Docket No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION _____
__________________________________________________

MICHAEL J. AGUIRRE,
Plaintiff and Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTITILES COMMISSION,

Respondent,

__________________________________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW

FOR OPEN MEETING LAW VIOLATIONS;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
__________________________________________________

Maria C. Severson, Esq., SBN 173967

mseverson@amslawyers.com
AGUIRRE & SEVERSON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1050
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 876-5364
Facsimile: (619) 876-5368
Attorneys for Petitioner
2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE ......................................... 7

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................ 7

II. JURISDICTION ..................................................................... 8

III. PARTIES ........................................................................... 8

IV. EXHIBITS ........................................................................... 8

V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................. 8

VI. CONTEXT IN WHICH CLAIMS HAVE AROSE ............... 8

A. CPUC RECORDS REVEAL A “STAGGERING

NUMBER” OF OPEN MEETING
LAW VIOLATIONS ................................................... 8

B. BACKGROUND OF THE CPUC AND

THOSE IT IS CHARGED WITH REGULATING... 11

1. CPUC CATASTROPHE NUMBER 1 ............ 12

2. CPUC CATASTROPHE NUMBER 2 ............ 14

3. NOT THE FIRST TIME THE

CPUC WITHHELD INFORMATION
FROM THE PUBLIC ...................................... 22

4. THE SECRET MEETINGS AT

CFEE EVENTS ............................................... 24

5. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
ARE AT STAKE ............................................. 24

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ....................................................... 25

VERIFICATION ......................................................................... 27

3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORIES IN
SUPPORT OF PETITION/APPLICATION .................................. 28

A. THE LAW ON CLOSED SESSION ......................... 28

B. THE LAW ON SERIAL MEETINGS....................... 28

C. VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW ................................. 29

D. THIS COURT HAS THE DUTY TO

PROTECT THE PUBLIC BY STOPPING
THE OPEN MEETING LAW VIOLATION ............ 30

E. AN INJUCTION STOPPING THE CPUC

COMMISSIONERS VIOLATION OF
OPEN MEETINGS LAWS MUST ISSUE ............... 30

F. THE CPUC’S OPPOSITION DOES

NOT ALTER THE DUTY OF THIS
COURT TO ISSUE THE INJUNCTION .................. 31

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................. 32

PROOF OF SERVICE.................................................................... 33

4
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Frazer v. Dixon Unified School Dist.

(1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 781................................................. 29

Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Util. Comm’n

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 891 .............................................................. 8

Pacific Bell v. Public Util. Comm’n

(2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 269..................................................... 9

Public Utilities Com. v. Superior Court

(2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1260 ..................................................... 8

Roberts v. City of Palmdale

(1993) 5 Cal. 4th 363............................................................ 29

San Francisco v. Public Utilities Com.

(1971) 6 Cal.3d 119 .............................................................. 11

Stockton Newspapers v. Redevelopment Agency

(1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95 .......................................... 8, 28, 29

Sutter Bay Associates v. County of Sutter

(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 860..................................................... 8

Statutes

California Government Code

§ 11120 ................................................................................. 31
§ 11122.5(b) ..................................................................... 8, 26
§ 11123.6 .............................................................................. 30
§ 11125 ................................................................................. 25
§ 11125(b) ............................................................................ 28
§ 11125.2 ................................................................................ 7
§ 11126.3 .............................................................................. 28
§ 11126.3(a)...................................................................... 7, 25
§ 11126.3(f) ................................................................ 7, 25, 28

5
 § 11130 ................................................................. 9, 25, 29, 30
§ 11130(a)............................................................................. 30
§ 11130.3 .............................................................................. 29
§ 11130.5 .................................................................. 26, 29, 30
§ 11130.7 ........................................................................ 29, 30

Cal Pub. Util. Code § 3280(k) ........................................................ 11

California Constitution, Article XII, Section 1 .............................. 11

California Constitution, Article XII, Section 3 .............................. 24

65 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 63, 66 (1982) ............................................... 29

