MCE Board of Directors Meeting
Thursday, November 20, 2025
6:30 p.m.
1125 Tamalpais Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901
2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1500, Concord, CA 94520
955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559, City Hall Committee Room (City of Napa) 675 Texas Street, Fairfield, CA 94533, First Floor Hearing Room (County of Solano) Public comments may be made in person or remotely via the details below.
Remote Public Meeting Participation
Video Conference: https://zoomto.me/F6Ogt
Phone: Dial (669) 900-9128, Meeting ID: 890 0487 7785, Passcode: 525690 Materials related to this agenda are available for physical inspection at MCE’s offices in San Rafael at 1125 Tamalpais Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 and in Concord at 2300 Clayton Road Suite 1500, Concord, CA 94520.
DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you are a person with a disability who requires an accommodation or an alternative format, please contact MCE at (888) 632-3674 or [email protected] at least 72 hours before the meeting start time to ensure arrangements are made.
Agenda Page 1 of 2
1. Roll Call/Quorum
2. Board Announcements (Discussion)
3. Public Open Time (Discussion)
4. Report from Chief Executive Officer (Discussion)
5. Consent Calendar (Discussion/Action)
C.1. Approval of 9.18.25 Meeting Minutes
Agenda Page 2 of 2
C.2. Approval of 10.16.25 Meeting Minutes
C.3 Approved Contracts for Energy Update
C.4 Resolution No. 2025-07 Appointing Chief Financial Officer as Treasurer
C.5 Marketing and Communications Quarterly Executive Report C.6 Proposed Amended and Restated MCE Policy No. 003 – Records Retention
C.7 Legislative and Regulatory Update
6. MCE Fiscal Year 2025/26 Energy Pro Forma Update (Discussion)
7. Strategic Alignment and Update on Regulatory Advocacy (Discussion)
8. Placement of Finance Functions for Board Engagement
(Discussion/Action)
9. MCE Public Officials Code of Ethics (Discussion/Action)
10. Customer Programs Update (Discussion)
11. Board & Staff Matters (Discussion)
12. Adjourn
The Board of Directors may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on the agenda irrespective of how the items are described.
DRAFT
MCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, September 18, 2025
6:30 P.M.
Present: Liz Alessio, County of Napa and Four Napa Cities/Town (American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville) Stephanie Andre, City of Larkspur
Eli Beckman, Town of Corte Madera
Mark Belotz, Town of Danville
Kari Birdseye, City of Benicia
Monica Brown, County of Solano
Barbara Coler, Town of Fairfax
Jill Hoffman, City of Sausalito
Kevin Jacobs, City of Novato
C. William Kircher, Jr., Town of Ross
Arlene Kobata, City of Pittsburg
Tarrell Kullaway, Town of San Anselmo
Maika Llorens Gulati, City of San Rafael
John McCormick, City of Lafayette
Aaron Meadows, City of Oakley, joined at 6:40pm
Beth Painter, City of Napa
Charles Palmares, City of Vallejo
Max Perrey, City of Mill Valley, left at 7:50pm
Gabe Quinto, City of El Cerrito, Acting Chair
Jack Ryan, Alternate, Town of Tiburon
Mary Sackett, County of Marin
Sally Wilkinson, City of Belvedere, joined at 6:38pm
Absent: Dion Bailey, City of Hercules
Cindy Darling, City of Walnut Creek
Devin Murphy, City of Pinole
Laura Nakamura, City of Concord
Elizabeth Pabon-Alvarado, City of San Pablo
Manveer Sandhu, City of Fairfield
Shanelle Scales-Preston, County of Contra Costa
Amanda Szakats, City of Pleasant Hill
Graham Thiel, Town of Moraga
Sridhar Verose, City of San Ramon
Cesar Zepeda, City of Richmond
Brianne Zorn, City of Martinez
DRAFT
Staff
& Others: Jared Blanton, VP of Public Affairs
Jesica Brooks, Lead Board Clerk and Executive Assistant CB Hall, Principal Power Procurement Manager
Alice Havenar-Daughton, VP of Customer Programs
Vicken Kasarjian, Chief Operating Officer
Shaheen Khan, VP of Human Resources, Diversity, and Inclusion Caroline Lavenue, Legal Counsel II
Tanya Lomas, Board Clerk Associate
Alexandra McGee, VP of Strategic Initiatives
Catalina Murphy, General Counsel
Ashley Muth, Internal Operations Associate
Efren Oxlaj, Manager of Finance
Justine Parmelee, VP of Internal Operations
Mike Rodriguez-Vargas, Internal Operations Assistant
Enyonam Senyo-Mensah, Internal Operations Manager
Dan Settlemyer, Internal Operations Associate
Maíra Strauss, VP of Finance
Ryan Theiler, Baker Tilly
Dawn Weisz, Chief Executive Officer
Aaron Worthman, Baker Tilly
1. Roll Call
Acting Chair Quinto called the regular meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. with quorum established by roll call.
2. Board Announcements (Discussion)
Acting Chair Quinto opened the floor for board announcements, and there were no comments.
3. Public Open Time (Discussion)
Acting Chair Quinto opened the public comment period and there were comments made by members of the public, Ken Strong and Robert Miller.
4. Report from Chief Executive Officer (Discussion)
CEO Weisz introduced this item and addressed questions from Board members.
Acting Chair Quinto opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
5. Consent Calendar (Discussion/Action)
C.1 Approval of 7.17.25 Meeting Minutes
C.2 Approved Contracts for Energy Update
DRAFT
C.3 Addition of Board Members to Committees
C.4 Proposed Fourth Amendment to Second Agreement with Energy Solutions
C.5 Legislative and Regulatory Updates
Acting Chair Quinto opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
6. Budget Results and Comparison for Fiscal Year 2024/25 (Discussion) Maíra Strauss, VP of Finance, CB Hall, Principal Power Procurement Manager, and Efren Oxlaj, Manager of Finance, introduced this item and addressed questions from Board members.
Acting Chair Quinto opened the public comment period and there were comments made by members of the public, Dan Segedin, Ken Strong, Steven Rosenfeld, Robert Miller, and Ben Schwartz, and Alternate Board Director Mathew Salter, Town of Ross.
Action: No action required.
7. MCE’s Financial Audit Fiscal Year 2024/25 (Discussion) Maíra Strauss, VP of Finance, Ryan Theiler and Aaron Worthman, Baker Tilly, introduced this item and addressed questions from Board members.
Acting Chair Quinto opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
Action: No action required.
8. Legislative Session Recap (Discussion)
Stephanie Chen, VP of Legislative Affairs, introduced this item and addressed questions from Board members.
Acting Chair Quinto opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
Action: It was M/S/C (Perrey/Brown) to approve Consent Calendar items C.1-C.5. Motion carried by roll call vote. Yays-25 Abstain-1. (Abstain:Kullaway;
Absent: Bailey, Darling, Murphy, Nakamura, Pabon-Alvarado, Sandhu, Scales-Preston, Szakats, Thiel, Verose, Zepeda andZorn).
DRAFT
Action: No action required.
9. Performance Evaluation Process Overview (Discussion) Shaheen Khan, VP of Human Resources, Diversity and Inclusion, introduced this item and addressed questions from Board members.
Acting Chair Quinto opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
Action: No action required.
10. Board & Staff Matters (Discussion)
There were comments made by Barbara Coler, Liz Alessio and Catalina Murphy.
11. Adjournment
Acting Chair Quinto adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m. in honor of Greg Tillman to the next scheduled Board Meeting on October 16, 2025. ___________________________________________
Gabe Quinto, Acting Chair
Attest:
___________________________________________
Dawn Weisz, Secretary
DRAFT
MCE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, October 16, 2025
9:15 A.M.
2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1500, Concord, CA. 94520
Present: Stephanie Andre, City of Larkspur
Dion Bailey, City of Hercules
Mark Belotz, Town of Danville
Kari Birdseye, City of Benicia
Barbara Coler, Town of Fairfax
Cindy Darling, City of Walnut Creek
Jill Hoffman, City of Sausalito
Tarrell Kullaway, Town of San Anselmo
John McCormick, City of Lafayette
Aaron Meadows, City of Oakley
Devin Murphy, City of Pinole, joined at 11:28am
Laura Nakamura, City of Concord
Beth Painter, City of Napa
Charles Palmares, City of Vallejo
Max Perrey, City of Mill Valley, joined at 9:46am
Mary Sackett, County of Marin
Manveer Sandhu, City of Fairfield, joined at 9:49am
Shanelle Scales-Preston, County of Contra Costa, Chair
Maureen Toms, Alternate, City of Pinole
Sally Wilkinson, City of Belvedere
Cesar Zepeda, City of Richmond
Brianne Zorn, City of Martinez
Absent: Liz Alessio, County of Napa and Four Napa Cities/Town (American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville) Eli Beckman, Town of Corte Madera
Monica Brown, County of Solano
Kevin Jacobs, City of Novato
C. William Kircher, Jr., Town of Ross
Arlene Kobata, City of Pittsburg
Maika Llorens Gulati, City of San Rafael
Elizabeth Pabon-Alvarado, City of San Pablo
Gabriel Quinto, City of El Cerrito
Amanda Szakats, City of Pleasant Hill
Graham Thiel, Town of Moraga
Holli Their, Town of Tiburon
Sridhar Verose, City of San Ramon
DRAFT
Staff
& Others: Jared Blanton, VP of Public Affairs
Jesica Brooks, Lead Board Clerk and Executive Assistant Vidhi Chawla, VP of Power Resources
Shuvo Chowdhury, VP of Technology & Analytics
Sebastian Conn, Senior Community Development Manager
Kirby Dusel, Pacific Energy Advisors
CB Hall, Principal Power Procurement Manager
Sam Irvine, Senior Strategic Initiatives Manager
Vicken Kasarjian, Chief Operating Officer
Jonnie Kipyator, Power Analytics Senior Manager
Caroline Lavenue, Legal Counsel II
Tanya Lomas, Board Clerk Associate
Spike Lomibao, Creative Manager
Stephen Mariani, Senior Power Procurement Manager
Alexandra McGee, VP of Strategic Initiatives
Catalina Murphy, General Counsel
Justine Parmelee, VP of Internal Operations
Zae Perrin, VP of Customer Operations
Kate Sears, Former MCE Board Chair
Enyonam Senyo-Mensah, Internal Operations Manager
Maíra Strauss, Chief Financial Officer
Jenna Tenney, Director of Communications and Community
Engagement
Dawn Weisz, Chief Executive Officer
1. Roll Call
Chair Scales-Preston called the regular meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. with quorum established by roll call.
2. Public Open Time (Discussion)
Chair Scales-Preston opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
3. Welcome and Introductions (Discussion)
Chair Scales-Preston welcomed the Board and facilitated round table introductions.
4. Year in Review and Key Highlights (Discussion)
Dawn Weisz, CEO, introduced this item and addressed questions from Board members.
DRAFT
Chair Scales-Preston opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
5. 15th Anniversary Speaker (Discussion)
Director Coler, Town of Fairfax, introduced MCE’s 15th Anniversary speaker, Kate Sears, Former Chair of MCE’s Board.
Chair Scales-Preston opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
6. Managing MCE’s Power Supply Portfolio (Discussion)
Stephen Mariani, Senior Power Procurement Manager, introduced this item.
Several MCE staff and Kirby Dusel, Pacific Energy Advisors, addressed questions from Board members.
Chair Scales-Preston opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
7. CAISO, Risk Mitigation, and MCE’s Approach to Market Participation (Discussion)
CB Hall, Principal Power Procurement Manager, introduced this item and addressed questions from Board members.
Chair Scales-Preston opened the public comment period and comments were made by member of the public, Dan Segedin.
8. Using Virtual Power Plants to Decrease Volatility and Risk in MCE’s Supply (Discussion)
Vicken Kasarjian, COO, Alexandra McGee, VP of Strategic Initiatives, Shuvo Chowdhury, VP of Technology & Analytics, and Sam Irvine, Senior Strategic Initiatives Manager, introduced this item and addressed questions from Board members.
Chair Scales-Preston opened the public comment period and there were comments made by member of the public, Robert Miller.
9. VPP in Action: Risk Mitigation Bidding Simulation (Discussion) Alexandra McGee, VP of Strategic Initiatives, introduced this activity and addressed questions from Board members.
DRAFT
10. Small Group Breakouts with MCE Staff (Discussion)
There was not a staff presentation on this item. Supporting materials were included in the packet.
11. Adjournment
Chair Scales-Preston adjourned the meeting at 2:41 p.m. to the next scheduled Board Meeting on November 20, 2025.
___________________________________________
Shanelle Scales-Preston, Chair
Attest:
___________________________________________
Dawn Weisz, Secretary
November 20, 2025
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Bill Pascoe, Senior Power Procurement Manager
RE: Approved Contracts for Energy Update (Agenda Item #05 C.3) Dear MCE Board Members:
Summary:
This report summarizes contracts for energy procurement entered into by the Chief Executive Officer or her delegate and, if applicable, the Chair of the Technical Committee, since the last report was prepared for the regular Board meeting in September 2025. This summary is provided to your Board for information purposes only and no action is needed.
Review of Procurement Authorities:
In November 2020, your Board adopted Resolution 2020-04 which included the following provisions:
The CEO and Technical Committee Chair, jointly, are hereby authorized, after consultation with the appropriate Committee of the Board of Directors, to approve and execute contracts for Energy Procurement for terms of less than or equal to five years.
The CEO shall timely report to the Board of Directors all such executed contracts.
The CEO is authorized to approve and execute contracts for Energy Procurement for terms of less than or equal to 12 months, which the CEO shall timely report to the Board of Directors.
The CEO is required to report all such contracts and agreements to the MCE Board of Directors on a regular basis.
Item
#
Month of
Execution
Purpose Average Annual
Contract Amount
Contract Term
1 September 2025 Purchase of Renewable Energy and
Resource Adequacy
$16,245,000 Over 5 Years
2 September 2025 Sale of Renewable Energy -$1,000,000 1 Year or less 3 September 2025 Purchase of Resource Adequacy $4,200,000 1 Year or less 4 September 2025 Purchase of System Energy (Hedge) $20,030,162.50 1-5 Years 5 September 2025 Purchase of Renewable Energy $1,200,000 1 Year or less 6 September 2025 Purchase of System Energy (Hedge) $17,457,276 1 Year or less 7 September 2025 Purchase of System Energy (Hedge) $17,141,813 1 Year or less 8 September 2025 Sale of Renewable Energy -$575,000 1 Year or less 9 September 2025 Sale of Resource Adequacy -$5,400 1 Year or less 10 September 2025 Purchase of Import Allocation Rights $44,730 1 Year or less 11 September 2025 Sale of Import Allocation Rights -$158,600 1 Year or less 12 October 2025 Sale of Resource Adequacy -$881,500 1 Year or less 13 October 2025 Purchase of Energy Storage $24,273,333 Over 5 Years 14 October 2025 Sale of Renewable Energy -$841,500 1 Year or less 15 October 2025 Sale of Renewable Energy -$1,278,000 1 Year or less 16 October 2025 Sale of Renewable Energy -$148,500 1 Year or less 17 October 2025 Sale of Resource Adequacy -$1,449,000 1 Year or less 18 October 2025 Sale of Resource Adequacy -$863,500 1 Year or less 19 October 2025 Sale of Resource Adequacy -$899,600 1 Year or less 20 October 2025 Sale of Resource Adequacy -$40,000 1 Year or less 21 October 2025 Purchase of Resource Adequacy $1,595,250 1 Year or less 22 October 2025 Purchase of Resource Adequacy $1,770,250 1 Year or less 23 October 2025 Purchase of Resource Adequacy $60,000 1 Year or less Contract Approval Process:
Contract Approval Process: Energy procurement is governed by MCE’s Energy Risk Management Policy as well as Board Resolutions 2020-04 and 2018-08. The Energy Risk Management Policy (Policy) has been developed to help ensure that MCE achieves its mission and adheres to its procurement policies established by the MCE Board of Directors (Board), power supply and related contract commitments, good utility practice, and all applicable laws and regulations. The Board Resolutions direct the CEO to sign energy contracts up to and including 12 months in length.
The evaluation of every new energy contract is based upon an assessment of how to best fill MCE’s open position. Factors such as volume, notional value, type of product, price, term, collateral threshold and posting, and payment are all considered before execution of the agreement.
After evaluation and prior to finalizing any energy contract for execution, an approval matrix is implemented whereby the draft contract is routed to key support staff and consultants for review, input, and approval. Typically, contracts are routed for commercial, technical, legal, and financial approval, and are then typically routed through the Chief Operating Officer for approval prior to execution. The table below is an example of MCE staff and consultants who may be assigned to review and consider approval prior to the execution of a new energy contract or agreement.
Review Owner Review Category
Vidhi Chawla (MCE, Vice President of Power Resources) Procurement/Commercial John Dalessi (Pacific Energy Advisors) Technical Review Steve Hall (Hall Energy Law) Legal
Nathaniel Malcolm (MCE, Senior Commercial Counsel) Legal/CPUC Compliance Maira Strauss (MCE, Chief Financial Officer) Credit/Financial Vicken Kasarjian (MCE, Chief Operating Officer) Executive Fiscal Impacts:
Expenses and revenue associated with these Contracts and Agreements that are expected to occur during FY 2025/26 are within the FY 2025/26 Operating Fund Budget. Expenses and revenue associated with future years will be incorporated into budget planning as appropriate.
Recommendation:
Information only. No action required.
November 20, 2025
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Vicken Kasarjian, Chief Operating Officer
RE: Resolution No. 2025-07 Appointing Chief Financial Officer as Treasurer (Agenda Item #05 C.4)
ATTACHMENT: Proposed Resolution 2025-07 Appointing Chief Financial Officer as Treasurer
Dear MCE Board Members:
Summary:
Maira Strauss has been serving as Treasurer since November 21, 2024. Before that, she served as the Deputy Treasurer when Vicken Kasarjian was appointed as Interim Treasurer by your Board in June 2024. Per MCE’s Operating Rules and Regulations (Article IV, Section 2 d.), the Treasurer term shall be for one year.
1. Responsibilities and Duties of Treasurer
Government Code Section 6505.5 identifies the duties of an agency treasurer:
a. Receive and receipt for all money of the agency or entity and place it in the treasury of the treasurer so designated to the credit of the agency or entity. b. Be responsible, upon their official bond, for the safekeeping and disbursement of all agency or entity money so held by them.
c. Pay, when due, out of money of the agency or entity held by them, all sums payable on outstanding bonds and coupons of the agency or entity.
d. Pay any other sums due from the agency or entity from agency or entity money, or any portion thereof, only upon warrants of the public officer performing the functions of auditor or controller who has been designated by the agreement. e. Verify and report in writing on July, October, January, and April of each year to the agency or entity and to the contracting parties to the agreement the amount of money they hold for the agency or entity, the amount of receipts since their last report, and the amount paid out since their last report.
2. Authority to Appoint Officer
Government Code Section 6505.6 and Section 4.13.3 of the MCE Joint Powers Agreement provide that MCE may appoint one of its own officers or staff to serve as its Treasurer. Following their appointment, the officer must contract with a certified public accountant to conduct an annual independent audit pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.
3. Qualifications of Chief Financial Officer
MCE Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Maíra Strauss, possesses a wide range of experience that qualifies her to carry out the functions and duties of the Treasurer as described above. Maíra is an accomplished finance professional with over 15 years of progressive experience in financial planning and analysis, strategic finance, accounting and risk management. With a diverse background spanning the non-profit sector in the U.S. and Europe, as well as the for-profit energy industry in South America, Maíra possesses a unique blend of expertise that greatly benefits MCE. She has over 7 years of dedicated service at MCE, where she has successfully overseen the agency’s financial operations from accounting and financial planning and analysis to budgeting, financial strategy, risk management and efficiently managed the agency’s investments funds in accordance with Board-approved investment policies, ensuring MCE’s fiscal health and strategic growth while consistently demonstrating exceptional leadership. Maíra's strong analytical skills, and commitment to clarity and fiscal accountability, has fostered trust and collaboration across all departments. With a proven record of success, Maíra is well-equipped to drive the organization’s financial strategy forward as Treasurer.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Recommendation:
Approve Proposed Resolution No. 2025-07 Appointing MCE’s Chief Financial Officer as Treasurer.
