Subscribe to this podcast

California Occupational Safety & Health Standards (OSHA) rules prohibit the use of autonomous or semi-autonomous equipment without a driver unless it’s part of a temporary permit.

In this episode of the Precision Farming Dealer podcast, you’ll hear Joani Woelfel, president and CEO of the Far West Equipment Dealers Association, talk about the ongoing regulatory battle over autonomous tractors and what needs to be done to change the rules in California.

Full Transcript

Noah Newman:

Noah Newman here for this week's edition of the Precision Farming Dealer Podcast. On this week's episode, Managing Editor Michaela Paukner goes one on one with Joani Woelfel, the president and CEO of the Far West Equipment Dealers Association, to talk about the ongoing regulatory battle over autonomous tractors in California. Let's waste no time jumping right in. Here's Joani.

Joani Woelfel:

My name is Joani Woelfel. I'm the president and CEO of the Far West Equipment Dealers Association. We are a advocacy group for equipment dealers in seven states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.

Michaela Paukner:

All right, so today we're talking about the ongoing regulatory battle over autonomous tractors that's happening in California. Can you start out by giving us an overview of the current California Labor Code that regulates autonomous tractors and some of the changes that have been proposed to it?

Joani Woelfel:

In the state of California right now, OSHA rules prohibit the use of autonomous or semi-autonomous equipment without a driver, unless it's part of a temporary permit.

Michaela Paukner:

So it needs to be updated to legally allow operators to use autonomous or driver optional tractors?

Joani Woelfel:

Correct. So they need to modify it so that it would permit it in the state of California.

Michaela Paukner:

So what has happened so far in the pursuit of updating the labor code?

Joani Woelfel:

Well, there's a couple of things happening. In California, as many people are aware, the labor movement has a lot of influence in the state, so that's part of it. The other part of it is that, according to the state, they don't think that there's sufficient safety data that exists based on the use of the equipment to develop any type of a basis for claiming that it's safe. They're basically saying that there's not enough information and you haven't provided enough testing and safety data to justify allowing equipment to operate without a driver at the controls. And that would be any type of equipment as well, that would even include equipment like sprayers, they're all self propelled, this type of equipment, but some of them don't require an operator at the controls. Do you know what I'm saying?

Michaela Paukner:

Yes.

Joani Woelfel:

Like for example, Case a few years ago came out with a driverless tractor. There's not even a cab for it. And then recently, you're probably aware that John Deere also came out with an autonomous tractor, but it also has a cab, so it does have the ability to operate autonomously with a driver at the controls. And so the state of California currently allows this type of equipment with some operator at the controls. So that means that autonomous equipment in the state of California is being operated on a permit, basically, on a temporary permit, to provide some of that data.

Essentially, Far West has been working with other stakeholders in agriculture, we're a member of a coalition, the AG President's Coalition, in the state of California, and that is agricultural stakeholders, which are growers, processors, farmers. And we got together and wrote a letter in support of modifying the regulation, but the board voted against it.

During the conversation, you had quite a few members of the board acknowledged that this technology is coming, it's not going away, and that they are going to need to address it in a meaningful way, probably sooner than later. But based on the rejection of the request, that petition from Monarch Tractor, technically it wouldn't come before the board again for a couple of years.

At the same time, they submitted that a legislator in California introduced a bill to address it legislatively, but ended up withdrawing the bill because there wasn't support and they knew that it wasn't going to get passed. So that's kind of where it stands now.

I know that AEM and some of the manufacturers, this has been sort of an ongoing effort of theirs. AEM has the Agriculture Industry Electronics Foundation and they recently held an event where they brought together other people who are experts and have a stake in advancing autonomous equipment, and so they've been working for several years to basically evaluate and help advance standards, so that when states and regulatory agencies begin developing or modifying those standards of regulations, that they're going to be uniform, so that you don't have different standards across different industries, different sectors, different states, different jurisdictions. So that's something that they've been working on.

