CPUC Workshop - 2021-02-03
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
California Public Utilities Commission
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
So thank you everybody for joining. It looks like there's a few people still trickling in, but we wanted to start with a little bit of just brief self introduction and introduction to our work in transportation and rail at CPUC and really focus some q and a and discussion with you all on the phone about how we think about environmental and social justice through the lens of transportation and our rail safety work. I did wanna take a moment to see if that poll the poll has been running. We are just really eager to kinda get a sense of our audience because we won't be able to see all of your faces today to know kind of the breadth of where folks are coming from. And I see we've pulled up some results here, and we have quite a nice spread across internal staff, community based organizations, other government agencies at multiple local and state level, and some policy and advocacy organization.
So that's great. I'm glad well, hopefully, that'll lead to quite a rich and diverse discussion when we get there. Thank you for responding. So I wanted to just start with a brief self introduction. My name is Tara Curtis.
I joined CPUC in December, so I'm about two months into this new role as the supervisor of our transportation analysis group. And I came to the PUC after early in my career about a year working with the city of San Francisco with SFMTA. But most recently, I spent the last eight years in transportation consulting, working with cities and transit agencies, community based organizations, regional governments, mobility providers, all kinds of other organizations working to solve transportation challenges across the region and state and sometimes nationally. And in that role, really took on a very people centric or customer centric view of transportation. And in this new role, I work within protection and enforcement division or CPED.
And CPED serves multiple functions. But what I'm involved with is the passenger transportation side of our division, which oversees for hire, passenger carrier passenger carriers like limousines, airport shuttles, chartered and scheduled bus services, transportation network companies, autonomous vehicles, and ferries. So as a policy supervisor, I lead a team of analysts currently working on programs related to accessible on demand transportation, piloting and deployment of autonomous vehicles, reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation network company fleets like Uber and Lyft, and really managing the loads of data we receive from those companies. So as someone who's worked in transportation for a while, I really appreciate the broad intersections of our work with environmental and social justice. And it's really this breadth of impact that transportation can have that draws me to it as a profession in the first place.
So some of the the key transportation issues that have come up for us from a ESJ perspective include safety. Safety is really key at PUC, but safety for travelers of all ages and abilities is a big focus in all of our work. Accessibility, and we talked this morning about definitions and and really how to define accessibility and how to increase it. Transportation for limited income communities and tribal communities, and transportation industry impacts on on low wage labor. Vehicle emissions and reversing disproportionate impacts of past transportation decisions on communities of color, and ensuring access to opportunity like jobs and schools and services.
So I'm very excited to to have you all here in the breadth of experience that you bring to get into a discussion, and hear from you today. But first, I'm gonna ask Matt to give a little introduction of himself and, his work as well.
Speaker 1
Thanks, Tara. So I my name is Matthew Bond. I'm the I'm a supervisor in the rail crossings and engineering branch of the rail safety division, and I've been at the CPUC now for almost eight years, four years in the rail crossings group. Specifically, my group handles the the safety of rail crossings, both new and existing. We handle quite a bit of the planning side of things.
The CPUC has to approve all new crossings. So that includes quite a bit of of the planning side of especially rail transit agencies as they build out their systems. We've worked extensively with LA Metro on the expansion of their system and the in you know, on the planning side of how how and where to do that. Most recently, the environmental and social justice action plan has been included in those proceedings. So all applicants now have to answer how how those new projects meet the goals of the of the ESG action plan.
So it's, it's an interesting field that, that we're going into. Yeah. That's that's kind of the the the general idea one.
Speaker 2
Excellent. Okay. Well, I think we'll move into some discussion and q and a, and we've structured we've prepared a few questions to prompt everybody with that Matt and I will be asking. But I think also we're really interested in a fluid dialogue. So to the extent that time allows, feel free to raise other issues or questions.
So I wanted to start kind of at the top and very big picture and broad and pose the question to you just how can we help with, you know, given what you know either from following or being involved with with our proceedings and our our jurisdiction, our type of work, really, what's on your wish list for PUC to to support your work in environmental and social justice? And, Monica, are we going to monitor are we gonna be reading aloud from the chat or or taking folks off mute?
Speaker 3
Yeah. I mean, if you wanna prioritize folks that have raised hands, and then I can also feed in from the chat. So we can check for hands first, and if not, I can read at least one thing that's come in through the chat.