RESOLUTION 2025-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
MARIN CLEAN ENERGY APPOINTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AS
TREASURER
WHEREAS, Marin Clean Energy (MCE) is a joint powers authority established on December 19, 2008, and organized under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, MCE members include the following communities: the County of Marin, the County of Contra Costa, the County of Napa, the County of Solano, the City of American Canyon, the City of Belvedere, the City of Benicia, the City of Calistoga, the City of Concord, the Town of Corte Madera, the Town of Danville, the City of El Cerrito, the Town of Fairfax, the City of Fairfield, the City of Hercules, the City of Lafayette, the City of Larkspur, the City of Martinez, the City of Mill Valley, the Town of Moraga, the City of Napa, the City of Novato, the City of Oakley, the City of Pinole, the City of Pittsburg, the City of Pleasant Hill, the City of San Ramon, the City of Richmond, the Town of Ross, the Town of San Anselmo, the City of San Pablo, the City of San Rafael, the City of Sausalito, the City of St. Helena, the Town of Tiburon, the City of Vallejo, the City of Walnut Creek, and the Town of Yountville; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.6 and Section 4.13.3 of MCE’s Joint Powers Agreement, as amended, dated December 19, 2008 (JPA), MCE may appoint one of its officers or employees to the position of Treasurer, and such person shall comply with the duties and responsibilities of the office or officers as set forth in subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, of Government Code Section 6505.5; and WHEREAS, Maíra Strauss, who currently serves as MCE’s Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, is qualified to serve as Treasurer and can perform the required functions and duties of Treasurer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the MCE Board of Directors, as authorized by Government Code 6505.6 and Section 4.13.3 of the MCE JPA, hereby appoints the Chief Financial Officer, Maíra Strauss, to continue to serve as Treasurer of MCE, effective immediately upon the passage and adoption of this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the MCE Board of Directors on this 20th day of November, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT
County of Marin
Contra Costa County
County of Napa
County of Solano
City of American Canyon
City of Belvedere
City of Benicia
City of Calistoga
City of Concord
Town of Corte Madera
Town of Danville
City of El Cerrito
Town of Fairfax
City of Fairfield
City of Hercules
City of Lafayette
City of Larkspur
City of Martinez
City of Mill Valley
Town of Moraga
City of Napa
City of Novato
City of Oakley
City of Pinole
City of Pittsburg
City of Pleasant Hill
City of San Ramon
City of Richmond
Town of Ross
Town of San Anselmo
City of San Pablo
City of San Rafael
City of Sausalito
City of St. Helena
Town of Tiburon
City of Vallejo
City of Walnut Creek
Town of Yountville
______________________________________
CHAIR, MCE
Attest:
___________________________________________
SECRETARY, MCE
Marketing & Communications
Quarterly Executive Report
July – September 2025
Q3 CY2025
1 Marketing
Summary
172,339
emails sent
49 email campaigns 3
ad campaigns
76,758
mailers sent 5
mailer campaigns 5
new flyers & webpages
2 3
• MCE featured on ABC 7 News segment • Intern Maddie temporarily joins team to assist with ZoomInfo, Contractor Finder Tool, and the Program Directory
• Planning underway for MCE mural in Martinez • Materials updated with adjusted Deep Green premium • Inaugural Electrification Contractors Power Breakfast held
Team Highlights
3 4
• Created easy-to-use branded library and color palettes to streamline designers’ workflow
• Developed 16 new customer journeys (8 English; 8
Spanish) to automate and send real-time confirmations
for service change activities
• Established standard process for one-time customer
service notices sent by the Customer Operations team,
ensuring brand standards and email best practices are
applied
• Added newsletter sign-up to website posts and intake
forms to help convert visitors into subscribers for
sustained engagement
New Optimizations
and Efficiencies
4 Service
Area-wide Ad
Campaign
6 4-9 Summer Ad
Campaign Performance
Messaging • Supercharge your savings before 4 p.m. • Charge your electric vehicle before 4 p.m. • Save money when using appliances. • Turn on the savings.
Ad Placements • Social Media: 2.9M impressions • Digital Billboard: 1.3M impressions • EV Charging Stations: 2.5M impressions • English User Generated Content is the strongest overall creative type across our key metrics
Timeframe: June 22 – September 14, 2025
Marketing Team: Lead: Heather; Vendor: MLT
6 Special Projects
Contractor Finder Tool
MCE’s new Contractor Finder Tool connects
homeowners to skilled electrification contractors.
Launched in August this tool, along with our Residential Rebate and Incentive Finder, simplifies the process of
installing home upgrades and ensures maximum
savings.
Contractors Listed
Participants of one or more MCE contractor program
(i.e., Green Workforce Pathways, Residential Flex Market, Emergency Water Heater Loaner Incentive)
The more projects a contractor has completed through
an MCE program, the higher up on the list they will
appear.
Marketing Team: Lead: Nicole; Support: Maddie (intern)
8 “The new contractor directory looks great!
Way more user-friendly than Switch is On.
I’ve added it to our Find a Contractor webpage.”
—Marin County staff
Electrification Contractors
Power Breakfast
Materials created
• 4 rounds of email invitations to 254 contractors,
pre-event reminders, and RSVP webpages
• Contractor Programs webpage
• Flyer
• Event signs
• Swag: flashlights and branded notebooks with pen
Attendees: 25 contractors and industry professionals
Marketing Team: Leads: Nicole and Ayaka; Support:
Sarah
10 Staff Retreat Materials
Materials created:
• Posters (5): agenda, welcome, agency leveling, staff anniversary, retro
• Banners (2): photo backdrop and history/timeline
• Event Materials (6): Name tags, session activity flyers, table-top agenda
• Event Swag: tote bags
• Performance Development Materials (48): Department
summaries and dimensions
Marketing Team: Lead: Heather; Support: Spike, Madeline, Nicole 10 4-9 High Peak Users
Target customers: Non-residential and residential
customers with high energy usage between 4-9 p.m.
Message: Save significantly on your energy bills by
making a simple shift
Call to action: Non-residential customers to meet with
MCE’s energy experts. Residential customers to shift
usage away from 4-9 p.m. and save by either exploring
MCE’s energy savings programs, getting free upgrades
through Home Energy Savings, or downloading MCE Sync
Campaign + materials created:
• 877 emails and 1,075 direct mailers sent to non-residential customers • 2,029 emails and 4,648 direct mailers sent to residential customers
• 3,344 emails and 8,117 direct mailers sent to residential customers eligible for Home Energy Savings
• 5,836 emails and 6,121 direct mailers sent to residential customers eligible for MCE Sync
Marketing Team: Leads: Ayaka, Allen; Support: Spike
11 Emails paired
with summer
4-9 ad
campaign to
enhance
visibility
Targeted
Marketing
Campaigns
Target customers: Residential customers in arrears
Message: Get up to $8,000 in debt forgiveness
Call to action: Enroll in program
Campaign + materials created
• 4,619 English email and Spanish email sent
• 4,282 bilingual postcards sent
Outcomes: Enrolled 42% of customers contacted,
dramatically exceeding 1-3% industry standard
Marketing Team: Leads: Kalicia, Allen
13 Arrearage
Management Plan
2,500 new
customers and
$1.5M in late
payments
covered!
Target customers: Residential customers in arrears
Message: Save up to 35% on your energy bills
Call to action: Apply for CARE/FERA
Campaign + materials created
• 23,387 English emails and Spanish emails sent
• 14,864 bilingual postcards sent
• Facebook and Google ads
Outcomes:
• Used 3rd party data to identify income qualifying
customers who were not in arrears 436 CARE/FERA
enrollments (3% enrollment rate, on the high end of
industry standards)
Marketing Team: Leads: Kalicia, Allen
14 CARE and FERA Bill
Discounts
CARE: California Alternative Rates for Energy
FERA: Family Electric Rate Assistance
15 Deep Green
Fairfax Credit
Reached goal
of 100 new
Deep Green
customers in 3
months!
Target customers: Fairfax Light Green residential
customers without solar
Message: Get a $75 credit to cover Deep Green for a
year
Call to action: Enroll in Deep Green to receive the credit Campaign + materials created
• 979 emails with simplified embedded form and CRM
integration for reduced staff time – only a few clicks
needed for Customer Operations to enroll
customers!
• Webpage
Outcomes: Program fully enrolled with 100 customers
Marketing Team: Leads: Nicole, Allen; Support: Spike
Congratulations to Fairfax for achieving MCE’s
highest Deep Green enrollment rate (13.2%)!
Target customers: Deep Green customers who do not
receive a CARE/FERA credit covering their premium
Message: To keep up with the rising costs of purchasing renewable energy, for the first time in 15 years, the Deep Green premium will increase slightly by ¼ of a cent from $0.01 to $0.0125 per kWh, effective October 1st.
Campaign + materials created
• 22,478 emails sent; 2,939 bilingual direct mailers sent • Separate email sent to DG Fairfax Credit customers with special timing messaging
• Web banners
• Deep Green collateral updated
Marketing Team: Lead: Nicole; Support: Spike, Allen,
Madeline
16 Deep Green Premium
Adjustment
MCE Cares Credit
2025 Funding Extension
17 Target customers: Customers enrolled in MCE Cares Credit Message: Your MCE Cares Credit is continuing
Call to action: Find more ways to save
Campaign + materials created:
• 23,222 emails sent: English residential, Spanish residential, English commercial, Spanish commercial
• 2,006 mailers sent: bilingual residential, bilingual
commercial
Marketing Team: Leads: Kalicia; Support: Allen
Target customers: Non-residential customers
Message: Get paid to shift your energy usage
Call to action: Submit interest form
Campaign + materials created
• 188 emails sent
• Facebook and Google ads
Outcomes:
• Increased website traffic by 748% (3,216 vs. 379 views) • Increased general awareness with 1.37% click-through rate (typical 0.9%-1.57%)
Marketing Team: Lead: Jayne, Allen
18 Peak Flex Market
Target customers: San Rafael small businesses
Message: Free energy assessments and upgrades for small businesses in Vallejo
Call to action: Submit interest form
Campaign + materials created (all in English and Spanish) • 501 enrollment emails sent and 438 direct mailers sent • 263 meeting follow-up emails with MCE Cares Credit
enrollment sent
• New Energy saving tips and checklist leave behind for SMB Marketing Team: Leads: Jayne, Allen
19 Small Business
Energy Advantage
San Rafael
Target customers: Residential customers with solar and storage Message: Save up to $20 a month on your bill
Call to action: Complete the application
Campaign + materials created
• 9,517 emails sent
• 365 direct mailers sent
Outcomes:
• 206 enrollment form submissions
Marketing Team: Leads: Allen, Ayaka
20 Solar Storage Credit
21 • Certify & Amplify post-event email
• Community Power Coalition Event
• July invitation email and post-event email
• September invitation email and post-event email
• Community Power Coalition Symposium invitation
email
• Electrification Contractors Power Breakfast invitations • Marketing Team: Lead: Sarah
Webinar & Event
Marketing
Community Power Coalition meeting in San Rafael
22 • Hercules enrollment for Net Energy Metering
customers
• Pre-enrollment notices 1+2: 826 bilingual
mailers sent
• Post-enrollment notices 3+4: 717 bilingual
mailers sent
• Marketing Team: Leads: Allen; Support: Nicole
• Power Suppliers
• 2025 Request for Bids email: 805 launched sent;
798 reopened sent; 796 new deadline sent
• 2026 Request for Offers email: 450 launched
sent; 449 reminders sent
• Marketing Team: Lead: Sarah
• Content support for CO’s Percentage of Income
Payment Plan (PIPP)
• Marketing Team: Leads: Allen; Support: Nicole,
Kalicia
Additional Support
Hercules, MCE’s newest member community
Ongoing Notices
Green Access Move-Out
187 emails sent
Team
• Lead: Allen, Spike (New Move-in; Deep Green Welcome)
• Support: Kalicia (Green Access)
New Move-In
21,237 emails + 30,173 mailers sent
23 Deep Green Welcome
124 emails sent
Communications
25 • ABC7 Broadcast: MCE Geothermal • Public Power Now Podcast (Dawn) • KWMR Radio (Tyla) • Marin IJ: MCE to raise price for 100% clean energy plan
• The Bond Buyer: Marin Clean Energy scores
Moody's rating boost to A3
• The E/lectrify Utility Bill Survey • Public Power: California CCA MCE, Financing Authority Issue More Than $1 Billion in Green
Bonds
• Team: Lead: Jared, Jenna, Jackie
Earned Media
26 • Newsletters – 17,676 emails sent • July – 392 page visits; top content: Choose which rate is the best fit for your lifestyle
• August – 495 page visits; top content: Act Fast,
Save Big: Federal Energy Tax Credits End Soon
• September – 649 page visits; top content: Use This
New Tool to Find Local Contractors and Go Electric
• Board Update – 416 email sent • July – opens: 16 board members; 25 muni staff; top content: Summer 4
-9 Campaign
• August – opens: 19 board members; 31 muni staff;
top content: Federal Energy Tax Credits End
Soon Help Your Community Save
• September – opens: 20 board members; 27 muni
staff; top content: Congratulations to Leaders in
Sustainability
• Team: Lead: Jackie; Support: Madeline, Sarah
Subscriber Emails
27 Awards & Industry
Sponsorships
Award: Sustainable Contra Costa's 2025
Leadership in Sustainability Award: Director Devin
Murphy & CoCo Mosquito Vector Control District
CalMatters - Still the Beacon? California and the
Future of Climate Beacon Event
NorCal Public Media Climate California
Team: Jackie, Jenna, Shyna
28 • Turn Summer Break into Climate Action with Your
Kids
• 5 Ways to Slash Your EV Charging Costs
• Act Fast, Save Big: How to Stack Soon-to-End Federal
Energy Tax Credits with Local Incentives
• 4 Easy Ways to Beat Back to School Traffic — and
Spare the Air
• Why Your Next Water Heater Should Be a Heat Pump
• Celebrating the Benefits of Driving an EV
• Team: Shyna; Support: Jenna, Jackie, Madeline
Blog Posts
29 Social Media
LinkedIn Thought Leadership Articles • Electrifying Change: How Energy Upgrades are Powering Safer Shelters in
Marin
• From Brownfields to Brightfields:
Showcasing MCE’s Innovation at the EPA
Annual Summit
Onboarded new social media vendor, Tripepi
Smith
Team: Jackie, Jenna, Shyna
Analytics
More mobile users
1. mobile (61%)
2. desktop (35%)
3. tablet (4%)
User languages
1. English (85%)
2. Spanish (8%)
3. Chinese (3%)
31 Most viewed pages
1. /4-9 (38k)
2. /mce-sync (18k)
3. Homepage (17k)
4. /ev-rebate (7.4k)
5. /care-fera (7k)
How users find us
1. Facebook/Instagram
ads (30k)
2. Direct links (23k)
3. Google search (16k)
4. Google ads (6k)
97k
web users in Q3
Website Analytics
mceCleanEnergy.org
[email protected]
Thank you!
November 20, 2025
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Catalina Murphy, General Counsel
RE: Proposed Amended and Restated MCE Policy No. 003 – Records Retention (Agenda Item #05 C.6)
ATTACHMENT: Proposed Amended and Restated MCE Policy No. 003 – Records Retention
Dear MCE Board Members:
Summary:
MCE is committed to effective records management. MCE last amended and restated its Records Retention Policy in October 2023. With MCE’s implementation of federal grants, the Proposed Amended and Restated Policy No. 003 – Records Retention (“Proposed Policy”) has been updated to reflect the retention needs of records associated with federal awards. As such, staff added the last record type in the Proposed Policy listed as “Federal Award Records (Direct Awards & Subawards).” The attached Proposed Policy will continue to:
• Promote compliance with legal requirements for record retention • Promote efficient management, sharing, and transfer of information among authorized MCE staff and constituents
• Dispose of records no longer needed to satisfy legal, regulatory or other requirements • Ensure that no record is disposed of unless authorized • Ensure that the means of deletion or removal are appropriate for the type of record under consideration
• Ensure the preservation of records of permanent value The attached Proposed Policy, if approved by your Board, would apply to all records, regardless of whether they are maintained in hard (paper) copy, electronically, or in some other fashion.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Recommendation:
Approve Proposed Amended and Restated MCE Policy No. 003 – Records Retention.
Amended and Restated November 2025
POLICY NO. 003 – RECORDS
RETENTION
Records will be retained according to the following schedule. After the required retention date has passed all documents or electronic files will be deleted or discarded. If MCE is required to retain records not listed herein or if required retention timelines for those records that are listed herein change due to updates in law, MCE will retain those records pursuant to the current law.
Record Type Required Retention Sample Descriptions
Executed Contracts Operational Contracts (non-energy) - 10 years after termination date of the contract
Contracts with vendors or
consultants for goods and services
Energy Procurement Contracts -
In perpetuity Power supply contracts
Invoices from Vendors
Operational Contracts - 2 years
after completion of contract
Vendors or consultant invoices for
payment for goods and services
Energy Procurement Contracts -
In perpetuity
Power contract vendor invoices
for payment
Customer Program
Implementers - In perpetuity
Customer program implementer
invoices for payment
Non-Successful Bids and
Proposals
Non-Energy Procurement - 2
years after close of solicitation Open season bids, other Energy Procurement – 5 years competitive procurements
after close of solicitation
Non-Disclosure
Agreements In perpetuity NDA with vendor, employee, Board member or advisor
Board/Committee
Approved Decisions In perpetuity
Resolutions, meeting minutes, and
other items approved at regular or
special Board/Committee meetings
Board and Committee
Meeting Materials
In perpetuity Agendas, staff reports and other
material provided to Board
members in preparation for
meetings,real time materials
Board Approved
Budgets
In perpetuity Final, approved budgets
Drafts of Documents 30 days after final version is
approved Draft of contracts, programs, RFPs,
etc.
Amended and Restated November 2025
General Electronic
Correspondence 3 years Email correspondence
Customer Data Requests 5 years
Cost comparisons, bill analyses,
usage history, billing history,
including ad hoc requests
Customer Database
Information 20 years
Customer lists, data reports, program
data, account balances
Data Analytics Platform
Information In perpetuity Detailed customer information AMI Data Lists and
Reports supporting
CPUC Savings Claims
7 years or longer,
as required by the California
Public Utilities Commission
Non-aggregated customer AMI data
Other AMI Data Lists and
Reports
Deletion after staff use is
completed Non-aggregated customer AMI data
Process Data 5 years
Non-aggregated, non-AMI
customer data pulled from MCE’s
Data Analytics Platform
Marketing Material In Perpetuity Flyers, brochures, electronic advertisements
General Educational or
Informational Material In Perpetuity Brochures, reports, electronic information Employee Files
6 years after employee
end date
Resume, offer letter, change of status,
benefits, evaluations, new hire forms
Recruitment Files
3 years after employee
end date
Application, job announcement,
testing materials, rating sheets,
interview notes
Timecards and Other
Payroll Records
Current year of employee
plus 3 years
Timecards and employee wage
records
I-9 Forms
The longer of 3 years after
employee hire date or 1 year
after termination
Forms retained for I-9 work
authorization
Background Checks
5 years from consent or
report issued, unless
continuing consent obtained
Background consent forms, reports
Employee Leaves of
Absence 3 years after employee
end date
Forms, leave plans, etc. related to an
employee leave of absence
COVID-19 Vaccination
Status 30 years
Confidential medical records
associated with COVID-19
Amended and Restated November 2025
Workers’ Compensation
Related Records 18 years
Employer’s report of injury and
related records
Miscellaneous Personnel
Information
6 years after employee
end date
Benefit plan documents, training
materials
Federal Award Records
(Direct Awards &
Subawards)
3 years from the date of
submission of the final financial
report
For awards that are renewed
quarterly or annually, 3 years
from the date of submission of
the quarterly or annual
financial report, respectively
The records for property
and equipment acquired
with the support of Federal
funds must be retained for
3 years after final
disposition
Financial records, supporting
documentation, and statistical
records
November 20, 2025
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Sabrinna Soldavini, Vice President of Policy
RE: Legislative and Regulatory Update (Agenda Item #05 C.7) ATTACHMENTS: Regulatory Packet with Filings Since the September Board Meeting
Dear MCE Board Members:
Summary:
Below is a summary of the key activities at the state and federal legislatures and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Energy Commission (CEC), and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) impacting Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) and MCE.
I. Legislative Advocacy
a. California
This year the Governor’s deadline to sign or veto bills sent to his desk by the Legislature was October 12th. During the last days of the session, several policies moved from their original bill into a different vehicle, as noted below. The following table lists the positions MCE registered this session, along with each bill’s final resolution.
Bill Number and
Author
Subject MCE Position Status
SB 540 (Becker, Stern) Pathways Initiative,
regional energy
markets
Support Policy was signed as AB
825
SB 330 (Padilla) Alternative financing for
transmission
Support Policy passed as part
of SB 254 (Becker)
SB 302 (Padilla) Renewable tax
conformity
Support Signed
AB 443 (Bennett) Green hydrogen,
curtailed renewables
Support Held in Senate
Appropriations
SB 326 (Becker) Wildfire mitigation Support Vetoed
strategic planning
AB 1280 (Garcia) IBank Climate Catalyst
funding eligibility for
industrial
decarbonization
projects
Support Signed
AB 806 (Connolly) Supporting installation
of cooling units in
mobile homes
Support Signed
SB 541 (Becker) Load-shifting and rates
requirements
Oppose Unless
Amended
Vetoed
AB 825 (Petrie-Norris) Electric affordability
(multiple topics)
Oppose Unless
Amended
Became the vehicle for
Pathways / regional
energy markets, and
was signed as such
b. Federal
In the November 4th special election, Proposition 50 was approved by a majority of California voters. Prop 50 temporarily alters Congressional district lines beginning in 2026, away from the lines drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission after the 2020 census. The Commission will resume its role in drawing Congressional district lines after the 2030 census.
Prop 50 makes no changes to any state legislative districts.
As a result, MCE’s delegation in the House of Representatives will change slightly until after the 2030 census. Congressional District (CD) 9, which currently overlaps very slightly with MCE’s service area at the eastern edge of Contra Costa County (Byron, Discovery Bay) will expand further west to include Pittsburg and part of Oakley. The current CD 9 is represented by Josh Harder (D), who was first elected to Congress in 2018. Representative Harder’s district also includes communities served by Ava Community Energy.
The borders of CD 10, currently represented by Mark DeSaulnier (D), will also expand slightly to the north and southwest. CD 10 will continue to include several MCE member communities in Contra Costa County and will add a portion of Alameda County as well.
II. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
a. 2026 PG&E Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA) Proceeding MCE is currently engaging in PG&E’s 2026 ERRA Forecast Proceeding with the California Community Choice Association (CalCCA). The ERRA proceeding will determine PG&E’s generation and the PCIA rates paid by PG&E and MCE customers for 2026.
PG&E is forecasting PCIA rate increases generation rate decreases for 2026. These changes are due to fluctuations in market prices as well as adopted and proposed PCIA methodology changes such as the resource adequacy (RA) market price benchmark adopted in Track 1 of the PCIA proceeding and a proposal to change the valuation of battery storage. In this application, PG&E continues to advocate for two proposals for valuing the resources in the PCIA portfolio (resources for which CCA customers are partially responsible for) that would decrease their value and significantly increase the PCIA costs for CCA customers.
