-: Okay, good morning
and thank you for joining us today.
I am Marybel Batjer President of the CPUC,
for those who are on the line.
I am calling the CPUC Commissioner,
committee meeting of July 22nd, 2020 to order.
So today two of the three committees will meet,
The Finance and The Administration Committee
and The Emerging Trends Committee.
If you wish to make a public comment
or ask a question please dial 8-0-0
8-5-7-1-9-1-7
and enter the code
and press star one.
You will be placed into a queue
and will be called upon to speak
When we get to the public comment period
which will be after each presentation.
Additionally, there will also be
an opportunity for the public to provide general comment
at the end of the meeting.
The Finance and The Administration Committee
will go first today.
The Chief of the Office of Internal
Audits, Ginny Venerecion-Alunan,
will present on the findings of two recent audits.
The first being review and internal control
over Employee Separation Process
and the second being internal control
over the Business Continuity Plan
and Technology Recovery Plan.
Ginny, please begin.
Ginny: Good morning Commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve today
as my name is Ginny Veneracion-Alunan,
I am the Chief Internal Auditor,
and if I please go to the slide presentation.
Robert: We're bringing up the presentation right now.
Ginny: Thank you.
As you can see we are
going to provide a report on the audit,
the two audits that were conducted
by the Office of Internal Audit Services.
And this report two final audit reports
completed in March, 2020.
Next slide, please.
For today's presentation I'd like to give a roadmap.
So we would like to first
discuss the Office of Internal Audits Services role,
as well as the Audit Committee,
We have an Audit Committee comprise of President Batjer
and Commissioner Shiroma.
Next I will discuss
the importance of internal controls,
provide a definition
and explain why internal controls is important.
And the third bullet is our results,
the focus of the presentation which are the results
of the review of internal controls that we conducted.
I will be providing the audit findings,
the corresponding risk ratings
and the corrective actions provided by management.
I will be discussing the Business Continuity Plan
and Technology Recovery Plan
results of the review of internal controls,
as well as the results of the review
over the Employee Separation Process internal controls.
Next slide.
Slide three, please.
Robert.
So the first thing I'd like to talk
about is the role of internal
Office of Internal Audit Services
and our accountability to the Audit Committee,
comprise of President Batjer and Commissioner Shiroma.
I'd also like to underscore that under
the Public Utilities Code Section 307.6,
"The chief internal auditor shall report his
or her findings and recommendations directly
to an audit subcommittee."
In doing so we have Monthly Audit Committee meetings.
We have a very engage on committee
and who are
ensuring that they're fulfilling
the oversight responsibilities.
Additionally,
the Audit Committee among their responsibilities,
they review and approve the risk-based audit plan.
They do have,
an Audit Committee Charter which discusses the purpose,
the purpose of the Audit Committee shall assist the CPUC
in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities
for the system of internal controls,
the internal audit process
executed by our office
and CPUC process for monitoring compliance with internal,
with laws and regulations.
And the Audit Committee has authority to approve audits,
operational reviews and investigations into any matters
within the scope of its responsibilities.
Next slide please.
The authority and services that the office
of internal audit services conduct
is under PUC Code Section 307.6,
section (A) or
under my role I report directly to the Commissioner
under the general direction of the President
in our office reports to the Audit Committee.
And item (B) we perform audits of key financial,
management, operational, IT audit function,
and perform audits within CPUC to improve accountability
and transparency to executive and state management.
So just wanted to underscore that we are
an independent oversight office.
We receive direction from the Audit Committee
and we have
Internal Audit Charter.
The services that we provide.
We provide assurance by providing risk-based audits.
We provide an advisory role
and we anticipate risk
and provide services to the audit clients.
Next slide, please.
Under our Internal Audit Charter,
our work has to be done under professional audit standards.
We follow the international standards
for the professional practice of internal auditing
and based on the investigation of internal auditing,
we help an organization achieve its objectives
by bringing a systematic
and disciplined approach to evaluate
and improve the effectiveness of Risk Management,
Controls and Governance processes.
Next slide, please.
At this point,
I'd like to discuss the importance of internal control.
Internal control is any action taken by management,
the Board and other parties,
but the goal is to manage risk
and increase the likelihood that
established agency objectives
and goals will be achieved.
And a simple definition,
basically essentially we're trying to make the things
we want to happen happen.
The things we don't want to happen not happen.
And why do we have internal controls?
Why is it necessary for us to have internal controls?
We basically have four objectives
to ensure reliability of financial reports.
We want to increase efficiency
and effectiveness in operations.
We want to ensure that there is adherence
and compliance with the applicable laws and regulations.
And we also want to have internal controls
to safeguard our assets.
This would be similar to like our daily lives
where we want to make sure
that we do have internal controls in our lives.
So this is basically just moving
what we think are internal controls into the organization.
Next slide, please.
The responsibility for internal controls
is given to management.
They're responsible for establishing and maintaining
the controls within the organization.
Government Code 13400,
which is known as the State Leadership Accountability Act
has stated that and has
required that from all state agencies.
And I'd like to also remind everyone
that the internal auditors are not responsible
for establishing and maintaining controls.
Instead, we are responsible for examining the adequacy
and effectiveness of the controls,
making contributions in terms of the recommendations
where control improvements are needed
and contributing to the effectiveness
of the control environment.
Next slide, please.
So this is basically
just a short, a quick little diagram of the audit process.
We start at the top of the green circle for initiating.
The audits that are initiated
by the Office of Internal Audit Services
are approved by the Audit Committee.
And when we do conduct our audit
they're significant research and planning.
I've highlighted document review
but there's also,
requires meeting and interviewing staff
understanding their process
'cause it's important for auditors to
gain an understanding
and confirm understanding the process.
We also needed to focus evidence.
Audits are evidence based.
We need ensure that we should stay in shape,
and substantiate the evidence,
substantiate the finding before we could have any findings.
Next slide.
But that
circle is like the report itself.
We start off with the draft audit report
and this is where we provide the audit results.
And,
we provide this to management.
We provide management an opportunity to
agree or disagree with the findings
and to provide their intended corrective action
as a response to recommendations.
Based on our audits for both audit reports
that are presented today management has agreed
that our findings,
we have a collaborative approach
then those are price approach
that we explained
and we
work with management throughout the audits.
There are instances that during the audit
we found some control deficiencies
and if that's fixed we work on that right away.
I think it is important that
we work on resolution
and we don't wait until
an audit report is issued.
After management provides their comments
that is incorporated,
the management responses reflect
their intended corrected actions
and we've also requested them to provide the targeted
implementation date.
And this is for accountability as we move on to the face of
audit followup and monitoring.
So this the yellow one talks about the action plan
which is an active process where
the management and the audit client
where we work with them.
and we actually ensure that they're addressing
the recommendation and addressing the finding.
Moving on to the next slide, please.
For the next two slides,
I will be discussing the summary of audit findings.
The table below shows,
the table with the finding
for the first column
and there four other
there's actually
there are four one, two, three
there's like five risk ratings.
For this specific audit,
we have two findings which
are considered priority risk ratings.
So for the review of internal controls
over the Business Continuity Plan,
slide 10, please.
