>> all right. [gavel] >> good morning everyone, the meeting will come to order. this is september 20, 2019. regular meeting of the local agency formation commission. i like to thank sfgov for broadcasting this meeting. madam claerk, do you have any announcements. >> yes, please silent all cell phones and electronic devices. >> madame clerk, can you please call item number 1. >> number 2.

>> number 2. thank you very much. >> do we have any changes or modifications to the minutes? seeing none, this opens up for public comment. any members of the public would like to comment on item number 2? seeing none, it's now close. a motion to approve the minute from the july 9th meeting. second. and we can take that without objection. madam clerk, can you please call item number 3. >> community choicing a allegation activities report. >> thank you very much. we have michael hyams with us today. >> good morning commissioners. michael hyams, i'm the director of the cleanpowersf. happy friday, it's good to see

you all here. we have a full presentation for you today. we have quite a bit of slides. if i could have them right now, that would be great. thank you. so, for our presentation today, we're going to cover our usual enrollment and service status update. we're going to provide a state regulatory, an update on state regulatory and activitiesful i'll be joined in a moment by my colleague suzanne merkelson to help with the legislative items. suzanne will also share information about an exciting equity project we have under way. last but not least, i'll conclude with our progress and plans. it's through the cleanpowersf

program. so, as we reported to you in the past, we've now enrolled more than 400,000 accounts in san francisco. we effectively hit our capacity in terms of enrollment. there are still some accounts out there that we haven't yet enrolled, which are large commercial and we're engaging with them individually on a customer by customer basis this year. we have a 3.5% opt out rate. that's up a tenth of a percent since we last presented to you. we're still at a 96 percent retention rate, which is pretty good. we got a 1.7% super green upgrade rate, that's up a tenth of a percent since we last presented, and that represents more than 400% of our sales.

that's going up all the time with the recent 100% renewable energy ordinance for commercial buildings. we expect this to go up over the next several years. there are always many things happening on the regulatory front. today, i wanted to highlight a few for you. these are all pretty meaty topics. i'm going to cover them at a high level. if you have any questions, we're happy to address them or follow up with you through the executive officer. the first we wanted to mention and bring to your awareness is related to the expansion of direct access. that has come about as a result of bill 237, which was authored by hertzburg and adopted last

year into law. that expanded access for non-residential customers in california. it allows an additional 4,000 gig watt hours of new commercial electricity demand in the service territory of the investors of utilities to have the option to purchase directly their electricity supply from a third party other than p.g.n.e. or c.c.a. program. that starts in 2021. the bill also require it is california p.u.c. to repair a report to the legislature, regarding opening access for all customers. they opened a meeting last year to lay out the process for the expansion. there has been this year, a lottery, a selection, customers who were awarded the option to

move into direct access have been notified. they have been in the process of negotiating contracts. we found out earlier this week that about 70,000 megawatt hours of existing cleanpowersf usage will be joining the market in 2021. this is a loss of customers to this new opportunity. >> excuse me, this is just commercial, is that right? >> just commercial. >> got it. >> to put this in perspective, it's not a huge number. it's a little over 2% of our cleanpowersf electricity sales, but i think it's more important to note that they're considering full expansion or opening of the market. sorry, let me edit that error. exploring it with a report to the legislature. the legislature has to authorize that. so, while direct access provides additional new choice opportunities for customers, in

particular commercial customers in the market, it does create risk for cleanpowersf that customers we plan to serve and may have purchased power for could leave for a new provider. this is a risk and it's something we're paying close attention to. the next item i wanted to highlight, and we brought this up in previous meetings, the deenergy sayings of power lines in dangerous conditions. you may have heard of recently as the public safety power shutout. the california p.u.c. has a proceeding addressing how utilities would proactively deenergize their power lines to limit the impact of power line failure on fire. the deenergy sayings has to do with the communities being

served. so there are guidelines on how they would do this. it has impacts on our facilities and our city departments and our residents and businesses. so, we've been an active participant. our contributions have been focused on making sure pg&e and others are communicating with the local government to ensure that the proper services are notified if one of these shut offs is imminent. also, there are plans to appropriately care for the most vulnerable members of our community. for example, those that are medically dependent on electricity. so, this is an important area that we're working on. we're working closely with the city attorney's office, representing really the entire city in this prooding. -- proceeding. the third item here, resource adequacy. this one is a little wonky. i will admit that right here at