In October and early November, CalCCA filed Opening and Reply briefs opposing PG&E’s proposals and recommending that the CPUC reject them. CalCCA’s arguments were aimed at ensuring that the CPUC requires PG&E to value its PCIA resources reasonably, fairly, and in a way that reflects their value given today’s market realities. CalCCA emphasized the large cost shifts resulting from PG&E’s proposals that would unfairly disadvantage CCA competitiveness and customers.
MCE will continue to work with CalCCA on additional filings in this proceeding, expected through the end of the year, and provide updates as they become available.
Fiscal Impacts: There is no immediate fiscal impact to MCE. However, if PG&E’s proposals are adopted, there will be an incremental increase in PCIA rates for MCE customers for 2026, in addition to currently forecasted increases.
b. Integrated Resources Planning (IRP)
In September 2025, the CPUC issued an Administrative Law Judge Ruling (Ruling) presenting staff analysis and seeking feedback on the need for additional reliability procurement. Based on its analysis, the CPUC finds that the State of California requires additional capacity and the Ruling proposes that the CPUC order procurement for 6,000 MW of additional capacity to come online from 2029 to 2032. The Ruling proposes that all CPUC-jurisdictional LSEs would then be allocated their share of need proportional to their peak load and be required to procure that amount.
MCE filed Reply Comments and worked with CalCCA to file Opening and Reply comments as well. MCE’s comments recommended that the CPUC find that there is not a need for an ad hoc procurement order and highlighted that ad hoc procurement orders serve as an unnecessary and volatile policy shock, noting that the issuance of another ad hoc procurement order would likely further exacerbate market challenges and the affordability crisis. MCE did not dispute the CPUC’s determination that additional procurement is needed to meet the state’s reliability needs if all of the assumptions regarding projected (but uncertain) load growth embedded in the analysis materialize. However, while skeptical that all the forecasted load will materialize, MCE emphasized that a general need for procurement in the state does not inherently mean the CPUC must issue an ad hoc procurement order.
MCE pointed out that ad hoc procurement orders are not the only mechanism to drive procurement and importantly, that CCAs like MCE were founded with the express purpose to procure energy for its communities needs and will continue to procure to meet our customers’ reliability needs absent a procurement order from the CPUC. MCE also highlighted the LSEs will be in a better position to negotiate contracts without additional procurement mandates that shift market power to sellers, who know that LSEs must procure particular amounts of capacity by specific dates or face economic and reputational consequences.
MCE recommended that the CPUC instead focus on developing the Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program (RCPPP), a predictable procurement framework that the CPUC has been considering since 2022. If the CPUC rejects MCE’s recommendation not to issue an ad hoc procurement order, MCE recommends the CPUC should then carefully consider the full impact of any such action on the market and ratepayers by studying and publishing the expected fiscal and affordability impacts of another ad hoc procurement order before issuance. Staff will continue to provide updates as they become available.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no immediate fiscal impacts to MCE. However, if another ad hoc procurement order is issued MCE would need to procure additional capacity and the procurement order may exacerbate market conditions, making such incremental procurement more expensive.
c. Climate Credit
In July 2025, the CPUC issued an Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) to update and improve the California Climate Credit, which provides residential and small business customers with annual bill credits in April and October, funded through a portion of the California Cap-and-Trade Program’s revenue (in October, the program was rebranded as Cap-and-Invest with the passing of AB 1207). The goal of the OIR is to consider changes to the Climate Credit’s distribution timing and eligibility as well as other modifications that further address affordability – i.e. credits could be distributed in different months to best align with the months when customers in particular regions have the highest bills. MCE worked with CalCCA to file Opening and Reply Comments on the OIR supporting the initial scope to consider modifications to the Climate Credit that support affordability, recommending the development of a standardized method of evaluating proposals to modify the Climate Credit, and to develop standardized and competitively neutral messaging to customers regarding the funding source of the Climate Credit. MCE will continue to engage in this proceeding and provide updates as they become available.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no immediate fiscal impacts to MCE. d. Rule 21 - Distribution-Level DER Interconnections
In August 2025, the CPUC issued an OIR to update distribution-level interconnection rules for distributed energy resources (DERs) under Electric Rule 21. The proceeding will address interconnection processes, cost allocation, and communications and interoperability of DERs.
CalCCA filed opening comments on the OIR on October 20, 2025, recommending that the CPUC modify the scope to include consideration of costs and standards for communications and interoperability of non-IOU DER and DER Management Systems (DERMS). CalCCA also recommends the CPUC consider financial penalties for IOU noncompliance with interconnection timelines, and reasonable cost allocation methodologies and fees for interconnection and interoperability. MCE will continue to work with CalCCA on additional filings as this proceeding continues.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no immediate fiscal impacts to MCE. e. Energy Efficiency (EE)
i. Mid-Cycle Advice Letter
In November 2025, MCE submitted its Mid-Cycle Advice Letter (MCAL) on its 2024-2027 EE portfolio programs. MCE included an update of the technical inputs, forecasts, budgets and related information on program management for its 2024-2027 EE portfolio programs. In September, the CPUC adopted a new Potential and Goals Study covering EE programs statewide for 2026-2037 in September. MCE and all program administrators are required to update their related EE technical inputs and forecasts according to the new Potential and Goals Study. MCE submitted the required technical and other portfolio management updates in its MCAL. MCE detailed its current and forecasted expenditures in addition to current and forecasted performance on EE metrics. MCE also included a request to launch the Multifamily Energy Savings Resource program to expand programmatic offerings to additional multifamily customers. MCE currently serves customers living in deed-restricted multifamily housing through its Multifamily Energy Savings program within its Equity Segment of its portfolio. MCE plans to build on the success of implementing its existing Multifamily Energy Savings program and offer cost-effective electrification measures to more multifamily communities and residents with its new design. Per CPUC requirements, MCE noticed and hosted a public webinar on its request to launch the Multifamily Energy Savings program in September, welcomed public feedback on the program, and shared the program implementation plan. MCE requested approval of its MCAL in December 2025.
Fiscal Impacts: There is no direct fiscal impact to MCE at this time. In 2023, the CPUC previously approved $78,217,316 for MCE’s 2024-2027 EE portfolio. ii. Integrated Demand Side Management
In September 2025, the CPUC adopted a Draft Resolution to approve MCE’s Advice Letter (AL) to offer integrated demand response, load shifting and energy efficiency measures in an updated administration of its Peak Flex Market Program. MCE submitted MCE AL 74-E in March 2024 as required by a CPUC decision issued that approved $4 million dollars in funding for MCE to use on integrated demand side management measures in its EE portfolio during program years 2024-2027. MCE submitted comments on the Draft Resolution in September 2025 offering support for the approval of MCE’s expanded Peak Flex Market program and requesting urgent adoption. Following the CPUC adoption of the Draft Resolution, MCE is authorized to immediately administer an expanded Peak Flex Market program. MCE plans to offer expanded integrated demand side management measures in Quarter 1 of 2026.
Fiscal Impacts: There is no direct fiscal impact to MCE at this time. A prior CPUC decision authorized $4 million dollars in program spending.
f. Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP)
In October 2025, the CPUC scheduled a vote on the proposed decision (PD) for SGIP closeout issues and an exemption to the qualified demand response program enrollment requirement for certain low-income customers. The qualified demand response program enrollment requirement effectively barred most CCA customers from participating in SGIP statewide. MCE and Joint CCAs submitted many comments and conducted many meetings with CPUC staff on the qualified demand response program enrollment since its adoption in March 2024 and prior to the PD. MCE and Joint CCAs submitted opening and reply comments on the PD that supported the qualified demand response program enrollment exemption for low-income customers. The CPUC postponed the scheduled vote on the PD, rescheduled it and postponed it for a second time at the end of October. The CPUC stated its intent to vote on the PD at the end of November 2025.
Fiscal Impacts: There is no direct fiscal impact to MCE at this time.
Recommendation:
None. Informational only.
MCE FY
2025/26
Energy Pro
Forma Update
November 20, 2025
Meet the Presenter
2 John Dalessi
President and CEO, Pacific Energy Advisors
John has over 35 years of experience in electric resource procurement, financial planning, rate-setting and regulatory support services. Prior to co-founding Pacific Energy Advisors, John held senior management positions at Navigant
Consulting, Inc., the Automated Power Exchange, PG&E Energy Services, and Southern California Edison.
John’s projects have included the formation of the MCE, project management support for new generation facility
development, negotiation of transmission contracts,
interconnection agreements, power purchase agreements, and financial transactions. He has often been called on to assist in technical and legal proceedings and has testified before the CPUC in numerous proceedings regarding key issues
impacting customers and alternative energy providers. John holds an MA in Economics from UC Santa Barbara
Pro Forma Model
• Comprehensive financial model for projecting monthly revenues and power supply costs used in MCE budget
• Incorporates inputs for MCE rates, projected retail sales volume, power supply contracts, CAISO grid costs, power content parameters, and wholesale energy/capacity market prices
• Updated monthly for all recently executed contracts, realized CAISO prices, updated market forward prices, load forecast and other changes 3 Key Uncertainties
• Revenue is primarily a function of sales volume and is strongly influenced by AC usage during the June through September summer rate season • Customer counts and net energy metering counts can affect revenue but tend to be more predictable
• Power Costs are impacted by several variables:
• Differences between contracted energy volumes and actual demand (i.e., planned open positions and unplanned imbalances due to load and supply variability)
• Prices at which imbalances are settled
• Differences between nodal (location-specific) CAISO energy prices for supply vs. zonal CAISO energy prices for load (i.e., congestion costs)
• Timing of energy deliveries for certain renewable/carbon free energy contracts that do not have precise delivery schedules
4 Market Outlook
• Summer 2025 was unusually mild with low loads across the CAISO grid
• Hydro supplies and natural gas storage are at healthy levels • Forward CAISO energy prices are down 19% from year ago levels
• Renewable energy and resource adequacy prices have
retreated from the record highs of 2024
• Energy markets have stabilized (for now) after the extreme volatility of recent years
5 Clean Energy Prices
6 $-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Jan 2023 May 2023 Sep 2024 Sep 2025
Large Hydro Energy Prices ($/MWH)
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
Jan 2023 May 2023 Sep 2024 Sep 2025
PCC1 Renewable Energy Prices ($/MWh)
Product Premium
($/MWh)
PCC 1 Renewable $18 to $20
PCC 2 Renewable $14 to $16
PCC 3 Renewable $4 to $6
Large Hydro $12 to $16
2026 Product Pricing
• Prices have fallen from 2024 peaks.
• Soft demand/prices in 2025 with
modest rebound in 2027 and beyond.
Resource Adequacy Pricing (Year-Ahead)
7 $-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Resource Adequacy Prices ($/kW-mo)
Jan 2023 Oct 2023 June 2024 Sep 2025
• RA prices have collapsed since
peaking in 2024 as new supply
and realities of SOD
implementation alleviate
shortage concerns.
• Long term pricing now in the
$6- $7/KW-month range for
annual strip vs. $30+ seen in
2024.
Power Contract Costs
8 • Market fundamentals affect
MCE contract costs
• Forward contracts dampen
impacts of market volatility
MCE Sales Volume
9 • 2025 retail sales YTD are
well below three-year
average.
• Mild weather resulted in
below normal energy
consumption.
• July 2025 was coolest in
MCE history. -
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
MWh
3 Yr. Avg. 2025
FY 25/26 Budget Outlook
• Revenue will be below budget due to low summer sales volume. • Power costs are expected to come in below budget due to low sales volume, decreases in energy prices, and accelerated renewable energy deliveries during Q1 2025.
• Net operating revenue is projected to be better than budget as cost reductions outpace revenue shortfall
• MCE is fully hedged for balance of fiscal year based on projected load and supply – variances will be due to uncontrollable factors. 10 FY 25/26 Year-to-Date Budget Vs. Actuals
11 YTD Budget
Actual April 1 -
Aug 31, 2025 Variance Variance %
Energy
Revenue $357,934,541 $329,677,020 $(28,257,521) (7.9%)
Energy
Expenses $342,857,900 $327,098,721 $(15,759,179) (4.6%) Net Energy
Revenue $15,076,641 $2,578,299 $(12,498,342)
FY 25/26 Full Year Pro Forma Outlook
12 Annual Budget Pro Forma Variance Variance %
Energy
Revenue $826,689,500 $766,894,559 $(59,794,941) (7.2%)
Energy
Expenses $765,542,000 $698,134,635 $(67,407,365) (8.8%) Net Energy
Revenue $61,147,500 $68,759,924 $7,612,424
Energy Expense Detail
13 $765.5
$24.0
$(58.0)
$2.6
$(33.2) $(0.5) $(2.4)
$0.1 $698.1
$ Millions
$600.0
$620.0
$640.0
$660.0
$680.0
$700.0
$720.0
$740.0
$760.0
$780.0
$800.0
Increase Decrease Total
MCE Power Cost Trends
14 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
$ PER MWH
FYE
MCE AVERAGE UNIT POWER COST
• Model is projecting
modest declines in
average power supply
costs.
• Forward contracting/
hedging program largely
insulates customers from
market volatility.
mceCleanEnergy.org
[email protected]
Thank you!
Financial Statements and Budget Reports: Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why are unaudited quarterly financial statements different from audited annual financial statements?
Unaudited quarterly financial statements are interim updates. They are unaudited and rely on the best available data at that time, which might include preliminary estimates and accruals pending invoices. They offer a timely, but less finalized picture of our finances. Audited annual financial statements go through a thorough external review process by independent auditors. This ensures that all figures are verified and fully reconciled. While unaudited quarterly statements are useful for keeping up with recent trends, the audited annual financial statements provide a more finalized financial picture.
2. Why do budget reports not match either audited or unaudited financial statements, specifically the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position? Our budget reports divide MCE’s finances into four separate budgets, while the financial statements show consolidated activity across all of them.
MCE has four budgets:
1) The Operating Fund Budget
Captures sales revenue, cost of energy, operating expenses (overhead), and non-operating expenses/revenues. This fund captures all income and expenses related to our core operations: selling electricity. Expenses are shown net of grant reimbursements. 2) The Energy Efficiency Fund Budget
Captures program spending funded by energy efficiency grants from the California Public Utilities Commission.
3) The Program Development Fund
Captures program spending funded by 50% of the Deep Green Premium. The fund may also include other grants from local partners or the federal government. The fund supports and scales MCE’s transportation electrification initiatives. 4) The Resiliency Virtual Power Plant Fund
Captures program spending funded by Board approved transfers from the Operating Fund.
The fund may also include other grants from local partners, the state or the federal government. The fund scales energy storage programs and efforts related to growing MCE's virtual power plant.
3. Why does MCE take several months to post financial results? Because MCE strives to provide the most accurate numbers to your Board while navigating the complexities of the energy markets, we need up to three months to publish reliable results. Our financial results depend on settlement data from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). CAISO invoices for MCE’s load are based on settlement quality meter data, typically finalized and billed approximately 70 business days after the trade date. This delay due to data resettling in the energy market, combined with the complexity of the multitude of customer programs MCE has and lags with certain energy supplier invoices, creates the need for roughly a three-month window before unaudited financials can be finalized.
4. What are some typical trends found in unaudited quarterly reports? Trends are typically driven by weather or market prices for energy products. When weather conditions are milder than projected, energy demand tends to decline, resulting in lower sales revenue. When temperatures exceed normal projections, energy demand tends to rise, resulting in higher real time market prices and usage that exceeds MCE’s hedged positions. These factors may cause actual results to deviate from projections.
5. When sales are lower than projected, why can’t MCE just buy less power? MCE purchases most of its power in advance under fixed-price agreements, and must pay for the power regardless of customer usage. Therefore, lower sales do not translate to lower energy costs. If MCE were to reduce power supply hedging, short-term savings could occur when sales or spot prices are low. However, if market prices later exceed projections due to extreme weather events or unusual market dynamics, MCE would be exposed to extremely high real-time market prices for all unhedged loads.
6. Why doesn’t MCE provide all cost and sales information publicly? Disclosing specific prices and quantities for power purchases could create a new “floor” in the market, reducing MCE’s negotiating leverage in future contracts with power suppliers or buyers.
7. Why doesn’t MCE provide all contract terms publicly? Revealing the terms of MCE’s prior or existing contracts would allow counterparties to see what MCE has agreed to, limiting flexibility and negotiating power in future supply agreements.
8. Where can I find prior unaudited quarterly financial statements, audited annual financial statements and annual budgets?
All unaudited quarterly financial statements, audited annual financial statements and annual budgets are available on MCE’s website under “Key Documents”.
9. Can you provide a breakdown of the Cost of Energy budget line in recent years? Here is an average energy breakdown for the last two years: 7.6% CAISO Net Costs, 18% Resource Adequacy, 2.4% Carbon Free/Asset Controlling Supplier (ACS), 41.7% Financial Hedges, 14% Long Term PPA Costs, 16% Renewable Energy (PCC1).
10.Do you have any preliminary results for Q2 FY 2025/26? Results continue to be driven by the same factors as Q1 results. Sales revenue is expected to be below forecast due to milder than expected summer weather. Cost of energy is also expected to be below expectations, primarily due to the shift of certain power supply costs to earlier accounting periods. MCE’s change to net position is projected to improve to a breakeven point.
MCE Q1 FY 2025/26 Treasurer’s Report
and Treasurer's Monthly Investment
Report September 2025
1 3
8 12
16 18
19 20
Table of Contents
Staff Report
Attachment A: Q1 FY 2025/26 Financial Statements
Attachment B: Financial Results Highlights and Customer Statistics Attachment C: Budgetary Comparison Schedules
Attachment D : Statement of Investments held at USBank
Attachment E: Statement of Transactions at USBank
Attachment F: Fixed Income Portfolio at USBank Summary
Attachment G: Statement of Investments held at River City Bank Attachment H: Statement of Transactions at River City Bank 21 MCE Board of Directors
Maira Strauss, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer
Vicken Kasarjian, Chief Operating Officer & Deputy Treasurer MCE Q1 FY 2025/26 Treasurer's Report and
Treasurer’s Monthly Investment Report for September 2025 October 15
th
, 2025
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Attachments: Attachment A: Q1 FY 2025/26 Financial Statements Attachment B: Financial Results Highlights and Customer Statistics Attachment C: Budgetary Comparison Schedules
Attachment D: Statement of Investments held at USBank
Attachment E: Statement of Transactions at USBank
Attachment F: Fixed Income Portfolio at USBank Summary
Attachment G: Statement of Investments held at River City Bank Attachment H: Statement of Transactions at River City Bank _____________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Board Members:
This memorandum is to verify and report in writing to the Board the responsibilities designated to the MCE Treasurer pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.5. The Treasurer of MCE is required to report to the Board the interim financials on a quarterly basis in January, April, July and October of each fiscal year. MCE’s Fiscal Year ends March 31.
Attachment A shows financial statements including a Statement of Net Position, a Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position, and a Statement of Cash Flows. Results for April 2025 through June 2025 (Q1) are shown. Attachment B provides a series of charts and tables on MCE’s financial results and customer statistics. Attachment C shows budgetary comparison schedules for the Operating Fund, Energy Efficiency Fund, Program Development Fund and the Resiliency Virtual Power Plant Fund. In addition to the quarterly results shown, there is a monthly Treasurer’s Report that shows investing activity in the previous month. Purchases, sales, maturities and yields are shown for all of MCE’s securities.
Monthly obligation to report new investment transactions:
Government Code Section 53607 and MCE’s Investment Policy require MCE to report in writing to the Board any investment transactions (defined as purchases, sales or exchanges of securities) made 1 during the prior month. MCE currently maintains bank accounts and investments at River City Bank, USBank, and JP Morgan Chase.
USBank: In October of 2022 your Board approved amendments to MCE Policy 014: Investment Policy, as recommended by MCE’s investment advisor, Chandler Asset Management (CAM).
Currently, CAM manages over $200 million of MCE’s reserves. All investments directed by CAM are held at MCE’s custodian, USBank. Attachment D shows a Statement of Investments held at USBank that reports on holdings as of September 30th, 2025. Attachment E shows a Statement of Transactions at USBank and shows that eleven securities were sold and five were bought in September.
Attachment F shows a summary of the Fixed Income Portfolio at USBank.
River City Bank: Attachment G shows a Statement of Investments held at River City Bank for the month ending September 30th
, 2025. Attachment H shows a Statement of Transactions at River City Bank for September. No new CDARs were purchased but three reached maturity, totaling $9.6 million dollars.
A summary of MCE’s holdings and cash balances and their associated average yield is shown in the table below. Overall, MCE’s holdings, cash balances, and collateral at the CAISO had an average yield of 4.39% at the end of September 2025.
MCE Holdings 9/30/2025 Allocation Average Yield
Fixed Income Portfolio Market Value $ 200,097,000 45% 4.49% CDARs 80,500,000 18% 4.62%
Cash Balances 142,165,000 32% 4.17%
Collateral at CAISO 22,151,000 5% 4.02%
Total 444,913,000 100% 4.39%
*Cash balances are held at JP Morgan Chase and River City Bank.
Staff will provide Statements of Investments as required throughout the year.
No Action Needed
This memorandum and associated attachments are to inform the Board pursuant to the requirements of MCE’s Investment Policy 014 and Government Code Section 53607. There is no action requested of the Board at this time. Please note that the statements and budget comparison schedules are preliminary in nature and may be subject to adjustments based on future true-ups or unanticipated accrual activity.