Speaker 3
Yeah. So from Matthew George, any efforts underway to change the calculation for Cal? I think streets and highways, one ninety, to prioritize grade separation so that pedestrians are given more importance. So going right to the to the thick of it.
Speaker 1
Wow. That is very specific. But, yes, there's actually has been some discussion about how to prioritize a number of of different issues with section one ninety. There's I have not heard yet anything about pedestrians, but we're certainly open to that to that idea. But other issues that that we've talked about, are blocked crossings and just general general thoughts about how to, include issues of, discommunities, in the in the section one ninety process.
And for for those of you who might not know, section one ninety is a, state funded program, that provides, money for grade separations, of existing at grade crossings. And the CPUC handles the priority list, for for that program.
Speaker 3
I think you have a Matthew George's hand up. And then George from IT, if we could unmute him and he could chime.
Speaker 1
Oh, yeah. Of course. Yeah, Matthew. So I'm sending you a request to unmute right now. Or or, actually well, there you go.
You're unmuted, actually. There we go. Yeah.
Speaker 5
And and thank you. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to put you on the spot and go straight into the weed. But No problem. There there are some issues that that come up with the rail crossing.
I mean, one is that we don't have this sort of issue of redlining and reparations because by and large the railroad alignments were built first and then the communities were kind of forced to them. But just from a philosophical, practical, legal perspective, you have jurisdictions over the crossing. The real danger with the homeless encampments seems to be longitudinal. And so, you know, is the Commission taking any steps to sort of clarify how far the reach that crossing jurisdiction is. Does that make sense?
It
Speaker 1
does. I mean, there's some issues with federal preemption there with things beyond the crossings themselves. I don't think that the commission at this point is is looking at a at at any broadening of that state authority, if that answers your question a little bit.
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you. I mean, I I yes. It does, and we can talk more some other time.
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. But but, yes, there there's definitely been some talk about changing some of the issues with section one ninety.
Speaker 2
Okay. I don't see any other questions in the chat. Let's see if we've got we have another hand raised here, Charles Mason. George, could you unmute Charles?
Speaker 6
Yeah. I can unmute myself. So I'm with the Public Utilities Commission for those that don't know, and I work in the news and outreach area doing local government and community outreach. But my questions, goes around the data around the TNCs, Uber and Lyft. Right?
And so one of the one of the coalitions that I'm working with addressing race equity at the commission, there's been interest in terms of with the TNC data that we get every year, how we can look at it in terms of geographically,
Speaker 6
Have we broken down that data to look at where there are issues around where pickups are happening or other incidents that are happening within that? Have we done that? Because that kind of visual spatial data can be very helpful in understanding is there discrimination happening in terms of how TNCs are operating. And I know other states and cities have actually taken that data from Uber, Lyft, and other related TNCs and used it to try to work with them. You know, how are we doing that?
How are we progressing with that in in California?
Speaker 2
Yeah. Great. Thanks for that question, Charles. You're absolutely right. We collect a lot of data from the TNCs.
And just to give a quick bit of background, there was, our regulatory jurisdiction and regulatory program over the TNCs was established in 2012. And on an annual basis, we collect very disaggregate disaggregated data from all the TNCs in the state. And our team is responsible for managing, cleaning, and analyzing that data and using it to inform our policy work. And, actually, for anyone who's really interested in this stuff, the templates that we request data from the TNCs with are also available online. So you can see specifically what fields of data we collect.
We to answer your question about the the analysis that we've done to look at trip activity and geo geolocation and different kind of behaviors of the TNCs, that's something that since I came on board, I've become aware of some ongoing analysis that our staff had started before I before I came on board, and we are working to advance that internally for the time being. And, really, this is getting at some of our own some of our own questions to advance our approach to policy making, but also in response to questions that we get through the through the context of the proceeding or coming from the commissioner's office, or other internal stakeholders. So there's there's nothing, there's there's been very little publicized, in terms of the analysis on that data since about 2015. I think that was the the last time a real comprehensive look at the full dataset was made public. But it's a it's definitely a priority of mine and and my team's to to to mine that vast dataset we have and be more intelligent about the patterns we see emerging, what are the problems, how does it correlate with conditions on the ground or demographic information in terms of where the trip activity is or is being denied.