One more.
What you see on the Board is
the risk ratings,
but we are going to go
one more slide back, please.
Thank you.
So,
for the review of internal controls
over the Business Continuity Plan
and the Technology Recovery Plan,
our audit objective was to determine the adequacy
and effectiveness of
continuity planning management controls.
Additionally,
we wanted to assess whether internal controls over the
Continuity Plan and Technology Recovery Plan
are in place at CPUC and operating as designed.
And that the processes are administered in accordance
with the applicable federal state department rules.
Based on our audits,
we found that there was a significant lack
of internal controls,
which limited our testing.
Specifically for finding one
the CPUC does not have a Business Continuity Plan.
And this is what I mean when I stated that
we weren't able to
conduct testing because there was no plan.
The second finding,
well, we did find that there was a Technology Recovery Plan,
the value of that Technology Recovery Plan is questionable
'cause it was created independently
without the current Business Continuity Plan.
Both findings are rated priorities for this
corrective actions that management
should address immediately.
Next slide, please,
For this,
for the review of internal controls
over the Employee Separation Process,
our audit objective was to determine
whether internal controls over the CPUC
Employee Separation Process
that were related specifically to the assets
which are laptops equipment.
Security controls and
terminating system user accounts,
whether they were in place
and operating as designed
and B, whether the processes were in compliance
with the specific rules, regulations and statutes.
Based on the audit we have five reportable findings
and we have noted that there is a significant lack
of internal control over the reviewed areas
of Employee Separation Processes.
Additionally,
we found that while HRV on human resources had
established in October 2018 policies and procedures.
(mumbles)
Within the organization,
there was a lack of awareness
of the new policies that were established back then.
And then we also noted
related internal control weaknesses.
For the five findings,
they're are all rank priority risk ratings.
First finding,
the separated employees user accounts
are not timely disabled or terminated.
Then the second finding,
IT equipment retrieval was delayed,
which now means
an employee could
have left CPUC but
we were not timely retrieving the equipment.
Sometimes they were left at the employee's desk
and sometimes they were left with the supervisors.
We also noted significant internal control weaknesses
over batch retrieval and the activation.
We're finding number four,
HRV did not fully enforce the systematic rollout
and implementation of the Employee Separation,
clearance policy and procedure.
While we did say,
I stated earlier that in October 2018
policies were established,
there was no enforcement.
For finding number five,
policy procedures that were implemented then
means refinements and enhancements
to strengthen internal controls
and to guide management
and staff in processing Employee Separation.
What I'd like to point out
is under slides nine and 10.
What I'm focusing here are the findings.
In the slide 13 and 14
is where each finding has a corresponding recommendation.
And we also provide what management has provided
as the corrective action dates for implementation.
So I will be,
I think I'd want it to highlight slides nine and 10
because I'd have to toggle back between slides
13 and 14 later on.
For slides,
moving on to slide 11
regarding a definition of a priority risk rating.
Next slide, please.
So here a legend of the risk rating.
And basically we look at this as,
what is the effect
of the noted findings
or control deficiencies in CPUC?
So for the five findings in Employee Separation
and the two findings in Business Continuity Plan,
they were all ranked priority risk ratings.
Which means management must implement corrective actions
as soon as possible
and monitor the effectiveness.
As stated on the table,
there is
indeed an ongoing threat
to the achievement of our
strategic objectives and goals.
We have
a lot of the deficiencies that have either
and most of them have
not complied with the statutory requirements.
And we also have the risk of the assets not being
safeguarded for Employee Separation.
Next slide.
This slide is the,
on a process that was started
with our new team.
So an important phase of
the audit process
is once an audit report is completed.
There has to be audit follow-up and monitoring.
All our monitoring and follow-up efforts
are reported to the Audit Committee
and our monthly committee meetings.
Monitoring of management's corrective action reports,
which I would call CAP is very important
to ensure that we have accountability
and ensure that we touch base with management
and ensure that they address the recommendations
and whether their corrective action
also addresses the findings.
So in doing so we request updates
from management 60 days
from the final audit report release date.
So we have 60 days six months and one year.
That's when management provides responses to us.
And after the one year mark then we still continue
with the monitoring.
And ask me there,
we may conduct a follow-up audit to determine
if corrective actions have been implemented.
For slide 13, please, next slide.
Well, as I mentioned earlier,
for slide 13 I'd like to refer you back
and toggle back between
for slide 13 if you could look back at slide
nine.
So, we have the Business Continuity Plan,
corrective actions update
and what's listed here
like one A, one B, one C.
And one B correspond to the finding one,
which states that CPUC does not have
a continuity plan.
And I basically provided the 60 day update.
Our next follow-up report
from management is due on September 16.
For one A I've also noted that
while we did have,
so the first column is the recommendation
and the description of the specific recommendation.
Third column is the initial target completion date,
which is stated in the audit report.
Next column over is the updated target completion date
at the 60 day update
for the management response.
So what this actually shows is that
for the different findings
for a Business Continuity Plan
which had a target completion date of
6/30 they are open.
We had reached out to
the Admin Services Director who had stated that
the plan was submitted to Cal OES.
He had sent an update on 6/29
and based on the update yesterday,
Cal OES the main reviewer is
out until August
because he's out in assignment for Colby response.
Right now this
recommendations are still open.
Next slide, please.
For the Employee Separation Process Audits,
this is the 60-day CAPs update.
Just wanted to also emphasize that this
worksheet is busy
and wanted to toggle back to
slide
10.
And while we have the five findings in slide 10,
there are 11 reports that are listed.
What this,
report shows is
that
there was a,
here's the description of what the recommendation states
and the initial completion,
target completion date
versus what the new updates
for a target completion date was given at a 60-day mark.
What is reflected here is the 60-day update.
And while we had reached out,
and I know that HR
is leading the work,
I also want this to go over as I go over each area.
Which of the areas have been completed
and implemented since this report.
So in this report we see
an implementation for item one,
as well as item three.
And HR has like submitted their updates,
which internal audits is reviewing
and there're some areas that there is continued,
continued monitoring involved.
For example, one B
this would be continuous monitoring
that's involved with this one.
For one C,
this is still open.
HR states that it's partially implemented.
For one D,
which is a
an 8/13/2020.
So we will get an update of that as well as item two.
For item three it's been implemented.
For item four,
we say it is partially implemented
and we will be discussing with HR.
And item four B is partially implemented.
We did see implementation
in items five A and five C.
So I,
this actually shows
that there is continued work to fix the problem.
So at this point,
so this is our last slide.
I also wanted to point out that
I have provided an appendix that shows
the detailed audit results
from the March 2020 audit report.
And that is in a,
if you'd like to go over detailed
audit findings and the recommendation
that is detailed separately in the appendix.
At this point this is the end of the presentation.
And I'd be open to take questions.
Randolph: President Batjer I have a question.
-: Yes Commissioner Randolph, please go ahead.
-: Ginny could you just tell
us a little bit about
the Business Continuity Plan requirement
since it's reviewed by Cal OES.
I assume this is a Statewide requirement.
And if you could just tell me a little bit about what
those plans are required to include.
