MCE Board of Directors Meeting
Thursday, September 17, 2026
6:30 p.m.
1125 Tamalpais Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1500
Concord, CA, 94520
City Hall Committee Room
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
(City of Napa)
Public comments may be made in person or remotely via the details below.
Remote Public Meeting Participation
Video Conference:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89004877785?pwd=OTYzWGk4V2ptMFdlVGFScmw3NTlldz09 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.
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.
Agenda Page 1 of 2
1. Roll Call/Quorum
2. Public Open Time on Closed Session Matters
Agenda Page 2 of 2
CLOSED SESSION – 2 HOURS
2.A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: One Case
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the Agency Board on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the Agency: Receipt of Claim pursuant to Government Claims Act or other written communication threatening litigation (copy available for public inspection in Clerk’s office). (Gov. Code § 54956.9(e)(3)) Name of Person or Entity Threatening Litigation: Dawn Weisz
2.B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: One Case
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the Agency Board on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the Agency: Receipt of Claim pursuant to Government Claims Act or other written communication threatening litigation (copy available for public inspection in Clerk’s office). (Gov. Code § 54956.9(e)(3)) Name of Person or Entity Threatening Litigation: Vidhi Chawla
2.C. Public Employee Appointment (Government Code §54957) Title: Interim Chief Executive Officer
OPEN SESSION – START 8:30 p.m.
3. Roll Call/Quorum
4. Board Announcements (Discussion)
5. Public Open Time (Discussion)
6. Report from Chief Executive Officer (Discussion)
7. Consent Calendar (Discussion/Action)
C.1. Approval of 8.20.26 Meeting Minutes
Agenda Page 2 of 2
C.2. Proposed Amendment of Policy 014: MCE’s Investment Policy C.3. Fiscal Year End 2026: Budget Results, Power Supply Variance and Ratification of Certain Line Item Variances
C.4. MCE 2025 Power Source Disclosure Attestation
8. Update and Recommendations from Ad Hoc CEO Search Committee (Discussion/Action)
9. Deliver Findings of Governance Assessment (Discussion)
10. Report Out on Financial Audit Fiscal Year End 2026 (Discussion)
11. Board & Staff Matters (Discussion)
12. Adjourn
Informational Reports
I.1 Approved Contracts for Energy Update
I.2 Legislative and Regulatory Updates
I.3 Financial Audit Fiscal Year End 2026
DRAFT
MCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, August 20, 2026
6:30 P.M.
Present: Liz Alessio, County of Napa and Four Napa Cities/Town (American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville), joined at 6:37 p.m.
Stephanie Andre, City of Larkspur
Dion Bailey, City of Hercules
Eli Beckman, Town of Corte Madera, joined at 6:39 p.m.
Mark Belotz, Town of Danville
Kari Birdseye, City of Benicia
Monica Brown, County of Solano, joined at 6:53 p.m.
Kevin Burke, Alternate, City of Belvedere
Barbara Coler, Town of Fairfax
Cindy Darling, City of Walnut Creek, Vice Chair
Jill Hoffman, City of Sausalito
C. William Kircher, Jr., Town of Ross
Arlene Kobata, City of Pittsburg
Kevin Jacobs, City of Novato
Maika Llorens Gulati, City of San Rafael
John McCormick, City of Lafayette
Aaron Meadows, City of Oakley, joined at 6:39 p.m.
Laura Nakamura, City of Concord
Beth Painter, City of Napa
Max Perrey, City of Mill Valley
Jack Ryan, Alternate, Town of Tiburon
Mary Sackett, County of Marin
Manveer Sandhu, City of Fairfield, joined at 7:56 p.m.
Shanelle Scales-Preston, County of Contra Costa, Chair
Amanda Szakats, City of Pleasant Hill
Graham Thiel, Town of Moraga, joined at 7:10 p.m.
Sridhar Verose, City of San Ramon
Chantel Walker, Town of San Anselmo
Brianne Zorn, City of Martinez, joined at 6:41 p.m.
Absent: Eduardo Martinez, City of Richmond
Devin Murphy, City of Pinole
Charles Palmares, City of Vallejo
Patricia Ponce, City of San Pablo
Carolyn Wysinger, City of El Cerrito
Staff
DRAFT
& Others: Floy Andrews, Aleshire & Wynder
Jesica Brooks, Lead Board Clerk and Executive Assistant Bethany Burgess, Aleshire & Wynder
Eric Douglas, Leading Resources Inc.
Vicken Kasarjian, Acting CEO and Chief Operating Officer Shaheen Khan, VP of Human Resources, Diversity, and Inclusion Tanya Lomas, Board Clerk
Linda Lye, Senior Legal Counsel
Ashley Muth, Internal Operations Associate
Catalina Murphy, General Counsel
Mike Rodriguez-Vargas, Internal Operations Assistant
Enyonam Senyo-Mensah, Manager of Internal Operations
Son Tran, Internal Operations Assistant
Jamie Tuckey, Chief Customer Officer
1. Roll Call
(Video 0:00:00)
Chair Scales-Preston called the regular meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. with quorum established by roll call. Director Walker joined remotely pursuant to Res. 2026-05 & Gov. Code 54953.8.7.
2. Board Announcements (Discussion)
(Video 0:02:12)
There were comments from Directors Szakats, McCormick, Bailey, Sackett, and Coler.
3. Public Open Time (Discussion)
(Video 0:09:40)
Chair Scales-Preston opened the public comment period and there were comments from members of the public, Dan Segedin, Dani Lanis, Warren Wells, Carrie Schulman, and Brett Thurber.
4. Report from Chief Executive Officer (Discussion)
(Video 0:23:53)
Vicken Kasarjian, Acting CEO and Chief Operating Officer, introduced this item and addressed questions from Board members.
Chair Scales-Preston opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
5. Consent Calendar (Discussion/Action)
(Video 0:31:43)
C.1 Approval of 7.16.26 Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
C.2 MCE Co-Application in Partnership with Contra Costa County to Strategic Growth Council’s (SGC) Project Development Grant Opportunity
Chair Scales-Preston opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
Chair Scales-Preston moved item 7 to be presented before item 6.
7. Ad Hoc CEO Search Committee Status Report (Discussion) (Video 0:34:40)
Director McCormick introduced this item and addressed questions from Board members.
Chair Scales-Preston opened the public comment period and there were no comments.
Action: No action required.
6. Review and Approve Recommended Response to Marin Civil Grand Jury Report (Discussion/Action)
(Video 0:47:40)
Director Belotz, Bethany Burgess of Aleshire & Wynder, Flow Andrews of Aleshire & Wynder, and Eric Douglas of Leading Resources Inc., introduced this item and addressed questions from Board members.
Chair Scales-Preston opened the public comment period and there were comments from members of the public, Alicia Minyen, Robert Miller, and Dan Segedin.