the beginning. so, please ask questions if you have any. resource adequacy is a regulatory requirement of all sellers of power in california, includiing c.c.a.s to ensure thy acquired sufficient power supplies to support statewide demand at all times. something that has emerged recently with the growth of c.c.a.s and the retail market are problems on how this product is traded between sellers to ensure they can all meet their regulatory obligations. we have had instances, a growing number of instances where sellers are out of compliance with the regulatory obligation, meaning they haven't procured sufficient amounts of capacity. it hasn't affected reeliability because it's an important part of our overall plan, they have

been looking at mandating procurement of all entities of certain type of resources to ensure the power stays on. so, to be proactive in this regard, we participated with calcca. it should be formed to ensure that even if individual sellers are unable to acquire the capacity they need for compliance, this central buyer would be there as a backstop to go into the market and make it happen and spread the cost amongst all providers. >> why is it that they are not meeting the level of procurement? why are they not doing it? is there not enough energy?

is it to come pettive? are certain people buying up all the energy and these other groups can't? what's going on? >> i think it's a couple things. one is a lack of transparency in the market for this product. it isn't traded in an open market. it's traded in what we would call bilateral arrangements. so for example, the p.u.c. issued solicitation asking for offerin offers and all we really know about the marketplace is what sellers that have this capacity offer to us. we can't look to an exchange or anything. so, the issue is that some sellers may be holding on to excess capacity, potentially for fear of being out of compliance or other reasons and they're not making it available to the market.

that's one possible situation. so, that has just led to the situation where even though entities issue these solicitations, they don't get the offers they need to contract and submit a compliant filing with the california p.u.c. >> okay. >> one other point about this i wanted to make, because one of the things we've been sensitive to is economy in procurement. even under the proposal that we submitted, which is now under review at the california p.u.c., d.c.a.s would acquire and provide their own capacity, actually any provider would. what the central buyer's role is, is to procure only if the entity can't otherwise do it. >> so this is an argument for the field out planning?

would you say this is an argument for us to have our own build out plan? >> yeah, well, i think the build out plan and the planning process are critical to ensuring there is enough capacity. yes. the planning is always important. >> yes. >> so the next item here, i think you are all familiar with. we presented on this in the past. i really just wanted you to know that this is ongoing. we had a big decision last year on the p.c.i.a. that was the conclusion of phase one. now we're in phase two of the proceeding. they're looking at some additional reforms and changes to the p.c.i.a. and the california p.u.c. issued a proposed decision that would change some of the benchmarking calculati

calculations, the methodology again. so this just came out. we're looking at it. we will either be submitting comments with the city or do it jointly through calcca. just a reminder that this pcia risk looms constantly. it's a major regulatory risk and cost to our customers. last but not least here, the california p.u.c. also has an ongoing proceeding addressing the integrated resource plan and plans of the entities under state law, ccas have to submit a plan we develop as a community for certification. related to the resource adequacy item, the california p.u.c. is using this proceeding to really look at future expected gaps in power plant availability.

one thing that is happening is a lot of natural gas power plants are retiring in the state, especially in southern california. there is an increasing concern that there will be a reliability issue in southern california in the next several years, so they're looking at mandating procurement from entities like c.c.a.s to help supply that, that shortfall. i will stop there. are there any questions on the regulatory topics before we move on? okay, with that i'll hand it over to suzanne, who will talk a little bit about the legislative session that just wrapped up. >> hi commissioners, thank you for having me today. as mike mentioned, i'm suzanne merkelson. i'm on the policy and government

affairs team. now i wanted to give you an update now that the legislature is in recess and talk to you about the work that our equity working group is pursuing. so as i mentioned, we are officially in recess. as of september 13th, the governor has until october 13th to sign any bills on his desk. the first bill i want to talk about is 155, which we discussed earlier with you. this is one of the c.c.a. related bills we have been monitoring this session. calcca was initially opposed to the bill, but the amendments moved them to neutral. now the bill is on the governor's desk for signature. we anticipate it to be signed. it talks about the renewable portfolio standards for c.c.a.s. it was amended to limit to enforce these requirements. our initial concerns with the

bill is that the c.p.c. would have an ability to impose fines relative to the requirements. we no longer have those concerns with the amendments. that's our update on sb155. ab235 was introduced later in the session. this would allow investors to finance $20 billion in wildfire liabilities and other obligations. the bill was sponsored by pg&e. we opposed the bill and we opposed the bill before it was introduced. it was introduced at the end of the session, but the author saw no task to moving it forward. it's going to be a 2-year bill. we have significant concerns with the bill, given that we opposed it so quickly. we're worried of its impact on rate payers, the impact on taxpayers, and the impact on tax