I know that Far West, in addition to participating with these coalitions, we, this year, signed on to Thera USA, which is a new event that's coming to Fresno in October. And part of that for us was to help bring awareness to new technology, advancing the use of this technology, and getting people more familiar with it by actually seeing it with their own... Getting them familiar with it and interested in it by actually seeing it. They're going to have demos of the equipment, and it's an opportunity for legislators and regulators to also participate.

I know that the group we're working with has extended an invitation to the standards board to attend the event so that they can see demos of the equipment and ask questions and learn more about it. I would say [inaudible 00:06:54] and other stakeholders think that probably the best way to move the needle on this is to educate the standards board members with trial programs that focus on specific areas where the technology is needed to protect the workers.

It's our position that the advantages of autonomous equipment is that it's worker safety. We have a labor shortage and fewer people getting into the industry, and then there's technology and workforce.

Regarding worker safety, with fewer people operating machines that can be used autonomously, you reduce the potential for injuries. And then there's situations that are just ideal for autonomous equipment, like pesticide applications, because that also endangers workers. So those are truly advantages of using autonomous equipment.

Other advantages include just the application of technology in general and advancing technologies. Some of the advantages of using autonomous equipment would allow farmers to operate on possibly a 24/7 basis, which would increase productivity. They can operate under circumstances that they might not otherwise be able to.

We work with the Western Center for Agriculture at UC Davis, and we've been talking with them about updating skills for students to learn how to work on this type of equipment, including electric powered equipment, because it is going to be different than gas powered equipment. And a lot of this new technology and these autonomous technology is going to be taking advantage of the electric revolution, I guess you could say. And that's an important area too, because it is going to be a different type of technical skills required to work on this equipment.

Michaela Paukner:

Going back to the safety piece of it, and that was, like you said, the reason that California OSHA rejected the Monarch tractor petition to begin with. So I know you mentioned education. Do you think it was just a lack of education about autonomy that caused them to think this wasn't safe? Or were they looking for a set number or a size of the data set? Did they provide any clarity about why they thought that was too small of a data set?

Joani Woelfel:

If I recall correctly, they generally said that they didn't feel that there was sufficient information and testing done. And keeping in mind that there's a lot of different types of equipment, different size tractors, different size implements that many in different ways are being developed as autonomous or semi-autonomous equipment. So developing a standard, there's the standard for autonomous and semi-autonomous equipment, but there's also the application of it. And so I think that's part of it.

They recognized that the International Organization for Standardization, ISO, codified a performance standard for safety and principles of design for the manufacturing of highly automated equipment. But they don't think that it has... They basically said, this is Cal/OSHA said, that the standard doesn't provide requirements or benchmarks. It does provide definitions, general principles and requirements to address potential hazards of autonomous equipment. So not enough specificity, I guess, in the international standard that would apply to self-driving tractors.

AEM said in their letter to Cal/OSHA that there is a list of features that autonomous equipment would have to address the concerns that they were voicing.

Michaela Paukner:

So what do you see as the next steps in the effort to update the labor code to meet that kind of specific safety data that the board was looking for and then ultimately allow for autonomous tractors?

Joani Woelfel:

Well, discussions that we're having with people is that we need to increase opportunities to educate the standards board members, and possibly even your legislators, through trial programs that focus on specific areas where the technology is needed to protect workers. And so that would be the example that I gave you of pesticide applications, working in high heat areas, or wildfire smoke and that type of...

Applications in agriculture that pose a danger to workers, that those are probably some of the better opportunities to demonstrate and do trials and demonstrate the safety of autonomous equipment.

Michaela Paukner:

Do you think that once the board starts to get that understanding of how autonomous equipment can remove some of that hazard to workers, that it's going to be relatively easy to pass the updated regulation? Or do you think you have a hard fight ahead of you guys?

Joani Woelfel:

Well, I think it is going to be a hard fight, yeah. So members of the board who are affiliated with labor unions criticized Monarch and its petition for not including union stakeholders in their experimental trials. And there were quite a few opposing this petition, the California Labor Federation, the California Legal Assistance Foundation, Worksafe, and Operating Engineers.