Through deliberation, the Board reached a consensus to approve the cover letter and responses that were proposed by the Ad Hoc Grand Jury Response Committee and that were attached to the staff report, but to modify the cover letter and responses as follows:
Revised Response to Finding No. 1: Partially agree; partially disagree. The MCE Board agrees that the Board has not always played a sufficiently active role in certain key agency decisions. As will be noted throughout this response, Action: It was M/S/C (Darling/Alessio) to Approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. (Absent: Martinez, Murphy, Palmares, Ponce, Sandhu, Thiel, Wysinger).
DRAFT
the Board has retained a management consultant to conduct a governance assessment and provide recommendations for improving Board governance policies.
Revised response to Recommendation 7: The recommended evaluation is currently in process.
As noted above, MCE is undertaking a governance assessment. As part of this process, MCE’s retained management consultants will provide recommendations for improvement of the organization’s governance structure.
The initial phase of the governance assessment is expected to be completed by December 31, 2026.
Revised response to Recommendation 8: The recommendation has not yet been fully implemented, but will be fully implemented in the future.
The Board should review and assess the value to ratepayers of MCE’s energy procurement policies, including policies for contracts that may serve primarily to allow MCE to claim a higher renewable Power Content Label. The Board will endeavor to complete the policy review by September 30, 2027, and will periodically audit compliance with and effectiveness of such policies on a continuing basis.
Revised responses to Recommendations 9: The recommendation requires further analysis.
MCE has reviewed various energy contracts executed over the past several years and has identified lessons learned. It has introduced process improvements to its energy purchasing procedures and continues to explore additional improvements. In addition, as part of this year’s audit, MCE’s independent auditor sampled specific transactions including pricing approval chains relative to energy procurement. The MCE Board will consider whether to conduct a more robust review of past energy contracts by March 31, 2027.
The MCE Board will also consider and evaluate revisions to its existing policies and governance to ensure there is an appropriate level of Board oversight and engagement with respect to energy contracts.
Revision to second paragraph of cover letter:
MCE’s 34-member Board represents 38 communities across four counties.
Although our communities differ, we are united by a commitment to MCE’s fundamental mission: reducing greenhouse gas emissions while delivering reliable and competitively priced energy and creating equitable community benefits.
DRAFT
Action: It was M/S/C (Perrey/Alessio) to Approve the cover letter and proposed response to the Marin Civil Grand Jury prepared by the Ad Hoc Grand Jury Response Committee with the changes discussed by the Board of Directors. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.(Absent:
Martinez, Murphy, Palmares, Ponce, and Wysinger).
8. Board & Staff Matters (Discussion)
(Video 3:20:28)
Directors Brown and Zorn made comments.
9. Adjournment
(Video 3:22:21)
Chair Scales-Preston adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. to the next scheduled Board Meeting on September 17, 2026.
___________________________________________
Shanelle Scales-Preston, Chair
Attest:
___________________________________________
Justine Parmelee, Secretary
September 17, 2026
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Maíra Strauss, Chief Financial Officer
RE: Proposed Amendment of Policy 014: MCE’s Investment Policy (Agenda Item #05 C.2)
ATTACHMENTS: A. Policy 014: MCE’s Investment Policy Redline B. Policy 014: MCE’s Investment Policy
Dear MCE Board Members:
Summary
MCE's Investment Policy (Policy 014) establishes the guidelines governing the management of MCE's cash, deposits, and investments. The policy is reviewed periodically to ensure continued compliance with California Government Code requirements and alignment with industry best practices. Staff have been working with MCE’s investment advisor, Chandler Asset Management, to complete a comprehensive evaluation of the policy. Several targeted updates to reflect recent statutory changes, enhance portfolio management flexibility, and improve policy clarity are recommended. The proposed amendment is intended to incorporate recent California Government Code requirements, ensure the policy remains modern, clearly articulated, easy to administer, and aligned with current industry best practices while maintaining MCE's investment philosophy and focus on safety and liquidity.
On August 27and on September 8, 2026, MCE’s Finance Committee and Executive Committee, respectively, unanimously recommended that the Board approve the Amendment of the Policy 014:
MCE’s Investment Policy.
Overview
MCE's investment program is governed by California Government Code Sections 53600 et. seq and is designed to achieve three primary objectives, in order of priority:
• Preservation of principal;
• Maintenance of adequate liquidity to meet operational needs; and • Attainment of an appropriate market rate of return consistent with safety and liquidity objectives.
The recent review concluded that MCE's Investment Policy remains effective and well-designed, with recommended revisions focused primarily on incorporating changes to California law, expanding certain diversification opportunities, and improving policy readability and administration Proposed Policy Updates
The proposed amendments include the following key updates:
Extended maturity limits for selected securities. The policy would allow investments in U.S.
Treasury obligations, federal agency securities, and municipal securities with maturities of up to seven years. California Government Code permits maturities longer than five years for these asset classes when specifically authorized by the governing body. Our investment strategy continues to focus primarily on maturities between one and five years but would benefit from flexibility to selectively purchase securities with slightly longer maturities when market conditions warrant. The proposed change provides additional flexibility to diversify maturities and potentially enhance investment returns while maintaining investments in high-quality securities.
Commercial paper revisions. The maximum maturity for commercial paper would increase from 270 days to 397 days, consistent with current California law. Additional revisions update the policy language to align more closely with statutory requirements and current market practices.
Addition of bankers' acceptances. Bankers' acceptances would be added as an authorized investment type. These short-term instruments are commonly used by public agencies and provide additional diversification opportunities while maintaining a conservative credit profile.
Commercial paper updates. Policy language would be updated to reflect current statutory provisions governing placement service deposits and related concentration limits through January 1, 2031. The update would bring MCE’s policy in line with AB 2618.
Money market mutual fund clarification. Revisions simplify the policy language and align eligibility requirements more closely with California Government Code, improving clarity and readability.
Municipal securities enhancements. The minimum rating requirement for municipal securities would be adjusted from "A+" to "A" or equivalent, and eligible issuers would be expanded to include qualifying obligations from all U.S. states. MCE’s current “A+” requirement exceeds both California Government Code requirements and common industry practice. These changes may increase diversification opportunities while maintaining investment-grade standards.
Expansion of eligible municipal issuers. The policy would authorize investments in qualifying municipal obligations issued by all U.S. states rather than limiting investments primarily to California issuers (AB 1745). This authority may improve diversification and liquidity opportunities within MCE's investment portfolio.
Local Government Investment Pools (LGIPs). The policy would authorize investments in qualifying Joint Powers Authority investment pools, providing an additional tool for managing short-term liquidity needs.
Prohibited investment update. New language would prohibit the purchase of securities with forward settlement dates exceeding 45 days, consistent with recent updates to California law (SB 1489).