exempt bond markets, which you know is vital for financing public services. we're going to monitor that bill next year and keep you updated on its progress. the last bill we wanted to talk to you about is sb-550. so as you remember, ab-1054 was the urgency bill concerning wildfire and financial stability, which was passed in july. the city had concerns about some last minute bill amendments as you may remember. these amendments expanded the authority over public entities that looked to acquire profit assets. the mayor's office negotiate with the governor's office to ensure a partial fix for those amendments in sb-550. now it partially limits that review, however it does allow for the determination of whether an asset acquisition is fair and

reasonable to effected employees. the city supported the bill. while we still think there are some issues with the bill, we're going to continue to work with all stakeholders to make sure they're addressed. any questions on the legislation? >> yes. >> i have a quick one, in regards to sb-550, do you have a sense of where and how labor participated in this, particularly with regards to effected employees, if that's going to be the biggest fund which they would make the determination in the future. >> there is certainly some concern about this bill. i would say ab-1054 have those amendments and we believe that they were brought up by labor. labor was present at all hearings around the bill to speak specifically on these amendments, which keep in mind, we're a very small part of the bill overall. so you know, as we're continuing

our conversation around procuring these assets, this is something that's at the top of our minds and we're going to make sure that any workers that work for us are treated well. >> thank you very much. >> okay. >> i would like to speak about our equity working group. so, cleanpowersf has an equity working group as you may be aware. my colleague is also a member. our project objective as described here is to develop a framework for equity for use in the cleanpowersf programs, practices, and policies. you can see in this image the difference between a quality and equity. we think equity meaning full and equal access so that all people

can thrive regardless of demographics. we have been working to develop an equity framework. by cleanpowersf staff members, considering affordn't, environmental justice and public health, and workforce development. so with the consultant, we're in the process of planning for community engagement, and to vet the framework we're developing. we want to make sure this framework is informed by community members and they feel represented in the process. as we do community engagement, we will make sure that our strategies are culturally competent, including in multiple languages and put it in action as it pertains to cleanpowersf policies and programs. any questions on our equity group? >> so you're looking at the measures through racial groups

as well. >> yes. >> and we are also opening the office of racial equity that you will hopefully get that up and running soon. >> yes, we're excited about that resource. >> thank you very much. >> questions or comment? none, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> back to mike. >> thanks suzanne. okay, if i could have this slide, thank you. okay, so i know that local investment has been a focus of lafco. so in our presentation today, i'm going to provide an update on our planning activities approach, and near term schedule. first of all, what does local mean in this context?

when we met earlier in the year, we shared this framing of how we approach the geography of local investment from a clean energy standpoint. in san francisco, our best opportunity for local investment includes demand side resources. so, think of this as new and more energy efficient lighting, insulation, or heating and cooling systems, fuel switching, such as switching from gas, heating, and cooking to electric in buildings. also, converting fossil fuel to electricity. it includes demand response, which means improving the way that our customers -- well, improving our customers' ability to change their demand for

electricity in response to changes in the availability and cost of electric power. that may be the availability of solar, for example, on the system. those opportunities within san francisco also include what we call distributed energy resources. that includes things like electric vehicle charging infrastructure, battery energy stora storage, and renewable energy supply. the largest of which within the city will be in the order of 5 megawatts. that's about the same size as the sunset reservoir solar project. the rest would be smaller than that. we're talking about small scale distributed. for purposes of what we call wholesale or utility scale, we defin defined the areas where larger

renewable energy projects can be developed. since they started serving customers in 2016, we purchased local renewable energy supplies from the wind farm in solano california, in alameda county, and sonoma county, in addition to the sunset reservoir project. of course, we're working on developing new resource us -- resources and i'll get into that in a moment. this fiscal year we're focused on four major initiatives related to the planning and fostering of local investment and clean energy. these initiatives include first working on our integrated resource plan or i.r.p. it's a buy in yell plan and it's due to be completed in june of 2020. we're also working in parallel

on clean power, buy len bsh buy len y'all capital plan. it will be delivering to the board of supervisors. we also have been working on a request for offers of local renewable energy supplies. this was issued last august, i'm sorry, the beginning of august. i will get into that in depth in a moment. we're working on the development of new energy local programming for our customers, so again, this can include energy efficiency, incentives to support transportation electrification, and other programming that might be targeted to addressing equity gaps, identified in the equity project we just mentioned. so what is an i.r.p.?