Ginny: So thanks Commissioner Randolph.
So each state agency
is required to follow the requirements
and the guidelines set forth
by the Cal OES.
So there is a standard template,
but the specific guidelines ensure
that each state agency identifies
essential functions
so that an agency's able to operate
when a disaster occurs.
So this reading would be the disaster recovery ensuring that
we are able to provide the essential services
when the disaster strikes.
So there are,
it's a pretty,
the templates have been provided
to state agencies,
but it requires Cal OES review and approval.
So each agency reading
for continuity management purposes
and for the controls,
it is best practices as well as compliance with state
regulations that each agency should have
a current Business Continuity Plan.
And there are specific
requirements for review and approval
as well as ensuring that it's updated timely.
-: So does it include things like.
you know, getting your IT back
having management available.
Ginny: Yes so
with the Continuity Plan,
a subset of that is the Technology Recovery Plan.
Which means,
if something happens in life to provide services
and immediate this old technology is required
in order to bring that up.
So there are different,
like in addition to identifying
what the essential functions,
so that actually will then trim down the areas
as to what are the essential functions
that need to be up and running.
The separate issue about technology,
did that the reason why the Technology Recovery Plan,
if a finding if it needs to go hand in hand
with the identified Continuity Plan
with the essential functions so
IT knows how to act
and they actually have to align.
-: Okay, thank you.
Ginny: Thank you.
-: Yes Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Yes, thank you.
Thank you, Ginny for the presentation.
This is a question for
our Executive, Alice Devin.
Now,
what we heard
as Ginny outlines,
there're state requirements,
the internal auditor,
(mumbles)
Now are we
complying with those standards?
And then it's up to the
executive team and in our case the CPUC to
effectuate
these requirements.
So when I heard
about the Business Continuity Plan is that
it has been sent over to OES for review
and sign off
but the individual who is responsible
for reviewing it
is delayed reviews our plan because of the pandemic,
which is definitely understandable.
So what happens
in the interim if
there is an earthquake,
if there is a flood,
if there is et cetera.
What happens are we poised to
use that draft plan
even as we're awaiting for
the final approval from OES?
Alice: Hi Commissioner Shiroma,
this is Executive Director Alice Devin.
Hi Commissioners, President Batjer.
Thank you Ginny
and Dan for your presentation.
Essentially Commissioner we would follow the plan
that we have submitted at this time.
And one of the things that
director has a veto and I have been chatting about,
and we, in fact, he phoned Cal OES.
Last week or the week before
to talk about exactly what you're
asking
and, you know
setting up go bags, you know,
getting everything in place,
because I think in San Francisco,
a likelihood of a earthquake is something
we have to be very real about
and be prepared for.
I think what's interesting though.
The other question we're asking
and it's something that
you know, we're in a different world right now.
We're essentially all teleworking.
So if there is an earthquake,
what is different now
then would be
since we're all teleworking
and what, you know so IT infrastructure is critical,
you know, do we have redundancy?
So we're asking those types of questions
that we probably wouldn't have asked,
had we not been in this situation that we're in right now.
So I think
this is actually a very good time for us to learn
and to grow.
I think Cal OES is also learning from this process.
I think other state agencies are.
I'd like to engage with government operations
as well to find out kind of what they're doing.
So I hope I've answered your question.
If not,
please let me know, thank you.
-: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Yes, thank you.
Thank you Alice.
Yes, you did answer my question
in what I recall from my
previous Board.
Answer was
did our staff have
ready access to
files and information that they needed to,
can use to provide services.
In that case it was for
farm workers and growers.
So it's a constant learning process,
but to assure that we can still do our work.
I have a question for
our human resources,
Executive Chris Rojas.
In terms of employees operations,
the audit outlines,
the kinds of things that we need to have in place to assure
the overall security
of our organization in terms of separations.
Is there a,
more granular work plan to get to
completed,
implemented,
training.
Is there an effort underway to
get to
checking off all those boxes
that Ginny showed us on the screen?
Chris: Thank you Commissioner Shiroma
and good morning Commissioners.
Yes, I'm actually,
I have a good news bad news situation.
So the good news is we actually do have
mostly completed on here.
The bad news is
the information did not get to Ginny and Dan on time.
But,
most of our categories are indicating either completed
or continuing.
The only one that is partially implemented is one C.
And that is because of the recommendation to train
the supervisors and managers on the separation process.
And we've been trying to figure out what
that would look like.
We normally do our work through the HR liaison
that we have trained the HR liaison
and we have set up a reconciliation process.
So,
we're working and monitoring
making sure that the liaison
are in fact completing the separation process.
So,
so I think you'd be pleased if you
had access to what I'm saying
and that most of it is completed.
-: And I think, Oh, excuse me.
Sorry.
Chris: Sorry.
-: I may follow up with
on Commissioner's Shiroma's comments to
(mumbles)
'Cause it would really be helpful
if you all could send the updates
as soon as you can to Ginny and Dan.
So that they could update the Audit Committee
at our next audit meeting
'cause that would be very helpful to see that.
And it's very good to hear this
because we were really lacking controls
in the separation area.
One of the concerns I had with a course
unplugging if you will,
the technology once a
person has left the Commission,
but I'm talking to
Commissioner Shiroma
and I am talking to Ginny.
The auditor's got on top of that immediately with
the IT staff,
so that they could make that improvement.
So,
even though that's not noted,
I just wanted my fellow Commissioners to know that
that didn't wait for a 30-day
or a-60 day review.
It was done immediately then and fixed.
I think in a very timely manner.
I'm not sure but that's
what the timeframe was.
But I just wanted to note that.
Yes, go ahead.
Ginny: President Batjer,
this is Ginny, Commissioner.
And I think just to
follow up on your comment,
I think regarding the system access,
when we discuss the problem with the audit team,
with our audit clients
and discuss that we had issues about
the termination being
delayed.
As soon as they identified the problem,
they worked quickly on
fixing that problem.
And the,
read the underscores that I think everyone is working hard
to ensure that
the problems are fixed
and we don't wait until the audit report.
Additionally I'd like to add on,
I did state,
I know Chris thank you for
providing the information.
I know we have new information that we received this morning
and I will provide that to the Audit Committee
and noted that there is
a continuous monitoring as well as ensuring that
the corrective action is met.
I will be meeting with your team because
based on our audit followup,
we're also going to review with your team,
the areas where we,
have additional suggestions to ensure that
all the corrective action meets the audit findings
and the recommendations.
But I have also identified the areas that,
and wanted to say thank you for ensuring
that the work is completed.
And I will schedule a meeting to meet with your team.
And we will President Batjer
and Commissioner Shiroma this will be provided to you
at the Audit Committee
meeting next week, thank you.
-: Appreciate that, thank you Ginny
and thank you, Chris.
I have another question.
If I may,
Alice you brought up a very good point
regarding that
what was submitted
on our Business Continuity Plan to OES
did not take into town
pandemic.
So,
and our new life
and the restrictions and so forth.
So,
I look forward to learning what OES
and GovOps says
regarding what
the state departments and agencies are doing
to update their business continuity,
because just the very thought of the Hayward fault
going which is 160 years overdue for a major earthquake.
