When MCE held its September board meeting, its directors were told the not-for-profit renewable energy agency was overcharging the public.<\/p>\n
Its most popular \u201clight green\u201d plan was the second most expensive compared to its competing investor-owned utility \u2014 in MCE\u2019s case, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. \u2014 among California\u2019s 13 largest not-for-profit renewable energy agencies, the Clean Coalition, a statewide think tank, said in a letter to MCE\u2019s board and in public comments.<\/p>\n
All but one other monthly plan from the other not-for-profit energy agencies with at least 100,000 customers was priced below MCE.<\/p>\n
\u201cGoing Green shouldn\u2019t require paying a large premium,\u201d Ben Schwartz, Clean Coalition\u2019s policy manager, wrote. \u201cIf rates should rise, it should be rates with a low renewable energy content.\u201d<\/p>\n
MCE\u2019s overall monthly prices are slightly higher than PG&E, its only local competitor, both providers\u2019 rate comparison filings confirm.<\/p>\n
The average monthly price for MCE\u2019s \u201clight green\u201d plan was $196.14 compared to $193.08 for PG&E, according to a state-required joint mailer that compared rates as of April 1 for their default \u201cETOUC,\u201d or time-of-use residential plan.<\/p>\n
MCE Chief Executive Officer Dawn Weisz told her board that the Clean Coalition\u2019s claims, while \u201cwell-intended,\u201d were based on \u201ca lot of apple-to-oranges comparisons.\u201d<\/p>\n
That exchange prompted a follow-up six-page letter from the Clean Coalition with a more eyebrow-raising assertion: Renewable energy costs have been falling, and MCE\u2019s higher prices for clean electricity can no longer be justified.<\/p>\n
\u201cAverage wholesale energy prices have been falling for multiple years,\u201d wrote Schwartz. \u201cHigh renewable energy content cannot be used as a blanket justification for high and rising rates, especially when market evidence shows otherwise.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is no statistical correlation between renewable energy content and electricity rates,\u201d he said. \u201cIt is mathematically untrue that CCAs with higher renewable content must charge the highest electricity rates.\u201d CCA means community choice aggregation, the kind of green energy service that MCE pioneered in California.<\/p>\n
Since MCE started selling power from renewable sources in 2010 as the state\u2019s first local energy intermediary, it has been telling the public that its prices are tied to the higher costs of creating and growing a renewable energy sector that does not contribute to climate change \u2014 unlike older private utilities that relied on carbon-based fuels.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe do have cleaner energy purchases,\u201d Barbara Coler, a Fairfax Town Council member who is MCE\u2019s longest-serving director, said in response to Schwartz\u2019s comments.<\/p>\n
\u201cI want to point out that your board, for years, including recent years, has been very committed to providing a high renewable content based product and high number of customer programs in our community, and that really is likely to be what\u2019s driving some of the (price) variance that we\u2019re seeing between the other CCAs,\u201d Weisz said. \u201cBut I wanted to clarify that we are not here tonight to present how MCE compares to other CCAs.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"Dawn](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/MIJ-L-MCE-10xx-02.jpg\")
Dawn Weisz, left, the chief executive officer of MCE, confers with Shanelle Scales-Preston, the board chair, during a board retreat in Concord, Calif., on Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025. Scales-Preston is a Contra Costa County supervisor. (Alan Dep\/Marin Independent Journal)<\/p>\n
Dismissing critics<\/p>\n
Weisz rejected the Clean Coalition\u2019s analysis and conclusions in an email reply the next day.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou mentioned that you are using public information for your comparisons, but that still leaves a lot of questions about the inputs and assumptions you are relying on in your analysis,\u201d Weisz wrote, before citing a half-dozen technicalities affecting MCE\u2019s prices.<\/p>\n
In a followup interview, Weisz said providers like MCE are facing a \u201cperfect storm\u201d of market and regulatory factors placing upward pressures on its costs \u2014 which are not the same as the prices charged to consumers. She presented slides from a September national conference of independent producers to affirm these trends.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is common knowledge for energy professionals,\u201d she said. \u201cIt might not be common knowledge for an organization like the Clean Coalition.\u201d<\/p>\n
Weisz cited local reasons why MCE had higher costs than Northern California\u2019s other not-for-profit energy agencies. First were charges on monthly bills from PG&E, which delivers the power that MCE buys. She cited legacy contracts, which were signed years ago when solar was more expensive.<\/p>\n
MCE\u2019s three counties outside Marin \u2014 Napa, Contra Costa and Solano \u2014 have hotter summers, Weisz said, which means MCE has to buy power in heat waves at higher spot market prices. Marin\u2019s larger homes also boost PG&E delivery surcharges, she said, as do its electric vehicle home charging stations.<\/p>\n
However, earlier in September\u2019s board meeting, Weisz also said her staff might propose a slight price decrease in 2026.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe will be looking at a lot of variables: what\u2019s happening in the market; what\u2019s happening competitively with rates; our projected revenue requirements,\u201d she said. \u201cIf things add up the way they\u2019re looking, we are likely to be able to recommend a slight decrease going into our next fiscal year.\u201d<\/p>\n
If that price cut happens, it would come amid a seemingly contradictory backdrop of many competing factors.<\/p>\n
On the one hand, as John Dalessi, MCE\u2019s energy purchasing consultant, told its executive committee on Oct. 6, wholesale renewable energy prices have been falling compared to spikes in previous years \u2014 which aligns with the Clean Coalition\u2019s comments. On the other hand, MCE also has the local cost drivers cited by Weisz.<\/p>\n