If there is a hope for this to advance, then they're definitely going to have to engage labor in these trials. You've got to have some of these labor stakeholders in the state of California being more open minded and willing to engage on it and willing to work together. Because if you go purely from a safety standard, it's pretty hard to deny that some of this technology and autonomy is going to improve the safety and health of farm workers by not being exposed to pesticides or the dangers of equipment.

So I think that has to be part of the discussion when you educate people about it, and I think that the FIRA event is a good opportunity for them to be on the ground and see it. Because it's one thing to hear about it, to read about it, to even watch it on TV, but when you're actually in the field where it's operating, I think it's a different experience. I think that's going to be necessary.

And then I think there's also the market. One thing in some of the discussions that I've had with people and heard people at events talking, is that the state of Arizona is actually embracing it. And not just embracing it, but advancing it. And so when the technology is embraced elsewhere outside of California, then obviously it's going to advance quicker.

There's a company, I don't know if you're familiar with it, I don't remember reading about this in the special that Farm Equipment did, but there's a company called Raven Industries who has two test sites here in the state of Arizona, and they recently just opened an office in Arizona to focus on it more. And so there's a couple of... Actually, I don't remember where I read it, but I recently read somewhere that the state of Arizona is actually embracing not just autonomous equipment, but also the transition to electric vehicles without mandates. That they just recognize it, and so there's a couple of companies, I believe, here. The climate here is more open to it, and so it is just a natural way of the economy. You know what I'm saying?

Michaela Paukner:

What's the benefit then to Arizona and dealers there in particular to be in this place that's embracing it as opposed to California seems more hesitant to do so with the move to reject the petition and the comments that the board had made in doing so?

Joani Woelfel:

Well, one of the farmers who was talking about it said that it's going to advance more quickly in the state of Arizona than it is in the state of California. Which is unfortunate, because, as you're probably aware, California is the largest ag economy in the country, which would benefit, I think, substantially more.

And I think another thing to point out is going back to workforce, the reality is that the industry is struggling to recruit, I think, young people into service tech positions. And it goes across the trades. It's not just in equipment, it's in construction, it's in a lot of different trades. And you're seeing, I think that's a driving factor behind a lot of this autonomous equipment, because that heavy lift and that hard labor is something that you have certain people who are willing to do that. I shouldn't say willing, but there's some people who love it.

But I think there's a recognition that schools have been encouraging people to go to college versus pursue the trades, and so there hasn't been a balance in that area. And that's a place where I think this type of equipment, autonomous and semi-autonomous equipment, is going to fill that niche. So what that means is that the people who are working on that equipment are going to have to higher level of technical expertise, which is a really good opportunity for educational and training institutions to design curriculum that people can pursue to work in these areas.

Michaela Paukner:

Just to circle back on some of the things you touched on, what did you think it says to other states that California, the state with the largest ag economy in the country, rejected this petition for autonomous tractors?

Joani Woelfel:

California, we have a lot of dealers in California. We have more dealers in California than our other states, obviously, because it's the large ag economy and because it's a large state. There are a lot of policies that the state of California is implementing and enacting that are really challenging across the board.

I mean, you see right now where they've struggled for years to have sufficient power on their grid, and yet they're pushing for electrification of everything. And as you've probably been following in the last few days, their power grid is strained. And so what I would say is that people that I'm communicating with in the state of California are really challenged to do business. And I think this is another reason why the farmers are pushing hard for, I'm going to say not just the farmers but the growers, because there's a few groups in the state of California that were in that article that I wrote who have been very active in this, The Farm Bureau, the Grape Growers, Western Growers, and I think that they have really valid concerns that with all the challenges that the state of California imposes with regard to labor and regulation and water, that they see this as a very viable solution that's going to allow them to not just produce, but in some cases potentially even stay in business as costs and challenges increase.

In the state of California, I think for farmers, and obviously I'm not a farmer, but I would say that regulation and challenges with water and pesticides are probably their top regulatory challenges. And that with autonomous equipment, it would reduce, again, like we talked about earlier, it would reduce their farm workers exposure to pesticides, which is a health issue. And even in the Central Valley of California, it's long been an issue with pesticides because the application of pesticides will get in the water and in the soil and blow in the air, so it creates health issues well beyond the farm worker.

