The California Public Utilities Commission did not abuse its discretion in issuing a Phase I driverless AV deployment permit to Waymo to operate fared passenger service in San Francisco and parts of San Mateo County. Waymo’s application, submitted through a Tier 3 advice letter, satisfied the requirements of the Commission’s prior decision setting forth the requirements for drivered and driverless AVs for hire, and there was no basis to conclude that the Commission acted beyond its authority in issuing the permit. City and County of San Francisco v. Public Utilities Commission, 108 Cal.App.5th 22 (2025).
The Commission’s issuance of a driverless AV deployment permit to Waymo represented the culmination of several actions by the Commission—in coordination with the Department of Motor Vehicles—to balance safety concerns with technological advancements in authorizing the use of AVs on California roads. The Commission first established a pilot program for AVs in 2018 (D.18-05-043) and, after a series of workshops to review the pilot program, and issued a decision to authorize driverless AVs for hire in 2020 (D.20-11-046; the “Deployment Decision”). Concurrently, DMV implemented a detailed regulatory framework to monitor the safety of AVs, which required, among other things, that manufacturers seek the department’s approval to operate AVs and, by doing so, demonstrate compliance with numerous statutory and regulatory requirements. Following the issuance of Waymo’s Phase I driverless AV permit, the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (Petitioners) filed a writ of mandate challenging the decision.
In reviewing the Commission’s decision to issue Waymo a Phase I driverless AV permit, the court first reiterated the deference afforded to the Commission. As a constitutionally created entity (not an administrative agency of the state), the Commission has broad legislative and judicial powers and its findings receive a “strong presumption” of correctness. The scope of an appellate court’s review is therefore appropriately limited to determining whether the Commission committed an abuse of discretion. The Commission’s decisions are subject to reversal only if “no reasonable person could reach the conclusions it did.”
With this standard in mind, the court proceeded to consider the evidence in the record and determined that each of the Commission’s findings was reasonable. In response to Petitioners’ primary concern that the Commission focused exclusively on passenger safety, and erroneously disregarded its duty to focus on public safety, the court held that the Commission’s focus on passenger safety is supported by the record. The Commission decided, as a matter of policy through the Deployment Decision, to focus on passenger safety given DMV’s complementary statutory obligation (which it had fulfilled) to ensure the operational and road safety of AVs. The depth of DMV’s knowledge on AV safety “far eclipse[d]” that of the Commission, and relying on DMV’s expertise in this area was reasonable. Further, no party, including Petitioners, challenged the Deployment Decision, and the Commission did not abuse its discretion in not revisiting the overarching policy determinations in that decision.
Petitioners also argued that the Commission’s process to approve Waymo’s permit by Tier 3 Advice letter was improper given the permit “was highly controversial and raised significant policy questions.” On this point, the court stated that Petitioners faced an “uphill battle” in challenging the Commission’s choice of procedure. The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency and subject-matter expert, may establish its own procedures and a reviewing court may not upset this choice absent a manifest abuse of discretion or unreasonable interpretation of its governing statutes. Here, the Commission appropriately required a Tier 3 advice letter where the Deployment Decision authorized such procedure.
Lastly, Petitioners argued that the Commission’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence in two respects: first, that Waymo had a “good safety record,” which Petitioners contended ignored evidence of public safety risks; and, second, that Waymo met all requirements of the Deployment Decision given evidence of vehicle code violations. The court held in favor of the Commission in both instances. With respect to safety, a close review of the statistics detailed in the record, which demonstrated the small number of incidents involving driverless Waymo AVs and the relatively minor nature of the incidents, provided an adequate basis for a finding that Waymo had a “good safety record.” The court further held that the evidence of isolated vehicle code violations do not undermine the Commission’s decision that Waymo complied with the requirements of the Deployment Decision. The Commission will only deny or revoke a passenger carrier permit for “repeated or egregious violations” of the vehicle code, neither of which were present in this case.
[View source.]
