Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Power Sf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public pushes to restore Clean Power SF; commission holds closed executive-director interviews and votes not to disclose
Summary
Public commenters urged the commission to restore Clean Power SF to the Climate Action Strategy and accused the mayor’s office of ties to PG&E; the commission then entered closed session for executive director interviews and later voted not to disclose those discussions.
Public commenters pressed the Commission on the Environment on March 25 to restore Clean Power SF to the Climate Action Strategy and criticized city leadership, and the commission subsequently moved into closed session for executive director interviews and voted not to disclose the closed-session discussions.
Eric Brooks, speaking for San Francisco Clean Energy Advocates, the San Francisco Green Party and the grassroots group Our City, told the commission that "the mayor's office is heavily in bed with the Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation" and urged commissioners to "stand up to the mayor's office and tell the mayor that this is unacceptable." Brooks argued Clean Power SF could unlock additional energy-efficiency funds and jobs, and said Local Agency Formation Commission planning showed the program would proceed regardless of mayoral resistance.
Why it matters: Brooks framed Clean Power SF as both a climate and jobs program, telling the commission it could "bring you those funds back and more" and provide work for thousands of local workers in hard-hit neighborhoods. He also urged the commission to restore the program to the Climate Action Strategy and to support staff who had previously advocated for the initiative.
Personnel and closed session: After public comment the commission voted to go into closed session to conduct executive director interviews under California Government Code section 54957 and San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.10B. When the commission reconvened in open session it considered whether to disclose any closed-session discussion and, after a motion "not to disclose" was moved and seconded, the commission approved withholding disclosure pursuant to California Government Code 54957.1A and San Francisco Administrative Code 67.12(b).
What was not resolved: The public accusations about political influence and donations were not addressed in detail during the meeting; no SF mayoral representative or SFPUC official responded in this session. A supervisor-level hearing on the issue (Supervisor Avalos’s March 31 hearing, referenced by a commenter) was identified as an upcoming forum.