2 ACCOUNTANTS’ COMPILATION REPORT
Management
Marin Clean Energy
Management is responsible for the accompanying financial statements of Marin Clean Energy (a California Joint Powers Authority), which comprise the statement of net position as of June 30, 2025, and the related statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in net position, and the statement of cash flows for the three months then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have performed a compilation engagement in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services promulgated by the Accounting and Review Services Committee of the AICPA. We did not audit or review the accompanying statements nor were we required to perform any procedures to verify the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by management. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion, conclusion, nor provide any assurance on these financial statements.
Management has elected to omit substantially all of the note disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America in these interim financial statements.
Marin Clean Energy’s annual audited financial statements include the note disclosures omitted from these interim statements. If the omitted disclosures were included in these financial statements, they might influence the user’s conclusions about the Authority’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters.
We are not independent with respect to Marin Clean Energy because we performed certain accounting services that impaired our independence.
Maher Accountancy
San Rafael, CA
August 20, 2025
1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 San Rafael, CA 94901 415 459 1249 mahercpa.com Attachment A: Q1 FY 2025/26 Financial Statements
3 Current assets
Cash and cash equivalents - unrestricted 152,534,052$
Accounts receivable, net of allowance 65,069,127
Accrued revenue 39,329,634
Other receivables 18,159,778
Prepaid expenses 3,359,745
Cash and cash equivalents - restricted for grant purposes 20,920,700 Investments 135,236,272
Deposits 26,293,095
Total current assets 460,902,403
Noncurrent assets
Investments 174,602,994
Capital assets, net of depreciation and amortization 563,317 Deposits 158,622
Total noncurrent assets 175,324,933
Total assets 636,227,336
Current liabilities
Accrued cost of electricity 136,671,522
Accounts payable 4,212,210
Other accrued liabilities 5,612,883
User taxes and energy surcharges due to other governments 1,267,820 Security deposits - energy suppliers 856,800
Advances from grantors 20,920,700
Total current liabilities 169,541,935
Operating Reserve Fund 70,000,000
Net position
Net investment in capital assets 563,317
Unrestricted 396,122,084
Total net position 396,685,401$
NET POSITION
MARIN CLEAN ENERGY
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
As of June 30, 2025
ASSETS
LIABILITIES
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
See accountants' compilation report. 4
OPERATING REVENUES
Electricity sales, net 170,157,162$
Grant revenue 3,933,595
Other revenue 532,514
Total operating revenues 174,623,271
OPERATING EXPENSES
Cost of electricity 186,086,771
Contract services 5,177,620
Staff compensation 6,408,346
Other operating expenses 3,760,280
Depreciation and amortization 45,972
Total operating expenses 201,478,989
Operating income (loss) (26,855,718)
NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
Investment income 6,678,067
Nonoperating revenues (expenses), net 6,678,067
CHANGE IN NET POSITION (20,177,651)
Net position at beginning of period 416,863,052
Net position at end of period 396,685,401$
Three Months Ended June 30, 2025
AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES
MARIN CLEAN ENERGY
See accountants' compilation report. 5
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Receipts from customers 164,595,632$
Receipts from grantors 2,567,330
Other operating receipts 566,178
Payments to suppliers for electricity and collateral (203,636,385) Payments for other goods and services (8,660,671)
Payments for staff compensation (6,191,331)
Payments of taxes and surcharges to other governments (2,888,428) Net cash provided (used) by operating activities (53,647,675)
CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Payments to acquire capital assets (53,472)
Net cash provided (used) by capital and related
financing activities (53,472)
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Investment income received 4,152,196
Proceeds from sales and maturities of investments 11,127,777 Purchase of investments (14,750,063)
Net cash provided (used) by investing activities 529,910 Net change in cash and cash equivalents (53,171,237)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 226,625,989 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period 173,454,752$ Reconciliation to the Statement of Net Position
Current assets
Cash and cash equivalents - unrestricted 152,534,052$
Cash - restricted 20,920,700
Noncurrent assets
Cash and cash equivalents 173,454,752$
NONCASH INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
Change in fair market value 2,525,871$
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
MARIN CLEAN ENERGY
Three Months Ended June 30, 2025
See accountants' compilation report. 6
Operating income $ (26,855,718)
Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net
cash provided (used) by operating activities
Depreciation and amortization expense 45,972
(Increase) decrease in:
Accounts receivable, net (1,352,708)
Energy market settlements receivable (345,517)
Accrued revenue (7,082,692)
Other receivables 5,573,905
Prepaid expenses (987,161)
Deposits 4,638
Increase (decrease) in:
Accrued cost of electricity (21,751,279)
Accounts payable 232,045
Other accrued liabilities 259,124
User taxes and energy surcharges due to other governments (14,558) Advances from grantors (1,373,726)
Net cash provided (used) by operating activities (53,647,675)$ Three Months Ended June 30, 2025
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS (CONTINUED)
MARIN CLEAN ENERGY
RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME TO NET
CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES
See accountants' compilation report. 7
Change in Net Position, Cumulative Net Position, Holdings, and Progress to Days Cash on Hand MCE's Operating Fund had a change in net position of $5.8 million for the month of June and -$18.6 million for fiscal year to date.
MCE's days cash on hand fluctuates with changes in energy costs and operating expenses. In line with MCE Policy 013: Reserve Policy, the target is to maintain 240 days of cash on hand. As of June 30th, MCE held 208 days cash on hand. The variation reflects normal seasonal change in MCE's net position.
Days cash on hand is calculated using 60% of annual cost of energy and operating expenses. Results are based on the ending cumulative net position, plus deferred revenue, minus transfers earmarked for program expenses.
Interest earned on the deposits at River City Bank is pegged to the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) rate. MCE holds a back up high yield checkings account at JP Morgan Chase.
MCE's holdings totaled $445 million. This number exceeds the net position reporting on the financial statements as it includes deferred revenue which is invested but not recognized as revenue per GASB 31.
MCE
Financial Results Highlights and Customer Statistics
Q1 and September 2025
MCE's cumulative net position was $398 million at the end of June and is forecasted to reach approximately $432 million by March 2026. Actuals are based on the Statement of Revenue, Expenses, and Changes to Net Position.
Forecasted period uses Change in Net Position as projected in the Operating Fund Budget. *The Operating Fund Budget captures activities related to MCE's core functions including sales of electricity, cost of energy, operating expenses, non-operating revenues and expenses.
-$25
-$20
-$15
-$10
-$5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Jan-26 Feb-26 Mar-26 Millions
Change in Net Position*
Operating Budget vs Actuals
Actual Budget
$399 $392 $398 $402 $407 $412 $406 $410 $413 $413 $414
$432
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Jan-26 Feb-26 Mar-26 Millions
Cumulative Net Position
Cumulative Net Position Forecasted
Fixed Income Portfolio
Market Value
$200,097,000
45%
CDARs
80,500,000
18%
Deposits at RCB and
JP Morgan Chase
142,165,000
32%
Collateral at CAISO
22,151,000
5%
Holdings Allocation as of 9/30/2025
209 205 208 211 213 216 213 215 216 216 217
225
240
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Jan-26 Feb-26 Mar-26 Progress to Days Cash on Hand
Actual Days Cash on Hand Forecasted Days Cash on Hand Goal Days Cash on Hand Attachment B: Financial Results Highlights and Customer Statistics 8 Operating Fund Budget Results and Variance
Actual Budget Variance $ Variance %
Revenue, Net $ 170,157,000 $ 183,289,000 $ (13,132,000) -7% Cost of Energy 186,087,000 184,537,000 1,550,000 1%
Operating Expenses 10,738,000 12,458,000 (1,720,000) -14% Non-operating Revenues 8,280,000 4,570,000 3,710,000 81% Non-operating Expenses 226,000 876,000 (650,000) -74%
Change in Net Position (18,614,000) (10,012,000) 8,602,000 85.9% Actual Budget Variance $ Variance %
Revenue, Net $ 67,365,000 $ 76,312,000 $ (8,947,000) -12% Cost of Energy 62,348,000 66,967,000 (4,619,000) -7%
Operating Expenses 3,563,000 4,054,000 (491,000) -12%
Non-operating Revenue 4,492,000 1,523,000 2,969,000 195% Non-operating Expenses 100,000 292,000 (192,000) -66%
Change in Net Position 5,846,000 6,522,000 (676,000) -10.4% Cost of energy in May and June were below budget expectations.
Marin Clean Energy
Operating Fund Budgetary Comparison Schedule
1 Month Ended June 30th, 2025
As noted during the September 2025 Board meeting, MCE received renewable energy deliveries ahead of schedule. The final quantites under this contract were delivered in April, contributing to results that exceeded budget projections by $8.9 million.
MCE
Financial Results Highlights and Customer Statistics
Q1 and September 2025
Marin Clean Energy
Operating Fund Budgetary Comparison Schedule
3 Months Ended June 30th, 2025
The cost of energy represents 94% of MCE's total expenditures.
Revenue, net Energy - $170.2 million
Net energy revenue for the first quarter was $13.1 million or 7% under budget, primarily due to lower than expected sales volume driven by unusual mild weather. June, the first month when summer rates take effect, was especially impacted.
Cost of Energy - $186.1 million
The cost of energy came in slightly above expectations by $1.6 million, deviating from the budget by 1%. With the exception of April, which incurred the last batch of early renewable enery deliveries, May and June saw slightly lower than anticipated costs.
See chart on the right.
Operating Expenses - $10.7 million
Total Operating Expenses were under budget by $1.7 million or 14%. Results reflect delays in project startimes, increased in-house work, and expenses that were budgeted for later in the fiscal year. Operating expenses historically come in under budget.
Non-Operating Revenues - $8.3 million
Total non-operating revenues were above expectations by $3.7 million or 81%. The Finance department continues to strategically allocate surplus working capital in high-yield savings accounts and securities like treasuries and corporate notes.
Non-Operating Expenses - $226 thousand
Total non-operating expenses came in $650 thousand (74%) under budget, mainly due to how spending from the DAC-GT program is recorded. The program offers bill discounts to eligible customers, so its impact appears as reduced energy revenue which is offset by grant income equal to the discounts. Grant revenue, for all programs, can only be recognized when there is a corresponding eligible expense.
Change in Net Position - -$18.6 million
The change in net position was a loss of $18.6 million, which is $8.6 million greater than budgeted reflecting lower revenues partially offset by higher investment earnings.
Note: For reconciliation purposes, Operating Fund budgetary numbers may differ from those in the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes to Net Position as the statement captures activity across all the funds. Numbers shown here are net of any grant reimbursements.
Cost of Energy
186,086,771
94%
Operating Expenses
11,311,602
6%
Cost of Energy and Operating Expenses
3 Months Ended June, 30th 2025
$0
$25
$50
$75
$100
Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Jan-26 Feb-26 Mar-26 Millions
Cost of Energy
Monthly Actual vs Budget
Actual Budget
One month results for June 2025 are shown above. MCE's service area experienced mild weather which led to the absence of typical summer load from customers. As a result, revenue from electricity sales was below budget by 12% while the cost of energy was under by 7%. Operating expenses were under budget by 12% while non-operating revenues were above expectations by 195% largely due to strong investment and interest income. 9 Customer Statistics
Numbers shown as of the end of June 2025 for both tables below.
County Customer Class Total Accounts MCE Accounts Opt-in Rate Contra Costa AGR 365 280 77%
Contra Costa COM/IND 31,907 28,590 90%
Contra Costa RES 354,285 313,757 89%
Contra Costa ST GOV 777 770 99%
Marin AGR 154 126 82%
Marin COM/IND 14,336 11,966 83%
Marin RES 106,749 86,916 81%
Marin ST GOV 252 248 98%
Napa AGR 1,502 1,353 90%
Napa COM/IND 8,306 7,517 91%
Napa RES 54,001 47,896 89%
Napa ST GOV 174 173 99%
Solano AGR 1,148 949 83%
Solano COM/IND 11,147 9,928 89%
Solano RES 102,923 88,406 86%
Solano ST GOV 336 328 98%
Total 688,362 599,203 87%
County Total Accounts MCE Accounts Opt-In Rate
Contra Costa 387,334 343,397 89%
Marin 121,491 99,256 82%
Solano 115,554 99,611 86%
Napa 63,983 56,939 89%
Total 688,362 599,203 87%
Net Usage (in KWh) = Delivered Volumes - Volumes returned to Grid Opt-in rate = MCE accounts / All accounts in the service area. Numbers are are snapshots at the end of each month shown.
The Opt-in rate has hovered at 87% over the last quarter, reflecting strong customer participation across MCE's service area.
Contra Costa county holds the largest number of customer accounts followed by Solano, Marin, and Napa. Numbers are a snapshot at the end of June 2025.
MCE
Financial Results Highlights and Customer Statistics
Q1 and September 2025
598 599 599
688 688 688
86.93% 86.95% 87.05%
0.8 0.81
0.82 0.83
0.84 0.85
0.86 0.87
0.88 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25
Thousands
MCE Accounts and Opt-in Rate
MCE Total Accounts % Opt-In Rate
Contra Costa
343,397
Marin
99,256
Solano
99,611
Napa Number of MCE accounts 56,939
by County
376,644
393,130
395,304
365000000
370000000
375000000
380000000
385000000
390000000
395000000
400000000
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25
Thousands
Net Usage
(KWh)
Contra Costa Marin Napa Solano Total
Key
AGR = Agriculture
COM/IND = Commercial / Industrial
RES = Residential
ST GOV = Street-Goverment
Net Usage (in KWh) represents volumes returned to grid subtracted from delivered volumes. This totaled 395 million KWh in June, which is a 5% increase from April 2025.
Customer Participation remained strong and stable in Q1, with steady opt-in rates and consistent energy usage patterns across all service area.
10 Supplemental Graphs on Investment and Interest Income MCE
Financial Results Highlights and Customer Statistics
Q1 and September 2025
*Graph includes monthly earned income on the portfolio. For reconciliation purposes, the financial statements will show monthly changes in fair market value as required by GASB 31.
*Graph shows monthly earned income on the portfolio. For reconciliation purposes, the financial statements will show monthly changes in fair market value as required by GASB 31.
4.00%
4.20%
4.40%
4.60%
4.80%
5.00%
5.20%
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
Millions
CDARs Amounts & Yield
Last 12 Months
CDARs Total Purchase Yield
4.00%
4.10%
4.20%
4.30%
4.40%
4.50%
4.60%
4.70%
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
Millions
Fixed Income Portfolio Market Value and Purchase Yield
Last 12 Months
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
Millions
Investment and Interest Income
Last 12 Months
CDARs Cash Balances at RCB and JP Morgan Chase Fixed Income Portfolio* CAISO Collateral The market value and yield of MCE's CDARs are shown above. As of September 30th, 2025, CDARs had an average yield of
4.62% and a total balance of $84,700,000 (includes par amount and accrued interest).
The amount and purchase yield of the fixed income portfolio is shown above. As of September 30th 2025, the fixed income portfolio had a market value of over $200 million and a purchase yield of 4.49%. $14.07
$22.48
$21.69
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
Millions
Investment and Interest Income
Actuals and Projections*
FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2025/26 Projection
11 Purchase Yield
Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Fixed Income Portfolio Market Value
April - June
Actuals
April - June
Budget Variance $ Variance %
ENERGY REVENUE
REVENUE - ELECTRICITY NET $ 170,157,000 $ 183,289,000 (13,132,000) -7.2%
ENERGY EXPENSES
Cost of Energy 186,087,000 184,537,000 1,550,000 0.8%
NET ENERGY REVENUE (15,930,000) (1,248,000) 14,682,000 1176.4%
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel 5,674,000 6,247,000 (573,000) -9.2%
Data Manager 1,325,000 1,319,000 6,000 0.5%
Technical and Scheduling Consultants 251,000 350,000 (99,000) -28.3% Service Fees - PG&E 645,000 685,000 (40,000) -5.8%
Legal and Policy Services 282,000 384,000 (102,000) -26.6% Communication Services 431,000 556,000 (125,000) -22.5% Other Professional Services 967,000 1,189,000 (222,000) -18.7% General and Administrative 1,052,000 1,242,000 (190,000) -15.3% Occupancy 112,000 113,000 (1,000) -0.9%
Contingency - 375,000 (375,000) -100.0%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 10,739,000 12,460,000 (1,721,000) -13.8% OPERATING INCOME (26,669,000) (13,708,000) 12,961,000 94.6%
NONOPERATING REVENUES
Grant Income 1,668,000 820,000 848,000 103.4%
Other Income - 38,000 38,000
Interest Income 6,575,000 3,750,000 2,825,000 75.3%
TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES 8,281,000 4,570,000 3,711,000 81.2%
NONOPERATING EXPENSES
Banking Fees and Financing Costs 56,000 - 56,000 0.0%
Grant Expenses 170,000 820,000 (650,000) -79.3%
TOTAL NONOPERATING EXPENSES 226,000 876,000 (650,000) -74.2% CHANGE IN NET POSITION (18,614,000) (10,014,000) 8,600,000 85.9% Budgeted Net Position Beginning of Period 416,863,000 - 416,863,000 0.0% Change in Net Position (18,614,000) (10,014,000) 8,600,000 85.9% BUDGETED NET POSITION END OF PERIOD 398,249,000 406,849,000 -2.1%
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, INTERFUND TRANSFERS & OTHER
Office Improvements and Retrofits 54,000 87,000
8,600,000
(33,000) -37.9%
Transfer to Program Development Fund 2,392,000 - 2,392,000 0.0%
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, INTERFUND TRANSFERS &
OTHER 2,446,000 2,479,000 (33,000) -1.3%
-
BUDGETED NET INCREASE IN OPERATING FUND BALANCE $ (21,060,000) $ (12,493,000) 8,567,000 68.6% From April 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025
Approved Budget Comparison Fiscal Year 2025/26
MCE Operating Fund
Attachment C: Budgetary Comparison Schedules
12 April - June
Budget
April- June
Actual Variance $ Variance %
Revenue And Other Sources
CEC VPP Flex Grant 300,000$ - $ (300,000)$ -100%
Federal Earkmark Funding - 50,000 (50,000) -100%
Marin Community Foundation Grant 18,000 82,000 64,000 356% Total Revenue and Other Sources 368,000 82,000 (286,000) -78% Expenditures And Other Uses
CEC VPP Flex Grant Expenses 300,000 2,000 (298,000) -99% Energy Storage Program 76,500 47,000 (29,500) -39%
CEC VPP Flex Grant Match 250,000 32,000 (218,000) -87%
MCE Sync 238,000 - (238,000) -100%
PeakFLEX - 25,000 (25,000) -100%