The recommended changes modernize the policy framework, improve clarity and readability, provide additional administrative flexibility, and align the policy with current statutory requirements and public-sector investment best practices. The revisions also expand diversification opportunities and investment management tools available to staff while preserving MCE's long-standing commitment to prudent stewardship of public funds.
Fiscal Impact
None at this time. Certain revisions provide additional flexibility to enhance portfolio diversification and investment earnings over time.
Recommendation
Approve the Amendment to Policy 014: MCE’s Investment Policy. 1 1 This item is a general administrative matter. Action requires a majority vote of board members present for a motion to carry.
1 POLICY 014: Investment Policy
Introduction
This Investment Policy establishes guidelines for the management of cash, deposits and investments (together, “funds”) at MCE (or the “Agency”).
Scope
This policy covers all funds and investment activities under the direct authority of MCE, as set forth in the State Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq., with the following exceptions:
• Proceeds of debt issuance shall be invested in accordance with MCE’s general investment philosophy as set forth in this policy; however, such proceeds are to be invested pursuant to the permitted investment provisions of their specific bond indentures. • Any other funds specifically exempted by the Governing Body.
Objectives
When managing funds, MCE’s primary objectives, in order of importance, shall be to safeguard the principal of the funds, meet the liquidity needs of MCE, and achieve a return on investment on funds in MCE’s control.
Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of cash and investment management activities. The investment of funds shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of principal.
Liquidity: The funds of the agency shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating needs that may be reasonably anticipated. Since all possible cash demands cannot be anticipated, the investment of funds in deposits or instruments available on demand is recommended.
Return on Investment: The deposit and investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout the economic cycle while considering risk and liquidity constraints. The return on deposits and investments is of secondary importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above.
Standard of Care
MCE will manage funds in accordance with the Prudent Investor Standard pursuant to California Government Code Section 53600.3.11: “Governing bodies of local agencies or persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds 1 All further statutory references are to the California Government Code unless otherwise stated. 2 are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency. Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall strategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law.” Delegation of Authority
Pursuant to Section 53607, the responsibility to manage funds is delegated to the Treasurer of MCE. The Treasurer may appoint Deputy Treasurers as the Treasurer deems necessary and convenient for the prompt and faithful discharge of its duties to invest and reinvest the funds of MCE, pursuant to Section 53607.
MCE may engage the services of one or more external investment advisers, who are registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, to assist in the management of MCE’s investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the MCE’s objectives. External investment advisers may be granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this Investment Policy.
Ethics and Conflicts of Interest
All participants in the investment process shall act as custodians of the public trust. Investment officials shall recognize that the investment portfolio is subject to public review and evaluation.
Thus employees and officials involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could create a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions.
Employees and investment officials shall disclose to MCE’s General Counsel or designee any material interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the investment portfolio. Employees and officers shall refrain from undertaking any personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of MCE.
Authorized Investments
MCE’s investments are governed by California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. Within the investments permitted by the Code, MCE seeks to further restrict eligible investments to the guidelines listed below. In the event a discrepancy is found between this policy and the Code, the more restrictive parameters will take precedence. Percentage holding limits and minimum credit quality requirements listed in this section apply at the time the security is purchased.
Any investment currently held at the time the policy is adopted which does not meet the new policy guidelines can be held until maturity and shall be exempt from the current policy. At the time of the investment’s maturity or liquidation, such funds shall be reinvested only as provided in the current policy.
The following types of investments are permitted:
3 Deposits at Bank(s): Funds may be invested in non-interest bearing depository accounts to meet MCE’s operating and collateral needs and grant requirements. Funds not needed for these purposes may be invested in interest bearing depository accounts or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured certificates of deposit with maturities not to exceed five years.
Banks eligible to receive deposits will be federally or state chartered and will conform to Section 53635.2 which requires that banks “have received an overall rating of not less than "satisfactory" in its most recent evaluation by the appropriate federal financial supervisory agency of its record of meeting the credit needs of California's communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, pursuant to Section 2906 of Title 12 of the United States Code.” FDIC insurance coverage in the United States is $250,000 per Tax ID Number. As per Section 53652, banks must collateralize the deposits of public agencies. The Treasurer, or a duly appointed Deputy Treasurer, will monitor the credit quality of eligible banks to ensure the safety of MCE deposits.
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): Funds may be invested in the Local Agency Investment Fund. The LAIF was established by the California State Treasurer for the benefit of local agencies. Statutory requirements of the Local Agency Investment Fund include:
Section 16429.1
a. There is in trust in the custody of the Treasurer the Local Agency Investment Fund, which fund is hereby created. The Controller shall maintain a separate account for each governmental unit having deposits in this fund.
e. The local governmental unit, the nonprofit corporation, or the quasi-governmental agency has the exclusive determination of the length of time its money will be on deposit with the Treasurer.
j. Money in the fund shall be invested to achieve the objective of the fund which is to realize the maximum return consistent with safe and prudent treasury management. i. Immediately at the conclusion of each calendar quarter, all interest earned and other increment derived from investments shall be distributed by the Controller to the contributing governmental units or trustees. An amount equal to the reasonable costs incurred in carrying out the provisions of this section, not to exceed a maximum of 5 percent of the earnings of this fund and not to exceed the amount appropriated in the annual Budget Act for this function, shall be deducted from the earnings prior to distribution.
Section 16429.4
The right of a city, county, city and county, special district, nonprofit corporation, or qualified quasi-governmental agency to withdraw its deposited moneys from the Local Agency Investment Fund, upon demand, may not be altered, impaired, or denied, in any way, by any state official or state agency based upon the state’s failure to adopt a State Budget by July 1 of each new fiscal year.
US Treasury Obligations: Funds may be invested in United States Treasury obligations and other government obligations for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest with a term to maturity not exceeding seven 5 (7) years. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that MCE may invest in U.S. Treasuries.
Federal Agency Securities: Funds may be invested in Federal Agency Securities or United States Government-Sponsored Enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including 4 those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government-sponsored enterprises. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that MCE may invest in Federal Agency or Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) with a term to maturity not exceeding seven 5 (7) years. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in any single Agency/GSE issuer. Federal Agency and GSE obligations must be rated in a rating category of AA or equivalent or better. The maximum percent of agency callable securities in the portfolio will be 20%.
Commercial Paper: Funds may be invested in commercial paper in accordance with the requirements of Section 53601 and subject to the following limitations:
i. No more than 25% of the total portfolio shall be invested in commercial paper; ii. The term to maturity shall not exceed 270 397 days; and iii. No more than 10% of outstanding commercial paper shall be from any single issuer.