63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 820, 828-829 (1980) ................................... 29

6
 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
To the Honorable Justices of the Court of Appeal of the State of
California, First Appellate District:
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
A public report has been made that the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) has conducted a staggering number of Open
Meeting Law violations occurred at the CPUC. Text messages between
and amongst CPUC Commissioners reveal that the five
Commissioners discussed, at length in serial meetings, the dismissal of
the Commission’s Executive Director and reached a collective
consensus on that subject, all in violation of the Bagley-Keene Open
Meeting Act.
Petitioner seeks to stop the CPUC from violating the Bagley-
Keene Open Meeting Act (“the Act” or “the Bagley-Keene Act”), set
forth in Government Code sections 11120-11132, which requires
publicly noticed meetings with prepared agendas accurately describing
action to be taken, and requires the CPUC to conduct its meetings in
public absent specific authorized exceptions.
Here, Petitioner seeks to stop the CPUC from (1) holding closed
sessions without the notice required under Government Code Section
11126.3(a), and further, (2) to require the CPUC after holding closed
sessions to make the reports required under Government Code Section
11126.3(f), which provides as follows: “After any closed session, the
state body shall reconvene into open session prior to adjournment and
shall make any reports, provide any documentation, and make any other
disclosures required by Section 11125.2 of action taken in the closed
session.”

7
 Under pressure from recent public requests, the CPUC’s legal
counsel disseminated 78 pages of text messages from the CPUC
Commissioners that show Commission members carrying out serial
meetings seeking and achieving agreement on official CPUC business
via text and outside of public noticed meetings. (See Exhibit 18, pages
296, 299, 307,319, 323, 330, 334, 335, 342)
Accordingly, Petitioner also seeks to stop the CPUC from its use
of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological
devices employed by a majority of its members to develop a collective
concurrence as to action to be taken outside of an open meeting, and to
render void any action taken by means of such unlawful serial meetings
and collective concurrence. (Section 11122.5(b)1; Sutter Bay
Associates v. County of Sutter (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 860, 876-877;
Stockton Newspapers v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d
95, 103
II. JURISDICTION
This writ of mandate is filed under the legal authority Public
Utilities Com. v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1260, 1272, to
obtain an order stopping the unlawful closed session meetings.
Petitioner is entitled to this Court’s judicial review to set aside the
Commission’s unlawful setting of closed session meetings.
Review by a petition for writ of review is the “sole means
provided by law for judicial review of a [CPUC] decision.” Consumers
Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Util. Comm’n (1979) 25 Cal.3d

1
Unless otherwise stated, all references to statutes are to the
California Government Code.

8
891, 901. The Court should grant the petition because it is (1)
meritorious; and (2) raises an important issue and satisfies the elements
of Govt Code § 11130(a). Pacific Bell v. Public Util. Comm’n (2000)
79 Cal.App.4th 269, 281-282.
III. PARTIES
Respondent is the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
Petitioner Michael J. Aguirre is an interested party acting as legal
counsel in a number of public record and constitutional law cases aimed
at exposing wrongdoing at the CPUC and encouraging needed reforms.
IV. EXHIBITS
Petitioner’s Appendix contains, amongst other documents, a true
and correct copy of the August 5, 2020, news article reporting a high
ranking CPUC official admitting CPUC Commissioners have been
engaging in systemic violations of California’s open meeting laws
(Exhibit 1). Petitioner’s Appendix also includes CPUC agenda
documents (Exhibits 2-17), and text messages of CPUC
Commissioners (Exhibit 18).
V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The request to require lawful notice of CPUC closed sessions and

to require the CPUC to make required reports of actions taken at closed
sessions is as follows.
VI. CONTEXT IN WHICH CLAIMS HAVE ARISEN

A. CPUC RECORDS REVEAL A “STAGGERING

NUMBER” OF OPEN MEETING LAW VIOLATIONS
In an August 5, 2020 news article, J.D. Morris of the San
Francisco Chronicle reported one of the “highest-ranking officials” at

