Environmentalists say MCE, formerly known as Marin Clean Energy, is masking a reliance on fossil fuels that produce climate-warming emissions.<\/p>\n
Climate activists who have tracked MCE for years say the California Energy Commission\u2019s annual \u201cpower content label,\u201d which MCE cites for its carbon-free credentials, excludes hundreds of millions of dollars MCE pays each year for primarily gas-generated power.<\/p>\n
\u201cBoard members would have no idea that many of these transactions are directly or indirectly with natural gas plants, much less that such transactions include direct financial support for natural gas plants in disadvantaged communities within MCE\u2019s service territory,\u201d Nick Pappas, a San Anselmo energy consultant, said in a recent letter to MCE\u2019s 34-member board.<\/p>\n
The Marin Conservation League estimates the core of MCE\u2019s renewable energy mission, its long-term clean supply \u2014 from solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and biomass sources \u2014 provides less than half of the electricity the public agency procures for 1.8 million consumers. The service area includes Marin, Contra Costa, Napa and Solano counties.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s kind of a harsh picture,\u201d Dan Segedin, the Marin Conservation League\u2019s energy contract expert, told the San Anselmo Climate Action Commission during a presentation in March. \u201cIf you just look at the long-term PPAs (power purchase agreements), you\u2019re 36% carbon-free.\u201d<\/p>\n
MCE has other energy supply contracts that could raise this figure, he said, but it appears to be below MCE\u2019s public statements and energy plans advertising 60% to 100% renewable power.<\/p>\n
\u201cMCE is not masking its procurement activity,\u201d said Jenna Tenney, MCE communications director. \u201cOur financial hedges and RA (resource adequacy) are publicly reported in board and committee meetings and are distinct from the energy supply we deliver to customers.\u201d<\/p>\n
MCE emphasizes its clean credentials by citing the California Energy Commission\u2019s \u201cpower content label.\u201d MCE\u2019s 2024 label, its latest, reported virtually zero carbon emissions. The agency compares its label of energy sources and emissions to a \u201cnutrition label.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, it is not a simple tally. Some energy sources and emissions are reported. Other supplies are not counted. Clean credits can be applied before totals are final.<\/p>\n
The label counts all contracted clean energy resources. It does not count \u201cunspecified power\u201d supplied from California\u2019s grid because it is not tied to a specific generating source. However, the label notes such \u201cunspecified power\u201d is \u201cprimarily fossil fuel.\u201d<\/p>\n
It also counts renewable energy credits and other greenhouse gas-free attributes. These can offset the carbon in other energy supplies before producing the totals. During the past two years, MCE has spent $330 million on these contracts to boost its green credentials, the Marin Conservation League has said, citing MCE data.<\/p>\n
The result is a reported annual portfolio that looks cleaner than the underlying electricity MCE relies on, the group has said.<\/p>\n
When asked in public what was inaccurate about this characterization \u2014 detailed in letters to MCE\u2019s board \u2014 top executives did not want to discuss it.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are going to be describing our power resources based off of the power content label and those CEC power source disclosure rules,\u201d Jamie Tuckey, MCE\u2019s \u201cchief customer officer,\u201d said at a March orientation for new board members.<\/p>\n
\u201cMCE has met its disclosure obligations under this program,\u201d said Michael Ward, a CEC spokesperson. \u201cBut \u2026 retail suppliers have not been required to directly report energy from hedges.\u201d<\/p>\n
Hedges are contracts that allow MCE to lock in the price of the grid power when its clean supply is insufficient to meet customer demand.<\/p>\n
In the MCE fiscal year ending March 31, $267 million of its $766 million energy budget was for hedges, staff reports said. In the current fiscal year, the $632 million energy budget allocates $225 million for hedges, staff said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is where MCE is using fossil energy,\u201d Segedin told the San Anselmo commission.<\/p>\n
Tenney said it is technically incorrect to describe hedges as energy contracts: \u201cThey are not purchases of energy to serve MCE customers.\u201d<\/p>\n
MCE\u2019s purchases of state-required resource adequacy contracts support the grid, so they do not show up on the MCE power content label, she said.<\/p>\n