It just seems natural that you would be more willing to embrace this type of technology to improve worker safety is what I believe the board is more likely to embrace.

Michaela Paukner:

That makes sense. Going back to the labor stakeholders, is Monarch or any of the other parties using autonomous equipment, working with labor stakeholders going forward to address that piece or that concern from the board?

Joani Woelfel:

I don't know. I read an article, I think it was after the board hearing, in Agri-Pulse, I believe it was, and the article itself really talked more about the frustration at not embracing the technology. I'm not aware of whether they're engaging it, but I think it's safe to say that when a board like the Cal/OSHA board rejects a petition, that the petitioner would take the comments and the outcome and determine how to move forward in a way that is going to encourage the board the next time a petition comes before them.

Michaela Paukner:

And then I think, was there anything else you wanted to add about either the petition or anything related to autonomous tractor regulation?

Joani Woelfel:

What I found difficult in our role in this issue in following this and then advocating about it, is that the autonomous equipment and semi-autonomous equipment, it's new technology. And while manufacturers have... AEM, as I was saying earlier, AEM has a task force or a group that is, I think, trying to corral manufacturers into developing unified standards. So I think the challenge though, is there's so many different types of equipment in technology and a lot of it isn't necessarily being developed in the United States. I mean, that's what the point of fear is, that a lot of that technology is being developed outside of the United States. And obviously if they want to sell the equipment in the United States, then they're going to have to make it to the standards that the different jurisdictions where it operates are going to be... Let me go back.

If they're making this equipment outside of the United States, they're going to have to comply with what is required in the United States and in the jurisdictions where that equipment is going to operate. Which I think is another bit of a challenge, because I'm sure you're aware that a lot of agricultural equipment comes from outside of the United States.

It was interesting when I was reading about Raven in Arizona, because Raven is based in South Dakota, but they were bought by... Raven was a public company generating net sales of 348 million in 2021, but it was acquired by UK based CNH Industrial.

Michaela Paukner:

Interesting.

Joani Woelfel:

It was interesting. And what it did is that a lot, and that's what we're finding and I'm seeing in FIRA that we found challenging, is that a lot of the equipment... I need to think of a way to say this. I mean, you probably are aware of this. I've only been in this, what I'm doing now, for the last five years. My mom's family were farmers, but I haven't been actively engaged in agriculture in my life.

I know that when I'm seeing, and as we get more familiar with autonomous and robotic equipment, a lot of the technology is retrofitting current equipment. And so I know that one of the goals of this acquisition of Raven was to do as John Deere has done, and that is to basically integrate the technology into the equipment when it's built, rather than retrofit it. And I think that will make it a lot easier to develop standards, because if you already have the equipment and it's being integrated into it instead of retrofitted, then that changes a lot of things.

Michaela Paukner:

So do you think that the John Deeres and the CNHs, the people that are integrating autonomy into the equipment, will have an easier time when it comes to the regulatory process?

Joani Woelfel:

Well, I think they are better equipped to answer that than me. I mean, they are the experts. But it makes sense, because the equipment that they're integrating, I know that from people that I've talked to, there's certain technology that's rather standard, I guess, across the industry, sprayers, fertilizers, seeding, those types of things, that they're integrating into the equipment itself because it's what makes sense and it's efficient. And so I think that in doing that, obviously they're trying to develop uniform standards across the board.

I would imagine that manufacturers see that as the path forward, because you won't have to do as much testing on each individual implement if you're integrating some of the functions into the equipment itself.

Michaela Paukner:

Right. That makes sense.

Joani Woelfel:

And as you know, I mean, all of them have been acquiring companies that were like this, where it was a company that provided a certain type of product or service and Deere, CNH, or other manufacturers are acquiring those companies so that they can take control of the development of that technology.

Noah Newman:

Thanks to Joani Woelfel and Michaela Paukner for this week's edition of The Precision Farming Dealer Podcast. The full transcript of this episode is available at precisionfarmingdealer.com/podcast. And you'll also find our full library of episodes there too, so check it out. For all of us here at Precision Farming Dealer, I'm Noah Newman. Thanks for listening.