Federal Earmark- Energy Storage - 50,000 (50,000) -100% MCE Resilency at Critical Facilities 18,000 82,000 64,000 356% Federal Earmark Match Expense 50,000 7,000 (43,000) -86% San Rafael Office Resilency Buildout - 50,000 (50,000) -100% Richmond VPP Pilot 42,750 (4,000) (46,750) -109%
Total Expenditures And Other Uses 1,100,250 166,000 (934,250) -85% Net Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance (732,250) (84,000) - - Fund Balance at Beginning of Period 3,878,000 - - 3,878,000 Fund Balance at End of Period 3,145,750 3,794,000 - -
MCE
Resiliency VPP Fund
Approved Budget Comparison Fiscal Year 2025/26
From April 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025
13 April - June
Budget
April- June
Actual Variance $ Variance %
Revenue And Other Sources
Public Purpose Energy Efficiency Program 4,690,250$ 1,902,000$ (2,788,250)$ -59% Public Purpose Low Income Families and Tenants
Pilot Program 200,000 374,000 174,000 87%
Total Revenue And Other Sources 4,890,250 2,276,000 (2,614,250) -53% Expenditure And Other Uses -
Public Purpose Energy Efficiency Program 4,690,250 1,902,000 (2,788,250) -59% Public Purpose Low Income Families and Tenants
Pilot Program 200,000 374,000 174,000 87%
Total Expenditures And Other Uses 4,890,250 2,276,000 (2,614,250) -53% Balance - - - -
MCE
Energy Efficiency Fund
Approved Budget Comparison Fiscal Year 2025/26
From April 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025
14 April - June
Budget
April- June
Actual Variance $ Variance %
Revenue And Other Sources
Transfer from Operating Fund and Deep Green
Premium $ 2,392,000 2,392,000 $ - $ 0%
Marin Community Foundation Grant 65,000 11,000 (54,000) -83% Community Benefits Funds 25,000 31,000 6,000 24%
Total Revenue and Other Sources 2,482,000 2,434,000 (48,000) -2% Expenditures And Committed Funds 0
Transportation Electrification Programs 1,327,500 1,865,000 537,500 40% Heat Pump Water Heater Incentives 135,000 41,000 (94,000) -70% Emergency Water Heater Loaner Fund 35,500 6,000 (29,500) -83% Marin Community Foundation EV Charging at Aff 65,000 11,000 (54,000) -83% Community Housing Grants 65,000 17,000 (48,000) -74%
Total Expenditures And Other Uses 1,628,000 1,940,000 312,000 19% Net Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance 854,000 494,000 - - Fund Balance at Beginning of Period 3,760,000 3,738,000 - - Fund Balance at End of Period 4,614,000 4,232,000 - -
MCE
Program Development Fund
Approved Budget Comparison Fiscal Year 2025/26
From April 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026
15 Attachment D: Statement of Investments held at USBank Issuer Security Type Purchase Date Maturity Date Par Value $ Market Value $ Purchase Price $ Purchase Yield in % New? John Deere Owner Trust ABS 04/17/2023 11/15/2027 399,060.94 401,687.22 403,129.49 4.24 No Bank of America Credit Card Trust ABS 04/18/2023 04/17/2028 600,000.00 601,890.01 606,562.50 4.27 No Honda Auto Receivables Owner Trust ABS 08/22/2023 11/15/2027 693,427.65 698,104.27 686,412.11 4.11 No GM Financial Securitized Term ABS 10/24/2023 06/16/2028 1,080,864.97 1,092,196.58 1,074,785.11 4.02 No Honda Auto Receivables Owner Trust ABS --- 06/21/2028 875,279.65 887,014.08 878,038.33 4.06 No Toyota Auto Receivables Owner Trust ABS 11/07/2023 08/15/2028 417,378.60 423,206.38 417,333.60 4.08 No BMW Vehicle Owner Trust ABS 11/09/2023 02/25/2028 596,277.61 601,032.67 595,252.76 4.04 No John Deere Owner Trust ABS 12/18/2023 05/15/2028 407,710.91 412,932.81 413,221.37 4.13 No Bank of America Credit Card Trust ABS 02/20/2024 11/16/2026 1,000,000.00 1,014,484.13 1,003,515.63 3.89 No Toyota Lease Owner Trust ABS 02/21/2024 04/20/2027 319,855.68 321,889.51 319,842.18 3.63 No GM Financial Securitized Term ABS 02/23/2024 12/18/2028 1,000,000.00 1,008,331.73 994,921.88 4.04 No Verizon Master Trust ABS 02/29/2024 01/22/2029 1,500,000.00 1,503,676.57 1,483,242.19 4.88 No Chase Issuance Trust ABS 02/29/2024 01/16/2029 1,100,000.00 1,112,663.80 1,092,910.16 3.88 No Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust ABS 03/11/2024 02/15/2029 625,000.00 632,589.05 624,862.19 3.97 No John Deere Owner Trust ABS 03/25/2024 11/15/2028 500,000.00 506,538.37 499,765.63 4.09 No American Express Credit Master Trust ABS 04/16/2024 04/16/2029 1,235,000.00 1,263,392.95 1,234,746.83 3.88 No Hyundai Auto Lease Securitization Tr ABS 05/14/2024 05/17/2027 610,000.00 615,805.52 609,983.04 4.26 No Honda Auto Receivables Owner Trust ABS 05/14/2024 11/20/2028 535,000.00 543,290.60 534,935.00 3.89 No Mercedes-Benz Auto Lease Trust ABS 05/17/2024 01/18/2028 410,000.00 416,182.65 409,952.03 4.07 No BMW Vehicle Owner Trust ABS 06/04/2024 02/26/2029 700,000.00 708,855.93 699,893.67 3.92 No Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust ABS 11/19/2024 08/15/2029 1,070,000.00 1,084,706.18 1,069,965.65 3.92 No American Express Credit Master Trust ABS 05/06/2025 04/15/2030 1,600,000.00 1,618,328.36 1,599,971.04 3.92 No American Express Credit Master Trust ABS 10/25/2023 09/15/2026 500,000.00 507,672.22 495,781.25 3.87 No Federal Home Loan Banks Agency 03/22/2023 03/10/2028 1,500,000.00 1,531,964.43 1,529,865.00 3.69 No Farm Credit System Agency 06/02/2023 06/08/2028 2,000,000.00 2,032,968.85 1,996,034.00 3.70 No Farm Credit System Agency 08/17/2023 08/07/2028 1,000,000.00 1,020,996.00 989,510.00 3.70 No Farm Credit System Agency 11/09/2023 11/15/2027 2,000,000.00 2,072,358.92 1,992,580.00 3.70 No FNMA Agency 12/01/2022 04/24/2026 1,000,000.00 999,725.82 940,290.00 3.85 No Farm Credit System Agency 08/21/2023 08/14/2026 2,500,000.00 2,530,540.83 2,478,850.00 3.75 No Federal Home Loan Banks Agency 10/24/2023 09/11/2026 3,000,000.00 3,031,572.61 2,969,070.00 3.76 No FHLMC Agency CMBS 03/30/2023 11/25/2027 1,000,000.00 990,035.40 955,625.00 3.87 No FHLMC Agency CMBS 04/11/2023 09/25/2027 976,330.39 964,989.66 940,175.66 3.87 No FHLMC Agency CMBS 04/13/2023 07/25/2027 1,000,000.00 989,615.67 964,531.20 3.87 No FHLMC Agency CMBS --- 12/25/2026 915,000.00 911,395.97 881,380.27 1.13 No FHLMC Agency CMBS --- 01/25/2028 1,500,000.00 1,485,856.15 1,448,730.47 3.86 No FHLMC Agency CMBS --- 05/25/2028 2,512,000.00 2,515,105.92 2,382,240.00 3.86 No FHLMC Agency CMBS --- 04/25/2028 1,500,000.00 1,504,667.85 1,427,285.16 3.83 No FHLMC Agency CMBS 10/30/2023 09/25/2028 1,500,000.00 1,504,370.35 1,411,113.28 3.87 No FHLMC Agency CMBS 10/31/2023 12/25/2027 1,500,000.00 1,489,100.55 1,397,167.97 3.85 No FHLMC Agency CMBS 02/27/2024 02/25/2029 3,650,000.00 3,601,179.30 3,445,542.97 3.90 No FHLMC Agency CMBS --- 01/25/2029 3,000,000.00 2,851,139.50 2,757,109.38 3.94 No FHLMC Agency CMBS 10/01/2024 08/25/2029 2,175,000.00 2,063,098.72 2,041,101.56 3.93 No FHLMC Agency CMBS 01/29/2025 11/25/2028 800,000.00 800,860.67 780,343.75 3.88 No Cash Cash --- 09/30/2025 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No
Cash Cash --- 09/30/2025 (1,650,000.00) (1,650,000.00) (1,650,000.00) 0.00 No Cash Cash --- 09/30/2025 2,003,823.99 2,003,823.99 2,003,823.99 0.00 No Northwestern Mutual Global Funding Corporate --- 09/15/2027 700,000.00 707,019.15 688,307.00 3.92 No Walmart Inc. Corporate --- 04/15/2028 1,250,000.00 1,276,969.73 1,239,252.50 3.75 No Apple Inc. Corporate 12/15/2022 11/13/2027 500,000.00 499,166.09 473,725.00 3.65 No Royal Bank of Canada Corporate 12/13/2022 08/03/2027 300,000.00 303,778.26 295,389.00 3.91 No The Toronto-Dominion Bank Corporate 12/13/2022 09/15/2027 300,000.00 304,502.00 300,258.00 4.00 No PepsiCo, Inc. Corporate 12/07/2022 10/15/2027 500,000.00 499,257.55 475,635.00 3.79 No Toyota Motor Corporation Corporate 11/16/2022 09/20/2027 400,000.00 405,170.00 395,160.00 3.93 No JPMorgan Chase & Co. Corporate 12/01/2022 09/22/2027 400,000.00 390,063.03 348,596.00 4.53 No Amazon.com, Inc. Corporate --- 12/01/2027 1,000,000.00 1,030,180.30 1,003,161.80 3.82 No PACCAR Inc Corporate 01/05/2023 01/10/2028 200,000.00 205,036.52 199,030.00 3.91 No Mastercard Incorporated Corporate --- 03/09/2028 1,350,000.00 1,385,147.72 1,348,072.20 3.87 No Deere & Company Corporate 03/23/2023 03/03/2028 600,000.00 615,783.92 613,824.00 3.92 No Merck & Co., Inc. Corporate 06/01/2023 05/17/2028 1,000,000.00 1,020,528.71 997,360.00 3.83 No Pricoa Global Funding I Corporate 06/01/2023 05/30/2028 500,000.00 521,091.31 502,005.00 4.10 No PACCAR Inc Corporate 08/03/2023 08/10/2028 405,000.00 419,326.57 404,360.10 3.89 No Deere & Company Corporate 10/24/2023 07/14/2028 500,000.00 518,749.58 488,890.00 3.92 No New York Life Insurance Company Corporate 10/24/2023 06/13/2028 500,000.00 518,587.30 481,860.00 4.01 No Northwestern Mutual Global Funding Corporate 10/24/2023 06/12/2028 750,000.00 779,032.55 722,362.50 3.96 No Morgan Stanley Corporate 10/27/2023 10/18/2028 1,000,000.00 1,070,595.84 1,002,120.00 4.83 No JPMorgan Chase & Co. Corporate 10/27/2023 07/25/2028 1,000,000.00 1,022,115.05 958,670.00 4.78 No Bank of America Corporation Corporate 12/18/2023 07/22/2028 1,000,000.00 1,023,879.74 996,710.00 4.82 No Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Corporate 01/09/2024 01/17/2029 780,000.00 804,570.00 779,898.60 4.14 No Eli Lilly and Company Corporate 02/07/2024 02/09/2029 935,000.00 955,719.24 934,382.90 4.00 No Deere & Company Corporate 02/20/2024 01/16/2029 500,000.00 512,189.80 495,830.00 4.01 No Toyota Motor Corporation Corporate 02/20/2024 01/05/2029 1,000,000.00 1,029,442.04 992,770.00 4.04 No Royal Bank of Canada Corporate 02/20/2024 02/01/2029 1,000,000.00 1,035,931.72 996,120.00 4.05 No Cisco Systems, Inc. Corporate --- 02/26/2029 1,500,000.00 1,546,271.83 1,501,104.25 4.02 No New York Life Insurance Company Corporate 02/29/2024 01/29/2029 750,000.00 769,814.74 740,580.00 4.10 No Northwestern Mutual Global Funding Corporate 02/29/2024 01/10/2029 750,000.00 771,054.71 740,122.50 4.13 No Blackrock, Inc. Corporate 03/05/2024 03/14/2029 1,740,000.00 1,783,684.85 1,736,850.60 3.98 No Met Tower Global Funding Corporate 05/28/2024 04/12/2029 500,000.00 529,333.10 499,395.00 4.20 No Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Corporate 05/28/2024 05/30/2029 500,000.00 523,970.29 498,975.00 4.24 No PepsiCo, Inc. Corporate 07/15/2024 07/17/2029 1,140,000.00 1,170,806.06 1,138,233.00 3.99 No Meta Platforms, Inc. Corporate --- 08/15/2029 1,500,000.00 1,527,317.35 1,500,395.13 3.94 No Caterpillar Inc. Corporate 08/16/2024 08/16/2029 1,500,000.00 1,528,870.14 1,502,595.00 3.99 No JPMorgan Chase & Co. Corporate 09/12/2024 07/23/2029 1,000,000.00 1,009,873.06 995,730.00 4.47 No Guardian Life Global Funding Corporate 09/23/2024 09/26/2029 1,220,000.00 1,220,112.70 1,220,000.00 4.19 No Caterpillar Inc. Corporate 11/22/2024 11/15/2029 1,000,000.00 1,042,022.56 999,600.00 4.05 No State Street Corporation Corporate 11/29/2024 11/23/2029 2,000,000.00 2,085,125.43 2,016,280.00 4.10 No Metropolitan Life Global Funding I Corporate 01/02/2025 01/09/2030 1,440,000.00 1,492,545.28 1,437,033.60 4.24 No Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Corporate 01/03/2025 01/10/2030 1,050,000.00 1,088,372.36 1,049,496.00 4.29 No Toyota Motor Corporation Corporate 01/06/2025 01/09/2030 1,550,000.00 1,614,127.20 1,546,683.00 4.17 No Deere & Company Corporate 01/06/2025 01/07/2028 915,000.00 939,880.31 914,725.50 3.89 No Morgan Stanley Corporate 01/13/2025 01/16/2030 1,350,000.00 1,402,044.48 1,339,537.50 4.55 No PepsiCo, Inc. Corporate 02/07/2025 02/07/2030 1,000,000.00 1,028,370.43 994,710.00 4.06 No Bank of America Corporation Corporate 02/12/2025 02/07/2030 1,000,000.00 998,582.71 958,580.00 4.48 No State Street Corporation Corporate 02/25/2025 02/28/2028 1,350,000.00 1,372,928.85 1,350,000.00 3.97 No Marin Clean Energy
Statement of Investments held at USBank
As of 9/30/2025
16 PACCAR Inc Corporate 05/05/2025 05/08/2030 2,160,000.00 2,237,834.76 2,156,652.00 4.12 No Eli Lilly and Company Corporate 05/16/2025 02/12/2030 1,000,000.00 1,032,201.91 1,011,760.00 4.10 No Pricoa Global Funding I Corporate 08/19/2025 05/28/2030 1,500,000.00 1,548,972.23 1,519,215.00 4.30 No CME Group Inc. Corporate 09/12/2025 03/15/2030 2,000,000.00 2,026,302.07 2,032,560.00 4.12 Yes Wells Fargo & Company Corporate 09/26/2025 09/15/2029 2,000,000.00 1,997,386.73 1,990,760.00 4.39 Yes Guardian Life Global Funding Corporate 09/30/2025 10/06/2030 1,650,000.00 1,650,000.00 1,650,000.00 4.33 Yes First American Govt Oblig fund Money Market Fund --- 09/30/2025 253,518.23 253,518.23 253,518.23 3.73 No State of California Municipal Bonds 10/30/2024 08/01/2029 1,755,000.00 1,814,003.10 1,764,248.85 3.76 No International Bank for Recon and Dev Supranational 08/25/2023 07/12/2028 2,500,000.00 2,507,179.14 2,385,525.00 3.68 No Inter-American Development Bank Supranational 02/20/2024 02/15/2029 2,500,000.00 2,546,498.71 2,474,725.00 3.70 No International Bank for Recon and Dev Supranational 12/12/2024 10/16/2029 1,750,000.00 1,790,290.15 1,721,510.00 3.73 No International Bank for Recon and Dev Supranational 03/14/2025 03/20/2030 2,000,000.00 2,032,135.05 1,993,200.00 3.76 No United States US Treasury --- 06/30/2027 1,000,000.00 1,001,728.94 968,453.13 3.63 No United States US Treasury --- 11/15/2026 1,000,000.00 988,726.23 923,117.19 3.73 No United States US Treasury --- 10/31/2027 1,000,000.00 1,027,418.48 1,005,632.81 3.61 No United States US Treasury --- 03/31/2027 3,000,000.00 2,949,581.04 2,851,679.68 3.67 No United States US Treasury --- 12/31/2027 1,500,000.00 1,522,950.91 1,520,419.92 3.62 No United States US Treasury 06/01/2023 05/31/2028 2,000,000.00 2,024,677.25 1,993,046.88 3.62 No United States US Treasury 08/21/2023 07/31/2028 2,500,000.00 2,550,577.45 2,463,964.84 3.63 No United States US Treasury 09/25/2023 08/31/2028 400,000.00 409,639.24 395,781.25 3.63 No United States US Treasury 10/26/2023 10/31/2028 3,000,000.00 3,168,077.45 3,002,929.69 3.64 No United States US Treasury 10/30/2023 10/15/2026 3,000,000.00 3,091,805.89 2,978,789.06 3.71 No United States US Treasury 11/09/2023 11/15/2026 1,500,000.00 1,540,793.98 1,496,308.59 3.73 No United States US Treasury 02/16/2024 01/31/2029 2,000,000.00 2,035,118.88 1,972,500.00 3.65 No United States US Treasury 02/27/2024 02/15/2027 3,000,000.00 3,033,148.78 2,971,171.88 3.69 No United States US Treasury 04/29/2024 03/31/2029 1,000,000.00 1,015,347.70 976,367.19 3.66 No United States US Treasury 05/03/2024 04/30/2029 2,500,000.00 2,628,171.70 2,515,966.80 3.67 No United States US Treasury --- 05/31/2029 4,400,000.00 4,589,947.26 4,442,750.00 3.67 No United States US Treasury 07/18/2024 06/30/2029 1,500,000.00 1,545,934.95 1,510,605.47 3.68 No United States US Treasury --- 08/31/2029 6,500,000.00 6,504,435.61 6,539,550.78 3.69 No United States US Treasury 10/04/2024 09/30/2029 2,000,000.00 1,986,051.69 1,976,250.00 3.69 No United States US Treasury 11/19/2024 10/31/2029 3,000,000.00 3,099,482.00 2,985,234.38 3.70 No United States US Treasury 01/19/2023 11/30/2025 500,000.00 503,821.83 487,656.25 4.08 No United States US Treasury 12/13/2022 12/15/2025 1,000,000.00 1,011,832.58 1,002,617.19 3.94 No United States US Treasury 12/16/2024 11/30/2029 2,000,000.00 2,059,912.91 1,988,515.63 3.70 No United States US Treasury --- 01/15/2026 3,000,000.00 3,023,731.76 2,974,648.44 3.95 No United States US Treasury 02/26/2024 02/15/2026 3,000,000.00 3,015,794.84 2,960,156.25 3.94 No United States US Treasury 04/04/2025 03/31/2030 2,000,000.00 1,991,996.06 2,000,078.13 3.72 No United States US Treasury 06/14/2023 04/15/2026 2,000,000.00 2,033,732.71 1,963,984.38 3.83 No United States US Treasury 05/08/2025 04/30/2030 3,000,000.00 3,067,632.46 2,983,593.75 3.72 No United States US Treasury 06/01/2023 05/15/2026 2,000,000.00 2,024,642.33 1,979,843.75 3.84 No United States US Treasury --- 05/31/2030 5,000,000.00 5,125,806.86 4,998,007.81 3.72 No United States US Treasury --- 05/31/2026 1,000,000.00 995,961.70 933,953.13 3.84 No United States US Treasury 07/09/2025 06/30/2030 3,000,000.00 3,047,776.83 2,989,687.50 3.73 No United States US Treasury 08/21/2025 07/31/2030 2,500,000.00 2,531,360.38 2,502,734.38 3.74 No United States US Treasury --- 08/31/2030 4,000,000.00 3,991,792.13 3,987,734.37 3.74 Yes 197,150,528.62 200,096,513.76 194,843,173.56 3.87
17 Attachment E: Statement of Transactions at USBank
Marin Clean Energy
Statement of Transactions at USBank
For September 2025
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date
Security Description Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/
Sold Interest
Total Amount Net Realized
Gain/Loss
Buy 09/15/2025 CME GROUP INC 4.4 03/15/2030 3.995 (2,032,560.00) 0.00 (2,032,560.00) 0.00 Buy 10/06/2025 GUARDIAN LIFE GLOBAL FUNDING 4.327 10/06/2030 4.327 (1,650,000.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Buy 09/04/2025 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625 08/31/2030 3.701 (1,993,125.00) 801.10 (1,993,926.10) 0.00 Buy 09/23/2025 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625 08/31/2030 3.685 (1,994,609.37) 4,606.35 (1,999,215.72) 0.00 Buy 09/29/2025 WELLS FARGO & CO 4.078 09/15/2029 4.445 (1,990,760.00) 3,171.78 (1,993,931.78) 0.00 Buy Total (9,661,054) 8,579 - (8,019,634)
Sell 09/30/2025 GUARDIAN LIFE GLOBAL FUNDING 3.246 03/29/2027 4.630 692,853.00 (126.23) 0.00 5,904.63 Sell 09/30/2025 GUARDIAN LIFE GLOBAL FUNDING 5.737 10/02/2028 5.893 784,185.00 (21,394.23) 0.00 37,214.98 Sell 09/12/2025 MET TOWER GLOBAL FUNDING 5.4 06/20/2026 5.614 504,430.00 (6,375.00) 510,805.00 5,183.65 Sell 09/30/2025 METROPOLITAN LIFE GLOBAL FUNDING I 3.45 12/18/2026 5.635 496,885.00 (4,935.42) 0.00 8,900.05 Sell 09/12/2025 MICROSOFT CORP 3.3 02/06/2027 4.120 496,915.00 (1,787.50) 498,702.50 2,151.63 Sell 09/12/2025 PRICOA GLOBAL FUNDING I 5.55 08/28/2026 5.679 761,227.50 (1,965.62) 763,193.12 12,223.83 Sell 09/12/2025 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK 5.532 07/17/2026 5.402 404,732.00 (3,565.07) 408,297.07 4,337.66 Sell 09/03/2025 UNITED STATES TREASURY 2.875 11/30/2025 3.790 498,593.75 (3,770.49) 502,364.24 (378.59) Sell 09/03/2025 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25 10/15/2025 4.189 1,000,039.07 (16,489.08) 1,016,528.15 (25.05) Sell 09/24/2025 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 3.85 06/15/2028 5.256 997,190.00 (10,694.44) 1,007,884.44 30,694.23 Sell 09/24/2025 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 3.7 05/15/2027 4.521 398,660.00 (5,344.45) 404,004.45 3,514.68 Sell Total 7,035,710 (76,448) 5,111,779 109,722
18 CONFIDENTIAL | 2
Marin Clean Energy | Account #10993 | As of September 30, 2025 Execution Time: 10/02/2025 03:17:29 PM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747
PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Portfolio Characteristics
Sector Allocation
Performance Review
Account Summary
Maturity Distribution
Top Issuers
Credit Quality*
Total Rate of Return** 1M 3M YTD 1YR 2YRS 3YRS 5YRS 10YRS Since Inception (01/01/23)
Marin Clean Energy 0.29% 1.31% 4.97% 4.18% 6.14% -- -- -- 4.98% Benchmark Return 0.24% 1.14% 4.57% 3.77% 5.58% -- -- -- 4.48% Secondary Benchmark Return 0.26% 1.19% 4.66% 3.90% 5.76% -- -- -- -- Average Modified Duration 2.59
Average Coupon 4.15%
Average Purchase YTM 4.49%
Average Market YTM 3.87%
Average Credit Quality* AA+
Average Final Maturity 3.05
Average Life 2.65
End Values as of
08/31/2025
End Values as of
09/30/2025
Market Value 197,976,487.28 198,521,151.75
Accrued Interest 1,545,418.63 1,575,362.00
Total Market Value 199,521,905.91 200,096,513.75
Income Earned 608,040.95 855,516.66
Cont/WD 0.00 0.00
Par 196,482,200.59 197,150,528.61
Book Value 195,136,450.84 195,940,396.88
Cost Value 193,960,084.51 194,843,173.55
United States 40.47%
FHLMC 10.89%
Farm Credit System 3.82%
International Bank for Recon and Dev 3.16%
Federal Home Loan Banks 2.29%
State Street Corporation 1.72%
American Express Credit Master Trust 1.70%
Toyota Motor Corporation 1.52%
**Periods over 1 year are annualized.
Benchmark: ICE BofA 1-5 Year Unsubordinated US Treasury & Agency Index Secondary Benchmark: ICE BofA 1-5 Year Gov/Corp A or better *The average credit quality is a weighted average calculation of the highest of S&P, Moody’s and Fitch.