What that would do for all in the Bay area is just
frightening the thing
as well as in the region.
So I think
with a pandemic
so I'm really eager to update.
I don't know if,
OES would suggest that we do an addendum
to our Business Continuity Plan,
but I think we really need to make those considerations and
happy to
do whatever to help the business services area
and yourself in
seeing what,
how we can make that agenda
or that amendment to our Business Continuity Plan.
'Cause I think you raise a very good point.
It's very important that we
have some sense as Commissioner Shiroma pointed out.
Very good
example.
Do we have access to file?
Do we have access to the
food?
We have access to the most important things
that are proprietary
and so forth here as a Commission.
I mean we have a skeleton staff
that works now in San Francisco.
We're somewhere between 30 and 50 people
when normally there's 900
or something in that area,
in our San Francisco office.
So just think
using that as an example,
what would happen to all those important
documents, files, records, et cetera.
So,
anyway I look forward to,
thinking to that more
in the coming days,
I'm sure Commissioner Shiroma as my co-chair
of the Audit Committee
would welcome that as well.
Ginny: President Batjer this is Ginny.
-: Yes Ginny.
Ginny: May I please add a comment to
Commissioner Ranolph's earlier question
-: Of course
Ginny: about the Continuity Plan.
So just a recap,
a Business Continuity Plan provides the strategy
and protocols
for responding to
and recovering from impacts related to disasters,
both large and small.
And basically the plan will design
recovery objectives
and targets for essential operational functions.
As well as,
how we build that technology infrastructure
in the event of any disaster.
So just wanted to add that on to,
my earlier response
and I hope this helps.
Thank you so much.
-: Thank you Ginny.
Do any of the Commissioners have any further questions of
Ginny or of Chris?
Okay, thank you.
Seeing none we will now turn to public comment.
Operator, could you open up the line for any public comment.
And this will be public comment
on the presentation that just was made
by our Internal Auditor.
Robert: President Batjer.
-: Yes Robert.
Robert: There's no public comment at this time.
-: Okay, thank you very much Robert for checking.
Robert: You're welcome.
-: Thank you Dan.
Ginny I wanna thank you for the report
and the findings of the recent audits.
With any organization big
or small it's imperative
that we
review our internal processes
and policies to identify
and mitigate risks
in our operations.
Additionally it is critical
that procedures in place are up to date
with current state rules
and regulations as we have said
and as you underscore Ginny.
This audit form not always fun I know,
been audited many times in my many places
in state government.
They were necessary
and they can help us become a more effective organization.
I really look forward to
completing all of the
internal controls.
They're critical.
And we have
some areas that are lacking
and it is as Ginny said.
It is the responsibility of managers
to ensure that their area
of responsibility has proper controls.
And so
we will all be working
doubling up working
on that because it does,
as I said,
it makes us a much more effective organization
and we all strive always
for continued improvement.
So thank you, Jenny for that.
We'll now turn to
The Emerging Trends Committee.
I would like to turn over
to Commissioner Shiroma
and Commissioner Guzman Aceves to start
The Emerging Trends Committee report.
Commissioners.
-: Yes, thank you.
I'll introduce our topic today.
And meanwhile,
Commissioner Guzman Aceves and I
are in our teams are
looking to provide some
very good topics for
the Commissioners
in ensuing month.
But today,
we will be receiving a presentation from
Stephen Wong,
who is a doctoral candidate.
He very soon we would be referring to him as Doctor Wong.
From the university of California at Berkeley.
He is studying transportation engineering.
His research is focusing on
the intersection of evacuation,
decision making, insured mobility
and to amplify on that
he has done a number of research papers.
These are all open access
and he will go through that in his presentation.
To call out three papers,
one is bridging the gap between evacuations
and the sharing economy,
the role of trust and compassion
and willingness to share mobility
and shelter and resources and evacuations.
A case study of the 2017 and 2018 California wildfires.
He'll also review,
he did a review of the California wildfire evacuation
from 2017 to 2019.
So he's speaking of
business continuity in an emergency
where he has been focusing on
what happens to communities
when there is a need to evacuate.
So Stephen's presentation today
The Sharing Economy and Evacuations,
he will share
his findings as it relates to compliance
congestion and social equity.
And this is very timely
given that we are in the high fire season,
anticipating
a surge if you will this fall
and the potential for moving
all the safety power shutoff events
in the COBIT environment.
So with that,
I'd like to introduce
soon to be Doctor Stephen Wong
and Stephen correct me
if you already have received that
attribution.
And so I'll refer to Stephen not Doctor Wong.
Thank you.
Stephen: Thank you so much Commissioner Shiroma
for inviting me
and thank you to the rest of the
Commissioners for having me.
I have not received a PhD yet,
but that will be in December.
So,
that's a small plug that I will be finishing in December,
which is
always a long
(mumbles)
But today I will be presenting on The Sharing Economy
and Evacuation.
This is a really a compilation that condensed
a condensing of a number of different publications
that I have put out at our open access.
They are available in the flight deck,
which is available to the public.
So really wanna stress the importance
of open access research.
This presentation,
as it's getting loaded currently
is also a
kind of,
it's helped along with my advisors,
Susan Shaheen and Joan Walker
from the university of California, Berkeley.
I wanna acknowledge them before I start.
And then number of different organizations
that are a part of
The Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies,
the UC Institute of Transportation Studies.
CSRC at UC Berkeley,
and then something that might be of interest
to the Commissioners,
which is the California Resilient
and Innovative Mobility Initiative.
The new initiative out of the UCITF,
that I am a part of
that Susan Shaheen's director of.
We're looking at not just
a future disaster
and climate change impact on mobility,
but also looking at how California can respond to the
COVID-19 crisis currently
with effective transportation land use policies.
So,
just wanna note that as a really
important organization is forthcoming.
Next slide, please.
I'm gonna first present an overview
of what I'll be talking about,
and then we'll head into the results rather quickly,
because I always believe that our research results
are primary here.
Next slide, please.
So as the Commissioner had mentioned,
I'm focusing on Critical Evacuation Challenges.
And these are three that I have identified in my research
over the past five years,
I've been critical in the transportation sector.
So I wanna really focus here on the transportation sector
since this is my background.
And the first is persistent non-compliance
to mandatory evacuation orders.
This is most relevant for hurricanes,
but also relevant for wildfires
where upwards of 10% of the population is unwilling
or unable to evacuate
from a major wildfire.
And we found that in the case of a number
of wildfires in California.
The second is poor transportation response
leading to heavy congestion,
slow evacuation clearance times and high evacuee risks.
This is more focused on how agent transportation
mercy management agencies
can produce transportation response,
policies and strategies.
Unfortunately, they're not well formed
and congestion continues to rise during these evacuations.
And finally, there's been really minimal attention
ensuring all populations particularly those most vulnerable
have shelter and transportation in evacuation.
So if you remember anything from this presentation,
the three problems that we're really facing
and they're all encompassing inside the,
kind of idea of safety is compliance, congestion
and social equity.
Next slide, please.
So to tackle some of these challenges,
the one strategy I wanted to present today is
of The Sharing Economy.