So, yeah, it's a very rich dataset. We could ask almost infinite amount of questions by looking at it. But, hopefully, within this this year, we'll be able to share more more detailed response to your question.
Speaker 7
Okay. And then just real quick to help Matt out on a little bit of that last question because I dealt dealt with a lot of rail safety issues. And I just one strategy that that the the business community outreach team has done, and we've done this in partnership with Roger Cluxin, the head of the rail safety division and others, is initially, when there's a lot of issues happening, we've had this a lot in the Stockton area. And what what I did was I brought in, you know, local government officials, community based orgs, and other entities in the region to have a dialogue. You know, this included fire and police and others because of all the multiple issues that happened around the rail safety issues with mostly homeless encampments around those areas.
And I found that in in some areas, you have a lot of communication happening. I think Fresno has a little bit more than other parts of the state. In other areas, you haven't, and Stockton was kinda fragmented. But it it is an effective tool that kind of helps us get around a little bit of the restrictions of what we can do around the enforcement area, but also maybe helping spur dialogue in the region. So others that have different enforcement regulatory legal legal requirements to address those issues.
So that that that's just an example of a way that we can get creative, to help, address some of the issues that are happening around homelessness, around, rail encampments.
Speaker 2
Matt, I do see one more question that's come in through the chat that I think is best directed to you. Any discussion about allowing rubber tire vehicles on rail lines? For example, I have seen on the Internet small bus like vehicles that travel on both rail lines and on streets, and that came from Arnold San Miguel.
Speaker 1
And I'm I'm not aware of any discussion at the commission or with any of the, rail owners about about allowing that? But it's an interesting idea.
Speaker 3
Tara and Matt, I just wanted to see if I could weave in one thing from the chat, if that's okay. Mhmm. Yeah. So we have one question that that kind of zooms out a little bit, and it's about participating in CPUC processes. And this is true across divisions and across things, but perhaps we can address it from a transportation and rail angle.
So I'll read the the chat. The current process to authorize members of the public to become members to a proceeding is cumbersome and resource intensive and is an obstacle for many organizations from becoming parties. Are we considering changing or updating these rules of engagement to enable greater public input? So I can speak to this a little bit, but would love to hear you know, feel free to take it first.
Speaker 2
Yeah. Well, I'll just I'll just take a first stab at that, Matt, and feel free to jump in and follow. I'll say that I'm still personally on the learning curve as well on how to get involved with our own proceedings since I joined so recently and can appreciate the real the real challenge that it that it is. So I for example, Monica and I have started some conversations internally about this that issue specific to our work and, a real desire to make it more accessible and available to participate, for a broad set of stakeholders. And, I think we really recognize that there is just so much more value and we can do smarter work with a broader set of perspectives represented in the dialogue.
So I'm aware of the issue and trying to address it in the ways that I can and then maintain that as a priority.
Speaker 1
Yeah. I I agree. It's an it is an issue with rail safety proceedings, especially applications for new crossings. You know, we rarely get very many, parties participating, So it's definitely something that that we would welcome, additional participation. And it obviously is a complicated process, to become a party and to comment and things like that.
Any ideas from from people in the group about, about how to make that easier and how to how to engage additional groups in the process.
Speaker 3
I can I can bring up one comment that's related that, you know, some folks can become parties to the proceeding, and ALJs tend to be pretty open They know this person's perspective open minded about who can become a party to proceeding? One of the issues is outreach at the outset. So people are actually knowing about a proceeding being opening and knowing the process to be to get in to get involved. It seems to be what this person, Matthew George, is bringing back up is one point. And, I mean, I'll just offer just from the ESJ broader lens.
We talked about this this morning. We're also trying to explore how we can better include public comments on the record as part of proceedings as another way of being involved if organizations and people don't want to become full parties to our proceedings and invest all that time. How can we can make sure public comment gets utilized in a way that affects decision making? It's it's still an open question, but there is movement in that direction. So I'm hopeful that that will be a a much bigger opening for people to be able to participate and for more perspectives to be able to be included.
Speaker 2
Yeah. Yeah. I would just add on to that, Monica, that I think from my perspective, and and I think yours, this is something we've talked about is the challenge is certainly outreach at the outset, but also the fact that it takes a lot of time and effort to participate. In some cases, our proceedings are years long processes, and we and there's several opportunities to engage, and and some of that is quite in-depth work. And so generally speaking, the the commission has something called intervener compensation, which is available in certain proceedings, and it just so happens to not be available in transportation proceedings, save save one that we're involved with the TNC access for all work because, that has its own revenue source.