Attachment F: Fixed Income Portfolio at USBank Summary
19 Attachment G: Statement of Investments held at River City Bank Investment Description Purchase Date Maturity Date Interest Rate Purchase Price Yield Most Recent Price (MTM)
% Total
Portfolio
River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 11/9/2023 11/6/2025 5.01% 4,000,000 5.14% 4,000,000 4.97% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 11/16/2023 11/13/2025 4.90% 2,000,000 5.02% 2,000,000 2.48% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 11/24/2023 11/20/2025 4.96% 2,000,000 5.08% 2,000,000 2.48% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 12/14/2023 12/11/2025 4.83% 6,000,000 4.95% 6,000,000 7.45% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 12/21/2023 12/18/2025 4.51% 5,000,000 4.61% 5,000,000 6.21% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 1/30/2025 1/29/2026 4.24% 1,000,000 4.33% 1,000,000 1.24% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 2/15/2024 2/12/2026 4.74% 1,000,000 4.85% 1,000,000 1.24% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 2/22/2024 2/19/2026 4.69% 4,000,000 4.80% 4,000,000 4.97% River City Bank CDARS, 52 weeks 8/21/2025 2/19/2026 4.11% 5,000,000 4.21% 5,000,000 6.21% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 2/29/2024 2/26/2026 4.80% 2,000,000 4.92% 2,000,000 2.48% River City Bank CDARS, 52 weeks 8/28/2025 2/26/2026 4.06% 5,000,000 4.14% 5,000,000 6.21% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 3/28/2024 3/26/2026 4.66% 2,000,000 4.77% 2,000,000 2.48% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 4/11/2024 4/9/2026 4.84% 1,500,000 4.96% 1,500,000 1.86% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 4/18/2024 4/16/2026 5.07% 4,000,000 5.20% 4,000,000 4.97% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 5/9/2024 5/7/2026 4.92% 5,000,000 5.04% 5,000,000 6.21% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 5/30/2024 5/28/2026 5.04% 4,000,000 5.17% 4,000,000 4.97% River City Bank CDARS, 52 weeks 6/20/2024 6/19/2026 4.85% 4,000,000 4.97% 4,000,000 4.97% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 8/1/2024 7/30/2026 4.45% 4,000,000 4.55% 4,000,000 4.97% River City Bank CDARS, 52 weeks 8/14/2025 8/13/2026 3.90% 5,000,000 3.98% 5,000,000 6.21% River City Bank CDARS, 52 weeks 8/21/2025 8/20/2026 3.91% 5,000,000 3.99% 5,000,000 6.21% River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 1/9/2025 1/7/2027 4.40% 4,000,000 4.50% 4,000,000 4.97% - River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 8/7/2025 8/5/2027 3.72% 5,000,000 3.79% 5,000,000 6.21% Total $80,500,000 $80,500,000 100%
Weighted Average Interest and Yield on All Investments 4.52% 4.62% Marin Clean Energy
Statement of Investments held at River City Bank
As of 9/30/2025
20 Attachment H: Statement of Transactions at River City Bank Marin Clean Energy
Statement of Transactions at River City Bank
For September 2025
Transaction Type Investment Description Effective Date Maturity/Purchase Date
Principal Interest Paid Total Amount Realized Gain Realized Loss Annualized Yield
Maturity River City Bank CDARS, 52 weeks 9/12/2024 9/11/2025 5,000,000 212,301 $5,212,301 $537,539 - 4.26% Maturity River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 9/21/2023 9/18/2025 2,000,000 217,668 $2,217,668 $229,481 - 5.32% Maturity River City Bank CDARS, 2 years 9/28/2023 9/25/2025 2,000,000 215,899 $2,215,899 $231,046 - 5.27% Maturity Total 9,000,000 645,868 9,645,868 998,066
No CDARs were purchased in September 2025.
Purchase Total - - - - -
21 November 20, 2025
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Sabrinna Soldavini, Vice President of Policy
RE: Strategic Alignment and Update on Regulatory Advocacy (Agenda Item #07)
ATTACHMENT: Strategic Alignment and Update on Regulatory Advocacy PPT
Dear MCE Board Members:
Summary:
This report provides an overview of MCE’s regulatory policy advocacy, particularly as it relates to two key regulatory proceedings ongoing before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that will impact MCE and its customers: 1) the Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) Rulemaking; and 2) the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) Rulemaking.
To preserve flexibility in active regulatory proceedings, Staff is not seeking input on specific positions but seeks high-level discussion to ensure that Staff’s regulatory advocacy emphasizing: local jurisdiction, fair cost allocation, fair competition, and advancing principles of equity and affordability remains aligned with the Board’s overall strategic priorities. Staff will continue to manage specific regulatory strategies consistent with this policy direction.
Regulatory Engagement and Advocacy
As a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) operating in the heavily regulated electricity industry, MCE Staff (Staff) routinely engage in regulatory proceedings and policy efforts before California regulatory agencies such as the CPUC, California Energy Commission (CEC), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO).
Regulatory engagement is a critical function of MCE’s operations and is necessary to ensure compliance on a broad range of issues including, energy procurement and reliability, clean and renewable energy mandates, and reporting requirements. Compliance focused regulatory activity is aimed at ensuring that MCE avoids the consequences of non-compliance such as fines, limits on expansion and reputational damage. 2 In addition to compliance-based activities, Staff engage in regulatory policy advocacy on a wide range of issues and policy efforts that have a direct impact on MCE’s operations (procurement costs, CCA procurement and ratemaking autonomy, customer impacts and affordability, competitive neutrality, etc.). Through this second critical regulatory function Staff are focused on reducing risk and ensuring equitable and affordable outcomes for MCE and its communities and customers.
At a high level, and guided by Board direction, Staff advocates through the lens of the following core principles:
1. Local Jurisdiction: Preserve MCE’s Board of Directors (Board) role as its primary governing body, preserve MCE’s procurement autonomy and right of self-procurement, and preserve the Board’s role as the sole ratemaking authority for MCE.
2. Fair Cost Allocation:
a. Prevent cross-subsidization between bundled (IOU) and unbundled (CCA) customers;
b. Ensure that non-bypassable charges (i.e. PCIA) are fair and transparent; and c. Minimize the impact and volatility of non-bypassable charges.
3. Fair Competition: Ensure a level playing field and competitive neutrality between the CCAs and Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs)
a. Ensure CCA’s ability to develop and administer rates and programs (energy efficiency, distributed energy resources, etc) in an equitable manner as the IOUs
b. Ensure fair and equal access to required data and systems
4. Equity and Affordability: The throughline in each of the above principles is a strong emphasis on ensuring equitable and affordable outcomes for MCE and CCA customers throughout the state.
a. Amidst a growing affordability crisis, it is crucial to advocate for policymakers in the state to carefully consider the impact of their decisions on equity and ratepayer affordability.
This report focuses on two broad regulatory policy categories, 1) procurement and 2) ratemaking, which have the potential to significantly impact MCE, our communities, and customers.
• Examples of Regulatory Procurement Issues and Mandates that can Impact MCE:
- Resource Adequacy (RA)
o Move to Slice of Day framework
o Increases in planning reserve margins
3 - Integrated Resource Planning (IRP)
o Mid-Term Reliability (MTR) Orders
o Future Ad-Hoc Procurement Orders
o Future Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program (RCPPP) - Power Source Disclosure (PSD)
o Move from annual to hourly accounting
- Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) Mandates
- Portfolio Content Categories (PCC) Limits
• Examples of Rates Proceedings the Impact Cost/Risk:
- Energy Resource and Recovery Account (ERRA) Applications - General Rate Case Applications
- Power Cost Indifference Adjustment Rulemaking (PCIA)
- Load Management Standards Rulemaking
Below, staff seeks to provide a status update on two active proceedings expected to impact MCE and invites Board discussion and confirmation that Staff’s advocacy efforts remain aligned with the Board’s overall priorities.
IRP – Incremental Ad Hoc Procurement Order Expected for 2029-2032 What is the IRP and How Has/Does MCE Engage?
The CPUC’s IRP is intended to be the umbrella long term procurement planning proceeding for Load Serving Entities (LSEs) regulated by the CPUC (IOUs, CCAs, and Electric Service Providers). Through the IRP, the CPUC seeks to ensure California has a safe, reliable, and cost-effective electricity supply.
MCE has consistently engaged in each of the CPUC’s IRP proceedings, and bi-annually files updated procurement plans with the CPUC.
In this venue, MCE has historically advocated for: 1) MCE’s Board to maintain its procurement autonomy and MCE’s right of self-procurement (Local Jurisdiction) , 2) equitable procurement obligations that accurately reflect CCAs load growth (Fair Cost Allocation), 3) the avoidance of decisions that may lead to increased costs and negative affordability impacts such as ad hoc procurement orders or over procurement (Affordability), and 4) the CPUC to develop a regulatory procurement framework that provides LSEs with a stable, predictable, planning framework that allows provides certainty and the ability to optimize procurement for reliability and affordability needs (Equity and Affordability, Fair Competition).
4 Update on Current IRP Activity and Advocacy Efforts
In September 2025, the CPUC issued an Administrative Law Judge Ruling (Ruling) presenting staff analysis and seeking feedback on the need for additional reliability procurement. Based on its analysis, the CPUC has determined there is a need for an additional ~6000 Megawatts (MW) of additional capacity by 2032 to meet reliability needs. This projected need for new capacity is largely attributable to forecast data center and transportation electrification load growth, as well as the expected decommissioning of Diablo Canyon (2000 MW) in 2030. To meet the identified need, the Ruling proposes that the CPUC order procurement for 6000 MW of additional capacity to come online from 2029 to 2032. The Ruling proposes that all CPUC-jurisdictional LSEs would then be allocated their share of need proportional to their peak load and be required to procure that amount.
As referenced above and in prior Board meetings, MCE has been critical of the use of ad hoc procurement orders. The CPUC has previously utilized ad hoc procurement orders to ensure Mid-Term Reliability (MTR) orders. From MCE’s perspective as a market participant, prior ad hoc procurement orders, served as policy shocks that ultimately lead to exacerbated existing market challenges and shifted market power and leverage to suppliers – resulting in unusually high prices for resources procured to comply with the MTR orders.
Accordingly, in response to the Ruling, MCE filed Reply Comments advocating for the CPUC to:
1. Find that another procurement order is not needed at this time. Rather than issue an ad hoc procurement order that is expected to exacerbate market challenges and the affordability crisis, the Commission should prioritize adoption of the Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program (RCPPP) – a more stable and predictable regulatory procurement framework that will better allow LSEs to plan ahead and minimize policy (and cost) shocks. (Fair Competition, Affordability)
a. Staff comments also highlighted that ad hoc procurement orders are not the only mechanism to drive procurement and that CCAs like MCE were founded with the express purpose to procure energy for its communities’ needs and will continue to procure to meet our customers’ reliability needs absent a procurement order from the CPUC. (Local Jurisdiction)
2. If it rejects MCE’s recommendation and issues a procurement order, the Commission should:
a. Carefully consider the full impacts of any such action on the market and ratepayers by studying and publishing the expected fiscal impacts of issuing another ad hoc procurement order before issuance. (Equity and Affordability) 5 b. Allocate procurement needs to LSE’s based on individual, and specific, LSE need as opposed to a pro-rata share to minimize the subsidization of reliability need between LSEs and their customers. (Fair Cost Allocation, Equity and Affordability)
A Proposed Decision (PD) is expected on the Ruling by the end of the year. Staff plans to continue to advocate in this proceeding based on the above principles and will provide updates as they become available.
PCIA
What is the PCIA?
The CPUC is required by law to ensure “indifference” and prevent cost shifts between bundled and unbundled customers. To ensure indifference, IOUs like Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) are allowed to recover costs for generation resources from unbundled customers that were incurred on their behalf before they departed IOU service, minus the value of benefits of those resources that remain with bundled customers, via the PCIA. Although the PCIA is intended to recover IOU costs prior to customer departure, in certain the IOUs have been permitted by the CPUC to extend contracts beyond original termination dates and apply ongoing contract costs to customers who had already departed.
The PCIA is collected via different customer vintages, and customers vintages are based on the date their community started CCA service (i.e. the PCIA vintage a customer pays includes the “indifference” amount for all contracts up until the year they departed). While the PCIA can vary significantly from year to year and from customer to customer based on vintage year, at present the PCIA accounts for approximately 2-4.5% of customers total bills.
The PCIA is calculated as the difference between IOU Portfolio Costs and IOU Portfolio Value where portfolio value Is calculated using Market Price Benchmarks (MPBs) set by the CPUC.
The Commission currently uses three MPBs to calculate the PCIA:
1. RA Adder: reflects the estimated value of each unit of capacity in an IOUs PCIA-eligible portfolio that can be used to satisfy RA obligations
2. RPS Adder: reflects the estimated value of each unit of RPS-eligible energy
3. Energy Index: reflects the estimated market value of each unit of energy in an IOU’s PCIA-eligible portfolio.
How Does MCE Engage in PCIA Advocacy
MCE has engaged in PCIA advocacy since its inception, and advocacy efforts have focused on:
6 1. Ensuring equitable access to benefits of PCIA resources that CCA customers are paying for (Fair Competition, Fair Cost Allocation, and Equity and Affordability);
2. Reducing volatility in the PCIA (Equity and Affordability, Fair Competition);
3. Increasing transparency and integrity of the PCIA methodology (Equity and Affordability);
4. Long term structural reform of PCIA through mechanisms such as the sunsetting of the PCIA, a framework to pre-pay for an LSE’s share of the PCIA, re-vintaging of resources, requirements for the IOUs to optimize their portfolio (Local Jurisdiction, Equity and Affordability, Fair Cost Allocation, Fair Competition).
Current PCIA Proceeding Update and Regulatory Advocacy
In February 2025, the CPUC issued an Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) to update the ERRA and PCIA policies and processes. In this proceeding, the CPUC is evaluating potential changes to the methodology of calculating the PCIA through two tracks. Track 1 considered interim changes to the calculation of the RA MPB, on an expedited basis. Track 2 will consider broader, long-term changes to the overall PCIA methodology and will begin in 2026.
Track 1
In Track 1 MCE worked with CalCCA to advocate that any changes to the RA MPB be supported fully by data and evidence (Fair Cost Allocation, Fair Competition, Equity and Affordability), be transparent and protect the integrity of both bundled and unbundled customers (Fair Cost Allocation, Fair Competition, Equity and Affordability), and critically that they not be applied retroactively (Fair Competition, Equity and Affordability).
Unfortunately, in June 2025, the CPUC voted to finalize a Decision for Track 1 of the proceeding approving RA MPB methodology changes that are not substantiated by the record and allowing the IOUs’ to apply these changes retroactively. The allowance of retroactive ratemaking, which is broadly prohibited, is atypical and troubling, and expected to have a material impact (increase) on the PCIA in 2026.
In response to the Commission’s ruling allowing retroactive ratemaking, MCE worked with CalCCA to file an Application for Rehearing (AfR) of the Decision on July 28, 2025. In the AfR, CalCCA argued that the CPUC committed legal error by authorizing the IOUs to apply methodology changes retroactively and failing to support its Decision with substantial evidence (Fair Competition, Fair Cost Allocation, Equity and Affordability). On October 31, 2025, the CPUC regrettably denied the AfR. Staff continues to weigh advocacy options in response to the CPUC’s denial of the AfR and will provide updates as the become available.
Track 2
7 Track 2 of the PCIA Rulemaking is expected to begin early- to mid-2026. While the full scope of Track 2 has yet to be determined, Track 2 is expected to consider long-term structural reform of the PCIA mechanism. It has been several years since the CPUC has allowed for the consideration of long term PCIA changes, so this is Track will be of critical importance to MCE and the CCA community at large and is expected to impact the PCIA for many years to come.
MCE is working internally and with our CCA partners and CalCCA to develop strategy and proposals for Track 2. MCE intends for its advocacy efforts to follow MCE’s broad policy priorities as listed above and to ensure that any changes to the PCIA mechanism and/or methodology are fair, accurate, transparent, are not applied retroactively, and do not unfairly shift costs to CCA customers. Staff will provide updates to the Board as Track 2 begins to unfold in 2026.
Fiscal Impacts:
There are no immediate fiscal impacts as a result of this discussion item. However, any ad hoc procurement order issued by the CPUC is likely to have a significant impact on MCE’s direct costs for electricity in future fiscal years. Also, the outcome of the CPUC’s PCIA rulemaking is likely to impact total bill costs for MCE’s customers as early as January 2026.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends this item be discussion only. No action is requested. To preserve flexibility in active regulatory proceedings, Staff is not seeking input on specific positions but seeks high-level discussion to ensure that Staff’s regulatory advocacy emphasizing: 1) maintaining local jurisdiction, 2) fair cost allocation, 3) fair competition, and 4) advancing principles of equity and affordability remains aligned with the Board’s overall strategic priorities.
Strategic
Alignment:
Regulatory Update
and Advocacy
MCE Board of Directors
November 20, 2025
2 Regulatory Policy
Advocacy Principles
MCE’s regulatory advocacy is consistent with
Board directives and agency priorities and
focused on four main pillars:
1. Local Jurisdiction
2. Fair Competition
3. Fair Cost Allocation
4. Equity and Affordability
IRP Proceeding Update
3 • IRP = Integrated Resource Plan
• CPUC uses IRPs for long-term planning
• Key Goal: Maintain grid reliability & support CA decarbonization goals What is the IRP?
• Required to submit IRP plans to CPUC every two years
• Continuously engage in CPUC proceedings advocating on behalf of MCE and CCAs
How Does MCE Engage in the IRP?
IRP Update – New
Procurement Order?
• In late September, the CPUC issued an
analysis identifying a need for new capacity
to meet state reliability needs.
• Drivers: Data center load growth and
transportation electrification.
• CPUC Staff Proposal:
• Issue a procurement order for 6,000
MW of new capacity by 2032.
• Require all CPUC-jurisdictional LSEs to
procure proportional shares of the
6,000 MW from 2029–2032.
MCE could be
allocated
approximately
180 MW of new
procurement
obligation
4 Technology Price Trends (2021-2025)
• While we cannot attribute price increases to a single factor, technology prices have significantly increased over this time period.
• Based on MCE Solicitations:
• Stand Alone Battery Storage – 13% Increase on Average • Battery Storage + Solar – 72% Increase on Average
• Stand Alone Solar – 60% Increase on Average
• Solar + Storage – 88% Increase on Average
• Wind – 84% Increase on Average
• Geothermal – 100% Increase on Average
5 MCE’s Advocacy in Response to the Ruling
MCE Key Recommendations:
1. No new procurement order now – prioritize RCPPP to avoid market and affordability shocks - Fair Competition, Local Jurisdiction, Equity and Affordability
2. If procurement is ordered:
• Publish expected fiscal impacts before issuance – Equity & Affordability • Allocate based on individual LSE need, not pro-rata – Fair Cost Allocation, Fair Competition, Local Jurisdiction, Equity & Affordability
3. Proposed Decision expected by year-end.
6 PCIA Overview
• Recovers above market IOU costs from CCA customers that were incurred on their behalf
• Intended to leave bundled customers “indifferent”
• Varies by vintage year; approx. 2–4.5% of total customer bill • Based on IOU Portfolio Costs minus Portfolio Value using CPUC Market Price Benchmarks
• MCE advocacy focuses on:
• Fair access to benefits paid for by CCA customers
• Reducing volatility
• Improving transparency
• Structural reform (sunset, buyouts, re-vintaging, IOU optimization) 7 What is the PCIA?
• Recovers above market IOU costs from CCA customers that were incurred on their behalf
• Intended to leave bundled customers “indifferent”
• Recovered by PG&E via volumetric fee ($/kWh) from all MCE customers on their bills
• Includes a vintage year (MCE has several)
• Has a direct impact on MCE customers costs
• Approximately 2-4.5% of total bill for an average customer 8 CPUC PCIA Proceeding
9 Track 1
(completed 2025)
• CPUC adopted RA market price benchmark
methodology changes.
• Allows retroactive application, increasing 2016 PCIA
costs.
• CalCCA filed application for rehearing – denited in
October
• Staff and CalCCA seeking opportunities for continued
engagement
Track 2
(2026-2027)
• Evaluate widespread, long-term changes to PCIA
methodology
Track 2: Structural Changes to PCIA
10 The scope for Track 2 is still to be determined
MCE and CalCCA will
consider advocating for
structural changes to the PCIA
- Allocation of attributes of PCIA resources
- Sunsetting the PCIA
- Re-vintaging of resources
- Further considerations of Market Price
Benchmark revisions
Advocacy focus to ensure changes are accurate, transparent, and do not unfairly shift costs to CCA customers
11 Discussion
• Staff aims to ensure that regulatory policy
advocacy remains aligned with the Board’s
overall strategic priorities.
• Do the principles continue to reflect the
Board’s direction for regulatory advocacy?
1. Local Jurisdiction
2. Fair Cost Allocation
3. Fair Competition; and
4. Equity and Affordability
• Within these principles, are there any areas
you feel should receive greater emphasis?
mceCleanEnergy.org
[email protected]
Thank you!