The most recent California Public Utilities Commission resource adequacy report, from 2023, said 16% of MCE contracts were from \u201czero-emitting resources.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe recognize that the gap between RA and hedge instruments and the PCL can create confusion, and we are committed to continuing to provide public transparency around our full procurement picture,\u201d Tenney said.<\/p>\n
\u201cSuch semantic debate is a distraction from the merits \u2026 raised here of financial relationships with fossil generators,\u201d Pappas wrote to MCE\u2019s board, seeking an open discussion.<\/p>\n
Segedin told the San Anselmo climate commission that the 36% clean energy figure came from data in slides from recent staff presentations to board subcommittees.<\/p>\n
MCE\u2019s power content label says it emits 1 pound of carbon dioxide gas per megawatt hour, compared to a \u201cCalifornia utility average\u201d of 359 pounds.<\/p>\n
Without credits, MCE emissions would be 606 pounds, the slides said. The California Energy Commission\u2019s approximate standard for gas plants is 944 pounds.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you stop here, by one estimate, MCE is only 36% carbon-free,\u201d Segedin said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you want to make good claims on the power content label, there\u2019s a gap you\u2019ve got to fill,\u201d he said. That is where credits come in, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is trading rights to claim assets or to claim cleanness on the power content label,\u201d Segedin said. \u201cThis is what we call reshuffling.\u201d<\/p>\n
MCE has repeatedly denied that its short-term contracts amount to little more than buying credit for clean generation already on the grid.<\/p>\n
\u201cMCE\u2019s Board has set policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a variety of strategies,\u201d Tenney wrote to the board this winter. \u201cOne is to remove renewable volumes from the market and add them to our portfolio, increasing market demand for renewable energy to be built. Purchasing renewable energy from existing, available resources is often more cost-effective and less risky than new-build resources.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, officials at other California not-for-profit energy agencies have criticized this carbon-offsetting strategy\u00a0for years.<\/p>\n
Tom Habashi, chief executive officer of Monterey Bay Community Power, called the practice \u201can accounting exercise with no environmental benefit\u201d in a 2020 letter to his board.<\/p>\n
\u201cAppearing to be carbon free is simply not enough,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
George Tyson, a Silicon Valley Clean Energy director, told his board in February it was more important to invest in new generation \u2014 \u201cnot just doing a shell game.\u201d<\/p>\n
At the San Anselmo climate commission meeting, Ford Greene, a former mayor and former chair of the MCE technical committee \u2014 which oversees its energy contracts \u2014 said the Marin Conservation League analysis was accurate and disappointing.<\/p>\n
Greene said that when he was on the MCE board, he \u201cworked really hard to get rid of\u201d renewable energy credits.<\/p>\n
\u201cI thought they were B.S.,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ve been plugging MCE clean energy,\u201d said Sue Saunders, chair of the town commission. \u201cI guess the question for us as a commission is, do we continue recommending?\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Environmentalists say MCE, formerly known as Marin Clean Energy, is masking a reliance on fossil fuels that produce…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":429297,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[47],"tags":[11455,2356,2973,1872,192,2558,983,5415,137922,3,4910,5413,7234,1869,79],"class_list":{"0":"post-583401","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-environment","8":"tag-air-pollution","9":"tag-california","10":"tag-clean-energy","11":"tag-energy","12":"tag-environment","13":"tag-latest-headlines","14":"tag-local-news","15":"tag-marin-county","16":"tag-mce","17":"tag-news","18":"tag-newsletter","19":"tag-north-bay","20":"tag-northern-california","21":"tag-renewable-energy","22":"tag-science"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/583401","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=583401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/583401\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/429297"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=583401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=583401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=583401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}