And there are more factors. MCE had a sizable operating loss in its last fiscal year ending in March, meaning it paid more for power plus overhead than it earned in revenues. Even though it is a $800-million-a-year operation, it also had $76 million in unexpected energy expenses, Weisz said. Its current fiscal year\u2019s first quarter ended more than $20 million in the red after including investment income. Nonetheless, Dalessi predicted MCE could end up $72 million in the black by next March 31.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s pretty clear to me that they are collecting more from their rates than they need to be \u2014 to be comfortable and be operating effectively,\u201d said Schwartz.<\/p>\n
In March, MCE raised prices for commercial customers. It slightly increased its premium for its \u201cdeep green\u201d plan as of Oct. 1.<\/p>\n
On Sept. 24, PG&E announced it was cutting residential electric rates by 2.1% as of Sept. 1.<\/p>\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/MIJ-L-MCE-10xx-12.jpg\")
A graphic illustrates electricity supplies and their sources during an MCE board retreat in Concord, Calif., on Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025. (Alan Dep\/Marin Independent Journal)<\/p>\n
A closer look<\/p>\n
All of MCE\u2019s electricity plans have slightly higher average monthly prices than PG&E.<\/p>\n
There are several versions of MCE\u2019s basic residential plan, light green, which it says has power from 69% renewable sources based in its 2024 \u201cpower content label,\u201d according to the California Energy Commission. Its deep green plan has 100% renewable sources. Most of MCE\u2019s renewable power comes from solar and wind.<\/p>\n
Both MCE and PG&E have average monthly rate comparison charts on their websites. The plans vary by fixed or \u201ctime of use\u201d rates, or if they are for electric vehicles.<\/p>\n
Every spring, the state requires MCE and PG&E to send a joint mailer comparing rates. The most recent mailer compares the default time-of-use plans, meaning the rate varies with the time of day. After 4 p.m., customer demand peaks, which drives up electricity bills.<\/p>\n
MCE\u2019s light green plan costs $196.14 for the average monthly residential ratepayer. Its deep green version of the plan is $200.52 a month. A comparable monthly plan from PG&E is $193.08 a month.<\/p>\n
The PG&E plan contains 23% renewable power, the mailer said. Nuclear generation accounts for 63%. Large hydroelectric accounts for 12%. Gas generation accounts for 2%.<\/p>\n
Terms like \u201crenewable\u201d and \u201cclean\u201d and \u201cgreenhouse gas free\u201d have different meanings to state regulators. The California Energy Commission defines \u201crenewable\u201d power as electricity generated from wind, solar, small-scale hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass and biogas. It is considered renewable because these sources are replenished and do not generate climate-changing greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n
Nuclear power is not classified as renewable by state officials but does not produce greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Large-scale hydropower also is not considered renewable because of dams\u2019 environmental impacts, but it does not produce greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n
When demand peaks daily, both providers will deliver power generated from climate change-causing gas plants that can be turned on \u2014 regardless of what plan consumers have. That is because California\u2019s grid does not have enough storage for renewal generation or sufficient round-the-clock nuclear supply.<\/p>\n
MCE\u2019s monthly bills contain itemized costs from MCE and PG&E. That\u2019s because MCE is an energy intermediary, buying and selling renewable and other power on behalf of its customers. But that electricity is delivered on PG&E\u2019s infrastructure, which PG&E bills for. PG&E also imposes a fee on customers lost to MCE to cover above-market costs for energy procured on their behalf.<\/p>\n
Over the past decade, MCE\u2019s price increases have been on par with PG&E\u2019s hikes for their respective portions of electricity bills.<\/p>\n
\u201cFrom 2014 to 2025 MCE\u2019s rates increased by 85% while PG&E\u2019s increased by 89.3%,\u201d said MCE spokeswoman Jenna Tenney. \u201cThe cost to customer bills have gone up 113% for MCE customers and 118% for PG&E customers, but MCE rates account for only 33% of that cost. The rest is PG&E fees.\u201d<\/p>\n
What is not seen on monthly bills are MCE\u2019s power purchases and related costs. These include several categories of energy contracts.<\/p>\n
In its last fiscal year, MCE spent $769 million on these contracts. Of that, $288 million was on hedges, which are insurance-like deals to lock in energy costs.<\/p>\n
Another big factor contributing to MCE\u2019s share of monthly bills are its financial reserves, which more than doubled to $400 million since 2020, and a $70 million rainy day fund, a different accounting category. MCE\u2019s investments also feed these accounts. MCE managers say these assets are needed to boost its credit rating, lower financing charges and cover unexpected costs.<\/p>\n
Staff compensation at MCE has quadrupled in the past seven years, from $5.9 million in the 2017-2018 fiscal year to $24.7 million in its 2024-2025 fiscal year, according to its audited financial statements. Weisz\u2019s current salary is $532,000, plus a cost-of-living adjustment, before a $41,000 bonus and benefits.<\/p>\n
Some board members and consumer advocates have said MCE could do more to control its costs and cut its prices to consumers.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese cost increases really matter,\u201d Robert Miller of the Marin Conservation League told MCE\u2019s board after its latest annual audit. \u201cBecause they eliminate the surpluses that could go to customer rate relief, procuring more cleaner energy and providing more benefits to communities.\u201d<\/p>\n
Schwartz said, \u201cIt\u2019s not necessarily fair to say a higher renewable energy content means we have to have higher prices. It may be reasonable to say we\u2019re going to raise our rates a little bit, but you should still be able to achieve a lower rate than the (investor-owned) utilities.\u201d<\/p>\n
Weisz said the PG&E factors constitute the \u201cbiggest impact\u201d on costs.<\/p>\n
\u201cPeople are right to be concerned about costs, but I don\u2019t think MCE is the reason that they need to be concerned,\u201d Weisz said. \u201cWe work really hard to keep our rates stable, to provide programs that support the customers that need them the most.\u201d<\/p>\n
The MCE series<\/p>\n