The issuer of commercial paper must meet all of the following conditions in either paragraph (a) or (b) specified below:
a. have the following:Securities issued by corporations:
i. A corporation organized and operating in the United States with Assets assets in excess of $500 million;
ii. A credit rating ofThe securities are rated A-1 or its equivalent or better by a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO); and If the issuer has other debt obligations, they must be rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO.A senior debt rated at A or better.
iii.
b. Securities issued by other entities:
i. The issuer is organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company.
ii. The securities must have program-wide credit enhancements including, but not limited to, overcollateralization, letters of credit, or a surety bond. iii. The securities are rated “A-1” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO.
Additionally, under a provision sunsetting on January 1, 20262031, no more than 40% of the portfolio may be invested in Commercial Paper if the Agency’sMCE’s investment assets under management are greater than $100,000,000. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer.
Bankers’s Acceptances, provided that:
• They are issued by institutions which have short-term debt obligations rated “A-1” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO; or long-term debt obligations which are rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. • No more than 40% of the total portfolio may be invested in Banker’s Acceptances. • No more than 5% of the total portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. • The maximum maturity does not exceed 180 days.
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit: Funds may be invested in negotiable certificates of deposit issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank, a savings association or a federal association, a state or federal credit union, or by a federally licensed or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank, and subject to the following limitations:
i. Issued by an entity as defined in Section 53601(i); and 5 ii. No more than 30% of funds invested pursuant to this Investment Policy may be invested in certificates of deposit.
iii. The amount of the NCD insured up to the FDIC limit does not require any credit ratings. iv. Any amount above the FDIC insured limit must be issued by institutions which have short-term debt obligations rated “A-1” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO; or long-term obligations rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least v. one NRSRO.
vi. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. vii. The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years.
Collateralized Time Deposits (Non-Negotiable Certificates of Deposit): Funds may be invested in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions in excess of insured amounts which are fully collateralized with securities in accordance with California law, provided that:
• No more than 50% of the portfolio will be invested in a combination of federally insured and collateralized time deposits, including CDARS.
• The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years.
Placement Service Deposits: Funds may be invested in deposits placed with a private sector entity that assists in the placement of deposits with eligible financial institutions located in the United States (Section 53601.8). The full amount of principal and the interest that may be accrued during the maximum term of each deposit shall at all times be insured by federal deposit insurance. The combined maximum portfolio exposure to the deposits placed pursuant to this section, Insured Cash Sweep (ICS) and Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service (CDARS) is limited to 50 30 percent and the maximum investment maturity will be restricted to five years, unless otherwise prescribed by law. Under a provision sunsetting on January 1, 2031, no more than 50 percent of the portfolio may be invested in deposits through a placement service, including Certificates of Deposit, if the investing agency is a city, district or local agency that does not pool money with other local agencies.
Money Market Funds: Funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and issued by diversified management companies and meet either of the following criteria:
i. Have attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two (2) NRSROs; or
ii. Have retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years’ experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of $500 million. • No more than 20% of the total portfolio may be invested in Money Market Mutual Funds, and the shares of any one Money Market Mutual Fund.
• may be invested in money market funds pursuant to Section 53601(l)(2) and subject to Section 53601(l)(4).
Municipal Securities: Funds may be invested in municipal securities including obligations of MCE, the State of California and any local agency within the State of California, provided that:
• The securities are rated in a minimum rating category of “A+” or its equivalent or better by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization (“NRSRO”). • No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. • No more than 30% of the portfolio may be in Municipal Securities in the aggregate. 6 • The maximum maturity does not exceed five seven (57) years.
Municipal Securities: Registered Treasury Notes of Bonds of any of the other 49 states in addition to California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of the other 49 states, in addition to California.
• The securities are rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO.
• No more than 5% of the total portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. • No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be in Municipal Securities in the aggregate. • The maximum maturity does not exceed seven (7) years.
Repurchase Agreements: Funds may be invested in repurchase agreements collateralized with securities authorized under California Government Code, maintained at a level of at least 102% of the market value of the Repurchase Agreement. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that MCE may invest, provided that:
• Securities used as collateral for Repurchase Agreements will be delivered to an acceptable third party custodian.
• Repurchase Agreements are subject to a Master Repurchase Agreement between the Agency and the provider of the repurchase agreement. The Master Repurchase Agreement will be substantially in the form developed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA).
• The maximum maturity does not exceed one (1) year.
Corporate Medium-Term Notes (MTNs): Funds may be invested in MTMs provided that:
• The security is issued byissuer is a corporation organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States.
• The securities are rated in a rating category of “A+” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO.
• No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in MTNs. • No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. • The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years.
Asset-Backed, Mortgage-Backed, Mortgage Passthrough Securities, and Collateralized Mortgage Obligations from issuers not defined as issuers of U.S. Treasuries, Federal Agencies, and Government Sponsored Enterprises in the preceding paragraphs of the Authorized Investments section of this policy: Funds may be invested in these securities provided that:
• The securities are rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better by a NRSRO. • No more than 20% of the total portfolio may be invested in these securities. • No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single Asset-Backed or Commercial Mortgage security issuer.
• The maximum legal final maturity does not exceed five (5) years.
Supranationals: Funds may be invested in supranationals provided that:
• Issues are US dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter-American Development Bank. 7 • The securities are rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better by a NRSRO. • No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in these securities. • No more than 10% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. • The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years.
Local Government Investment Pools (LGIP): Defined as shares of beneficial interest issued by a Joint Powers Authority (JPA): provided that:
• The JPA is organized pursuant to California Government Code Section 6509.7 and invests in the securities and obligations authorized in subdivisions (a) to (r), inclusive. • Each share shall represent an equal proportional interest in the underlying pool of securities owned by the JPA.
• The JPA has retained an investment advisor who is registered with the SEC (or exempt from registration), has assets under management in excess of $500 million, and has at least five years’ experience investing in instruments authorized by Section 53601, subdivisions (a) to (q).
Prohibited Investments
Pursuant to Section 53601.6, MCE shall not invest funds in any security that could result in a zero interest accrual, or less, if held to maturity. These prohibited investments include inverse floaters, range notes, or mortgage-derived interest-only strips, futures options. The purchase of foreign currency denominated securities is prohibited. Trading securities for the sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates is prohibited. Purchasing or selling securities on margin is prohibited. The use of reverse repurchase agreements, securities lending or any other form of borrowing or leverage is prohibited. The purchase of a security with a forward settlement date exceeding 45 days from the time of the investment is prohibited.
Investment Portfolio Management
The term to maturity of any funds invested as measured from settlement date to maturity date shall not exceed 5 years pursuant to Section 53601. unless the MCE Board has by resolution granted authority to make such an investment either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the legislative body no less than three months prior to the investment. U.S.
Treasury securities, federal agency obligations, and municipal securities may be invested in securities with maturities no longer than seven (7) years. The Treasurer, or a duly appointed Deputy Treasurer, will allocate funds among authorized investments consistent with the objectives and standards of care outlined in this Policy.