We're able to offer intervener compensation. And and that just means there's essentially a a stipend available for qualifying entities participation in the proceeding. So that's also something that, you know, I'm I'm learning about and looking into, and then I know it's on on Monica's mind as well. And I did see that somebody also suggested to us in the chat another place to look is reviewing how federal agencies handle public input. So that's that's something that we'll certainly take note of.
Let me see. There's certainly a lot of comments and questions flowing in from the chat now.
Speaker 3
Okay. So it's just turning a little more into q and a, but, you know, we can we can roll with it. So I am not sure this is in you all's domain, but I will put it out there anyway. What is being done to I think this is more of an energy division question. What is being done to support the scaling of electric bus bus fleets for public transit?
Could there be a new rate structure for charging? Any other incentive programs for local transit agencies? I believe that would be more of an energy division question, but I just wanna confirm that with Tara and Matt.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I I think you're right, Monica. Certainly, would be able to respond better to that, and I'd be happy to to help follow-up to get a more descriptive response to your question. But one thing I would point you to that I know they're working on is something called the transportation electrification framework. And this is essentially, as I understand it, sort of a a strategy for for rolling out electrification infrastructure, charging infrastructure.
I don't know specifically how it relates or or specifies transit versus sort of general public of, charging infrastructure, but that's one thing you could look into. And and, again, I'd be happy to follow-up with the energy division if that would be helpful.
Speaker 3
And then similarly, and I think this would apply, there's another question related to prioritizing electric vehicle charging infrastructure in environmental justice environmental and social justice communities, especially in areas of high concentrations of folks who drive for TNCs? How are we tracking progress? I definitely know EV charging is energy division, so consider that one. But is there any kind of link to to the TNC discussion? I I don't see that right now, but curious.
Speaker 2
Yeah. Well, so I think I'll take a quick step back on this one and and note that there is senate bill ten fourteen, which established the clean miles standard. And this is a statute that both the California Air Resources Board and the PUC are responsible for establishing regulations around and implementing. And that is that is a it sets targets and requirements for the electrification of TNC services. So this question really relates to the core issues being explored through through the development of the clean miles standard program.
That is currently in the hands of the Air Resources Board. They have an open proceeding dealing with their regulatory process. We have not opened our proceeding yet. So we are very much in collaboration with them to follow their work, and our own energy division because the the topics are very intersecting. But but we don't have anything open on our end yet, so watch for that in the the coming year.
Speaker 3
Okay. So we're continuing to have some comments related to public participation and some interesting things, like, specific to transportation and rail. So, know, holding more workshops, work groups, and with stakeholders to get them more involved in policy discussions related transportation and rail. And there was a suggestion you could require public notice at the site of the proposed project, amend general order 88 b to require public notice. So I think that's a rail I'm assuming that's a rail general order, Matt?
Speaker 1
that delegates CPUC authority over the modifications of existing rail crossings.
Speaker 1
So that's a staff level approval of of changes to crossings. You know, I we haven't had any discussion about, you
Speaker 1
public participation in that process. So that's something something to consider on on that. To me, the bigger issue is is official proceedings with the commission and how to how to better engage the public.
Speaker 3
Yeah. And just following up on that, something that's come up in the first session as well. People have been told by constituents they feel discouraged and do not want to spend time submitting informal comments if they are not going to be considered as part of the record. Yes. We have heard that.
And they also do not want have the bandwidth to fully officially participate as a party. So in terms of thinking about these other openings, it's just, you know, like, o eighty eight, something to consider.
Speaker 1
Right. Yeah. I think somebody mentioned on the federal side, you know, looking at at how how the federal government handles comments like that. And certainly on rulemakings, members of the public can simply submit a comment. They don't have to they don't have to become a party and do a lot of other work throughout the process.
So something like that might be interesting to consider, but it's probably a little bit above what we're thinking here.
Speaker 2
Matt, it might be good to to pose your second question here. I see the comments are slowing down a little bit, although one just came in as I was talking. Don't see any hand raised. But but it your second question is on point of this discussion. So maybe we could go there, and come back to the last question that came in the chat.