the i.r.p. is a plan that forecast customer demands over a 4 year period and has a goal of providing customers with the lowest cost energy that will also keep the lights on and meet other policy objectives we have as a community, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. i.r.p.s are a best practice planning and it's been their plan to develop one on a regular basis. it's state law for c.c.a.s to prepare one every two years for submission to the california c.u.p. i want to note that the i.r.p. is a tool to look out long-term, to identify power supplies to serve that demand and it can

influence that work. of course we're doing that with our 10 year capital plan. we started work on our i.r.p. in july, so a couple months ago. the key component of our analysis include developing a long-term forecast of our kes -- customers' demand, with sensitivities to that demand, and building decarbon sayings, the shifting of energy use from gas to electricity will increase the demand for electricity. similar effects would happen to electric vehicles, shifting from gasoline to electricity will increase electricity demand and change the way it's used during the day, as well as expand energy efficiency targets at the state level. that will also affect how we use

energy. the plan will be identifying options for meeting renewable greenhouse gas reduction targets, a key constraint to our baseline plan is that all energy supplied by cleanpowersf be 100 renewable and greenhouse g gas-free by 2030. we're also looking at accelerating the renewable energy target earlier in the first time frame. finally, the i.r.p. will, a core objective of the i. r.p. is to optimist around a portfolio of resources that curves the demand, and remains competitive with pg&e and direct access. we talked about that before. that's a unique issue for cleanpowersf, in that it's in

competition and customers can leave the program. i just wanted to share this venn diagram. i think it's central to our perspective, the customers' perspective. customers care about a range of issues. our customers care about environment, but also cost and reliability, and consistency in price. so the i.r.p. will be examining trade offs. we'll be looking at different sensitivities related to meeting our complimentary goals, affordability, reliability, greener power, stable rates, local investments. here's our schedule for the next 6 to 8 months on this work. first, i mentioned before, we kicked off our planning in july. that work is under way.

the i.r.p. will enform the development of our capital plan, which has programs and projects for development. then as requested by the board in resolution 9019, will address the plan in december. that plan will be part of our i.r.p. effort, and then we'll be seeking feedback from this gottbody and other stakeholders in the first quarter of 2020. the capital plan will be submitted to our p.u.c. in january of 2020. that plan, of course, it will draw on the findings that i just mentioned. the california p.u.c. is expected to issue final guidelines in february of 2020 on c.c.a. submissions of their plan, so we'll make any necessary changes based on that and bring the draft to our commission for approval in march

of 2020, so that we can submit on time to the california p.u.c. in may. while our planning is in progress, we continue to procure renewable energy resources to ensure we have sufficient supply to meet our customer demand and also to koont to work on demonstrating progress, to develop new resources within our local region. on august 12th, we issued an r.f.o. seeking bids of renewable energy. the energy supplied must be an eligible renewable resource under state guidelines. we defined the geographic region that we were seeking bids for as california's np-15 region, as defined by the i.s.o.

you can see on the map there, those are the california i.s.o. zones and np-15 is northern california. we are providing a preference for projects that will be developed or located within the 9 counties. we also invited bidders to include energy storage, either in conjunction with the renewable energy project or a stand alone project. you can see the other terms. these contracts can be up to 25 years in duration and we're looking for them to start delivering as early as january 2021 and as late as december 2024. here is the schedule of the r.f.o. we received bids on

september 4th and are evaluating those bids. the short listing step has been delayed one week. the version of the presentation had september 20th, which is today. i updated it and marked it there as september 27th now. we intend to begin negotiations and bring this through the approval process starting in october, which we expect will run through the end of the year. we hope to be in a position to sign our first contract, starting as early as december, stretching in to next quarter as well. of course we'll share more information about the solicitation as it becomes available at the next meeting, the next lafco meeting. okay, this is the last slide.