Bids and Purchase of Securities
Prior to the purchase of an investment pursuant to this Policy the persons authorized to make investments shall assess the market and market prices using information obtained from available sources including investment services, broker/dealers, and the media. A competitive bid process, when practical, will be used to place all investment purchases and sales transactions.
Brokers
To the extent practicable, the Treasurer shall endeavor to complete investment transactions using a competitive bid process whenever possible. In accordance with Section 53601.5, institutions eligible to transact investment business with MCE include:
8 • Institutions licensed by the state as a broker-dealer, as defined in Section 25004 of the Corporations Code, with proof of FINRA certification.
• Institutions that are members of a federally regulated securities exchange. • Primary government dealers as designated by the Federal Reserve Bank and non-primary government dealers.
• Nationally or state-chartered banks.
• Savings association or federal association (as defined in Section 5102 of the Financial Code).
• The Federal Reserve Bank.
• Direct issuers of securities eligible for purchase.
Selection of financial institutions and broker/dealers authorized to engage in transactions will be at the sole discretion of MCE, except where MCE utilizes an external investment adviser in which case MCE may rely on the adviser for selection.
Selection of broker/dealers used by an external investment adviser retained by MCE will be at the sole discretion of the adviser. Where possible, transactions with broker/dealers shall be selected on a competitive basis and their bid or offering prices shall be recorded. If there is no other readily available competitive offering, best efforts will be made to document quotations for comparable or alternative securities. When purchasing original issue instrumentality securities, no competitive offerings will be required as all dealers in the selling group offer those securities at the same original issue price.
The Treasurer shall be prohibited from selecting any broker, brokerage firm, dealer, or securities firm that has, within any 48-consecutive month period following January 1, 1996, made a political contribution in an amount exceeding the limitations contained in Rule G-37 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board to any member of the MCE Board, or any candidate for those offices. The broker/dealers shall be provided with and acknowledge receipt of the Investment Policy.
Losses
Losses are acceptable on a sale before maturity and may be taken if required to rebalance duration, improve credit quality or increase diversification, meet the liquidity needs of the agency or if the reinvestment proceeds will earn an income flow with a present value higher than the present value of the income flow that would have been generated by the original investment, considering any investment loss or foregoing interest on the original investment.
Delivery and Safekeeping
The delivery and safekeeping of all securities shall be made through a third party custodian when practical and cost effective as determined by the Treasurer, or a duly appointed Deputy Treasurer, and in accordance with Section 53608. The Director of Finance or their designee shall review all transaction confirmations for conformity with the original transaction.
Risk Management and Diversification—Mitigating Credit Risk in the Portfolio Credit risk is the risk that a security or a portfolio will lose some or all its value due to a real or perceived change in the ability of the issuer to repay its debt. MCE will mitigate credit risk by adopting the following strategies:
• The diversification requirements included in the “Authorized Investments” section of this policy are designed to mitigate credit risk in the portfolio. 9 • No more than 5% of the total portfolio may be deposited with or invested in securities issued by any single issuer unless otherwise specified in this policy. • MCE may elect to sell a security prior to its maturity and record a capital gain or loss in order to manage the quality, liquidity or yield of the portfolio in response to market conditions or MCE’s risk preferences.
• If a security owned by MCE is downgraded to a level below the requirements of this policy, making the security ineligible for additional purchases, the following steps will be taken:
• Any actions taken related to the downgrade by the investment manager will be communicated to the Treasurer in a timely manner.
• If a decision is made to retain the security, the credit situation will be monitored and reported to the Governing Body.
Risk Management and Diversification—Mitigating Market Risk in the Portfolio Market risk is the risk that the portfolio value will fluctuate due to changes in the general level of interest rates. MCE recognizes that, over time, longer-term portfolios have the potential to achieve higher returns. On the other hand, longer-term portfolios have higher volatility of return.
MCE will mitigate market risk by providing adequate liquidity for short-term cash needs, and by making longer-term investments only with funds that are not needed for current cash flow purposes.
MCE further recognizes that certain types of securities, including variable rate securities, securities with principal paydowns prior to maturity, and securities with embedded options, will affect the market risk profile of the portfolio differently in different interest rate environments.
MCE, therefore, adopts the following strategies to control and mitigate its exposure to market risk:
• MCE will maintain a minimum of $40 million in cash and overnight investments at all times to provide sufficient liquidity for expected disbursements. • The maximum stated final maturity of individual securities in the portfolio will be five (5) years, except as otherwise stated in this policy.
• The duration of the portfolio will generally be approximately equal to the duration (typically, plus or minus 20%) of a Market Benchmark, an index selected by MCE based on MCE’s investment objectives, constraints and risk tolerances.
Conflict of Interest
In accordance with state law, staff shall not accept honoraria, gifts, and gratuities from advisors, brokers, dealers, bankers, or other person with whom MCE conducts business.
Audits
MCE’s funds shall be subject to a process of independent review by its external auditors. MCE’s external auditors shall review the investment portfolio in connection with the annual audit for 10 compliance with the Investment Policy pursuant to Section 27134. The results of the audit shall be reported to the Director of Finance and the Ad Hoc Audit Committee.
Reports
Monthly: So long as the Board of Directors’ annual delegation of investment authority pursuant to Section 53607 to the Treasurer is effective, the Treasurer or a duly appointed Deputy Treasurer will perform a monthly review of the investment function and shall submit a monthly report of all investment transactions to the Board of Directors. Investment transactions are defined as the purchase, sale or exchange of securities.
Annually: The Treasurer, or a duly appointed Deputy Treasurer, will submit an annual report to the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer within 45 days of the end of a fiscal year providing the following:
i. A list identifying the type of investment, issuer, date of maturity, par and dollar amount invested on all securities, the market value and source of the market value information;
ii. A statement that the portfolio is in compliance with the Investment Policy and in accordance with Section 53646 or the manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance; and
iii. A statement of MCE’s ability to meet expenditure requirements for the upcoming 12 months.
Annual Review
The Investment Policy will be reviewed annually by the Treasurer, or a duly appointed Deputy Treasurer. Any changes to the Investment Policy will be submitted to the Board for approval. 11 Glossary of Investment Terms
AGENCIES. Shorthand market terminology for any obligation issued by a government-sponsored entity (GSE), or a federally related institution. Most obligations of GSEs are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Examples are:
FFCB. The Federal Farm Credit Bank System provides credit and liquidity in the agricultural industry. FFCB issues discount notes and bonds.
FHLB. The Federal Home Loan Bank provides credit and liquidity in the housing market.
FHLB issues discount notes and bonds.
FHLMC. Like FHLB, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation provides credit and liquidity in the housing market. FHLMC, also called “FreddieMac” issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities.