Speaker 1
Sure. Yeah. So so that question is basically, you know, what stakeholders should we try to get involved in in, especially rail work? Are there specific groups that that people are aware of that, that we can reach out to? How do we how do we get more more participation?
Speaker 2
And while folks are thinking about who else we could or should get involved, I'm seeing some responses come in the chat now. Matt, there is a question I think is directed to you in the chat. Any plans for CPUC involvement in the electrification of the in state locomotives in line with other state goals under SB thirty two and three three fifty?
Speaker 1
I'm not aware of any major, you know, mandates or any anything like that. I have heard some talk of funding for some projects like that, but I haven't heard anything major on that. Okay.
Speaker 2
And, actually, that person also asked any updates on the timing for the clean mile standard proceeding. So that's for me. Not really. What I would point you to for the most up to date information is through the Air Resources Board website. And as of their November 2020 workshop, they released their draft regulation, which is available for public review at this point.
So that's probably the most current thing. But, again, we are very actively in communication collaborating with them internally at the same time.
Speaker 3
Tara, if it's okay, I wanted to chime in with two things in the chat, and then I think you have two hands in the participation list. So in terms of your question of or Matt's question of who to involve in rail proceedings and whatnot, transit writers, unions, and associations came up as, I think those are folks that we probably haven't had as much in our proceedings. And then also for rail specifically, focusing on transit agencies, municipalities, counties, and state agencies because freights the freight, you know, companies can argue federal preemption if the commission tries to compel action. So getting some of those other folks involved is is a recommendation there.
Speaker 2
Yeah. Yeah. In my experience so far, the the parties to the proceeding were really relying on them to represent individual, you know, transit riders or or customers of the systems that we regulate. So I I like that idea. More more organizations that directly represent transit riders or other similar groups, sort of user groups would make a lot of sense.
Speaker 3
Then feel free to folks can actually unmute themselves. So just if you wanna call on somebody, they can unmute themselves.
Speaker 4
Hi. Thank you. This is Jose Saldana with CARB, and, I just saw Doug Eno's comment, and it's kind of along those lines. So CARB is working to engage with communities on rail issues and a regulatory item they have coming up. And, you know, I just wanna say that engaging with residents and grassroots folks, while there is a lot of interest, there's not a lot of time.
And I think that your best bet would probably be going to communities like, you know, Ivan, EJ task force meetings. And if it's just during public comment, taking about five minutes to share what you're doing, it, you know, at least in my experience of doing this work, and I've even heard it from advocates themselves where they show up in a, you know, in a space. And the first year folks are like, what are you doing here? And then the second year, they're like, oh, you're still here. And then the third year, maybe they start trusting you.
And so, I don't think there's any short term answers. And I think government usually is, you know, thinking of outreach in terms of the next meeting and, you know, instead of it city building opportunity so that it builds on itself. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Great. Thank you, Jose. And I think, Charles, do you have your hand raised again, or is that from last time?
Speaker 7
Yes. Again. And and I'm glad Okay. My friend Jose jumped on right before me. We we sit in a monthly meeting together, and, he always has is right on point in terms of engaging the community.
I think there's there's two side. He he already hit on a couple of them, the community based organizations and targeted task forces around in those communities that are working on this issue. I think I mentioned before in my other comments, you know, the homeless advocates, but also the advocates around this, around the rail safety issue, mental health advocates and social service advocates that provide all those wraparound services that help people, who are living near rails or congregating near rails and so that you can bring down the incidents of people being killed or hurt around the rail stations. And so that's very important. And then in a lot of cases around the communities where these larger congregations of homeless issues are going to be in environmental and social justice communities, So the advocates around that are are gonna be there.
I'll I'll say that the other the other thing for the TNCs is maybe we need to talk to the drivers sometimes, but I don't know all the regulations and rules around that. But the other thing is with with the CPUC for those who you don't know, and I'm in one of those roles and as a local government and community liaison, many community based organizations work through us and can get their input through us. Like if they're not willing to go through the new comment feature, which is in the process of being considered by administrative law judges, you know, as they're writing up their memos, is thinking about utilizing there's eight of us around the state that really allow you access point to the organization. And if you don't have the time to follow a proceeding for three years, four years, five years, how long has the TNC one been open? Eight years or something?