9
the CPUC accused the Commission of holding a "staggering number"
of closed-door meetings in apparent violation of state law.”2
Between September 12, 2019, when Marybel Batjer assumed the
Office of CPUC President, and August 6, 2020, (the date of the San
Francisco Chronicle story), Ms. Batjer presided over 21 meetings in
which numerous closed sessions were held. (See Exhibits 2-17):

• in 2019: September 12 and 26; October 10, 18, 24;

November 7 and 13; and December 19;
• in 2020: January 16; February 6 and 17; March 12 and 26;
April 16; May 7, 21, 28; June 11 and 25; July 16; and
August 6.3
On August 26, 2020, records of communication were
disseminated by the CPUC showing CPUC President Batjer and other
CPUC Commissioners held serial meetings to reach a decision to
terminate a high level CPUC executive who has documented rampant
CPUC open meeting law violations. The records include
numerous texts from the Commissioners in which they discussed, and
basically agreed to, the planned CPUC action. (See Exhibit 18) In one
such text, a Commissioner says, “I want to be very careful to make sure
she understands we all agree.” (Exhibit 18, p. 335)

2
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Senior-CPUC-official-
claims-she-s-being-ousted-15459461.php
3
http://www.adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc/voting_meeting/20200806/

10
 B. BACKGROUND OF THE CPUC AND THOSE IT IS
CHARGED WITH REGULATING 4

The CPUC reported no action taken in any of these closed

sessions. In California, private corporations that operate a system for
furnishing power to the public are public utilities subject to control by
the Legislature. California Constitution, Article XII, Section 3. The
Legislature has created the California Public Utilities Commission and
enacted the Public Utilities Code to regulate utilities such as San Diego
Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), amongst others. California
Constitution, Article XII, Sections 1, 3.
The CPUC consists of 5 members appointed by the Governor and
approved by the Senate. California Constitution, Article XII, Sect. 1.
The “primary purpose of the Public Utilities Act is to insure the public
adequate service at reasonable rates without discrimination; and the
commission has the power to prevent a utility from passing on to the
ratepayers unreasonable costs for materials and services by disallowing
expenditures that the commission finds unreasonable.” San Francisco
v. Public Utilities Com. (1971) 6 Cal.3d 119, 126.
In California, large electrical corporations are defined as those
“with 250,000 or more customer accounts within the state.” Cal Pub.
Util. Code § 3280(k). SDG&E, SCE and PG&E are all large electrical

4
The citations as to the background are matters within the public
record and CPUC proceedings and are provided to give context as to
the public’s interest in ensuring the Open Meeting Laws are followed.

11
corporations: SDG&E has over 1.3 million customers; 5 PG&E has over
5.4 million customers; 6 and SCE has over 5 million customers.7
1. CPUC CATASTROPHE NUMBER 1:
Beginning as early as April 1996, the three large electricity
corporations (SDG&E, PG&E and SCE) jointly filed with the Federal
Energy Regulator Commission (FERC) “for authority to sell electric
energy at market-based rates,” as shown here: 8

Beginning in “the summer of 2000, the price for wholesale

electricity in California skyrocketed to exorbitant levels.”9 The price of
wholesale electricity sold on the California utilities’ new market based
rates system started escalating around June 2000, reaching
unprecedented levels over the remainder of that year. From June 2000
through July 2000, wholesale electricity prices increased on average
270 percent over the same period in 1999. By December 2000,
wholesale prices reached $376.99 per megawatt hour (MWh), over 11

5
https://investor.sempra.com/node/37276/html
6
Pacific Gas & Electric 10-K p. 24.
7
SCE 10-K, p. 127.
8
April 29, 1996, Joint Application of Pacific Gas & Electric
Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern
California Edison Company for authority to sell electric Energy at
Market -Based Rates using a power exchange.
9
Decision 02-02-051 February 21, 2002 page 3

