Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
5Activity
P. 1
CPUC Ride-sharing Proposal

CPUC Ride-sharing Proposal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,345 |Likes:
Published by KQED News

More info:

Published by: KQED News on Jul 31, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/03/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.,
 
Governor 
 
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUESAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
 July 30, 2013
Agenda ID #12291Quasi-Legislative
TO PARTIES OF RECORD IN RULEMAKING 12-12-011This is the proposed decision of Commissioner Michael R. Peevey. This item is targetedto appear on Agenda No. 3321 for the Commission’s September 5, 2013 BusinessMeeting, but may appear on a later agenda. Interested persons may monitor theBusiness Meeting agendas, which are posted on the Commission’s website 10 daysbefore each Business Meeting, for notice of when this item may be heard. TheCommission may act on the item at that time, or it may hold an item to a later agenda.When the Commission acts on the proposed decision, it may adopt all or part of it aswritten, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only whenthe Commission acts does the decision become binding on the parties.Parties to the proceeding may file comments on the proposed decision as provided inArticle 14 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), accessible onthe Commission’s website atwww.cpuc.ca.gov. Pursuant to Rule 14.3, openingcomments shall not exceed 15 pages.Comments must be filed pursuant to Rule 1.13 either electronically or in hard copy.Comments should be served on parties to this proceeding in accordance with Rules 1.9and 1.10. Electronic and hard copies of comments should be sent to ALJ Mason at
rim@cpuc.ca.gov
and Commissioner Peevey’s advisor Carol Brown atcab@cpuc.ca.gov. The current service list for this proceeding is available on theCommission’s website atwww.cpuc.ca.gov./s/ KAREN V. CLOPTONKaren V. Clopton, ChiefAdministrative Law JudgeKVC:avsAttachment
 
F I L E D
07-30-1303:12 PM
 
 
74758955
- 1 -
COM/MP1/avs
PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID #12291Quasi-Legislative
Decision
PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER PEEVEY(Mailed 7/30/2013)
 
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking on RegulationsRelating to Passenger Carriers, Ridesharing, andNew Online-Enabled Transportation Services.Rulemaking 12-12-011(Filed December 20, 2012)
DECISION ADOPTING RULES AND REGULATIONS TOPROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY WHILE ALLOWING NEW ENTRANTSTO THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
 
R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
PROPOSED DECISION
 
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTSTitle
 
Page
 DECISION ADOPTING RULES AND REGULATIONS TO PROTECT PUBLICSAFETY WHILE ALLOWING NEW ENTRANTS TO THE TRANSPORTATIONINDUSTRY ........................................................................................................................ 2
 
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2
 
1. Procedural History .................................................................................................. 3
 
2. Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................ 7
 
2.1. Comments on the Rulemaking ....................................................................... 7
 
2.2. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 12
 
2.2.1. Neither the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 nor PublicUtilities Code Section 710 Exempts TNCs from State Jurisdiction ............. 12
 
2.2.2. TNCs Transport Passengers for Compensation ................................... 16
 
2.2.3. TNCs Operate on a Prearranged Basis .................................................. 17
 
2.2.4. Commission Has the Jurisdiction and the Duty to EstablishRegulations Governing the Provision of TCP Services .................................. 19
 
3. Safety ....................................................................................................................... 27
 
3.1. Comments on the Rulemaking ..................................................................... 28
 
3.2. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 31
 
4. Ridesharing ............................................................................................................. 34
 
4.1. Comments on the Rulemaking ..................................................................... 34
 
4.2. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 37
 
5. Transportation Access ........................................................................................... 41
 
5.1. Comments on the Rulemaking ..................................................................... 41
 
5.2. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 43
 
6. Insurance ................................................................................................................. 45
 
6.1. Comments on the Rulemaking ..................................................................... 46
 
6.2. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 47
 
7. Workshop Report .................................................................................................. 48
 
7.1. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 51
 
8. Comments on Proposed Decision ....................................................................... 53
 
9. Assignment of Proceeding ................................................................................... 53
 
Findings of Fact ............................................................................................................... 53
 
Conclusions of Law ........................................................................................................ 56
 
ORDER ............................................................................................................................. 58
 
ATTACHMENT A
– Workshop Report

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Michael Keys-Maddox added this note
First and foremost, public safety is at risk with these proposals. It still allows the companies to waive their liability to the passenger and driver for any claim made against them. Let it be known that the companies secret insurance policy is the only thing that will be covering anyone involved in an accident since the personal insurance will not cover anything. Let it also be known that havi
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->