FNMA. Like FHLB and FreddieMac, the Federal National Mortgage Association was established to provide credit and liquidity in the housing market. FNMA, also known as “FannieMae,” issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities.
GNMA. The Government National Mortgage Association, known as “GinnieMae,” issues mortgage pass-through securities, which are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.
PEFCO. The Private Export Funding Corporation assists exporters. Obligations of PEFCO are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government.
TVA. The Tennessee Valley Authority provides flood control and power and promotes development in portions of the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi River valleys. TVA currently issues discount notes and bonds.
ASKED. The price at which a seller offers to sell a security.
ASSET BACKED SECURITIES. Securities supported by pools of installment loans or leases or by pools of revolving lines of credit.
AVERAGE LIFE. In mortgage-related investments, including CMOs, the average time to expected receipt of principal payments, weighted by the amount of principal expected.
BANKER’S ACCEPTANCE. A money market instrument created to facilitate international trade transactions. It is highly liquid and safe because the risk of the trade transaction is transferred to the bank which “accepts” the obligation to pay the investor.
BENCHMARK. A comparison security or portfolio. A performance benchmark is a partial market index, which reflects the mix of securities allowed under a specific investment policy.
BID. The price at which a buyer offers to buy a security.
BROKER. A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a transaction for which the broker receives a commission. A broker does not sell securities from his own position.
CALLABLE. A callable security gives the issuer the option to call it from the investor prior to its maturity. The main cause of a call is a decline in interest rates. If interest rates decline since an issuer issues securities, it will likely call its current securities and reissue them at a lower rate of interest. Callable securities have reinvestment risk as the investor may receive its principal back when interest rates are lower than when the investment was initially made.
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD). A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate.
Large denomination CDs may be marketable.
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT ACCOUNT REGISTRY SYSTEM (CDARS). A private placement service that allows local agencies to purchase more than $250,000 in CDs from a single financial institution (must be a participating institution of CDARS) while still maintaining FDIC insurance coverage. CDARS is currently the only entity providing this service. CDARS facilitates the trading of deposits between the California institution and other participating institutions in amounts that are less than $250,000 each, so that FDIC coverage is maintained.
12 COLLATERAL. Securities or cash pledged by a borrower to secure repayment of a loan or repurchase agreement. Also, securities pledged by a financial institution to secure deposits of public monies.
COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS (CMO). Classes of bonds that redistribute the cash flows of mortgage securities (and whole loans) to create securities that have different levels of prepayment risk, as compared to the underlying mortgage securities.
COMMERCIAL PAPER. The short-term unsecured debt of corporations.
COST YIELD. The annual income from an investment divided by the purchase cost. Because it does not give effect to premiums and discounts which may have been included in the purchase cost, it is an incomplete measure of return.
COUPON. The rate of return at which interest is paid on a bond.
CREDIT RISK. The risk that principal and/or interest on an investment will not be paid in a timely manner due to changes in the condition of the issuer.
CURRENT YIELD. The annual income from an investment divided by the current market value.
Since the mathematical calculation relies on the current market value rather than the investor’s cost, current yield is unrelated to the actual return the investor will earn if the security is held to maturity.
DEALER. A dealer acts as a principal in security transactions, selling securities from and buying securities for his own position.
DEBENTURE. A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.
DELIVERY VS. PAYMENT (DVP). A securities industry procedure whereby payment for a security must be made at the time the security is delivered to the purchaser’s agent.
DERIVATIVE. Any security that has principal and/or interest payments which are subject to uncertainty (but not for reasons of default or credit risk) as to timing and/or amount, or any security which represents a component of another security which has been separated from other components (“Stripped” coupons and principal). A derivative is also defined as a financial instrument the value of which is totally or partially derived from the value of another instrument, interest rate, or index.
DISCOUNT. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is below par. Some short-term securities, such as T-bills and banker’s acceptances, are known as discount securities. They sell at a discount from par, and return the par value to the investor at maturity without additional interest. Other securities, which have fixed coupons, trade at a discount when the coupon rate is lower than the current market rate for securities of that maturity and/or quality.
DIVERSIFICATION. Dividing investment funds among a variety of investments to avoid excessive exposure to any one source of risk.
DURATION. The weighted average time to maturity of a bond where the weights are the present values of the future cash flows. Duration measures the price sensitivity of a bond to changes in interest rates. (See modified duration).
FEDERAL FUNDS RATE. The rate of interest charged by banks for short-term loans to other banks.
The Federal Reserve Bank through open-market operations establishes it.
FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE. A committee of the Federal Reserve Board that establishes monetary policy and executes it through temporary and permanent changes to the supply of bank reserves.
LEVERAGE. Borrowing funds in order to invest in securities that have the potential to pay earnings at a rate higher than the cost of borrowing.
LIQUIDITY. The speed and ease with which an asset can be converted to cash.
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF). A voluntary investment fund open to government entities and certain non-profit organizations in California that is managed by the State Treasurer’s Office.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL. Investment pools that range from the State Treasurer’s Office Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) to county pools, to Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs). These funds are not subject to the same SEC rules applicable to money market mutual funds.
13 MAKE WHOLE CALL. A type of call provision on a bond that allows the issuer to pay off the remaining debt early. Unlike a call option, with a make whole call provision, the issuer makes a lump sum payment that equals the net present value (NPV) of future coupon payments that will not be paid because of the call. With this type of call, an investor is compensated, or "made whole."
MARGIN. The difference between the market value of a security and the loan a broker makes using that security as collateral.
MARKET RISK. The risk that the value of securities will fluctuate with changes in overall market conditions or interest rates.
MARKET VALUE. The price at which a security can be traded.
MARKING TO MARKET. The process of posting current market values for securities in a portfolio.
MATURITY. The final date upon which the principal of a security becomes due and payable.
MEDIUM TERM NOTES. Unsecured, investment-grade senior debt securities of major corporations which are sold in relatively small amounts on either a continuous or an intermittent basis.
MTNs are highly flexible debt instruments that can be structured to respond to market opportunities or to investor preferences.
MODIFIED DURATION. The percent change in price for a 100 basis point change in yields. Modified duration is the best single measure of a portfolio’s or security’s exposure to market risk.
MONEY MARKET. The market in which short-term debt instruments (T-bills, discount notes, commercial paper, and banker’s acceptances) are issued and traded.
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH SECURITIES. A securitized participation in the interest and principal cash flows from a specified pool of mortgages. Principal and interest payments made on the mortgages are passed through to the holder of the security.
MUNICIPAL SECURITIES. Securities issued by state and local agencies to finance capital and operating expenses.
MUTUAL FUND. An entity which pools the funds of investors and invests those funds in a set of securities which is specifically defined in the fund’s prospectus. Mutual funds can be invested in various types of domestic and/or international stocks, bonds, and money market instruments, as set forth in the individual fund’s prospectus. For most large, institutional investors, the costs associated with investing in mutual funds are higher than the investor can obtain through an individually managed portfolio.
NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STATISTICAL RATING ORGANIZATION (NRSRO).
A credit rating agency that the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States uses for regulatory purposes. Credit rating agencies provide assessments of an investment's risk. The issuers of investments, especially debt securities, pay credit rating agencies to provide them with ratings. The three most prominent NRSROs are Fitch, S&P, and Moody's.
NEGOTIABLE CD. A short-term debt instrument that pays interest and is issued by a bank, savings or federal association, state or federal credit union, or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Negotiable CDs are traded in a secondary market and are payable upon order to the bearer or initial depositor (investor).
PREMIUM. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is above par.
PREPAYMENT SPEED. A measure of how quickly principal is repaid to investors in mortgage securities.
PREPAYMENT WINDOW. The time period over which principal repayments will be received on mortgage securities at a specified prepayment speed.
PRIMARY DEALER. A financial institution (1) that is a trading counterparty with the Federal Reserve in its execution of market operations to carry out U.S. monetary policy, and (2) that participates for statistical reporting purposes in compiling data on activity in the U.S.
Government securities market.
PRUDENT PERSON (PRUDENT INVESTOR) RULE. A standard of responsibility which applies to fiduciaries. In California, the rule is stated as “Investments shall be managed with the care, skill, prudence and diligence, under the circumstances then prevailing, that a prudent 14 person, acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters, would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims to accomplish similar purposes.” REALIZED YIELD. The change in value of the portfolio due to interest received and interest earned and realized gains and losses. It does not give effect to changes in market value on securities, which have not been sold from the portfolio.
REGIONAL DEALER. A financial intermediary that buys and sells securities for the benefit of its customers without maintaining substantial inventories of securities and that is not a primary dealer.
REPURCHASE AGREEMENT. Short-term purchases of securities with a simultaneous agreement to sell the securities back at a higher price. From the seller’s point of view, the same transaction is a reverse repurchase agreement.
SAFEKEEPING. A service to bank customers whereby securities are held by the bank in the customer’s name.
STRUCTURED NOTE. A complex, fixed income instrument, which pays interest, based on a formula tied to other interest rates, commodities or indices. Examples include inverse floating rate notes which have coupons that increase when other interest rates are falling, and which fall when other interest rates are rising, and "dual index floaters," which pay interest based on the relationship between two other interest rates - for example, the yield on the ten-year Treasury note minus the Libor rate. Issuers of such notes lock in a reduced cost of borrowing by purchasing interest rate swap agreements.
SUPRANATIONAL. A Supranational is a multi-national organization whereby member states transcend national boundaries or interests to share in the decision making to promote economic development in the member countries.
TOTAL RATE OF RETURN. A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time. It is the internal rate of return, which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending value; it includes interest earnings, realized and unrealized gains, and losses in the portfolio.
U.S. TREASURY OBLIGATIONS. Securities issued by the U.S. Treasury and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Treasuries are considered to have no credit risk, and are the benchmark for interest rates on all other securities in the US and overseas. The Treasury issues both discounted securities and fixed coupon notes and bonds.
TREASURY BILLS. All securities issued with initial maturities of one year or less are issued as discounted instruments, and are called Treasury bills. The Treasury currently issues three-and six-month T-bills at regular weekly auctions. It also issues “cash management” bills as needed to smooth out cash flows.
TREASURY NOTES. All securities issued with initial maturities of two to ten years are called Treasury notes, and pay interest semi-annually.
TREASURY BONDS. All securities issued with initial maturities greater than ten years are called Treasury bonds. Like Treasury notes, they pay interest semi-annually.
VOLATILITY. The rate at which security prices change with changes in general economic conditions or the general level of interest rates.
YIELD TO MATURITY. The annualized internal rate of return on an investment which equates the expected cash flows from the investment to its cost.
1 POLICY 014: Investment Policy
Introduction
This Investment Policy establishes guidelines for the management of cash, deposits and investments (together, “funds”) at MCE (or the “Agency”).
Scope
This policy covers all funds and investment activities under the direct authority of MCE, as set forth in the State Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq., with the following exceptions:
• Proceeds of debt issuance shall be invested in accordance with MCE’s general investment philosophy as set forth in this policy; however, such proceeds are to be invested pursuant to the permitted investment provisions of their specific bond indentures. • Any other funds specifically exempted by the Governing Body.
Objectives
When managing funds, MCE’s primary objectives, in order of importance, shall be to safeguard the principal of the funds, meet the liquidity needs of MCE, and achieve a return on investment on funds in MCE’s control.
Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of cash and investment management activities. The investment of funds shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of principal.
Liquidity: The funds of the agency shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating needs that may be reasonably anticipated. Since all possible cash demands cannot be anticipated, the investment of funds in deposits or instruments available on demand is recommended.
Return on Investment: The deposit and investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout the economic cycle while considering risk and liquidity constraints. The return on deposits and investments is of secondary importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above.
Standard of Care
MCE will manage funds in accordance with the Prudent Investor Standard pursuant to California Government Code Section 53600.3.11: “Governing bodies of local agencies or persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds 1 All further statutory references are to the California Government Code unless otherwise stated. 2 are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency. Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall strategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law.” Delegation of Authority
Pursuant to Section 53607, the responsibility to manage funds is delegated to the Treasurer of MCE. The Treasurer may appoint Deputy Treasurers as the Treasurer deems necessary and convenient for the prompt and faithful discharge of its duties to invest and reinvest the funds of MCE, pursuant to Section 53607.
MCE may engage the services of one or more external investment advisers, who are registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, to assist in the management of MCE’s investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the MCE’s objectives. External investment advisers may be granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this Investment Policy.
Ethics and Conflicts of Interest
All participants in the investment process shall act as custodians of the public trust. Investment officials shall recognize that the investment portfolio is subject to public review and evaluation.
Thus employees and officials involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could create a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions.
Employees and investment officials shall disclose to MCE’s General Counsel or designee any material interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the investment portfolio. Employees and officers shall refrain from undertaking any personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of MCE.
Authorized Investments
MCE’s investments are governed by California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. Within the investments permitted by the Code, MCE seeks to further restrict eligible investments to the guidelines listed below. In the event a discrepancy is found between this policy and the Code, the more restrictive parameters will take precedence. Percentage holding limits and minimum credit quality requirements listed in this section apply at the time the security is purchased.
Any investment currently held at the time the policy is adopted which does not meet the new policy guidelines can be held until maturity and shall be exempt from the current policy. At the time of the investment’s maturity or liquidation, such funds shall be reinvested only as provided in the current policy.