12
times higher than the average clearing price of $29.71 per MWh in
December 1999.10 The high prices led to an energy shortage and rolling
blackouts. 11 The energy shortage and high prices resulted in the
Governor of California proclaiming States of Emergency in January
and February 2001: 12

10

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/policies/legislation/california/subseque
ntevents.html
11

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/policies/legislation/california/subseque
ntevents.html
12
https://www.google.com/search?q=copy+January+17,+2001+cal+go
vernor+proclaims+energy+emergency&client=firefox-b-1-
d&hl=en&sxsrf=ALeKk01uS6kAr1k5lAzmWk8cLcwv8YBiVA:1597
670264435&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSqtHEqaLrAhVG
PawKHdLgBpoQ_AUIDSgA&biw=713&bih=349&dpr=2.31

13
 In response, the State of California created the California Energy
Resources Scheduling (CERS) program on January 17, 2001, to
purchase power on behalf of the three large utilities -- SDG&E, SCE
and PG&E. 13 CERS entered into 58 long-term power contracts at an
estimated cost of over $40 billion. Customers of the utility monopolies
over the past 20 years pay for the costs of the long-term contracts.14
State officials used the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to issue
“bonds for the purpose of shifting much of the cost of the electricity
crisis to future ratepayers.” 15 Although the final power contract ended
in 2015, utility customers are required to pay on the bonds until 2022.16
These billions of dollars were taken from future utility customers to
“avert a collapse of the electric system.”17
2. CPUC CATASTROPHE NUMBER 2:
As utility customers were finishing paying off the costs of the
energy crisis, the utilities were causing another expensive
catastrophe—deadly and costly wildfires. SDG&E imprudent caused a
deadly wildfire in San Diego in 2007. 18 PG&E safety violations caused
at least 13 fires in 2017 including the Adobe Fire, Alta Fire, Cascade
Fire, the Norrbom Fire, Nuns Fire, Oakmont/Pythian Fire, Partrick
Fire, the Pocket Fire, Point Fire, Potter/Redwood Fire, Sulphur Fire,

13
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/California-Energy-
Resource-Scheduling
14
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/California-Energy-
Resource-Scheduling
15
Decision 02-02-051, February 21, 2002, p 53.
16
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/California-Energy-
Resource-Scheduling
17
CPUC Decision 02-02-051, February 21, 2002, p 3
18
CPUC Decision 17-11-033, November 30, 201,7 p. 2

14
Youngs Fire, McCourtney Fire, and the Lobo Fire. In 2018, it caused
the deadly Camp Fire. 19
Here are the faces of the 85 Californians that PG&E decision-
makers killed in the Camp Fire in Butte County:

19
CPUC Decision 0-05-019, May 7, 2020, pp 9-12.

15
 Again, the CPUC bailed out the three major utilities. The CPUC,
under Marybel Batjer, decided to make utility customers pay over $13.5

16
billion to pay for fires PG&E and the other utilities caused. 20 To make
utility customers pay, the CPUC decided to continue the rate charges
previously imposed on utility customers to pay for power purchases
during the energy crisis in response to the energy shortage.21 The
CPUC calculated the revenue requirement for funding payments of the
utilities’ fire costs based on the “the actual collections made by
Department of Water Resources to make the payments of the power
purchase bonds.22
Here is the CPUC flow chart for the $13.5 billion, provided by
the CPUC in response to a Public Records Act request:

Hi Mr. Aguirre,
We have reviewed the documents withheld and will now
provide you with the attached documents. A final
document is being withheld under the deliberative process
privilege and attorney client privilege. It consists of a
communication between a Commissioner's Advisor and
Commissioner staff and attorneys at the Commission
regarding next steps in a proceeding.

20
Decision 19-10-056 October 24, 2019, pp. 11, 20.
21
Decision 19-10-056 October 24, 2019, p. 11.
22
Decision 19-10-056 October 24, 2019, p. 11.