And this is the feasibility of utilizing
The Sharing Economy whether through
business to peer B to P resources
or peer to peer resources.
And really locking in on this emerging mobility
and evacuations.
And this has been allowed through
new technological connections
such as extended internet
and smartphone adoption,
as well as these new platforms as businesses
such as Airbnb, Uber and Lyft.
And the idea behind the strategy is
that resources from private companies
or citizens could supplement
not supplant public resources.
So in many of these disasters,
it was just not enough public resources to be able
to evacuate and shelter everyone safely.
So we need to think about alternative forms
of resources to supplement that.
And this could be sharing rides
and shelter within communities and neighborhoods
or even to strangers.
Next slide, please.
So the research contributions that I want to provide today,
and this is really again,
a condensing of six or seven different reports
and publications,
is first just stating the current day,
the sharing economy and evacuations,
as well as benefits and limitations
and willingness of individuals to share resources.
Are individuals even willing to provide their resources
to other people in these disasters.
The next area is the impact of different factors.
And I focus in on trust and compassion
as key indicators of,
if people are actually willing
to share transportation, sheltering.
Next is the extent to which
social shared resources can either improve
or reduce social equity for vulnerable populations.
And we find a mixed bag here,
and I'll kind of go over that a little bit in the results.
And finally there is nuances
and the different modeling approaches that I use.
I use mostly statistical econometric models
to determine correlation between variables.
But it's interesting that
there are a lot of behavioral nuances
between the models which the Jeff,
our research methodology really matters here.
And that's something that
should be noted as the field continues
to move forward in this area.
Next slide, please.
So the data I'll be using
for these results is predominantly
from three posters after surveys
from Hurricane Irma,
the 2017, December 7th California wildfires,
and the 2018 Carl wildfire.
These surveys are very difficult to collect
because it's very hard to find individuals
who are impacted by wildfires
and also convincing them to fill out a very long survey.
It's not easy and there's no systematic way to do it.
To my knowledge these are the only two
wildfire data sets on human behavior.
Following these wildfires,
to my knowledge that are available in
and in publication.
I also conducted post disaster focus groups
with, for vulnerable groups,
low-income,
older adults,
individuals with disabilities
and Spanish-speaking.
And I also conducted some expert interviews
that help us shape the opinions related
to shared mobility and disasters.
Next slide, please.
So I'm actually going over some of the results.
Again, this is extremely condensed,
and also it is,
there is a number of nuances in this data
and I'm presenting
very high level aspects of this.
If you're interested in more specific details,
I can direct you to the publications
and also answer more specific questions on that.
Next slide, please.
But first I want to mention
that in these types of strategies,
it's always good to note the limitations
before you note the benefits.
And that's largely because
this is just a tool in the evacuation tool kit.
This doesn't solve all problems.
It does create some on its own.
And the ones I wanna mention here
include safety, equity, communication
and driver reliability.
The safety part is mostly regarding training.
Are drivers and hosts able to help people in a disaster?
The equity component is a lot of it
from these high ranking experts noted
that the cost could be exorbitant
for individuals who need these services.
And we don't want people paying
for transportation to save their own life.
Communication Woman: Sorry Stephen.
-: Sorry Stephen, this is Ginny.
Can we pause for a moment
because we're getting feedback
that the viewing public can't see the PowerPoint.
(mumbles)
-: It's important for folks to see the PowerPoint
(laughter)
as you're talking through it.
And,
Robert can you give us confirmation that,
We're saying that it's blurry
and I think Commissioner Shiroma
and Commissioner Guzman Aceves
you're hearing from staff that they can't see it at all.
Woman: No, just it's ineligible--
Batjer: Yes blurry.
(mumbles)
Mullins here with me
and she's saying that's a blurry too.
Okay.
Woman: Perhaps Robert can make it the
larger part on the screen.
Yeah.
Robert: Commissioner staff this is Robert Stanford.
I'm working on it right now.
Woman: Okay.
Thank you, Robert.
And I'll tell you what,
Stephen go ahead and continue
with your presentation as Robert is working on the quality--
Woman: Our apologies to the public.
We were working on making sure
that the slides are more easily read.
So working on it.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Steven.
Thank you.
Sorry for the interruption.
Stephen: Oh, no worries.
Maybe perhaps in the meantime,
if anyone if any of the Commissioners have
a brief questions on the first six slides,
and then maybe I can then move on into results.
Woman: I'm kind of interested Stephen
in what kind of reception,
and maybe this is premature to ask but
you have had in your studies
what kind of reception have the,
Uber's and lyft had in,
being part of the disaster relief.
Are they showing interest
or is that a little premature?
You haven't gotten there yet?
Stephen: I haven't gotten there
actually it's on the two slide later,
which is exciting.
I think at first they were a little hesitant
and didn't exactly know what to do.
And that kind of happens with all disasters.
As soon as the company's thrown into these situations,
that they don't necessarily have protocols or policies for
it's a very ad hoc process.
But what I found is that over time,
these talkies had become more structured.
These companies are giving out rides
or providing assets
or volunteering time and resources
to respond to these disasters.
So it's actually not out of the question.
These companies are already doing this work.
So from my standpoint it's guiding that,
volunteerism and that
effort already in order to,
be more focused on the public.
Good.
Woman: Okay, thank you.
I'm hearing from staff that the slides are now clearer.
so let's, let's carry on Stephen.
Thank you.
Stephen: Excellent, so
with the share economy limitations,
there are a number of different limitations.
I also want to mention including who pays,
who matches individuals,
such as an individual who need services
versus who's the one that's conducting the matching.
And again the technology and communications issue
in both disasters we see that communication
is either nonexistent or very limited,
especially in the case of public data power shut off
we might not be able to reach individuals
in terms of even landline, cell phone service, et cetera.
And so trying to find low-tech solutions for example.
And so the key
results are above on each slide.
And then the recommendations
that kind of are derived from these results
are on the bottom of the slide.
And so it's very clear that significant planning,
especially related to community based approaches
are going to be necessary.
Also a memorandum of understanding between agencies
and companies should be considered.
MOUs are largely cheap
and they are not necessarily illegally
a hard to create.
And they have existed before
with the specific sharing economy companies
and agencies before.
So it's not like they haven't been done before.
And then again these low-tech solutions
thinking about telephone options,
bulletin Boards, pre-disaster agreements,
they're all going to have to be necessary
and speaking of, you know,
related to the Business Continuity Plan
that was discussed earlier in the session
is the need for some of these low-tech solutions
if technology cannot be recovered quickly.
Next slide, please.
I also wanna note that there are social equity barriers
to the sharing economy.
Vulnerable groups through a number
to the four focus groups.
We're highly concerned with driver availability
and reliability.
The ability of vehicles to reach evacuation zones,
the cost to individuals,
as well as again these communication challenges.
They were worried that drivers would just not show up
that they had, for example, no driver incentives to assist.
Low income,
the low income focus group really honed in on
that specific issue.
Older adults noted that a shared common strategy
might add confusion to the evacuation
because there's too many drivers
driving around the area.
And it's unclear who has to pick up whom.
Individuals with disabilities were most concerned
about vehicle accessibility.
