MCE retracts ‘100% fossil-free’ claim as oversight reforms progress

MCE will no longer claim it provides “100% fossil-free power.”

The renewable energy agency, formerly known as Marin Clean Energy, is removing the term from its materials, Jamie Tuckey, the “chief customer officer,” said Wednesday in an email to the company board.

“Our goal is to ensure that MCE’s communications meet the highest standard of accuracy, transparency and consistency with California’s disclosure framework,” Tuckey wrote.

The retraction of a key branding claim followed a Jan. 15 board meeting where several speakers said the assertion — used in briefing materials for board members, the press and public — is false and violates state law.

The first bullet point in MCE’s “Ensuring Accuracy in Local Information” white paper, which management asked the board to approve, said, “Fifteen years of reliable service and 100% fossil-free power since 2018.”

“I find the document, even after excessive discussion, contains factual inaccuracies, contradictions and misleading information,” Larkspur Mayor Stephanie Andre said.

Andre said records from the California Energy Commission show “117 natural gas contracts in 2022 and 46 natural gas contracts in 2025.” Emissions from natural gas, a non-renewable fossil fuel, contribute to climate change.

Nick Pappas, a San Anselmo Climate Action Commission member and energy industry consultant, also criticized the assertion.

“Anyone who on behalf of the agency is repeating these false claims … is also violating the public utility code,” Pappas said during the public-comment portion of the board meeting.

Dawn Weisz, the chief executive officer, did not respond directly to these remarks, but suggested MCE’s technical committee take a closer look.

The discussion of the fossil-fuel energy claims was one of several testy exchanges during a nearly six-hour board meeting. MCE directors moved ahead with two potentially significant governance reforms. They also heard accusations that management was not following MCE’s joint powers agreement and operating rules, thus posing legal risks.

On the reform front, the board approved the scope for a recently created standing finance committee. It also endorsed a governance review by outside consultants.

“I think it is a really solid scope,” said Max Perrey, executive committee chair and Mill Valley mayor, speaking of the finance panel’s purview. “There may be changes in the future as we learn how this goes, but for the moment, I think it’s really good.”

The committee will look at operations and strategies at the $800-million-a-year renewable energy agency whose main business is procuring electricity. It will make recommendations to the board, which includes 34 elected officials from Marin, Napa, Solano and Contra Costa counties.

During the past two years, a growing number of directors and public-interest advocates have sought more accountability at the agency as fiscal red flags have emerged. The issues include budgets and expenses varying by more than $100 million; financial underperformance versus peer public energy agencies; and a mix of energy contracts locking ratepayers into higher prices, with some potentially being improperly signed.

“Finance is a specialized area that goes beyond budgeting for good decision-making,” said Dan Segedin of the Marin Conservation League, who supported the panel’s formation. “The board needs financial information that is clearly communicated, correct and insightful to achieve that.”

Five directors were seated on the panel: Andre, Belvedere Mayor Sally Wilkinson, Lafayette Vice Mayor John McCormick, Napa County Supervisor Liz Alessio and Vallejo Councilmember Charles Palmares.

The MCE board also approved creating an ad hoc committee to oversee drafting a proposal to hire outside consultants for a governance review.

“I think there’s an opportunity to really look at how the board functions, how we work together,” said Marin County Supervisor Mary Sackett, introducing the issue. “We’re all trying to figure out what’s the best way to go forward.”

MCE directors are drawn from local governing bodies. Most have no energy sector experience and rely on management’s guidance.

Sackett, Alessio and Contra Costa County Supervisor Shanelle Scales-Preston, chair of the MCE board, said in a co-written memo that the governance assessment was appropriate for an agency that has evolved over 15 years.

“There have been recent discussions among board members regarding general agency operations, the appropriate roles of staff and board members, best practices for public agencies, board functioning and policy oversight, and strategies to increase efficiency and effectiveness,” they said.

Several directors, like Perrey, said the review should include how senior management engages with MCE governing bodies. In addition to the board of directors, MCE has executive and technical committee and now the finance committee.

Governance issues

In her opening remarks at the board meeting, Weisz reminded the panel that “MCE’s mission is to confront the climate crisis by eliminating fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions, producing renewable energy and creating equitable community benefits. Our mission isn’t to keep costs lower than PG&E.”

Martinez Mayor Brianne Zorn questioned why a governance review is needed.

“In my mind, the board’s primary role is fiduciary oversight on behalf of ratepayers,” Andre said. “This board struggles on the oversight component.”

“You know, when we started, it was a lot of fighting PG&E,” said Fairfax Councilmember Barbara Coler, referring to the utility’s efforts to block MCE’s formation. “Now it’s coming from inside the house. You know, a lot of things take way too much time in meetings because there’s so much distrust of some folks.”

Throughout the meeting, long exchanges ensued involving key governance issues. They included the accuracy of MCE’s oft-cited claim of providing “100% fossil-free power since 2018” and accusations that management is not following the joint powers agreement and board-adopted rules and procedures.

The lapses could violate laws, render contracts void and expose MCE to liabilities, public advocates said.

One example was Weisz and Scales-Preston co-signing millions of dollars in one-to-five year energy contracts when the technical committee chair, the person with board-delegated authority to co-sign along with Weisz, was unavailable.

“There have been a small number of instances,” Weisz said. “The board chair has stepped in graciously.”

“There have been questions about whether management has locked ratepayers into multiple years of excessively high energy costs through these short-term contracts,” Andre said, referring to contracts signed in late 2024 when certain types of energy contracts were at record highs.

MCE counsel Catalina Murphy said the staff is conducting an internal review and would report back.

Another alleged violation came from Solano County residents who called on MCE to cancel its October 2023 contract with a lithium-ion battery facility to be built on farmland in Vacaville next to Interstate 80, a major hospital and residences.

“Your JPA requires all projects to comply with local general plans,” said Sarah Dunn of Keep Vacaville Safe. “This site is zoned exclusive agriculture and is protected by Measure T, a voter-approved initiative designed to prevent the industrialization of our prime soil.”

Measure T was passed in 2008 as a general plan amendment. After learning of the battery project, the Solano County Board of Supervisors passed a series of ordinances intended to relocate the complex.

Some directors said they sympathized with the Solano residents. The matter was assigned to the technical committee.

Another governance issue where abiding by MCE’s board-set rules was questioned concerned voting procedures. Depending on the topic, decisions are made by a one-person, one-vote process or by weighted vote shares based on a jurisdiction’s energy use.

Murphy said the tally in the weighted vote count to create the finance committee in November was “incorrect.” Nevertheless, the outcome would stand.

“It’s extraordinarily ambiguous,” said Wilkinson, referring to the voting rules and their application. “There needs to be … a lot more clarity.”

Alessio said she was adding the voting rules to the governance review.