17
 Ms. Batjer was a member of the Governor’s Strike Force that met
in secret with PG&E representatives to develop the $13.5 billion
funding plan for PG&E and its brethren major utilities. 23 The
Governor’s office refused to produce records of communications
between state officials and PG&E representatives regarding the plan to
make utility customers pay the $13.5 billion.24 These secret meetings
were held while PG&E was under criminal investigation for criminal
23
23 August 2019 Officer of the Governor letter RE: Public Records
Act Request
24
July 26, 2019, Gov Legal Unit Denial of Public Records Request;
August 2, 2019, Gov Legal Unit Denial of Public Records Request
(Writ Ex. 10)

18
homicides related to the Camp Fire that PG&E operators caused.
PG&E was convicted of 84 counts of criminal homicides. 25
The plan to have the CPUC make utility customers pay the $13.5
billion for PG&E and other utility-caused fires was supposed to have
occurred in October 2019. However, an internal CPUC document
shown below shows the decision was already made by September 9,
2019:

Utility Wildfire Safety: Implementing AB 1054 & AB 111

California Public Utilities Commission Requirements
Implementation Status as of September 2019

On July 12, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed

Assembly Bill (AB) 1054 (Holden, Chapter 79, Statutes of
2019): Public utilities: wildfires and employee protection
and AB 111 (Committee on Budget & Fiscal Review,
Chapter 81, Statutes of 2019): Wildfire agencies: public
utilities: safety and insurance. Among these bill’s many
provisions, they specifically require the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) to take the following
actions to mitigate and recover from utility ignited
wildfires –

I. Issue annual safety certifications to an electric investor

owned utility (IOU) if the electric IOU provides specified
documentation, meets specified requirements and
chooses to opt-in to the Wildfire Fund.

25
http://www.buttecounty.net/districtattorney/Search-
Results?q=camp%20fire%20report

19
 a. Action – The CPUC issued the first electric IOU
safety certifications in July 2019.
II. Initiate a proceeding 14 days after the effective date of
AB 1054 to consider requiring the large electric IOUs to
collect a non-bypassable charge from ratepayers to
support a Wildfire Fund.
a. Action – The CPUC initiated this proceeding (R.
19-07-017) on July 26, 2019.
III. Modify the CPUC’s reasonableness review/prudent
manager standard to allow an electric IOU to recover
“covered wildfire” costs from ratepayers when those
costs are determined to be just and reasonable, based on
the “reasonable conduct” of the electric IOU. Provide
that these costs may be recovered in part or in full, that
the electric IOU bares the burden to demonstrate
“reasonable conduct”, unless it has a valid safety
certification for the time period of the “covered wildfire”,
in which case the electric IOU’s conduct must be deemed
reasonable unless “serious doubt” is raised by a party to
a CPUC proceeding. If “serious doubt” is raised, the
electric IOU is required to dispel and prove that its
conduct was reasonable.
a. Action – Dependent upon an electric IOU filing an
Application for “covered wildfire” costs and
expenses for cost recovery from ratepayers.
IV. Assess a penalty in the amount up to three times the
penalty authorized by law for certain related violations
iuf the CPUC finds that an electric IOU has already
requested cost recovery for “covered wildfire” costs.
a. Action – Dependent upon the CPUC identifying
that an electric IOU has tried to “over” recover
“covered wildfire” costs from ratepayers.
V. Accept an electric IOUs Application for a CPUC
financing order to recover costs from ratepayers related
to “catastrophic wildfires”, under specific conditions,

20
 including costs associated with an electric IOU’s
proportionate share of five billion dollars for wildfire
risk mitigation expenditures.
a. Action - Dependent upon an electric IOU filing an
Application requesting a CPUC financing order to
recover “covered wildfire” costs from ratepayers.

