When MCE held its September board meeting, its directors were told the not-for-profit renewable energy agency was overcharging the public.

Its most popular “light green” plan was the second most expensive compared to its competing investor-owned utility — in MCE’s case, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. — among California’s 13 largest not-for-profit renewable energy agencies, the Clean Coalition, a statewide think tank, said in a letter to MCE’s board and in public comments.

All but one other monthly plan from the other not-for-profit energy agencies with at least 100,000 customers was priced below MCE.

“Going Green shouldn’t require paying a large premium,” Ben Schwartz, Clean Coalition’s policy manager, wrote. “If rates should rise, it should be rates with a low renewable energy content.”

MCE’s overall monthly prices are slightly higher than PG&E, its only local competitor, both providers’ rate comparison filings confirm.

The average monthly price for MCE’s “light green” 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 “ETOUC,” or time-of-use residential plan.

MCE Chief Executive Officer Dawn Weisz told her board that the Clean Coalition’s claims, while “well-intended,” were based on “a lot of apple-to-oranges comparisons.”

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’s higher prices for clean electricity can no longer be justified.

“Average wholesale energy prices have been falling for multiple years,” wrote Schwartz. “High renewable energy content cannot be used as a blanket justification for high and rising rates, especially when market evidence shows otherwise.”

“There is no statistical correlation between renewable energy content and electricity rates,” he said. “It is mathematically untrue that CCAs with higher renewable content must charge the highest electricity rates.” CCA means community choice aggregation, the kind of green energy service that MCE pioneered in California.

Since MCE started selling power from renewable sources in 2010 as the state’s 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 — unlike older private utilities that relied on carbon-based fuels.

“We do have cleaner energy purchases,” Barbara Coler, a Fairfax Town Council member who is MCE’s longest-serving director, said in response to Schwartz’s comments.

“I 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’s driving some of the (price) variance that we’re seeing between the other CCAs,” Weisz said. “But I wanted to clarify that we are not here tonight to present how MCE compares to other CCAs.”

Dismissing critics

Weisz rejected the Clean Coalition’s analysis and conclusions in an email reply the next day.

“You 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,” Weisz wrote, before citing a half-dozen technicalities affecting MCE’s prices.

In a followup interview, Weisz said providers like MCE are facing a “perfect storm” of market and regulatory factors placing upward pressures on its costs — 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.

“This is common knowledge for energy professionals,” she said. “It might not be common knowledge for an organization like the Clean Coalition.”

Weisz cited local reasons why MCE had higher costs than Northern California’s 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.

MCE’s three counties outside Marin — Napa, Contra Costa and Solano — have hotter summers, Weisz said, which means MCE has to buy power in heat waves at higher spot market prices. Marin’s larger homes also boost PG&E delivery surcharges, she said, as do its electric vehicle home charging stations.

However, earlier in September’s board meeting, Weisz also said her staff might propose a slight price decrease in 2026.

“We will be looking at a lot of variables: what’s happening in the market; what’s happening competitively with rates; our projected revenue requirements,” she said. “If things add up the way they’re looking, we are likely to be able to recommend a slight decrease going into our next fiscal year.”

If that price cut happens, it would come amid a seemingly contradictory backdrop of many competing factors.

On the one hand, as John Dalessi, MCE’s energy purchasing consultant, told its executive committee on Oct. 6, wholesale renewable energy prices have been falling compared to spikes in previous years — which aligns with the Clean Coalition’s comments. On the other hand, MCE also has the local cost drivers cited by Weisz.

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’s 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.

“It’s pretty clear to me that they are collecting more from their rates than they need to be — to be comfortable and be operating effectively,” said Schwartz.

In March, MCE raised prices for commercial customers. It slightly increased its premium for its “deep green” plan as of Oct. 1.

On Sept. 24, PG&E announced it was cutting residential electric rates by 2.1% as of Sept. 1.

A closer look

All of MCE’s electricity plans have slightly higher average monthly prices than PG&E.

There are several versions of MCE’s basic residential plan, light green, which it says has power from 69% renewable sources based in its 2024 “power content label,” according to the California Energy Commission. Its deep green plan has 100% renewable sources. Most of MCE’s renewable power comes from solar and wind.

Both MCE and PG&E have average monthly rate comparison charts on their websites. The plans vary by fixed or “time of use” rates, or if they are for electric vehicles.

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.

MCE’s 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.

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%.

Terms like “renewable” and “clean” and “greenhouse gas free” have different meanings to state regulators. The California Energy Commission defines “renewable” 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.

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’ environmental impacts, but it does not produce greenhouse gases.

When demand peaks daily, both providers will deliver power generated from climate change-causing gas plants that can be turned on — regardless of what plan consumers have. That is because California’s grid does not have enough storage for renewal generation or sufficient round-the-clock nuclear supply.

MCE’s monthly bills contain itemized costs from MCE and PG&E. That’s 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’s 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.

Over the past decade, MCE’s price increases have been on par with PG&E’s hikes for their respective portions of electricity bills.

“From 2014 to 2025 MCE’s rates increased by 85% while PG&E’s increased by 89.3%,” said MCE spokeswoman Jenna Tenney. “The 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.”

What is not seen on monthly bills are MCE’s power purchases and related costs. These include several categories of energy contracts.

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.

Another big factor contributing to MCE’s 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’s investments also feed these accounts. MCE managers say these assets are needed to boost its credit rating, lower financing charges and cover unexpected costs.

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’s current salary is $532,000, plus a cost-of-living adjustment, before a $41,000 bonus and benefits.

Some board members and consumer advocates have said MCE could do more to control its costs and cut its prices to consumers.

“These cost increases really matter,” Robert Miller of the Marin Conservation League told MCE’s board after its latest annual audit. “Because they eliminate the surpluses that could go to customer rate relief, procuring more cleaner energy and providing more benefits to communities.”

Schwartz said, “It’s not necessarily fair to say a higher renewable energy content means we have to have higher prices. It may be reasonable to say we’re going to raise our rates a little bit, but you should still be able to achieve a lower rate than the (investor-owned) utilities.”

Weisz said the PG&E factors constitute the “biggest impact” on costs.

“People are right to be concerned about costs, but I don’t think MCE is the reason that they need to be concerned,” Weisz said. “We work really hard to keep our rates stable, to provide programs that support the customers that need them the most.”

The MCE series

Oct. 26: At its 15-year mark, MCE faces growing questions about oversight and costs.
Oct. 27: Observers ask why MCE prices are rising when energy costs are falling.
Oct. 28: MCE says it provides 100% renewable energy, but is that really true?
Oct. 29: Attempts by critics to reform MCE’s practices meet stiff resistance.