California state officials did not rush in giving Waymo the green light to continue rolling out its autonomous vehicle taxi services in San Francisco, a state appeals panel has ruled, finding the driverless vehicles so far have not proven to be any more dangerous than those driven by humans.
The decision has turned aside an attempt by San Francisco city officials and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority to force the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to pull back its permit allowing Waymo to begin driverless vehicle taxi service for hire.
In the decision, a three-justice panel of the California First District Appellate Court determined the city and county of San Francisco and other objectors had no basis to establish the PUC acted contrary to its own rules in granting the so-called Phase I deployment permit to Waymo, despite city and county officials' concerns for the driverless vehicles' potential impact on public safety.
The appeals judges said San Francisco officials' concerns over public safety from a relatively small number of run-ins between driverless vehicles and firefighters and other public safety officers, which resulted in no injuries, is sufficient to justify reversing the PUC's permitting decision.
"... The record discloses the Commission considered and responded to Petitioners’ safety concerns," the justices wrote. "It further discloses that few of the incidents that Petitioners brought to the attention of the Commission involved Waymo driverless AVs (autonomous vehicles), each was minor, and none involved injuries.
"Thus, contrary to Petitioners’ claim, this is not a record from which a court could conclude no reasonable commissioner could have voted to approve issuance of a phase I driverless AV deployment permit to Waymo."
The case landed before the appeals court in 2023, as San Francisco City Hall challenged the Commission's decision to grant Waymo a Phase I deployment permit.
The permit was issued under rules established by the California Department of Motor Vehicles to regulate the deployment of driverless autonomous vehicle on California roads.
While the DMV holds ultimate responsibility for regulating AVs on the road, in general, the PUC is granted authority under the law to govern the use of AVs when they are used as for-hire fared vehicles - a use referred to by many as "robotaxis."
In 2018, the Commission established a pilot program to govern the controlled rollout of AV taxis on California's roads.
The program began with approving AVs that were also operated by a driver.
However, in 2022, Waymo sought to move on to the next phase, as they sought a permit to begin operating driverless AVs in San Francisco. Under the Phase I deployment permit, the vehicles would be allowed to begin operation, but would be monitored as the company and state officials collect data on their performance and safety records.
Under the program, should they meet benchmarks, the driverless AVs could win full permission to begin operating in the city and perhaps elsewhere in California.
According to its website, Waymo currently operates AV ride-hailing services in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Phoenix, with plans to expand their service next in Austin, Texas; Atlanta; and Miami.
The city initially tried to stop the Waymo deployment by using a California state environmental review law, which is often used by activists to shut down or slow new developments and infrastructure projects.
But the PUC determined that law was inapplicable, as the deployment of AVs did not impact the environment any more than any other kinds of vehicles.
San Francisco then challenged the permit by arguing the PUC had moved too quickly to approve the permit and had ignored city officials' concerns over safety.
They asserted the Commission had focused too much on passenger safety and not enough on alleged risks presented by the vehicles to the public, including workers in construction zones, first responders and pedestrians in unexpected situations, among others.
San Francisco's objections were also backed by their counterparts in Los Angeles.
After the PUC set aside San Francisco's concerns, the city appealed their decision to the First District appeals court.
The appeals court noted the law limits its ability to review and reverse any decision from the PUC.
But in this case, they said the evidence provided by San Francisco doesn't support its conclusion that Waymo's AV robotaxis were any more dangerous than vehicles operated by human drivers.
The appeals court further determined the Commission had acted in accordance with its rules and mandate under the law to focus more heavily on passenger safety concerns.
"The Commission adequately considered the relevant factors and has demonstrated a rational connection between those factors, the choices made, and the purposes of the enabling statutory schemes pertaining to AVs...," the appeals court wrote.
"While a reasonable person might have reached a different conclusion than that reached by the Commission, that is not the standard by which a decision of the Commission, or any other government body, is adjudged for abuse of discretion."
The decision was authored by Justice Kathleen M. Banke. Justices Jim Humes and Monique Langhorne Wilson concurred in the ruling.
Waymo was represented by attorneys F. Jackson Stoddard and Joseph Bias, of the firm of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, of San Francisco.