VI. Issue a financing order to allow the recovery of electric

IOU “covered wildfire” costs, if specific determinations
are met.
a. Action - Dependent upon an electric IOU filing an
Application requesting a CPUC financing order to
recover “covered wildfire” costs from ratepayers.
VII. Design and determine whether a proceeding is a
“catastrophic wildfire proceeding” to determine whether
an electric IOU’s “covered wildfire” costs are just and
reasonable.
a. Action – Dependent upon when the CPUC initiates
such as proceeding.
VIII. Establish the Wildfire Safety Division (WSD) to
provide guidance, review and oversee the electric IOU’s
compliance with their Wildfire Mitigation Plans
(WMPs), and transfer all functions of the WSD to the
Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety within the
California Natural Resources Agency by July 1, 2021.
a. Action – The CPUC is currently reorganizing its
electric and natural gas IOU safety oversight
Divisions and Units to create the WSD.
IX. Direct the electric IOUs to provide WMPs every three-
years starting in calendar year 2020 and thereafter, and
allow for annual updates to the WMPs from the electric
IOU’s.
a. Action – The CPUC will address this requirement
within the WMP Guidance Proceeding (R. 18-10-
007)

21
 X. Establish the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
(CWSAB) to, among other actions, advise and make
recommendations related to the wildfire safety to the
WSD as well as review, comment and advise on the
electric IOU’s and publicly owned utilities WMPs.
a. Action – The CPUC is currently developing a plan
to create the CWSAD.

3. NOT THE FIRST TIME THE CPUC WITHHELD

INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC
State officials concerned with the three large electric utilities
have a history of not providing public records related to their secret
meetings. For example, the California First Appellate District
considered such a withholding of public records and ordered them
produced in 2018:

From: Notify@jud.ca.gov
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 4:11 PM
**
Aguirre v. California Public Utilities Commission
Case: A151282, 1st District, Division 2
Disposition date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2018-06-19

Disposition description:
Petition granted by opinion

Disposition status as of 2018-06-19: Final Notes:

Having reviewed the documents and given careful

consideration to the parties' written and oral
arguments and the governing law, we now direct the
CPUC, within ten days from the date of this order,
as follows: First, the CPUC shall produce every
document, with any attachment(s), over which it
asserted the deliberative-process privilege,
including those appearing at tabs 40, 41, and 42,

22
with the redacted portions restored. As to all of
these documents and redactions, the CPUC did not
meet its burden of " 'demonstrat[ing] a clear
overbalance on the side of confidentiality' " between
the public iterest in nondisclosure and the public
interest in disclosure. (American Civil Liberties
Union of Northern California v. Superior Court
(2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 68-69; County of Santa
Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th
1301, 1321 [" 'Where the public interest in
disclosure of the records is not outweighed by the
public interest in nondisclosure, courts will direct
the government to disclose the requested
information.' "].) Second, of the documents
withheld on the basis of the exemption for
correspondence to and from the Governor's Office
(Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (l)), the CPUC shall
produce all of the following: the documents and any
attachments appearing at tabs 4-5, 7-9, 14-15, 18,
22, 25, 28-29, 33, 59, 65-68, and 74. Third, the
CPUC shall provide petitioner with a copy of the
privilege log it prepared in response to our October
27, 2017 order. In addition, we uphold the limited
redactions made within the documents appearing at
tabs 14 and 18 to protect personal privacy, as
follows: Michael Picker's personal contact
information at the top of page 435 and in the middle
of page 442 may be redacted; Ryan McCarthy's
personal cell phone number at the bottom of page
444 may be redacted. The other redactions are
denied. Finally, we conclude, as we did in our
October 27, 2017 order, that respondent may
continue to withhold the 16 records over which it
asserted the attorney-client privilege, as petitioner
has not timely or convincingly disputed
respondent's claim that he waived his request for
these 16 documents. (Resolution No. L-522, p. 12.)