November 20, 2025
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Justine Parmelee, VP of Internal Operations
RE: Placement of Finance Functions for Board Engagement (Agenda Item #08)
ATTACHMENTS: A. MCE Standing Committees (current)
B. Finance Items Presented to Board and Committees (current) C. MCE Executive Committee Meeting Minutes October 2025 D. MCE Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2024 E. CCA Standing Committee Research
Dear MCE Board Members:
Summary:
MCE has two standing committees: the Executive Committee and the Technical Committee (see Attachment A). The Executive Committee’s scope currently includes finance, along with intersecting topics such as budget-setting, rates, power supply planning, regulatory and market risks, and approval of large contracts for service.
MCE’s Technical Committee’s scope includes consideration and approval of power supply agreements, which represent approximately 94% of MCE’s annual budget. The Technical Committee scope also includes discussion and recommendation on risk management oversight and guidelines.
The Board may wish to consider whether to maintain this integrated structure or to separate financial matters into a new, standing Finance Committee. Creating a separate finance committee would not change the amount or type of financial information provided but would determine where — and with whom — that information is reviewed and discussed (see Attachment B).
Background
At the December 2, 2024 Executive Committee meeting, the committee discussed revisiting MCE committee structure. In preparation for that meeting, staff researched and shared information on other CCAs and their standing committees. The Executive Committee voted to make no change to the committee structure with a roll call vote of 6 in favor and 2 opposed, as reflected in the December 2024 meeting minutes (Attachment D).
This item was revisited by the Executive Committee on October 6, 2025. There was no staff presentation at this meeting, but input and suggestions were provided by Committee members.
During the discussion, Board Chair Scales-Preston proposed renaming the Executive Committee to “Executive and Finance Committee”, citing concerns about quorum and meeting scheduling, as well as a need to have more voices representing a wide swath of MCE’s member communities and increased transparency around finance matters. Director Darling supported this suggestion, citing the rationale for the December 2024 vote. Director Llorens-Gulati recommended that committee members ask for more details in Executive Committee meetings if they would like deeper dives.
Director Coler suggested scheduling finance discussions at Executive Committee meetings on a regular cadence, including deeper discussion of the quarterly treasurer’s report.
Director Wilkinson expressed interest in the formation of a finance committee, citing large CCAs that use them as a testing ground, as a first-round review for budgets and rates, and for in depth dives into risk modeling and hourly accounting. Director Andre cited concerns about fiduciary responsibility. Executive Committee Chair Perrey stated that a finance committee would not need to include members of the Executive Committee to serve and could welcome new membership and noted that the Executive Committee has a robust scope including legislation, marketing, and awards.
After discussion, the Executive Committee voted on two motions to recommend to the Board for consideration:
Motion A: Rename the Executive Committee to Executive and Finance Committee with a quarterly deep dive into financials.
(Yays-8, Nos-3)
Motion B: Create a standing Finance Committee (separate from Executive Committee). (Yays-7, Nos-4)
The minutes for this meeting are included in Attachment C.
Regardless of whether or not a finance committee is formed, MCE’s monthly and quarterly Treasurer’s reports will continue to be provided to the full Board as they have been for many years.
In considering the potential for a finance committee it may be useful to reference the current scope of MCE’s Executive and Technical Committee (Attachment A) and the current placement of finance items on Board and committee agendas (Attachment B).
Fiscal Impacts:
Whether MCE’s monthly and quarterly finance reports are presented and discussed in the Executive Committee or in a Finance Committee has no direct fiscal impact. However, removing fiscal discussions from the Executive Committee may reduce its exposure to financial trends and intersecting topics currently in its scope.
Revisiting prior Board and Committee decisions, and creation of new committees has a modest impact on staff administrative time allocation, legal engagement, and in some cases, requires external support services.
Board items for consideration:
Change Executive Committee name to “Executive and Finance Committee” and add a standing quarterly finance review to agendas, to supplement existing finance topics already covered.
Separate the finance scope out of the Executive Committee and form a new, standing “Finance Committee”.
MCE’s Current Approach to Discussion and Action on
Finance Topics
Attachment A
MCE Executive Committee -- Finance Scope
• Finance recommendations to the Board including:
o Policy 013: Reserve Policy
o Policy 014: Investment Policy
o Entering into debt
o Rate setting
o Annual budget setting
o Budget adjustments
• Large purchase contracts exceeding CEO signing authority • Procurement pursuant to Resolution 2018-04 or its successor • Regulatory policies and advocacy to reduce MCE direct costs • Legislative positions outside of the Board-approved legislative plan impacting MCE costs MCE Technical Committee
• Electricity supply contracts: Electricity costs account for approximately 94% of MCE’s budget
• Procurement risk management (Implementing MCE’s Risk Management Policy) • Programs to balance load and supply
• Virtual Power Plant to protect against cost volatility • Distributed energy generation
• Electric vehicle load and supply
Finance Items Presented to MCE Board and Committees
Attachment B
Full Board distribution:
• Quarterly Treasurer Reports with Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 budgetary results, comparisons and customer statistics (via email and posted on website) • Monthly Treasurer Reports showing investments and transactions (via email) Full Board meetings for discussion/action:
• February of each year: Preliminary budget proposals
• March of each year: Final budget proposals and adoption • February/March of applicable years: Rate change proposals introduced, then considered for action at a subsequent meeting
• July of each year: Annual budget-to-actuals comparison • August of each year: Audited results (Third-party Audit presentation) For example: Audited Results presentations:
• August 2025: Cost of energy 2024/25 $769M (11% variance up) • August 2024: Cost of energy 2023/24 $571M (14% variance down) • August 2023: Cost of energy 2022/23 $559M (13% variance up) • August 2022: Cost of energy 2021/22 $433M (6% variance up) Financial Assessment of new community additions
• November 2020: Financial Assessment of expansion to Fairfield • November 2023: Financial Assessment of expansion to Hercules Executive Committee
• February of each year: Preliminary budget proposals
• March of each year: Final budget proposals
• February/March of applicable years: Rate change proposals • July of each year: Annual budget-to-actuals comparison • August of each year: Audited results (Third-party Audit presentation) • November 2020: Financial Assessment of expansion to Fairfield • November 2023: Financial Assessment of expansion to Hercules • Each fall/winter: Presentation on mid-year energy pro formal results and expectations
Technical Committee
• Approval of power purchase agreements: Accounting for majority of MCE’s budget
• Integrated Resource Plan: To recommend power supply portfolio • Power portfolio adjustments to address compliance-related costs Examples from the last 12 months
October 2024
Board Retreat Discussion of Volatility in Energy Market and Impact on Costs November 2024
Executive Committee Energy Pro Forma Review
• Provided VAMO Market Price Benchmark cost change: $15M impact to budget • Projected $35M higher full year power supply costs driven by 20% increase in renewable energy prices, plus grid congestion and curtailments February & March 2025
4 Meetings (Executive Committee and Board) Regarding Budget Forecasts and Planning for $120M Higher Cost of Energy
• Cost of energy represents 94% of the Operating Budget • $77M for increased cost of PCC1 renewable energy
• $20M impact of curtailment
• $13M to account for regulatory change: accounting for line losses • $10M for addition of Hercules
• Board members requested more optimistic planning for cost of energy given 14% more positive results in prior fiscal year
February 2025
Technical Committee Discussion/Approval of PPA
• Power purchase agreement (PPA) for 110 MW new PCC1 solar (276,000 MWh annually) plus 110 MW battery storage and RA for 20 years August 2025
Executive Committee Presentation on Audited Financial Results by Independent Auditor September 2025
Technical Committee Discussion/Approval of PPA
• PPA for 80 MW (167,181 MWh annually) of PCC1 wind power for 20 years Board Presentation on Audited Financial Results by Independent Auditor and Budget-to-Actuals Comparison presentation to full Board • Budgeted cost of energy was $689M, but actual cost was higher: $769M: (11.5% variance up)
• $100M increase in cost of energy was planned in budget • $80M increase in cost of energy was unplanned and due to 3 events:
o Higher deliveries from VAMO and renewables plus lower than expected usage (mild weather): $24M
o Higher than planned VAMO prices: $15M
o Early invoice ($80M invoice, staff negotiated down): $36M October 2025
Executive Committee Energy Pro Forma Review
Technical Committee Discussion/Approval of PPA
• PPA for 38 MW of wind power including PCC1, RA and ancillary services over 8 years
• PPA for 126.59 MW 4-hour duration, lithium-ion battery storage over 15 years Board Retreat Presentations/ Discussions related to MCE costs • Year in Review financial results
• Managing MCE’s Power supply Portfolio
• CAISO Risk Mitigation
• Using VPP to mitigate energy cost volatility
MCE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Monday, October 6, 2025
12:00 P.M.
Present: Stephanie Andre, City of Larkspur
Eli Beckman, Town of Corte Madera, left at 1:36 p.m.
Barbara Coler, Town of Fairfax
Cindy Darling, City of Walnut Creek
Maika Llorens Gulati, City of San Rafael
Devin Murphy, City of Pinole
Laura Nakamura, City of Concord
Max Perrey, City of Mill Valley, Chair
Gabriel Quinto, City of El Cerrito
Shanelle Scales-Preston, County of Contra Costa
Sally Wilkinson, City of Belvedere
Staff
& Others: Jared Blanton, VP of Public Affairs
Jesica Brooks, Lead Board Clerk and Executive Assistant John Dalessi, Pacific Energy Advisors
Jenn Green, Manager of Customer Programs
CB Hall, Principal Power Procurement Manager
Vicken Kasarjian, Chief Operations Officer
Caroline Lavenue, Legal Counsel II
Tanya Lomas, Board Clerk Associate
Catalina Murphy, General Counsel
Ashley Muth, Internal Operations Associate
Justine Parmelee, VP of Internal Operations
Mike Rodriguez-Vargas, Internal Operations Assistant
Dan Settlemyer, Internal Operations Associate
Taylor Sherman, IT Analyst
Maíra Strauss, VP of Finance
Dawn Weisz, Chief Executive Officer
1. Roll Call
Chair Perrey called the regular Executive Committee meeting to order at 12:02p.m. with quorum established by roll call.
2. Board Announcements (Discussion)
Comments were made by Directors Murphy and Scales-Preston.
3. Public Open Time (Discussion)
Comments were made by members of the public, Ken Strong and Jody Timms.
4. Report from Chief Executive Officer (Discussion)
Docusign Envelope ID: 6CFFDF70-42BC-47A3-861A-B444F080EDAE CEO, Dawn Weisz, introduced this item and addressed questions from Committee members.
5. Consent Calendar (Discussion/Action)
C.1 Approval of 8.28.25 Meeting Minutes
C.2 Resolution 2025-05 Chevron Grant Fund Acceptance
C.3 Draft 10.16.25 Board Retreat Agenda
Chair Perrey opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
Action 1: It was M/S/C (Coler/Murphy) to approve Consent Calendar items C.1 and C.2 with a correction to a clerical error on C.1. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.
Action 2: It was M/S/C (Darling/Murphy) to approve Consent Calendar item C.3. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.
8.Review of Executive Committee 2024 Items (Discussion/Action) a. Pro Forma Presentation and Discussion from November 2024 b. Committee Structure Discussion and Action from December 2024 Chair Perrey adjusted the order of items on the agenda and opened up the discussion on item 8b. There was not a staff presentation on this item, but materials prepared by staff in 2024 had been included in the packet. Item 8a was not discussed by the Committee.
Chair Perrey opened the public comment period and there were comments made by members of the public, Robert Miller, Dan Segedin and Jody Timms.
Action 1: It was M/S/C (Beckman/Wilkinson) to recommend to the Board of Directors creation of a standing Finance Committee to the full Board.
Motion carries by roll call vote. Yays-7 Nos-4 (Nos: Darling, Nakamura, Quinto, and Scales-Preston)
Action 2: It was M/S/C (Nakamura/Llorens Gulati) to recommend to the Board of Directors renaming the Executive Committee to Executive and Finance Committee with a quarterly deep dive into financials.
Motion carries by roll call vote. Yays-8 Nos-3 (Nos: Andre, Perrey, and Wilkinson)
6. MCE FY 2025/26 Pro Forma Update (Discussion)
John Dalessi, President & CEO, Pacific Energy Advisors, presented this item and addressed questions from Committee members.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6CFFDF70-42BC-47A3-861A-B444F080EDAE Chair Perrey opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
Action: No action required.
7. MCE Public Officials Code of Ethics (Discussion/Action) Chair Perrey recommended we defer this item to the December Executive Committee.
Action: No action required.
9. Committee & Staff Matters (Discussion)
There were no comments.
10. Adjournment
Chair Perrey adjourned the meeting at 2:34 p.m. to the next scheduled Executive Committee Meeting on November 3, 2025.
___________________________________________
Max Perrey, Chair
Attest:
___________________________________________
Dawn Weisz, Secretary
Docusign Envelope ID: 6CFFDF70-42BC-47A3-861A-B444F080EDAE
MCE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 4, 2024
12:00 P.M.
Present: Eli Beckman, Town of Corte Madera
Cindy Darling, City of Walnut Creek, Acting Chair
Maika Llorens Gulati, San Rafael
Lisa Motoyama, Alternate, City of El Cerrito, joined at 12:28pm Devin Murphy, City of Pinole, joined at 12:22pm
Laura Nakamura, City of Concord
Mathew Salter, Town of Ross
Sally Wilkinson, City of Belvedere
Absent: Eduardo Martinez, City of Richmond
Max Perrey, City of Mill Valley, Chair
Shanelle Scales-Preston, City of Pittsburg
Staff
& Others: Jesica Brooks, Lead Board Clerk and Executive Assistant Vicken Kasarjian, Chief Operations Officer
Shaheen Khan, VP of Human Resources, Diversity, and Inclusion Caroline Lavenue, Legal Counsel
Tanya Lomas, Internal Operations Coordinator
Lindsay Meehan, Manager of Human Resources
Catalina Murphy, General Counsel
Ashley Muth, Internal Operations Coordinator
Justine Parmelee, VP of Internal Operations
Enyonam Senyo-Mensah, Internal Operations Manager
Dan Settlemyer, Internal Operations Associate
Javier Montalbo, Customer Programs Manager
Carol Dorsett, Human Resources Specialist, Talent, Diversity, & Inclusion
Evelyn Reyes, Customer Programs Specialist
Maira Strauss, Director of Finance
Martin Bond, Senior Business Development Manager
Sol Phua, Customer Programs Specialist II
Nicole Busto, Director of Marketing
Efren Oxlaj, Finance Manager
Jackie Nunez, Senior Bilingual Communications Manager
Shyna Deepak, Communications Manager
Alice Havenar-Daughton, VP of Customer Programs
Jenn Green, Manager of Customer Programs
Jenna Tenney, Director of Communications & Community
Engagement
Alexandra McGee, VP of Strategic Initiatives
Zena Meyer, Finance Analyst
Jamie Tuckey, Chief Customer Officer
Dawn Weisz, Chief Executive Officer
Docusign Envelope ID: 4F89165E-59DB-4F30-8942-F4E8E099355B
1. Roll Call
Acting Chair Darling called the regular Executive Committee meeting to order at 12:01 p.m. with quorum established by roll call.
2. Board Announcements (Discussion)
There were no comments.
3. Public Open Time (Discussion)
Acting Chair Darling opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
4. Report from Chief Executive Officer (Discussion)
CEO, Dawn Weisz, introduced this item and addressed questions from Committee members.
5. Consent Calendar (Discussion/Action)
C.1 Approval of 11.6.24 Meeting Minutes
C.2 Proposed Fifth Agreement with Strategic Energy Innovations Acting Chair Darling opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
6. Revisiting MCE’s Committee Structure (Discussion/Action) Justine Parmelee, VP of Internal Operations, presented this item and addressed questions from Committee members.
Acting Chair Darling opened the public comment period and there were comments from member of the public Dan Segedin.
Action: It was M/S/C (Gulati/Nakamura) to approve Staff’s recommendation of no change to the current Committee Structure. Motion carried by roll call vote. 6-Yay, 2-No. (No: Salter, Wilkinson; Absent: Martinez, Perrey, and Scales-Preston).
7. Streamlined Executive Committee Meetings (Discussion/Action) Justine Parmelee, VP of Internal Operations, presented this item and addressed questions from Committee members.
Acting Chair Darling opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
Action: It was M/S/C (Gulati/Beckman) to approve Consent Calendar C.1 and C.2. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. (Absent: Martinez, Motoyama, Murphy, Perrey, and Scales-Preston).
Docusign Envelope ID: 4F89165E-59DB-4F30-8942-F4E8E099355B Action 1: It was M/S/C (Beckman/Gulati) to recommend to the Board of Directors:
i. Require one year of Board membership prior to joining the Executive Committee.
ii. Require one year of Executive Committee membership to be eligible to become Chair of the committee.
iii. Remove any member if the member community representative is absent for more than two meetings annually.
Motion does not carry. 4-yay, 4-no (No: Darling, Murphy, Motoyama, Murphy, Salter; Absent: Martinez, Perrey, and Scales-Preston).
Action 2: It was M/S/C (Salter/Motoyama) to recommend to the Board of Directors:
i.Require 6 months of Board membership prior to joining the Executive Committee.
ii.Require one year of Executive Committee membership to be eligible to become Chair of the committee.
iii.Remove any member if the member community representative is absent for more than two meetings annually.
Motion carried by roll call vote. 7-yays, 1-no. (No: Murphy; Absent: Martinez, Perrey, and Scales-Preston).
Action 3: It was M/S/C (Darling/Wilkinson) to hold two in-person meetings annually, alternating Primary Location between MCE’s San Rafael and Concord offices for every meeting, and to establish recommended best practices for deliberations: to allow one round of questions from each committee member, one round of comments from each committee member, then a call for action. Motion carried by roll call vote. 7-yays, 1-no. (No: Murphy; Absent: Martinez, Perrey, and Scales-Preston).
Action 4: It was M/S/C (Beckman/Wilkinson) to limit the term of the Executive Committee Chair to two one-year terms and to forward a recommendation to the Board and Technical Committee to adopt the same. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. (Absent: Martinez, Perrey, and Scales-Preston).
8. Update on Attracting and Retaining MCE Staff (Discussion) Shaheen Khan, Vice President of Human Resources, Diversity, and Inclusion, presented this item and addressed questions from Committee members.
Acting Chair Darling opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
Docusign Envelope ID: 4F89165E-59DB-4F30-8942-F4E8E099355B Action: No action required.
After agenda item #08, Acting Chair Darling had to leave the meeting and passed facilitation to Director Beckman to continue the meeting.
9. Committee & Staff Matters (Discussion)
There were no comments
10. Adjournment
Acting Chair Beckman adjourned the meeting at 2:34 p.m. to the next scheduled Executive Committee Meeting on January 1, 2025.
___________________________________________
Cindy Darling, Acting Chair
Attest:
___________________________________________
Dawn Weisz, Secretary
Docusign Envelope ID: 4F89165E-59DB-4F30-8942-F4E8E099355B Att. E CCA Standing Committee Research
Committees
CCA Executive Finance Technical/
Procurement
All Standing Committees Notes Credit Rating
Apple Valley Choice Energy (CalChoice) ・None The Apple Valley Town Council governs AVCE, and there are no other related
committees.
・S&P: A
Ava Community Energy ・Executive
・Marketing/Regulatory/Legislative
・Financial/Administrative/Procurement
・Community Advisory
・S&P: A
Central Coast Community Energy ・Policy Board
・Executive
・Audit and Finance
・Operations Board
・Community Advisory
3CE's Operations Board made up of City
Managers, not elected officials,
encompasses financial matters.
・S&P: A
Clean Energy Alliance ・Community Advisory ・S&P: A-Clean Power SF ・Community Advisory Overseen by SF PUC Commission which provides oversight on financial issues
and SF Board of Supervisors
・Moody's: A2
CPA - Clean Power Alliance ・Executive
・Finance
・Energy Planning and Resources
・Legislative and Regulatory
・Community Advisory
Executive Committee is used to provide
full "dry run" of all presentations in
advance of full boad meetings.
・S&P: A-Desert Community Energy ・Community Advisory Board and Community Advisory Committee administered by the
Coachella Valley Assn. of Governments
・S&P: BBB
Energy for Palmdale's Independent Choice (CalChoice) ・None Board is administered by the Palmdale City Council
・No rating
Lancaster Energy (CalChoice) ・None Lancaster receives all oversight from California Choice Energy Authority.
・S&P: A
Att. E CCA Standing Committee Research
Committees
CCA Executive Finance Technical/
Procurement
All Standing Committees Notes Credit Rating
Orange County Power Authority ・Marketing & Communications ・Legislative and Regulatory Committee
・Risk Oversight Committee
・No rating
Peninsula Clean Energy ・Executive
・Audit and Finance
・Community Advisory
・S&P: A-
・Moody's: Baa1
Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy (CalChoice) ・None ・No rating Pioneer Community Energy ・Audit and Finance
・Risk Oversight
・Community Programs Advisory
・S&P: A-Pomona Choice Energy (CalChoice) ・None ・No rating Rancho Mirage Energy Authority (CalChoice) ・None ・No rating Redwood Coast Energy Authority ・Finance
・Community Advisory
Finance Committee info is located at the
bottom of the Board page
・No rating
San Diego Community Power ・Finance and Risk Management
・Community Advisory
・No rating
San Jacinto Power (CalChoice) ・None ・No rating
Att. E CCA Standing Committee Research
Committees
CCA Executive Finance Technical/
Procurement
All Standing Committees Notes Credit Rating
San Jose Clean Energy ・Community Advisory Governed by San Jose City Council ・S&P: A ・Moody's: A2
Santa Barbara Clean Energy (CalChoice) ・None ・No rating Silicon Valley Clean Energy ・Executive
・Finance & Admin
・Audit
・Customer Program Adivsory
・Commerical & Industrial
・S&P: A
・Moody's: Baa1
Sonoma Clean Power ・Community Advisory ・S&P: A
Valley Clean Energy ・Community Advisory ・No rating
November 20, 2025
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Justine Parmelee, VP of Internal Operations
RE: MCE Public Officials Code of Ethics (Agenda Item #09) ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft MCE Public Officials Code of Ethics B. County of Marin Code of Ethics for Board and Commission Members C. Policy 004 - Prohibition of Untrue and Misleading Statements Dear MCE Board Members:
Summary:
Maintaining public trust and confidence in the integrity and ethical conduct of the Board and MCE employees is a core value. Many local public agencies use a code of ethics to guide public officials in carrying out their duties during service. While the Brown Act governs open meeting requirements, it does not prescribe broader standards of conduct. Establishing standards expresses a shared dedication to ethical, transparent, and effective governance in furthering MCE’s vision and mission.
