Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Supervisors and PUC enter closed session on PG&E litigation after public comment
Summary
At a joint special meeting March 10, 2020, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Public Utilities Commission moved into a closed session on existing litigation involving Pacific Gas and Electric Company after brief public comments; both bodies later voted not to disclose their closed-session deliberations.
San Francisco's Board of Supervisors and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission met jointly March 10, 2020, and entered a closed session to discuss existing litigation involving Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), city officials said.
The joint meeting opened with two minutes of public comment. An unnamed speaker who identified themselves as a regular SFPUC attendee urged the commission to assess whether the SFPUC “has the capacity…to buy PG and E, whether it's a small part or a large part,” and warned that PG&E “doesn’t want to give up anything that it possesses.” Tom Gilberty, another public commenter, said he opposed a partial city takeover of PG&E and described wildfire smoke as a regional problem that should be solved regionally.
After public comment, the bodies took procedural steps to move into closed session. The clerk read that the closed session was scheduled pursuant to motion number M20-0200, approved Feb. 11, 2020, and described the subject as “existing litigation regarding Pacific Gas and Electric Company” for the March 10, 2020 joint closed session. A motion to assert the city's privilege was made and seconded; the presiding officer announced the motion carried.
When the bodies reconvened in open session, the Board of Supervisors voted not to disclose its closed-session deliberations on a motion made by Supervisor Peskin and seconded by another supervisor (second not specified in the record). The PUC separately voted not to disclose its closed-session deliberations on a motion by Commissioner Maxwell, seconded by Commissioner Paulson; the clerk recorded the outcome as approved. The record notes that Commissioners Kane and Viator were not in the chamber during the disclosure vote.
No substantive details of the closed sessions or litigation were released at the meeting. Officials told members of the public to leave the chamber before the closed session and that the chamber doors would be reopened after the closed session concluded.
Why it matters: The joint closed session addressed ongoing litigation involving PG&E, which has been the subject of regional concern over wildfire risk and utility operations. The votes not to disclose are consistent with the bodies' invocation of privilege and the procedural schedule established by motion M20-0200.
Provenance: The public-comment excerpt and the scheduling language appear in the meeting transcript at the public comment block and the clerk’s closed-session announcement. The motions and votes on disclosure are recorded in the reconvened open-session transcript.
