has to submit a plan for how it will work alongside existing public transit rather than competing with it. As written, the plan requirements are vague and could be strengthened, but the intent is to prevent autonomous ride services from undercutting transit ridership or interrupting or slowing transit service.

The network has to pay an annual per-vehicle fee that goes into the state’s workforce development fund for the dislocated worker program. This acknowledges that autonomous vehicles will eliminate driving jobs and creates a funding stream to help those workers transition.

Our Streets supports SF 4618’s worker impact fee, which is an important step in supporting impacted workers. Additionally, we support strengthening this provision with additional labor protections from SF 4014, led by Senator McEwen, and SF 4381, led by Senator Maye Quade, and the broader efforts of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Teamsters, and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), and other unions to protect transit operators, rideshare drivers, truck drivers and other Minnesota workers.

If a political subdivision (like a city, county, or township) determines it needs new infrastructure to accommodate the fleet — like new curb management, signage, or road modifications or upkeep — and the traffic study supports that, the commissioner can require the company to pay for it or modify its operations. This prevents cities from getting stuck with the tab for accommodating a private company’s operations.

Our Streets has concerns for the operations of CAVs requiring curb space, staging areas, pickup zones, and normalizing constant vehicle circulation. Operations of such systems could increase pressure to preserve or expand roadway capacity rather than expand transportation choices like transit and active transportation. We will continue to track infrastructure cost provisions to ensure CAVs don’t provide the impetus to expand roadways.

The network is subject to Minnesota’s Consumer Data Privacy Act, providing a meaningful privacy protection given the amount of location and trip data these services collect. 

However, a broader conversation is needed beyond the scope of this CAV debate to expand data privacy protections as surveillance and data collection continue to expand and be monetized. 

Cities, counties, towns, and airport authorities can regulate the network within their boundaries, including requiring permits and charging fees. This is the opposite of preemption — it explicitly says state law doesn’t override local control or autonomy.

While requiring a human driver in an autonomous vehicle to comply with section 169.09 in the event of a collision, and both require the authorized person/operator to report collisions consistent with existing law. The Senate bill is more detailed, requiring the vehicle to stop and remain on scene and requiring the authorized operator to comply with 169.09 obligations to the extent possible.

Both address the situation where the network cannot provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles, but they handle it differently. The Waymo Industry Bill requires the network to redirect the request to an accessible provider. Senator Dibble’s bill (SF 4618) requires payment of a per-vehicle fee into a fund, though the fee amount and fund destination are not currently defined.

Key Features in the Industry Bill That Have No Counterpart in SF 4618

SF 4010, the Waymo Bill, explicitly exempts the network from Common Carrier status under Chapter 221, which would require additional insurance and other requirements. Their general argument to circumvent these requirements seems to be based on the premise that they, like similar transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft, are exempt from these requirements.

However, unlike Uber and Lyft, which operate in the legal space of independent contractors and non-company-owned and operated vehicles, Waymo or similar companies operate very differently.

The Waymo Industry Bill also preempts local governments from imposing autonomous-vehicle-specific requirements/permits/fees, exempts driverless vehicles from equipment laws that only apply to human drivers, and addresses commercial motor vehicle operation. None of these provisions have counterparts in the Senate version of the bill.

What Comes Next

Minnesotans have been clear: they want more transportation choices, affordability, environmental and climate responsibility, labor protections, and democratic accountability. The solution to these challenges is upstream investment — stable housing, reliable transit, safe street design — not automation layered onto an already overbuilt car system.

Waymo and similar CAVs threaten workers across our state, accelerate private extraction from public infrastructure, threaten transit stability, and reinforce car dependence at a time when communities are working to reduce it and build safe, affordable, and sustainable transportation systems.

This is not the direction Minnesota should move towards. Our Streets will continue to track legislative progress on the issue and advocate for having additional thoughtful conversations on the impacts of CAVs. Additionally, we continue to support policies that strengthen public transit, protect workers, reduce car dependence, increase fiscal responsibility, and keep transportation governance accountable to the people of Minnesota.