here i wanted to give you a sense of our progress and plan to fuel local investments through programming work. some of this touches on things i mentioned. we done a lot on the renewable energy supply side of the picture. we have been conducting regular solicitations, identifying preferences for local projects in every case. we're hopeful that we will get new contracts. we rolled out our metering tariff which is providing service to most of the solar rooftop customers within the city. we are also working on a feed in tariff, and this would create a streamlined renewable energy contracting process for smaller

scale projects located right here in san francisco. we integrated cleanpowersf with the go solar sf program, and are working on enhancements to that program, which has been operating for over a decade and helped support a significant amount of solar investments in san francisco. building off the work we're doing on the i.r.p., and the local renewable energy plan, we intend to develop new projects on city owned and controlled property. that will be work that we commence following approval of the 10 year capital plan and i.r.p. so, now that we completed city-wide enroll into the cleanpowersf, we're turning towards clean energy programs that impact our customers demand. so we started with a focus on

rate payer programs. we added content to our website to help navigate customers to energy efficiency and other programs already available to them, which are in most cases funded by our customers as well. i think that actually this can be a very valuable role in helping integrate and consolidate information about the various programs that are available. cleanpowersf won't be the only entity in the marketplace providing these kinds of services and we know that for sure. we can also help our customers understand the environment and help direct them to those resources. of course, we also begun to expand on this with our own programs, starting with a demand response pilot for commercial customers that went live this year. we launched that program after hearing from our commercial customers that we had enrolled,

that it would provide a valuable way for them to reduce their energy costs, while being good stewards of the grid and the environment by reducing their demand on the days when statewide electricity demand was at the most extreme. last weekend, we had really high temperatures in the state. finally, we're working on the development of new initiatives to spur investments and building electrification. we're working on a proposal for the california p.u.c. to deliver energy efficient services right here in san francisco and we're working on new transportation electrification initiatives consistent with the electric vehicle road map that was issued earlier this year. for example, we're working on a proposal for a new commercial electric vehicle rates to help

overcome some rate barriers that exist to support growth of electric vehicle charging. we're also looking at alternatives to cars, and we really want to think of the transit first policy and what we can do to help get people around electrically without the use of a personal vehicle. with that, i'm done. i'm happy to take any questions you might have. >> colleagues, any questions or comments? i just have one question. on our i.r.p., i wanted to know if we are taking into account what's in the pipeline currently and planning that's been approved. when we're looking at what are the energy needs may be for the next 20 years. we're comparing it also to this sort of, all the factors.

so i am just wondering, when you are looking at this, are you taking into account what has been approve in the pipeline for growth and development around office buildings and residential developments that have been approved. i hear that they're about 30,000, i think, units that have been approved. also, are we also taking into consideration legislation that is pending around our dependency on natural gas and bringing it to electric? i think our supervisors are workiwor working and looking at extending an ordinance to private developments too. we're taking all that into account when we're duoing -- developing this? >> yes, when i spoke earlier about the sensitivities we are

conducting on the demand of our customers, it includes those things. so, you know, we're accounting for new energy efficiency standards in buildings, the new building stock of the sfi city put in place, will be some of the most energy efficient buildings that the city has ever had. >> the new ones. >> yeah, the new ones. so historical usage may not be a good predictor of the future in that case. we're also looking at things like the other initiatives and their potential impact like decarbon sayings of buildings, the natural gas issue and also on the transportation side. i think there was a hearing several weeks ago held by the board of supervisors and supervisor mandelman, and group

of presenters presented on that, and we talked about work in that respect. from a climate standpoint, the building and the transportation wedges in an emissions projection, it's really the big ones for us to tackle. electricity is really being decarbonized rapidly. so, this element that you just preferred to is an important part of our plan this year, looking at what may happen if we're successful. >> right. >> in these fronts. it's going to see a significant increase in our demand for electricity. >> no, and i am concerned on whether or not we will be able to meet those demands with clean energy, just because of the sources. as other agencies start to build up their clean energy brahprogr too, we're all going to be competing for these resources. that's why i'm always talking about the build up plan to produce our own clean energy, and to also, on the west side of

san francisco, where they have old homes, we're looking at 42,000 homes that all have water heaters. they're private residents. i think we're on the verge of looking at how we can transform that dependency on natural gas also over to electricity. so, i suspect there will be legislation that actually or incenti incentives for electric water heaters to replace those old water tanks that are constantly going, so i think in the next 20 years, this is when we're going to see it. san francisco is on the cutting edge of all this, right? so from what you said to me, and it is quite meaty, i think that our dependency, even to procure it locally, those sources will be very competitive and do we want to balance it with the cost, as things get more