Speaker 7
Nine years. Yeah. You you can actually communicate with us, and we actually write reports that go up through the commission and end up in other reports so they get get to be looked at in a different way. So I think that's I think that's really important to understand that there's other access points. But we do have to do a better job at figuring out ways and making it easier for people to comment.
And Jose is right on point, you know, being an outreach and engagement person. It is a multiyear process. We can't do one offs, we have to, you know, build those relationships not only just through our team but through through obviously, through your two, units of the organization so that people see us not just when we need something, but all along the way.
Speaker 3
Matt and Tara, I can feed y'all one more thing from the chat. It's a TNC related question. So, Tara, maybe more for you. TNCs are having a huge impact on both emissions and congestion. So electrification may improve down the road, but to what extent it's not clear.
You know, recent studies says TNCs have more than doubled the vehicle miles traveled and even pooled rides create more congestion. Are you considering any limits on TNC numbers or giving cities some regulatory control?
Speaker 2
Yeah. I saw that study as well, and it's not the only one that deals with that topic. You're absolutely right. So to the to the question, will you consider limiting numbers in major cities? I to my knowledge, that's not something that's been discussed within the commission.
But but also just to clarify here that we as a staff, at least in in my group, we are we are advisory staff. We advise the commission, or the commissioners. And, ultimately, decisions like the one you're suggesting is a decision that rests on the commissioners. But, certainly, the some of the data that we have and analyze really could inform such a decision. But one thing that we are doing, trying to be even more proactive about this is developing, maintaining, sustaining our collaboration, our our working relationships with cities and regional governments across the state.
And just in the last couple of months since I've come on board, I think we've had, you know, a handful of meetings like that just to explore what those cities or regions are working on, what their priorities are, what they're planning around, and how we can help inform their decision making and planning. So even without, you know, incorporating some of the things you're suggesting through a regulate regulatory process, we are trying to be more collaborative and connected at the local level Because ultimately, that's where we know that the challenges are and the cities really know those challenges and the potential solutions best.
Speaker 2
Okay. Cool. Maybe I'll go on to the next question that we had prepared, which is also around data. And we're just wondering for folks' thoughts on what metrics should we be using to evaluate environmental and social justice impacts as it relates to transportation and and rail safety. And, specifically, what kinds of analyses should we be conducting and considering?
I know there's a rich discussion this morning about definitions and data sources and some existing challenges with those, so I'm really curious to continue that conversation specific to transportation here.
Speaker 2
Yeah. What metrics should we be using to evaluate environmental and social justice impacts as it relates to transportation, rail safety, and specifically, what kinds of analyses should we be conducting or considering?
Speaker 4
Thank you. You're welcome. I had a question on transportation, but, I'm not sure I'm understanding, you know, because it's so broad, like, the context here.
Speaker 4
So so what what I'll do is, like, paint a picture, and and I bring it up often because, the condition's still there. So there's a housing projects in the Bay Area city of Rodeo. And, this particular housing project is on the fence line to oil and gas operations. It's kinda tucked away away from the main, metropolitan area or you know, there's nothing there. You know, there's no stores near them.
There's, sewage treatment across the street and, oil and gas storage facilities around. Your next update. Where the I go there. You know, I noticed that if cars break down, they die because folks can't afford to fix them. And so there's just tons of cars along the along the sides of the streets.
And so, there hasn't been any funding there that I'm aware of, and they're very high on the CalEnviro screen, you know, list. And so the transportation, I don't know if you meant it this broadly, but the folks there don't have transportation to get places, and there's not funding. And so it seems like a, you know, very big inequity issue. And, you know, I'm not, you know, I'm not gonna pretend I know who does what, but I wasn't sure if it was the CPUC or the CEC that, you know, brings infrastructure to places so that they could start, you know, improving on their transportation access and and, you know, things of that nature. So, I I guess I would encourage just as a metric looking at, where there hasn't been investment and the needs are the same, if not greater than where the investments are currently having.
Speaker 2
Yes. Matt, did you wanna respond to that from least partially an infrastructure perspective?
Speaker 1
Unfortunately, I'm not sure I have a good answer for that with, you know, how the how the CPC could be involved there.
Speaker 2
Yeah. Yeah. I think, generally, the the the point about needing more investment in places that has that have not enjoyed investment in the past is is a key point a key takeaway point.
Speaker 4
Let's see. Okay. Thank you. I might have misunderstood the question, and and this wasn't the right question for this conversation.