And Spanish-speaking individuals
have low trust of companies
and they were more willing to,
they're more willing to receive shared resources
from neighbors or even strangers in their community
more so than companies.
And as well as from the government,
they were more,
there was also low trusting of government resources.
So the two recommendations from here,
and these were actually created directly
from these focus groups.
They were the ones that mentioned these,
was that they wanted to see a,
robust transit-based plan that actually
included shared mobility.
They didn't write of shared mobility as something that
is not feasible in evacuations.
They just said it should be part of a larger plan
that actually includes transit-based boxes,
rail, air,
for example, for sparse network.
Also creating partnerships ahead of time.
Specifically a paratransit.
Have a lot of paratransit contracts.
I ended Vassar across jurisdiction
and individuals will also have to have proper training
to be able to provide these services.
Next slide, please.
From the earlier question
that was given on terms of sharing economy actions,
we have seen some of these companies acting in disasters.
I did a review
of three companies, Uber, Lyft
and Airbnb since Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
And at least one of the three companies has acted in 30 over
in over 30 U.S disasters.
So in 30 U.S disasters at least one
of the companies that acted,
which is, and some of them have been multiple,
including a number of the different wildfires in California,
which is also available as an open access policy brief,
specifically focused on California.
And again, these structures were largely ad hoc.
They didn't really know what to do.
They were mostly trying to reduce price gouging at the time.
And now it's much more structured with defined policies.
For example,
Uber and Lyft often provide $20 worth of ride credit
to and from evacuation centers to whoever needs it.
And so they do that based on geo-fencing
they know where the evacuation centers are,
and they can provide that credit
to individuals who need to get a ride to
and from the shelter.
And we also see this in the development of more
sophisticated programs that actually have named
Airbnb has their open homes program.
Lyft has wheels for all,
which includes a number of other different areas
of interest for providing rides,
including individuals with disabilities,
as well as the global security center at Uber.
So the recommendations here is that
partnerships between agencies
and companies can exist
and they should be formed first via
just basic communication, such as through alliances
or meetings or training exercises.
Having those companies in the same room as public agencies
is a great first step.
Just so you know who that other person is
to be able to contact them.
As they say in the emergency management realm,
you don't wanna be exchanging business cards
during a disaster
you wanna be exchanging them before.
So this is the perfect time to be doing that.
And then also the surge pricing,
consumer protection flagging
in some cases
prices from Lyft and Uber rides
skyrocketed eight to 10 times that of the base price
in these disasters.
And it took
several hours for the companies
to be able to bring them back down
in order to ensure that people had rides.
So that is a key recommendation
that I'll mention later.
Next slide, please.
A lot of this has been beaming gloom
in terms of limitations
and social equity barriers,
but there are a number of benefits.
And as you probably have thought about
this includes overcoming issues such as resource deficiency,
just having more resources that are redundant, flexible,
and adaptive.
It could over overcome slow responsiveness
since these apps are working very, very quickly
and information being sent in split second.
she went from drivers and
to and from hosts as well as individuals
who are using the services.
They could also overcome poor communication.
I wanna explain this a little bit more
because again, we have a new pool of drivers
and or hosts
and or people who are using these services
that could either provide crowdsource information
on situational awareness
or information from public agencies could be sent to them
such as mandatory evacuation orders
or where the location of a fire is.
They also mentioned that there
could overcome those support for vulnerable groups.
Again, this is more focused on the resource deficiency.
Just having more resources available
should help improve equitable outcomes
for vulnerable groups.
But this is gonna have to be done in a very nuanced way.
And that's a precedent in one of my publications.
Also company I should know that companies benefits
through positive press coverage.
Sometimes they can remove assets
such as bike sharing,
vehicles or car sharing.
We thought it's in a couple cases where Zipcar
offered promotions to get their vehicles
out of New York city before Hurricane Sandy,
it was asset protection.
And then again connections with community.
They're always trying to build connections with community.
So the two recommendations here is thinking
about pilot programs to test first and last-mile connection,
both TNC and paratransit hub programs.
But I do wanna emphasize that any type of pilots
should first be done during the recovery period
during the disaster
not during the disaster
we don't wanna be trying to try these pilots
during the evacuation process and testing out.
Then let's see if the recovery period,
which actually could be a better use case such as
shuttling individuals to and from the grocery store,
from a shelter to be able to get supplies
that could be a more,
a better mechanism and better use case for this.
Next slide, please.
So through a number of 30 different surveys
that I sent out to individuals
impacted by California wildfires,
we asked private citizens
if they had reservations
and concerns about sharing resources in an evacuation.
And these are some of the ones that pulled out
that are pretty high.
In terms of a lot of people were very concerned
about these different things.
So thinking of security,
their own thinking of security
specifically it was much higher
for sheltering than transportation,
but still high for both.
Being responsible for individuals as some type
of liability shield
and this kind of notes that potentially looking
at good Samaritan laws, for example.
Interacting with strangers was actually not too much
of an issue for transportation.
So that's a good thing,
but for transportation,
the bigger issues were not having space
for other people's luggage
or just adding time to the evacuation.
They didn't necessarily want to
add extra time even five minutes
as that could really decrease their ability to evacuate.
So to combat some of these reservations,
some of the recommendations that we developed
was matching through established
community based organizations also known as CDOs,
as well as providing specific pickup points
for shared mobility
that could alleviate some of these extra time issues
with regarding to evacuation.
Next slide, please.
We continue on private citizens sharing.
Well, first I wanna know that there was really
a little use of the sharing economy.
So far in evacuations.
I do wanna note though for Hurricane Irma,
about 5% of individuals use Airbnb
or some other type of home sharing platform
in order to find a shelter,
a suitable shelter.
5% is actually a pretty big percentage of individuals
if you're talking a millions of people,
trying to evacuate a location.
So,
this is likely to rise that's the first thing.
The second is private citizens where somewhat willing
to share their home,
but we're much more willing to share transportation.
And in this chart you can see extremely willing
to share in a future disaster.
Some of these were sheltered at a cost
or sheltered for free.
Coughing that they would charge someone
versus they would not charge someone.
Interesting people don't wanna charge people.
That's definitely a good thing.
Show some compassionate behavior
as well as transportation before the evacuation happens,
such as I received an evacuation order,
but I don't have to leave yet.
So in that time that I have,
can I help people
versus transportation during the evacuation process,
I'm in route to my destination.
And we see that is much more likely
particularly relate to wildfires.
One thing I wanna note though is
fair capacity.
And we see that capacity does exist.
There are people that have their spare beds
or mattresses for both hurricanes and wildfires.
And we also see that people do have spare vehicle space
in the form of two-plus seatbelts,
which is enough for one person and their luggage.
This is a good amount of extra space
that is not being utilized efficiently.
And it's contributing to congestion on the roadways
while there's a number of people that don't actually
have transportation to leave their homes.
So can we utilize this space for example?
And we can do that, for example,
through bolstering neighborhood and community network,
as well thinking about a resident-based approach
that will require probably some training
and integration into current resident-based mechanisms,
that community emergency response teams
also known as CERTs.
Here.
Next slide, please.