23
 4. THE SECRET MEETINGS AT CFEE EVENTS
The utilities and its supposed regulator, the CPUC,
systematically engage in secret government decision making through
public interest-sounding entities such as the California Foundation for
the Environment and the Economy (CFEE). 26 Since 1979, CFEE has
connected labor, business, local government and environmental leaders
with elected officials and policymakers outside of the public view.
CFEE arranges for meeting amongst and between government
regulators and utility executives in exclusive hotels in lands far away
from Californians’ public scrutiny such as in Switzerland, France,
Chile, Mexico, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Finland, Ireland,
Germany, the Czech Republic, Australia, Singapore, Canada, Sweden,
Norway, Poland, Brazil, Italy, Spain, China, Hong Kong, New Zealand,
South Africa, Japan, Argentina, South Africa, Denmark, South Korea,
Portugal, Hungry, Berlin, The Hague, and Inner Mongolia. CFEE also
holds weekend conferences at wineries and resorts in Napa, California
and other exclusive locations where these officials and representatives
can conduct the public’s busines in private. 27
5. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE AT STAKE
There is a profound public interest in the CPUC keeping their
meetings open to the public as required by Art I, Sec. 3 of the California
State Constitution, and the California Open Meeting Law – the Bagley
Keene Act. Under the CPUC, the combined approved revenue
authorized to be taken from utility customers is almost $30 billion, as

26
https://www.cfee.net/
27
https://www.cfee.net/

24
shown here in this excerpt from the CPUC 2020 AB-67 Report28 to the
Governor and California Legislature:

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Upon these premises, the CPUC is improperly holding closed

sessions without proper notification and without reporting actions taken
at the closed sessions in violation of Cal. Govt Code § 11126.3(a) and
(f).
Under Government Code Section 11130, Plaintiff/Petitioner
seeks a Court order prohibiting the CPUC from engaging in any further
violations of Govt Code §§ 11125 and 11126.3(f) by holding closed
sessions, taking actions therein and failing to make the required reports
of actions the CPUC took.

28
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued its 2020
Assembly Bill (AB) 67 Annual Report pursuant to California Public
Utilities Code Section 913, which requires the CPUC to publish the
costs to ratepayers of all utility programs and activities currently
recovered in retail rates. see
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=6442463728

25
 Under Government Code Section 11122.5(b), Plaintiff/Petitioner
seeks a Court order prohibiting the CPUC from engaging un unlawful
serial meetings to reach a collective concurrence.
Plaintiff/Petitioner seeks costs and attorney fees under Govt
Code § 11130.5.
Respectfully submitted,

AGUIRRE & SEVERSON LLP

By: /s/Maria C. Severson

Maria C. Severson (173967)
Attorneys for Petitioner

26
 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORIES
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION/APPLICATION

A. THE LAW ON CLOSED SESSION

The Legislature has allowed closed sessions in very limited

circumstances. Closed sessions may be held legally only if the body
complies with certain procedural requirements. (Government Code §
11126.3) As part of the required general procedures, the closed session
must be listed on the meeting agenda and properly noticed. (§
11125(b).29) Prior to convening into closed session, the body must
publicly announce those issues that will be considered in closed
session. (§ 11126.3.) This can be done by a reference to the item as
properly listed on the agenda. In addition, the agenda should cite the
statutory authority or provision of the Act which authorizes the
particular closed session. (§11125(b).)
After the closed session has been completed, the body is required to
reconvene in public. (§ 11126.3(f).)

B. THE LAW ON SERIAL MEETINGS

To prevent evasion of the open meeting laws, a series of private

meetings (known as serial meetings) by which a majority of the
members of a legislative body commit themselves to a decision
concerning public business or engage in collective deliberation on
public business would violate the open meeting requirement. (See
Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.

Unless otherwise stated, all references to statutes are to the

29

California Government Code.

28
App. 3d 95, 102 [214 Cal. Rptr. 561]; Frazer v. Dixon Unified School
Dist., supra, 18 Cal. App. 4th at p. 795; see also Roberts v. City of
Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 363, 376 [20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 330, 853 P.2d
496].) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 860, 876-877.

In the Stockton Newspapers case, the court concluded that a series

of individual telephone calls between the agency attorney and the
members of the body constituted a meeting. Stockton Newspapers, Inc.
v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95, 105.See also, 65
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 63, 66 (1982); 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 820, 828-829
(1980). In that case, the attorney individually polled the members of
the body for their approval on a real estate transaction. The court
concluded that even though the meeting was conducted in a serial
fashion, it nevertheless was a meeting for the purposes of the Act.

C. VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW

The Bagley-Keene Act provides for remedies and penalties in
situations where violations have allegedly occurred. Depending on the
particular circumstances, the decision of the body may be overturned
(§ 11130.3), violations may be stopped or prevented (§ 11130), costs
and fees may be awarded (§11130.5), and in certain situations, there
may be criminal misdemeanor penalties imposed as well. (§ 11130.7.)
Although the CPUC may be permitted to cure and correct a
violation so as to avoid having its decision overturned, this can be much
like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Rather, the CPUC should
try to return to a point prior to when the violation occurred and then
proceed properly. For example, if the violation involves improper
notice, the CPUC should invalidate its decision, provide proper notice,

29
and start the process over. To the extent that information has been
received, statements made, or discussions have taken place, the CPUC
should include all of this on the record to ensure that everyone is aware
of these events and has had an opportunity to respond.
A remedy in dealing with a violation of the Act involves filing a
lawsuit or writ of mandate to stop or prevent future violations of the
Act. (§ 11130.) The Legislature has authorized any interested person to
use these remedies to seek judicial redress for past violations of the Act.
A prevailing plaintiff may recover the costs of suit and attorney’s
fees from the body. (§ 11130.5.) The Act provides for misdemeanor
penalties against individual members of the body if the member attends
a meeting in violation of the Act with the intent to deprive the public of
information to which he or she knows, or has reason to know, the public
is entitled to receive. (§ 11130.7.)

D. THIS COURT HAS THE DUTY TO PROTECT THE

PUBLIC BY STOPPING THE OPEN MEETING LAW
VIOLATION

Government Code section 11130(a) authorizes this Court to

enjoin the CPUC Commissioners from violating Govt Code §
11123.6.
E. AN INJUCTION STOPPING THE CPUC
COMMISSIONERS VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS
LAWS MUST ISSUE

Government Code Section 11130(a) protects the public’s

constitutional right to observe the CPUC Commissioners and hear
what is going to be considered in its meetings.

30
 F. THE CPUC’S OPPOSITION DOES NOT ALTER THE
DUTY OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE THE INJUNCTION

Government Code § 11120 specifically describes that it is the

state actors – not the public – to which it regulates: “In enacting this
article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law
that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their
deliberation be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield
their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in
delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to
decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for
them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they
may retain control over the instruments they have created. This article
shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting
Act.”
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: August 28, 2020 AGUIRRE & SEVERSON LLP

By: /s/Maria C. Severson

Maria C. Severson (173967)
Attorneys for Petitioner

31
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that the foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF
REVIEW FOR OPEN MEETING LAW VIOLATIONS;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES is in
compliance with the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule
8.204(c)(1). The brief contains 4,639 words, including footnotes. In
making this certification, I have relied on the word count of the
computer program used to prepare the brief.

Dated: August 28, 2020 /s/Maria C. Severson

Maria C. Severson

32
 PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Maria C. Severson, declare as follows:

1. At the time of service, I was at least 18 years of age and

not a party to this legal action. I am employed in the county of San
Diego, California, in which county the within-mentioned mailing
occurred. My business address is 501 West Broadway, Suite 1050,
San Diego, CA 92101.

2. On August 29, 2020, I caused the PETITION FOR

WRIT OF REVIEW FOR OPEN MEETING LAW VIOLATIONS;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES and
EXHIBITS TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW (VOL I
AND VOL II) to be served by United States mail Priority Mail as
follows: I enclosed a copy in separate envelopes, with postage fully
prepaid, addressed to each individual addressee named below, and I
deposited each sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service
in San Diego, California for delivery as follows:

Arocles Aguilar, General Counsel

Alice Stebbins, Executive Director
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness A venue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415.703.2782

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of

California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on August 29, 2020, at San Diego, California.

/s/Maria C. Severson
Maria C. Severson

33