Background:
When joining MCE’s Board of Directors, in addition to taking the oath of office, members are expected to undergo a board orientation on the background of MCE, the framework by which the agency operates, and a look at the challenges and opportunities ahead. During this orientation, the board is presented with the following assignment:
• Share: Spread the word about MCE programs, rebates, successes, and community-based work
• Inform: Notify MCE about key initiatives and events happening in your community with an energy nexus
• Govern: Approve MCE’s budget, rates, and policies
• Advise: Offer your perspective on community-based policy decisions • Advocate: Be a spokesperson and advocate for MCE with external parties and key stakeholders
A Code of Ethics can build on this assignment, and serve to reinforce public trust, clarify responsibilities, and reduce risks associated with unintentional procedural missteps. The County of Marin, County of Napa, Solano Irrigation District, Marin Municipal Water District, and East Bay Municipal Utility District all have useful and relevant ethics policies and/or “Code of Ethics” documents which serve as a helpful reference point for MCE to follow.
Code of Ethics:
The draft MCE Public Officials Code of Ethics (Attachment A) highlights several commitments surrounding ethics, meeting decorum, interactions with the public, interactions with other board members, and interactions with staff. These commitments were developed from examples in local jurisdictions, such as the County of Marin’s Code of Ethics (Attachment B) included in their Board and Commission Membership Guide, in conjunction with effective strategies developed during the November 21, 2024, Special Executive Committee meeting. Examples include:
• Act to support the agency’s mission and uphold public confidence in MCE and community choice aggregation.
• Use care and accuracy when making statements about MCE operations, based on verifiable information.
• Use the lens of MCE values in discussions and decision-making: inclusivity, accessibility, equity, innovation, fiscal responsibility, and sustainability. • Engage with colleagues, staff, and the public in a courteous, respectful, and professional manner and refrain from personal attacks, discriminatory remarks, or intimidation. • Involve community members in the decision-making process and promote an environment where diverse viewpoints are heard and respected.
• Use agency resources - including staff time, equipment, and facilities - mindfully and solely to advance agency business.
Adoption of the MCE Public Officials Code of Ethics will provide new and incumbent public officials with a unifying set of guidelines, enhance public confidence, and serve as a reference for staff when supporting Board operations and procedure.
MCE Policy 004 – Prohibition of Untrue and Misleading Statements (Attachment C) was approved by your Board on March 1, 2012, and is included as an additional resource.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Recommendation:
Approve the MCE Public Officials Code of Ethics.
[DRAFT] Policy 020 - MCE Public Officials Code of Ethics Purpose and Scope:
This Code of Ethics sets forth standards of behavior and responsibilities expected of public officials in conducting agency business on behalf of MCE and their respective communities. These standards affirm our shared commitment to ethical, transparent, and effective governance in furthering MCE’s vision and mission.
Public officials shall:
• Adhere to the rules of open and public meetings in the Ralph M. Brown Act. • Act to support the agency’s mission and uphold public confidence in MCE and community choice aggregation.
• Maintain the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and accountability. • Use care and accuracy when making statements about MCE operations, based on verifiable information.
• Use the lens of MCE values in discussions and decision-making: inclusivity, accessibility, equity, innovation, fiscal responsibility, and sustainability. • Engage with colleagues, staff, and the public in a courteous, respectful, and professional manner and refrain from personal attacks, discriminatory remarks, or intimidation. • Listen to understand instead of to rebut, and keep questions and discussion focused on the agenda topic.
• Come prepared to meetings by reviewing the pre-meeting packet and sending questions to staff when possible.
• Summarize feedback to keep in-meeting comments succinct, ensuring efficient and productive discussions.
• Involve community members in the decision-making process and promote an environment where diverse viewpoints are heard and respected.
• Work in partnership with other local agencies, businesses, and organizations to further the interest of MCE.
• Use agency resources - including staff time, equipment, and facilities - mindfully and solely to advance agency business.
• Provide feedback on staff performance directly to the CEO or head of Human Resources, rather than in open session.
• Safeguard the confidentiality of sensitive information, personnel records, and legal advice, disclosing them only as authorized by law; Protect sensitive and legally privileged information obtained in ad hoc and closed sessions.
• Avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest; disclose outside interests that could interfere with or conflict with maintaining an objective and impartial perspective and recuse yourself, as needed.
Code of ethics
Marin County’s Code of Ethics are guiding principles for all public officials, including board and commission members. When you follow the Code of Ethics, you commit to performing your duties to the highest standards of conduct.
If you receive a stipend or payment from the County and serve on a board, you are required to take the State of California’s ethics training.
The Code of Ethics ensures the common good is the hallmark of the decision making process.
Promote decisions that serve the public interest and promote the greatest public good.
Actively promote public confidence in county government through your actions.
Recognize and support the public’s right to know the public's business.
Involve citizens in the decision making process and welcome divergent points of view.
Respond to the public in ways that are complete, clear and easy to understand.
Maintain a respectful attitude toward employees, other public officials and colleagues.
Respect and protect privileged information (i.e., personnel matters, litigation).
Be a good listener, carefully considering all opinions and points of view.
Be informed on the background on issues before your commission or board.
Work in partnership with other governmental agencies, political subdivisions and organizations to further the interest of the county.
Reference to an appointed position or title will only be used when attending official meetings or functions and in no case shall my appointed title be used to promote or advance personal or political interests.
Void outside interests that will interfere or conflict with maintaining an objective and impartial perspective.
Carefully guard against conflict of interest or its appearance in your actions or decisions.
Accepting gifts, services or any object of value from any source offered to influence a decision is prohibited.
Board and commission member guide | Marin County
https://www.marincounty.gov/departments/board/boards-and-commissions/board-and-commission-member-guide 1/2 Efforts to influence or attempt to influence other officials to act in a manner benefiting your personal/financial interests are prohibited.
Evaluate recommendations (or decisions) to identify the best service, product or alternative at minimal cost without sacrificing quality or fiscal responsibility.
Comply with all laws and regulations applicable to an appointed official and those governing the conduct of meetings.
Board and commission member guide | Marin County
https://www.marincounty.gov/departments/board/boards-and-commissions/board-and-commission-member-guide 2/2
November 20, 2025
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Alice Havenar-Daughton, VP of Customer Programs
RE: Customer Programs Update (Agenda Item #10)
Dear MCE Board Members:
Summary:
The following tables provide key metrics on current MCE Customer Programs. CPUC-funded energy efficiency programs operate on a calendar year basis, whereas MCE-funded programs operate on a fiscal year basis. Accordingly, program results are presented in alignment with each funding cycle.
Detailed information on each program is provided below the tables.
1. ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Home Energy Savings
Current calendar year:
• 217 low- or moderate-income homes upgraded
• 58 no-cost heat pumps installed
• Program expenditures Jan – Sept 2025: $2,687,346
Results from prior years (2019-2024):
• Improved the efficiency of more than 1,700 single family homes • Saved participants over 500,000 kWh and over 7,000 therms • Program expenditures 2019-2024: $9,800,000
Results from Richmond Rising Grant (2023-present):
• 36 homes received solar installs
• 41 homes received energy efficiency upgrades
• 30 homes received electrification upgrades
Multifamily Energy Savings
Current calendar year:
• 5 properties (representing 147 units) upgraded
Results from prior years (2013-2024):
• Improved the efficiency of over 4,700 multifamily units • Saved participants more than 1.4 million kWh and 108,000 therms (approximately $666,240 in annual energy bill savings)
• Distributed nearly $1.2 million in incentive payments to customers Flex Market Commercial Efficiency
Current calendar year:
• 47 projects approved for installation, forecasted to save participants annually 1,559,000 kWh (approximately $467,700 in annual energy bill savings) Results from prior years (2021-2024):
• Installed 103 projects that are forecasted to save over 8,650,000 kWh annually (approximately $2,595,000 in annual energy bill savings) Flex Market Residential Efficiency
Current calendar year:
• Program launched in mid-2025, focusing on heat pump water heaters • 54 projects approved for installation
Small Business Energy Advantage
Current calendar year:
• 136 businesses upgraded providing over $397,000 in incentives Results from prior years (2024):
• Provided 40 small businesses with over $135,000 in incentives to install efficient equipment Strategic Energy Management
Current calendar year:
• 7 participating multifamily properties with estimated annual savings of 166,448 kWh and 5,000 therms (approximately $55,000 in annual energy bill savings) • 21 participating non-residential customers with estimated annual savings of 1,166,000 kWh and 96,000 therms (approximately $568,680 in annual energy bill savings) Results from prior years (2020-2024):
• Distributed over $240,000 in incentives to 12 participants • Saved over 3.7 million kWh of electricity and over 315,000 therms annually (approximately $1,828,200 in annual energy bill savings)
Green Workforce Pathways
Current calendar year:
• Placed 8 jobseekers with local electrification contractors in MCE's service area • Launched the Contractor Finder Tool on MCE’s website
• Hosted the E-Contractor Academy at MCE's Concord Offices and at the UA Local 342 JATC in Concord
o 16 participants representing 13 small, minority, women-owned construction businesses, ranging across different trades from general, electrical, plumbing to HVAC, solar and seismic engineering
Marin Community Foundation Grant:
• Launched the LIME Foundation's Next Gen Trades Academy in San Rafael Results from prior years (2021-2024):
• Placed 48 job seekers with local electrification contractors in MCE's service area • Supported 139 job seekers in career readiness workshops
2. TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION
MCE Sync
• 3,022 vehicles with Smart Charging enabled
• Customers save an average of $11 month on the cost of EV Charging Chargewise Pilot:
• 522 vehicles on a Dynamic Rate with Smart Charging enabled • 98% of charging shifted out of peak periods
• 30% of charging occurred during the day (9am-3pm)
• Participants earned an average of $19/month in dynamic rate credits in addition to the average monthly savings of $11/month on their electricity bill • Participating customers have earned approximately $120,000 in dynamic rate credits EV Rebates
Current Fiscal Year:
Instant Rebates:
• 974 rebates issued for EV purchase or lease using $2,566,500 in MCE rebates o 412 new vehicles ($1,452,500 in MCE rebates)
o 527 used vehicles ($1,114,000 in MCE rebates)
Results from prior years (2022-2024):
EV Instant Rebates:
• 1,367 rebates for EV purchase or lease using $4,170,000 in MCE rebates o 1,007 new vehicles ($3,498,000 in MCE rebates)
o 360 used vehicles ($672,000 in MCE rebates)
EV Rebate Program (2019-2022):
• 347 rebates issued for EV purchase or lease using $1,211,000 in MCE rebates EV Charging Program
Current Fiscal Year:
• 113 new charging ports installed using $500,076 in MCE incentives, 852 under reservation Results from prior years (2018-2024):
• 1,232 new charging ports installed using $2,390,000 in MCE incentives Charge up Contra Costa (2022-present):
• 92 ports installed in low-income communities in Contra Costa using $545,000 in grant funding
• 128 additional ports under construction
Charged by Public Power
• Launched in 2024
• Collected over 600 survey responses
• Reached 131 focus group participants
• Starting project host site identification
3. BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION
Heat Pump Water Heater Incentives
Current Fiscal Year:
• 216 heat pumps installed using $463,570 in MCE incentives Results from prior Years (2022-2024):
• 600 heat pumps installed using $854,000 in MCE incentives Emergency Water Heater Loaner Program
• 10 heat pump water heaters installed using emergency loaners since the program launched in September 2024
4. ENERGY STORAGE PROGRAM
Energy Storage for Residents and Critical Facilities
• Program closed to new applicants
Results from prior Years (2020-2024):
• 1.25 MWh of non-residential storage installed at 13 sites • 1.24 MWh of residential storage installed at 76 homes Department of Energy Storage Grant
Current calendar year:
• 12 applications received
• 2 sites selected for federal funding
Solar Storage Credit Program
• 1,277 active customers
Program Participation by Community
The following tables summarize community participation by county across MCE’s customer programs.
Contra Costa County
Community Home
Energy
Savings
Multi-Family
Energy
Savings
Flex Market
Commercial
Efficiency
Small
Business
Energy
Advantage
Strategic
Energy
Management
MCE
Sync
EV
Rebate
EV
Charging
Energy
Storage
Concord ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Danville ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
El Cerrito ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Hercules ✓ ✓
Lafayette ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Martinez ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Moraga ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Oakley ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Pinole ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Pittsburg ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Pleasant
Hill
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Richmond ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
San Pablo ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
San Ramon ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Walnut
Creek
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Uninc.
Contra
Costa
County
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Marin County
Community Home
Energy
Savings
Multi-Family
Energy
Savings
Flex Market
Commercial
Efficiency
Small
Business
Energy
Advantage
Strategic
Energy
Management
MCE
Sync
EV
Rebate
EV
Charging
Energy
Storage
Belvedere ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Corte
Madera
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Fairfax ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Larkspur ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Mill Valley ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Novato ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ross ✓ ✓
San
Anselmo
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
San Rafael ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Sausalito ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Tiburon ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Uninc.
Marin
County
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Napa County
Community Home
Energy
Savings
Multi-Family
Energy
Savings
Flex Market
Commercial
Efficiency
Small
Business
Energy
Advantage
Strategic
Energy
Management
MCE
Sync
EV
Rebate
EV
Charging
Energy
Storage
American
Canyon
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Calistoga ✓ ✓ ✓
City of
Napa
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
St. Helena ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Yountville ✓ ✓ ✓
Uninc.
Napa
County
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Solano County
Community Home
Energy
Savings
Multi-Family
Energy
Savings
Flex Market
Commercial
Efficiency
Small
Business
Energy
Advantage
Strategic
Energy
Management
MCE
Sync
EV
Rebate
EV
Charging
Energy
Storage
Benicia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Fairfield ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Vallejo ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Uninc.
Solano
County
✓ ✓ ✓
Detailed Program Information
1. Home Energy Savings
Description: MCE's Home Energy Savings program aims to improve the comfort, efficiency and indoor air quality of low- and moderate-income households living in single family homes. The program offers free energy assessments and education with single point-of-contact customer service and free energy-efficient and electrification measures.
The program serves homeowners and renters whose household income is 200%-400% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. This typically exceeds the income limit for services provided by programs like PG&E’s Energy Savings Assistance program. However, income constraints often prevent this group from participating in market-rate programs.
Richmond Rising is an initiative funded by a $35M grant awarded to the City of Richmond by the Strategic Growth Council. MCE was a sub awardee for this grant to expand Home Energy Savings and the installation of rooftop solar in Richmond.
2. Multifamily Energy Savings Program
Description: MCE’s Multifamily Energy Savings program helps transform multifamily homes into healthier, more energy efficient, all-electric spaces. The program is designed to make electrification and energy upgrades easier by breaking down common barriers like high upfront costs, complex decision-making, and the technical expertise needed to get started. The program offers free energy assessments for common areas and units, support with contractor selection and project planning and rebates for in-unit and common area measure upgrades such as ENERGY STAR® appliances, efficient lighting, insulation, windows, and water fixtures, electrification upgrades including heat pumps, induction stoves, electric dryers, and panel upgrades.
3. Efficiency Flex Market
Description: MCE's Commercial Flex Market programs provide energy efficiency incentives directly to project developers or contractors known as aggregators. The incentives are based on metered energy savings, instead of traditional energy efficiency programs that utilize deemed or custom models. These programs do not limit the technology or energy saving strategies implemented, resulting in the opportunity to maximize energy efficiency and load-shifting projects. Because the incentive is paid directly to the aggregator, the value is passed along to the customer in the way that best drives the success of the project, either by reducing upfront costs or getting paid based on energy savings performance.
MCE’s Residential Flex Market was relaunched in 2025 after contractors shared that the previous incentive process made it hard to manage cash flow between project completion and the later measurement period used to calculate payments. The updated program now provides an upfront rebate at installation based on estimated savings, plus a performance bonus a year later based on the project’s actual energy savings.
4. Small Business Energy Advantage
Description: MCE's Small Business Energy Advantage program helps small businesses in underserved communities become more resilient by providing equitable access to bill-reducing energy efficient upgrades that improve health, comfort, and safety. Unlike traditional programs, MCE's Small Business Energy Advantage program focuses on businesses that have historically been overlooked, ensuring real-world impacts and lasting community benefits.
The program offers free energy assessments and tailored education for all enrolled businesses, no-cost and low-cost energy efficiency upgrades, ongoing support, including project planning, installation, and post-installation follow-up to ensure satisfaction and connect businesses to additional resources.
5. Strategic Energy Management
Description: The Strategic Energy Management program offers a long-term approach to help multifamily properties and businesses save money, earn financial incentives, and better manage their energy usage. Participants can access free onsite assessments, cohort-style training, individual coaching, and peer-to-peer learning to build a stronger energy culture within their organization. The program offers customized opportunities to change how existing equipment is used (rather than installing new equipment) so the customer can see significant bill savings with little to no-upfront cost.
6. Green Workforce Pathways
Description: MCE’s Green Workforce Pathways program supports both residential service contractors and job seekers. For contractors, the program provides no-cost training on cutting-edge clean technologies and connections to vetted job seekers to help grow their business. For job seekers, the program offers individualized career support services and opportunities for paid positions with local energy contractors.
7. MCE Sync
Description: MCE Sync is a load-shifting app that helps EV drivers automate their EV charging at home to use the least expensive and cleanest energy on the grid. On average, 80% of EV charging happens at home, with every EV adding around 50% to a resident’s overall electricity usage. As the EV market continues to grow, the importance of smart EV charging will be even more significant.
Shifting electricity load toward lower-cost energy hours when more renewables are available bolsters grid resiliency from outages during critical periods.
In late 2024, MCE partnered with EV.Energy to launch ChargeWise, a CEC grant funded pilot. The ChargeWise Pilot deploys dynamic rates that align charging to wholesale electricity prices.
Customers who opt into this pilot can take advantage of very low daytime pricing to earn EV charging credits. The customers are provided a credit for the difference between their based electricity rate and the dynamic rate offered by the pilot.
8. EV Charging
Description: MCE’s EV Charging program provides multifamily properties and businesses with EV charging rebates, along with free technical assistance. The program offers:
• Up to $4,500 per networked Level 2 charging port plus $500 per L2 charging port for projects located in state-designated priority population areas and up to $875 per networked Level 1 charging port
• Stackable rebates with other regional EV charging programs • Technical assistance including a customized EV Charging Planning Report, which includes a site assessment, load study, available incentives, recommended vendors, and user pricing
9. Charged by Public Power
Description: MCE's Charged by Public Power program supports the planning and deployment of EV chargers and clean mobility options — such as bikeshare and carshare — in nine historically underserved communities across MCE’s service area. Priority communities include Concord, Fairfield, Napa, Pittsburg, Richmond, San Pablo, San Rafael, Unincorporated Contra Costa County, and Vallejo.
To ensure community-driven decision-making, the program established the Community Electric Transportation Council (CETC), which includes representatives from local governments, transit agencies, and community-based organizations. The CETC plays a key role in shaping inclusive engagement strategies, assessing transportation needs through surveys and focus groups, and informing the design and placement of EV chargers based on direct community input.
10. Heat Pump Water Heater Incentives
Description: To help increase adoption, MCE offers rebates to contractors for each energy-efficient heat pump water heater unit they install in the home of an MCE market-rate customer and slightly higher incentives for equipment installed in low- and moderate-income homes or multifamily properties. This can be combined with other energy efficiency rebates to further reduce costs.
11. Emergency Water Heater Loaner Program
Description: Approximately 90% of water heater replacements are emergency replacements. The urgency of restoring hot water to a home compresses a customer’s timeframe in deciding whether to switch to a heat pump water heater or continue burning fossil fuels. Customers are often unwilling to go without hot water during the time it takes to complete the retrofit requirements. The ability to provide an emergency replacement heat pump water heater solution that doesn’t inconvenience the customer is essential to moving California toward its carbon-neutral goals.
MCE’s Emergency Water Heater Incentive provides contractors $1,500 to help cover the cost of installing and maintaining a temporary loaner water heater (gas or electric) as part of the customer’s permanent heat pump water heater installation.
12. Energy Storage for Residents and Critical Facilities Description: MCE’s Energy Storage Program provided rebates, monthly bill credits and for battery energy storage systems paired with solar, in exchange for allowing MCE to discharge the battery daily from 4-9pm to manage peak loads and mitigate high energy costs. The program is currently closed to new customers, but staff are continuing to support some customers through the installation process which includes PG&E project approval (Permission to Operate) and to provide performance payments to non-residential batteries for 7 years post installation.
13.Department Of Energy (DOE) Energy Storage Grant
Description: In 2025, MCE offered a grant to our municipal customers to support the installation of storage on municipal sites funded by a DOE Energy Storage Grant that was awarded to MCE. The batteries will be used to provide resiliency and to offset peak demand.
14. Solar Storage Credit Program
Description: MCE offers customers with solar and storage at their home a monthly bill credit ($10- $20) in exchange for automating their battery to discharge down to a 20% reserve margin daily from 4-9 p.m., except to prepare for or during a power outage.