I also conducted a statistical analysis
to determine what factors actually influence
the willingness to share resources.
So it's great that people are willing to share resources,
but what actually gets them to do it
and are there behavioral nudges to actually get people
to increase their willingness to share
or be more likely to share.
And we found a very clear result
was that individuals who had high trust of other people,
whether that be neighbors
or even strangers,
as long as high levels of compassion,
were much more likely to share
their resources in a wildfire.
And this was across all the different types of resources
across all 10 pole points.
It was a very, very strong result.
We also found that pact is after volunteers,
and members of community groups
are much more likely to share.
And also an interesting one was evacuation urgency,
the higher, the visual fire level
or the higher the smoke level
or traffic
or the lower the visibility,
the more likely people were willing
to share their resources.
And our hypothesis is that individuals recognize that
they're the only way that their neighbor
is gonna be able to evacuate in such an urgent environment.
And so can we, for example,
use our first responders
and other individuals on the ground
to encourage people to just check on one neighbor
to ensure that they are okay
and that they have a ride out.
We also found that there was sporadic and weak impact
of most demographic variables.
Which is interesting
except for families and home sharing users.
Families did not wanna share.
That's not surprising.
They have children that they wanna take care of first.
Home sharing users were much more willing
to share sheltering,
again not surprising
but that does open up people who have used Airbnb
or VRBO as potential resources for individuals to share.
And finally there was correlation of sharing behavior
across these different scenarios.
And this is through classes of individuals
and joint behavioral preferences.
That sounds like a lot of verbiage
and it's all tied up in a lot of specifics.
But what it really means is that
because I'm willing to share one resource,
I'm also willing to share another resource.
So,
in that way a holistic sharing economy strategy
across all 10 pole points of a disaster
and across all resource types
is the better way to go.
Sure, it's great to have just a transportation only,
you know, share a ride mechanism,
but actually to increase the amount of sharing,
it would require very little extra effort
to include sheltering, for example.
And then again the need to increase
trust and compassion, for example,
after community cohesion, training
and key leaders will also be important.
Next slide, please.
So this was a lot of information.
And I wanna try to condense this into a couple
recommendations that hopefully
the Commissioners can think about.
Some of these are feasible right now.
Some of them may not be feasible for a long period of time
or require a good number of good amount of work.
But I,
just as the Emerging Trends Committee
I wanted to at least provide them.
And this is based off of my research and the results.
So the first low hanging fruit is,
allowing companies to observe
or participate in training exercises
for disasters and evacuation.
Whether that is the Commissioners encouraging
this with their own training exercises
that they may have
or if they are participating in others,
mentioning that these companies
are providing these resources already.
And that'd be really great to add them to the round table.
Setting working relationships with these companies
to rapidly disseminate information will also
be a really clear first step.
Communication information is cheap.
It doesn't require too much effort,
but it could provide a whole host of benefits to agencies
to know what's going on on the ground,
where the fire is going, for example,
where are damaged roads and the earthquake
and getting this crowdsource information
is becoming more and more useful
and also feasible given our small spreading technology.
We should also consider how to retain drivers
and other employees in disasters
who could transport residents
and this kind of pivots off of the need
for a Business Continuity Plan at CPUC,
but also that other places
other agencies are going to need this
continuity plan to ensure the drivers
are available and reliable.
Then that's not just share mobility.
That's also for buses
and also driving trains such as rail,
also setting equitable mechanisms for reimbursement.
This one's a little trickier because
we don't necessarily know who pays
or how much they pay,
but these need to be at least considered.
Is it paid for by the provider of the service
or the utility
or the person that is using that service, for example.
Is there a free mechanism such as
the open homes program by Airbnb,
which requires that all fees are waived.
It's a zero, zero transaction.
Airbnb just provides a platform in which to,
match the hosts and evacuees.
Next slide, please.
So those were the easier ones.
These are a little harder,
but I do wanna note them.
First is developing policies and regulations for
sharing economy companies to provide services
in these types of situations.
And the one big one that I wanna mention
is addressing the price gouging
that can arise from on-demand services in disasters.
And this can be potentially feasible
given that CPUC has jurisdiction over TNC.
As again, as I noted that other places have seen
very large rises in price gouging
as result of the on-demand service.
Different types of pricing mechanisms that increase
or decrease based on the demand.
But in disasters we want to ensure
that people are able to pay
and they don't have to think about
the cost of their own life
when trying to evacuate.
And New York has developed a framework
for this back in 2013 following hurricane Sandy.
So that could be a source of inspiration for the Commission.
Next is piloting a matching system that connects supply
and demand of resources.
Again, we don't know if unclear,
whether this matching system should be done
from a private sector,
individual or company such as Uber or Lyft
or if it should be based out of an agency.
But this should at least be explored
and also should probably include private citizens.
And finally working directly with CBOs
and non governmental organizations, NGOs
on a strategy to build trust
and compassion and volunteerism,
and also increasing the information available
to residents
on how to share resources.
Next slide.
If you would take the couple acknowledgements
I always wanna make sure that I
note that the funders of this research,
including the National Science Foundation,
the Federal Highway Administration,
and also ST-1 which is also known as the gas tax bill
has also provided funding for this research.
And also for all the different,
all the participants in the expert interviews
and focus groups and agencies for distributing the surveys,
as well as my advisors Joan Walker and Susan Shaheen.
Next slide.
This is a list of the Sharing Economy Publications
that I have.
These are available
either via
Google scholar
or East scholarship,
which is the open access platform
for the UC system.
And so they are all available.
They're both pre-print versions
that are open access as well as the actual version
that are located at publication.
So this is available.
Next slide.
I also wanna note that there are a number of other
wildfire and hurricane publications
that could be of use to you
specifically the review of California Wildfire Evacuations
from 2017 to 2019.
What will be very interesting for you there
that we have a very nice condensed executive summary.
That's only a quick fix pages
can be read very quickly
and really get the gist of what occurred
in 2017 through 2019 which is,
what we consider the primary wildfire
that impacted California.
Also a number of these
publications are focused on how individuals make
decisions in evacuation such as,
why an individual decides to evacuate
or stay as well as their own departure timing,
routing choice, destination choice,
which could also be helpful for other agencies
beyond the conditions here today
in terms of ensuring safety of individuals
and going after the three critical challenges,
congestion, compliance, and equity.
So at that, I'm happy to take your questions.
Next slide.
This is just additional information.
Feel free to email me.
I'm also happy to answer more specific detailed questions.
And again, the open access research is available
also at my website.
And,
with that I'm happy to take questions
as well as I do wanna note that
I'm currently working on a COVID-19 project
on evacuations,
trying to create a playbook for the state of California.
As mentioned we are in an unprecedented time
and evacuation
are specifically goes against the entire
stay at home order directive.
They are complete opposites,
and this is gonna be very difficult process
for us in the upcoming
couple of months particularly with the wildfire season.
So we're trying to work on that currently.
With that I'm happy to hand it over.
Thank you.
-: Thank you Stephen,
assumed to be Doctor Wong
that excellent and highly presentation.
And by the way,
Stephen's slide deck is
also posted on our CPUC website
on The Emerging Trends Committee
location.
