These companies seem to have a good track record and I agree with Councilman Clark that we don't need necessary rules to drive folks out of town. We all want convenience and these companies are no different from getting fueled up in your driveway by an AAA truck. So is the City going to levy a fee for getting fueled by AAA or also charge for keeping cans full of gasoline in the garages??
By all means do a study of the safety and viability but lets not add more fees. Thanks

Members of our city council - this reeks of a fee grab rather than regulations backed by findings of fact. Enough of that is coming out of Washington, D.C.. Do we have to adopt that bad habit here in the center of innovation?

I don't understand how this saves time? You are going to have to be at home and make an appointment for someone to fill your tank, correct? How is that better/different/convenient compared to getting gas while you are out driving?

I've never used an on-demand fuel service, but allowing them to operate only at fully permitted fueling sites defeats the whole point of their service. It's like allowing Waiter.com or other food delivery services to deliver only to fully permitted dining facilities.

If their customers have to drive to a fully permitted fueling site, then their customers can drive to a standard gas station.

One thing these services don't have is vapor recovery pumps. Gas stations have to have them. Your car has to have an evaporative system that must be tested during the biennial smog check. Why shouldn't these companies? Heck, you can't even buy a gas can today that isn't CARB certified.

Talk about an unnecessary service! How far is it to the nearest gas station? It might be convenient but just wait until there's a screw-up and they burn down a few houses.

Let's see, is there a difference between AAA delivering enough gas to get you to the next station or a truck with enough gas for several car fill-ups?

Just another group of start-ups solving problems only encountered by spoiled lazy, rich people.

This is California; we need to regulate and collect money for everything. So sad.

It's interesting how people do not understand the risk involved in this type of operation. These are vehicles with 300-500 gallons of gasoline in one or multiple tanks. This is not AAA with a couple of gas cans or your lawn mower in your garage. If an accident happens, including a large spill, fire, vehicle accident in a neighborhood (as opposed to an industrial area) it would be much worse than if waiter.com or door dash was in an accident. I for one am glad the fire department is thinking about it. It means for now a company can pay $170 a year for a permit and have a fuel delivery service available to their employees.

Safety seems like a legitimate concern, considering the risks is this becomes a common service. I assume gas stations have to abide by a whole slew of safety and environmental rules; are these mobile deliver services bound by the same rules, at least (considering they are operating in residential areas)?

Greg David makes a key claim that at least one rule, the requirement for vapor recovery systems, does not apply to mobile gas services. I can understand an exemption for emergency services (AAA bringing you gas, for instance) but any business based on gassing people up for profit ought to be bound by the same environmental standards as any gas station.

All in all, this service doesn't thrill me because gas stations tend to stink in the best of times and I would NOT want that smell permeating every neighborhood.

Another regulatory avoidance tactic they use is having transfer tanks that are just under the maximum number of gallons that would require the drivers to have hazmat certifications. I applaud the entrepreneurial spirit of the concept, but myself being in a highly regulated industry, I feel they are just not playing on a level field. Just like Uber/lyft and any number of other disruptive new concepts.

Seriously! People are going around town with half baked "fuel trucks" with no vapor recovery, no fire suppression systems, no licensing and this is somehow Ok? And it's Ok at the same time I get cited for having a BBQ propane tank within 10 feet of a combustible (wood) fence. This is nuts. Shut the ticking time bombs down and let people buy an electric car--then you can fill it up at home. If one of the dozen gas stations you drive by every day isn't good enough for you then it's time to ditch the car.

I suppose this is for tech workers who will have the gas delivered in the parking lot while they're at work. There are already other companies that will wash and detail their cars.

(why does the Verification code never work the first time?)

I don't understand all this worry. How's this different from LPG delivery, which happens constantly in most of CA and you'd think would be more dangerous because of pressurized gas, or heating oil delivery which is the way most people in this country heat their homes? The difference here is the fluid and the tank it goes into, that's it.

Did you know that people have to be licensed to pump gas at all in Oregon and New Jersey? No such thing as self-serve fuel pumps, you have to pay someone to do it. Who does this benefit? Hundreds of millions of other people manage for themselves without incinerating themselves or their neighborhood.

This seems like another silly reaction to a problem that doesn't yet exist.

Are these new rules based on any kind of data-driven risk assessment, or just a knee-jerk reaction? Over the last 60 years or so, people have developed many kinds of tools for assessing and managing risk, such as FMEA. These tools are now widespread in the private sector, particularly in the auto industry, but somehow I haven't heard of governments using them.