competitive, we're going to have to look at our own sources of renewable energy here in the property that we own. >> absolutely. >> great, any comments or questions? none. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> this opens it up for public comment. any members of the public would like to comment on item number 3? >> good afternoon commissioners, eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocate. i just wanted to take what the chair just said, what chair fewer just said as a launch point. as always, the sfpuc has made a lot of progress, but there is a big missing piece in what you just saw in the report and that is that their plan is to go out with request for offers to say to the free market, we want to maximize our clean energy and

our energy independence. what are you willing to sell to us? what that's not is a sydney, australia-style plan for this is exactly what we want to build in the local area, in san francisco's footprint and the nine bay area counties so we meet 100% of our clean energy from local sources, in that local area. we need to create a plan and then go out to the market and say, this is what we want built. who is going to build this for us? that is what is missing from what they're giving us. you know, there are kids out in the street right now who are raising hell about this because their future is at stake. they said to the congress that you know, as children we should be playing in school, we shouldn't have to be the ones coming to congress to change this. this points out why us coming up

with a sydney, australia-style build out plan is crucial. we're not going to solve the problem they're crying out about unless we make the plan and then we go to the providers and ask them to build it for us, instead of going to them in a free market saying, what do you want to build? you know, we all know that free markets don't work. we have to do the planning and say this is what we want. thanks. >> thank you mr. brooks. anymore public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. there is not an action to be taken by lafco. madam clerk, please call number 4. >> an update on lafco's study and survey on demand workers in san francisco. >> thank you.

-- they also interviewed a number of experts that conducted similar studies and surveys, like michael wright at b.c.

berkeley. and at the ucla labor sense who are did a survey of ride-hailing drivers in los angeles. and really many of the top experts worldwide who were studying the gig economy. and they also conducted three focus group because the survey is designed by on-demand workers themselves. and they did interviews with bike couriers who are doing delivery. and one of the focus was on arabic. they recruited for the focus groups and going out to the hotspots for ride hailing and delivery. and they handed out these cards, gig study work and offering folks a $50 gift card for their participation in the focus groups. so they were able to get some really valuable feedback from those platform workers that led to the design of the current methodology and survey questions

questions, which i'll get to in a moment. out of their report though were a couple of recommendations. when we began this study, we identified more than a hundred emerging mobile companies in san francisco and that number continues to grow. hard to keep track. and in their phase one recommendations our team has proposed, however, that the survey be limited to ride-hailing services and to delivery companies, about 11 in total. so they won't be including platforms like task rabbit or junk bikes which are pretty different in their operations and would require a different survey to fully understand. and also the more platforms that we include in the survey, the more expensive the survey gets. and so the other recommendation is to conduct a three-week pilot testing the two survey options. i think they mentioned this to you before. and one is inept recruiting and the other is an online survey

recruited through facebook. and they'll also customize the driver's seat cooperative app. this is an app that platform workers could turn on while working and it tracks them so that the team can get a more accurate picture of how much they're making on an hourly basis and mileage-based expenses and working time, commute patterns and where they're resting. and then finally depending on which survey option works best, the team is going to develop a more refined budget. i want to get to some of the questions that i have included in your memo, a draft of all of the questions that we'll be asking the workers. so based on the focus groups and their own research and review of the academic literature, they develop these questions which cover the following categories. we want to know basic platform information. which platforms do you work for? how long have you worked there?

what percentage of work is performed in san francisco? things like that. when did you start working for the platforms? what was the most important factor in deciding to work for the platforms? we want to know income and benefits and how much do you make? how do you access benefits? do you get any kind of government assistance? platform practices -- have you been deactivated due to a customer complaint? when you decline offers of work, are there any negative consequences like a deactivation? vehicle and expenses -- we're asking folks what is their primary mode of transportation. we know that there are a lot of drivers doing uber and lyft but there's also a lot of folks on bikes and weeking who are doing delivery. we're also going to be asking them have you received citations. and i also -- we slipped in a question about e-bikes for delivery workers and that is if the city or someone offered and

instead of purchasing an e-bike would you use that instead of a car. safety and health -- how do you access restaurants? how often do you work 12 straight hours or more on the platforms? we hear that uber drivers work 10 hours and then switch to other flat forms because they have to keep going to make money. and demographic information. what is your country of origin. there's very little demographic data available on gig workers. and then they'll be asked if they would be interested in participating in a more in-depth interview. and all in all the survey questions add up to about 20 minutes of their time and, again, the two questions are in-app recruiting and doing the survey. and the in-app is the most representative. and budget and fundraising -- and i have to say that we're at