With that, I'll turn this back over to
President Batjer for
any questions or comments.
-: Thank you Commissioner Shiroma and Stephen.
That was
really excellent.
Thank you very much.
It brought up
all sorts of ideas and thoughts.
This is perhaps a
silly question,
but I'm sure
you the California Resilient
and Innovative Mobility Initiatives
and the Institute of Transportation Studies.
I'm sure you work closely with California,
the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, oh yes.
Margiela, Gucci, and team.
Do you interact and work with them closely?
Woman: Thank you for the question.
We have not been interacting with them closely yet.
We're still trying to get off the ground with
the initiative right now,
but any type of
interaction with them will be wonderful.
We are including them in this new guidebook
for COVID-19 evacuations and discussing
whether it can be useful for them
and what they perceive as critical challenges.
So we're working them within that capacity.
But to my knowledge,
most of the work at the Institute of Transportation Studies
is actually not focused on
evacuations or resilience or disasters, unfortunately,
but a lot of it is based on just general transportation
challenges and issues and projects.
So we're a very unique offshoot
and we're hoping to cultivate that relationship further.
(mumbles)
-: I'm happy to do an introduction for you
and we'll pass along your slide deck to the,
to Margiela Gucci and team.
I think there's a lot of information here
that they would find useful as they too
are putting the playbook together.
My words not theirs for evacuations in a pandemic world.
As you have stated,
a wildfire season is upon us.
And we're all very concerned of how
evacuations will occur
with the sheltering in place restrictions.
I do know that
our industrial own utilities here in California are all
working on different plans
in terms of some of the things that they're responsible
for like community resource centers,
where people go to charge their
mobile devices,
their health devices,
and water
and restrooms
and information
regarding evacuation.
But obviously there's much more concern in terms
of actual shelters
where people will need to go
if evacuated because of wildfire
or because of PSPS.
So it's extremely timely as you said,
Commissioner Shiroma.
And as I said Stephen,
very happy to
make the introduction to OES 'cause I think,
they would find your information and your study
and your research
helpful and timely.
(mumbles)
-: Well, yes.
Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
Thank you.
Fine thank you, Stephen.
It's really great to see that this research is occurring.
I have one specific question
then maybe a broader question.
The short one is,
have any of these services been able to
seek or recover funds through FEMA?
Stephen: So great question.
To my knowledge,
no one has
been able to receive funds from FEMA.
I do not know if that's
because of a lack of trying
or because they were just unable to.
But I do know there are mechanisms in order
to recuperate some costs,
like related to transportation sheltering.
However, my understanding is that most private companies
that are not contracted such as Walmart
or Lowe's or other types of really large companies
typically donate their resources.
And so it's just a,
I guess, a volunteering and donation
that can be provided for a tax write off.
And so that's usually the mechanism in which they
typically provide resources in disasters,
unless it's something that's much larger
or it's a contracted service.
-: But for some of the ride shares or Airbnb,
is that also kind of the same that they would
use these expenses as write offs
and not seek reimbursement from FEMA?
Stephen: Correct yeah.
So that would be probably a similar mechanism.
I'm not exactly sure how Airbnb does it.
That could be actually an interesting question to ask them
because they may not necessarily know what the,
the bare amount of money that they have
theoretically donated since it is going to the host
and like a loss of, for example,
transactions,
Uber and Lyft are little bit clear
because they usually state that they are donating
for example, $300,000 worth of rides and,
food services and deliveries and things like that.
It's a little crisper of a number,
but Airbnb is the one that I'm not exactly sure
how they do it,
or if this is just the platform
that they provided it.
What is interesting though for Airbnb is that
that original program,
the disaster response program was accurate
here created movement
during Hurricane Sandy over a hundred hosts,
just opened up their homes for free on Airbnb,
to people who needed homes.
Without Airbnb's knowledge,
they just sat there at the cost of $0
to rent their place.
So that was a really,
and I think Airbnb wants to continue on in that
the kind of
like original vision I got to say.
-: Yeah.
And my broader question is--
-: Oh, sorry.
I think that some of the costs
can be captured when OES does their FEMA
recovery of money.
I think some of those costs could be
captured there,
but it's a really good question for OES.
And in terms of,
some of the materials
that home depot load DGS
usually is the conduit to those
and gets those generated.
And again, I think there's some reimbursement
that comes through
the state from FEMA,
but it's a good question to ask them.
-: Yeah, my other question is it sounds like you have
you mentioned the COVID response obviously this is a,
disaster that is not one event specific that is
obviously the duration is lasting far longer
than any of us would hope.
And,
I guess the way you framed it was more in a lens of
incorporating COVID constraints into these
wildfire hurricane disasters,
but is there
anyone maybe not yourself,
but is anyone looking at COVID in
and of itself as the
pandemic disaster that it is,
and particularly on the Airbnb side,
which obviously is outside of our jurisdiction,
but just out of curiosity.
This question,
as we near some of the sun setting
of eviction
protections and abilities to pay,
is there anyone looking at the availability of homes
for that purpose?
Stephen: Thank you for the question,
at this point,
I do not have specific knowledge
of anyone thinking about that.
There may be work at,
I know there are a couple of committees
at the Governor level
or at the executive branch level that are
thinking about some of these more
innovative ideas for housing.
And that kind of
what that reminds me of is a lot of the
contracting development with hotels or sheltering.
So this might actually come to be a similar
process for that
since it's more outside of the transportation rome
I don't know of any research at
any of the four UCITS branches,
which are Berkeley, Davis, Irvine and UCLA.
I don't know of anyone doing
specifically, excuse me,
sheltering,
following eviction.
But I do know there is working done on the connection
of COVID-19 land use and transportation
and what that means for future density,
as well as future like for example,
teleworking and commuting behavior
and the impact on public transit.
And I can also share that
some of those specific projects
that are ongoing with you since that's also how
we got funded on our evacuation project,
some of those may be of interest to the Commissioners
on future things to at least be thinking about.
And this is what the researchers are trying to put out
in the next seven months,
which is,
as you probably know research happens at a glacial pace
and seven months is
very fast.
And so that's the goal here.
And so you might actually be able to get results
from sound as projects
and also know who is the one to contact within seven months.
-: Okay, thank you.
Stephen: Welcome.
-: Are there any other questions of Stephen?
Yes Commissioner Shiroma -: Just the comments,
our staff in the consumer protection enforcement division
that,
much on the
TNC proceedings in transportation,
what have you
are following Stephen's work.
-: That's very helpful.
Good, excellent.
(mumbles)
Well now we will turn to
public comments.
Any public comment or questions?
Operator, could you open the line?
Robert: President Batjer.
-: Yes Robert.
Robert: sorry.
This is Robert Stanford.
CPUC there are no public comments at this time.
-: Okay, thank you Robert for checking.
Appreciate it.
So with that, Robert: Welcome.
-: I wanna thank Stephen again for his presentations,
excellent.
And thank you Commissioner Shiroma
and Commissioner Guzman Aceves
for bringing this really informative presentation
to us today.
So with that we are adjourned.
Thank you very much everyone for joining us today
and have a very safe
and healthy.