Speaker 2
No no worries at all. Yeah. No worries. And then it sounds like we might have one more hand up before we do a little bit of summary. Let's see.
I don't see any hands, Monica. Is there
Speaker 8
I apologize. I've got some background noise, so that's why I tried not doing this. But my quick response to your question is and I was just trying to type it into the chat. But why not try and find out who you're not hearing from? Because, you know, given some of the comments that have been raised about the difficulty of becoming a party and what does or doesn't count for being on the record, there I've been particularly personally following the wheelchair accessible TNCs process.
And while you're hearing from disability advocates, you're not hearing from the traditional EJ population and communities and advocates. And you're getting the statute was set up to skew the involvement. And there's a lot of people you're not hearing from on that particular issue. And I suspect from just listening to these various other comments today, there's a lot of people you're not hearing from. And that might be a metric to look at is where where are your you know, I'm saying this respectfully.
Where are your glaring holes and gaps of who's not part of your process? So good luck.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Well, I'll just say I I really appreciate that comment and prompt. In fact, one of the questions I had jotted down if we were gonna get there is just simply to ask you all where are blind spots. And part of the motivation for today was for us to identify some of those as it relates to, you know, our outreach process and who has not been able to or who's not even aware that they could be engaged. So point very well taken, and I do like the idea of having this something that that we, you know, we are explicit about and we track and we try to identify.
It's it's obviously a hard hard thing for us to know. So it's also, I think, why we are excited to to have this conversation and to start a relationship with everyone on this call so that you can let us know when we miss someone. Okay. Okay. Go ahead,
Speaker 3
Monica. Well yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
So I'm happy to summarize. So, yeah, thanks everybody for your feedback. I think one thing I can mention from just the broader plan that we're, you know, that we're working on is that we had not a lot of action items in the last plan for the work that's happening in transportation and rail that's specific to the PUC. We had some, but we didn't have a ton. So this conversation is really breaking the ice, I think, in a lot of ways on on these issues.
So really glad we could have kind of an open higher level discussion and trust that we will, you know, be continuing to dig into these issues over time. But in terms of some of the the takeaways, I think, I mean, I'll keep it pretty short. There definitely seems to be some potential openings and a few general orders related to rail that we will might wanna follow-up on in terms of noticing and getting thinking about pedestrian access and how that gets prioritized. From an environmental and social justice lens, you know, we, wanna make sure that there isn't sort of a a disparate impact or or a, disproportionate burden in communities on some of those things. So those are potentially some areas to look at.
I'm gonna keep looking at my notes. Definitely some things around 10 transportation networking companies, TNCs, and access to that information. So that's something that's hopefully coming up. So we'll be oh, thank you. Sorry about that.
My mom is taking very good care of me while I work on this workshop. Anyways, so that that's that. But the big thing that, you know, has come up, and it makes a lot of sense considering that this is one of the, you know, kind of first times we're having these discussions about transportation rail at the CPC is making sure we have the right people involved. So, in a rail context, you know, we have challenges with the rail companies, arguing preemption. So there's a need to think about other people we can bring to the table to perhaps push some of these issues.
There were some good comments from outreach folks like Jose at CARB about kind of thinking more proactively about getting to people, looking at our blind spots and who's not at our table. And, again, proactive thinking about that and trying to reach out to folks to get them knowledgeable about proceedings, let them know when things like prehearing conferences are happening so people can become parties, and continue to work on this issue related to public comment, so people can hopefully have an access point there. Those are kind of some of the big takeaways from at least from my perspective. Matt or Tara, anything else in terms of, like, what you're carrying forward?
Speaker 2
No. I think you summarized it really well, Monica. I I really appreciate the the feedback and, specifically, the constructive criticism. I really appreciate that. It does inform our work.
Speaker 1
Yeah. I appreciate all the comments, and we certainly have some work to do on on a variety of different things, especially section one ninety. I think that's, that's a good takeaway from this.
Speaker 2
Great. Well, I guess I can just briefly wrap us up then. We, again, really wanna thank you for your time and feedback and affirm that that this feedback will be considered in the update to the ESJ action plan. We intend to release a draft of that updated plan later this spring and will allow for additional public comment at that time. And in the meantime, if you have additional thoughts, please feel free to submit those to esj action plan at CPUC dot CA dot gov.
Thanks, everyone, again. Take care.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.