a very critical point for fundraising. the total cost of a survey in this study is estimated to be around $595,000. that is a much higher figure then when i first brought you this proposal. the costs have increased, partly because we're learning as we go. keep in mind that a lot of work is groundbreaking and we're hoping that the survey will be the most truly representative survey of platform workers to date. so we have raised around $295,000, that includes the $100,000 grant from the san francisco foundation and it includes money that lafco has allocated to the study. and we have been successful at raising funds as i said. but we do have a gap of $270,000. there is some good news. we have been tentatively approved for a $30,000 racial equity grant from the san

francisco foundation. that's because our work and recommendations do seek to advance racial equity and economic security. but we have a ways to go. and we've been working very hard on this and we currently have a dozen pending requests in the foundations and we also have a request in cntc. and this week i really began sounding alarms because if we don't raise the money by october 15th, unfortunately, the work on the survey is going to need to stop until we get all of the funding in place. the team is prepared for that if it happens because they're committed to doing this. next week i know that some of my contacts at the san francisco foundation are meeting with other foundations down in los angeles. some of those foundations are organizations that we've been waiting for replies on. so it's not necessarily the answer is, no, it just takes a while to go through the process. so i really don't want to stop the work.

so we really have been working hard to engage funders and explore all avenues. and i welcome any ideas. so assuming that we do get the funding, we are pretty much on target with our goals and timelines. phase two of the survey will begin next week and then phase three which allows for a robust review and feedback process begins in february. and phase three, the final report and presentation, we hope that will come out in may 2020. that's the latest on that and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chair fewer: yes, commissioner. >> and someone who just left the role of doing non-profit work and i understand how difficult it can be. and we can do process later but if there's a list or anything that you have of all of the foundations that you have applied to for funding that woulwould be helpful for me to k at. >> okay, awesome. i'd be happy to do that.

>> chair fewer: i think that this is exciting and it's going to be -- i'm looking forward to the results, and it is very interesting. but i'm wondering how we might help offer with the fundraising? i think if we can help in any way, please reach out to us. i think that you have been working closely with chelsea about this too but we have october 5th just around the corner. so let's keep in touch. i'm happy to help. any comments or questions? seeing none, we open it up for public comment. and item number three. four. >> good afternoon again, eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocates, green party california true energy choice. so i do want to make sure that as this study goes forward that it's focusing on the key -- both worker and environmental problem. and that is the number of cars

on the street, especially the number of cars on the street that are coming in from out of town. and we all know from previous studies on this that there is this boom of cars on the street because -- and it's causing gridlock and massive environmental problems. the fact that a lot of these folks are coming from out of town is a problem too. all of this is creating a worker problem of the taxi drivers being shoved out because their cars are required to have clean energy mandates. uber and lyft drivers are not required to have clean energy equipment on their cars. the cars that have a certain clean energy objective. and set-up. so there's an inherent problem there and we need to make sure as this survey goes forward that we're identifying how we're going to localize the workforce back to the local workers that

are mainly taxi drivers. and how we're going to minimize the number of cars on the street by making the number of cars out there that need to be exact demand instead of being... of the demand and that gets the whole question that is not really part of this survey but bears mentioning and that is that it would be good for lafco to pursue this, we need to pursue free mass transit for everybody. because that's what is going to get people back on the buses and trains and out of the uber cars. >> chair fewer: thank you mr. burke. seeing any public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. thank you very much. and madam clerk, can you take out of order item 7, please. >> clerk: item number 7 is state legislation update.

>> commissioners, today we have an important update on assembly bill 5. i'm sure that you have all heard the good news but we do have some concerns about what's going to happen now that the bill is going to become law. to explain more and to provide an update, i'd like to welcome our new lafco intern dan raile to the podium. and dan joined us after getting his masters in urban and public affairs from usff. and a former journalist who

covered uber from a critical perspective. i'll turn it over to him. >> chair fewer: thank you. >> commissioners. >> chair fewer: hello. >> thank you for having me. so you probably heard that assembly bill 5 passed and it was signed into law on wednesday. so what does that mean? beginning on january 1st, it is -- sorry -- beginning on january 1st, the abc test rather than the previous test for whether workers and employer or contractor will go into effect, it's codification of a california supreme court ruling from last spring. so this is already technically law. it's just now reinforced by state law