MCE draft highlights concerns about ‘power content label’

MCE has drafted its latest “power content label” for state regulators, saying its most popular electricity plan is almost entirely carbon-free.

But when pressed, MCE staff said about a third of the energy attributed to its “light green” plan did not add new clean power to California’s grid.

Instead, it came from credits for electricity already in the system that MCE bought to boost its renewable totals and offset greenhouse gas emissions.

MCE’s technical committee approved the draft 2025 power content label on Sept. 4 as the agency prepares the submission for energy regulators. Formerly known as Marin Clean Energy, MCE procures electricity for 1.8 million customers in Marin, Contra Costa, Napa and Solano counties.

MCE’s draft power content label said 75% of its “light green” plan energy came from “eligible renewables,” which the California Energy Commission label lists as solar, wind, small hydro, geothermal and biomass. The rest came from “large hydroelectric,” which the state commission does not categorize as renewable.

Larkspur Mayor Stephanie Andre asked what percentage of the light green renewable supply is long-term generation — new clean power.

In 2025, only 42% of the plan’s “eligible renewables” came from those sources, said Stephen Mariani, power resources manager. Another 33%, adding up to the draft label’s reported 75% subtotal, came from MCE buying credits for other renewable generation.

The state’s accounting rules for the label allow renewable energy agencies like MCE to include the purchased energy attributes.

Conversely, the label does not count power the state requires MCE to buy to meet peak demand from climate-changing gas plants.

MCE staff has said the attribute contracts cost upwards of $73 million — or 11% of energy costs — in the 2025-2026 fiscal year.

“So does that, in some ways, make what’s on the PCL obsolete?” Andre said, referring to the power content label. “And the question is, how do we talk to our customers about what’s the actual renewable content of the energy we’re providing?”

“Director Andre, you’re hitting the nail on the head with that comment,” said Vicken Kasarjian, the acting chief executive officer.

The California Energy Commission is moving to a more precise regime in 2028 that will shift to hourly reporting of energy supplies and usage.

“A different way of measuring the actual physics of the system will make California look significantly different,” Kasarjian said.

During public comments, representatives of the Marin Conservation League urged MCE to stop spending millions of dollars on energy attribute contracts.

“We know MCE did not make the rules that govern the power content label,” said Dan Segedin, a member of the organization’s board. “But MCE has estimated their true carbon emissions at about 150 to 250 pounds per megawatt hour versus 2 pounds per megawatt hour on this PCL. That’s a huge difference.”

Segedin said MCE budgeting and financial reports should distinguish between money spent for long-term renewable generation and short-term attribute contracts.

“Since the PCL is so flawed, what metric should MCE use to evaluate progress on greenhouse gas reduction?” he said. “The answer is greenhouse gas emissions per megawatt hour on an hourly basis. It’s a much more accurate yardstick.”

“MCE should use the hourly accounting figures for business decisions,” said Robert Miller, a Marin Conservation League officer. “That’s decision-making based on facts, not on the fiction of the power content label.”

“That means having a frank and honest discussion with customers,” he said. “MCE … has a very positive story to tell about adding renewable energy capacity and greening the grid.”

MCE staff said the agency has begun compiling hourly data as it looks to the new California Energy Commission metric. Kasarjian said it will soon start presenting hourly analytics.