The following types of investments are permitted:
3 Deposits at Bank(s): Funds may be invested in non-interest bearing depository accounts to meet MCE’s operating and collateral needs and grant requirements. Funds not needed for these purposes may be invested in interest bearing depository accounts or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured certificates of deposit with maturities not to exceed five years.
Banks eligible to receive deposits will be federally or state chartered and will conform to Section 53635.2 which requires that banks “have received an overall rating of not less than "satisfactory" in its most recent evaluation by the appropriate federal financial supervisory agency of its record of meeting the credit needs of California's communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, pursuant to Section 2906 of Title 12 of the United States Code.” FDIC insurance coverage in the United States is $250,000 per Tax ID Number. As per Section 53652, banks must collateralize the deposits of public agencies. The Treasurer, or a duly appointed Deputy Treasurer, will monitor the credit quality of eligible banks to ensure the safety of MCE deposits.
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): Funds may be invested in the Local Agency Investment Fund. The LAIF was established by the California State Treasurer for the benefit of local agencies. Statutory requirements of the Local Agency Investment Fund include:
Section 16429.1
a. There is in trust in the custody of the Treasurer the Local Agency Investment Fund, which fund is hereby created. The Controller shall maintain a separate account for each governmental unit having deposits in this fund.
e. The local governmental unit, the nonprofit corporation, or the quasi-governmental agency has the exclusive determination of the length of time its money will be on deposit with the Treasurer.
j. Money in the fund shall be invested to achieve the objective of the fund which is to realize the maximum return consistent with safe and prudent treasury management. i. Immediately at the conclusion of each calendar quarter, all interest earned and other increment derived from investments shall be distributed by the Controller to the contributing governmental units or trustees. An amount equal to the reasonable costs incurred in carrying out the provisions of this section, not to exceed a maximum of 5 percent of the earnings of this fund and not to exceed the amount appropriated in the annual Budget Act for this function, shall be deducted from the earnings prior to distribution.
Section 16429.4
The right of a city, county, city and county, special district, nonprofit corporation, or qualified quasi-governmental agency to withdraw its deposited moneys from the Local Agency Investment Fund, upon demand, may not be altered, impaired, or denied, in any way, by any state official or state agency based upon the state’s failure to adopt a State Budget by July 1 of each new fiscal year.
US Treasury Obligations: Funds may be invested in United States Treasury obligations and other government obligations for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest with a term to maturity not exceeding seven (7) years. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that MCE may invest in U.S. Treasuries.
Federal Agency Securities: Funds may be invested in Federal Agency Securities or United States Government-Sponsored Enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including 4 those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government-sponsored enterprises. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that MCE may invest in Federal Agency or Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) with a term to maturity not exceeding seven (7) years. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in any single Agency/GSE issuer. Federal Agency and GSE obligations must be rated in a rating category of AA or equivalent or better. The maximum percent of agency callable securities in the portfolio will be 20%.
Commercial Paper: Funds may be invested in commercial paper in accordance with the requirements of Section 53601 and subject to the following limitations:
i. No more than 25% of the total portfolio shall be invested in commercial paper; ii. The term to maturity shall not exceed 397 days; and The issuer of commercial paper must meet all of the following conditions in either paragraph (a) or (b) specified below:
a. Securities issued by corporations:
i. A corporation organized and operating in the United States with assets in excess of $500 million;
ii. The securities are rated A-1 or its equivalent or better by a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO); and
iii. If the issuer has other debt obligations, they must be rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO.
b. Securities issued by other entities:
i. The issuer is organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company.
ii. The securities must have program-wide credit enhancements including, but not limited to, overcollateralization, letters of credit, or a surety bond. iii. The securities are rated “A-1” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO.
Additionally, under a provision sunsetting on January 1, 2031, no more than 40% of the portfolio may be invested in Commercial Paper if MCE’s investment assets under management are greater than $100,000,000. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer.
Bankers’s Acceptances, provided that:
• They are issued by institutions which have short-term debt obligations rated “A-1” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO; or long-term debt obligations which are rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. • No more than 40% of the total portfolio may be invested in Banker’s Acceptances. • No more than 5% of the total portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. • The maximum maturity does not exceed 180 days.
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit: Funds may be invested in negotiable certificates of deposit issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank, a savings association or a federal association, a state or federal credit union, or by a federally licensed or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank, and subject to the following limitations:
i. Issued by an entity as defined in Section 53601(i); and ii. No more than 30% of funds invested pursuant to this Investment Policy may be invested in certificates of deposit.
iii. The amount of the NCD insured up to the FDIC limit does not require any credit ratings. 5 iv. Any amount above the FDIC insured limit must be issued by institutions which have short-term debt obligations rated “A-1” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO; or long-term obligations rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least v. one NRSRO.
vi. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. vii. The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years.
Collateralized Time Deposits (Non-Negotiable Certificates of Deposit): Funds may be invested in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions in excess of insured amounts which are fully collateralized with securities in accordance with California law, provided that:
• No more than 50% of the portfolio will be invested in a combination of federally insured and collateralized time deposits, including CDARS.
• The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years.
Placement Service Deposits: Funds may be invested in deposits placed with a private sector entity that assists in the placement of deposits with eligible financial institutions located in the United States (Section 53601.8). The full amount of principal and the interest that may be accrued during the maximum term of each deposit shall at all times be insured by federal deposit insurance. The combined maximum portfolio exposure to the deposits placed pursuant to this section, Insured Cash Sweep (ICS) and Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service (CDARS) is limited to 30 percent and the maximum investment maturity will be restricted to five years, unless otherwise prescribed by law. Under a provision sunsetting on January 1, 2031, no more than 50 percent of the portfolio may be invested in deposits through a placement service, including Certificates of Deposit, if the investing agency is a city, district or local agency that does not pool money with other local agencies.
Money Market Funds: Funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and issued by diversified management companies and meet either of the following criteria:
i. Have attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two (2) NRSROs; or
ii. Have retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years’ experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of $500 million. • No more than 20% of the total portfolio may be invested in Money Market Mutual Funds, and the shares of any one Money Market Mutual Fund.
Municipal Securities: Funds may be invested in municipal securities including obligations of MCE, the State of California and any local agency within the State of California, provided that:
• The securities are rated in a minimum rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization (“NRSRO”). • No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. • No more than 30% of the portfolio may be in Municipal Securities in the aggregate. • The maximum maturity does not exceed seven (7) years.
Municipal Securities: Registered Treasury Notes of Bonds of any of the other 49 states in addition to California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing 6 property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of the other 49 states, in addition to California.
• The securities are rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO.
• No more than 5% of the total portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. • No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be in Municipal Securities in the aggregate. • The maximum maturity does not exceed seven (7) years.
Repurchase Agreements: Funds may be invested in repurchase agreements collateralized with securities authorized under California Government Code, maintained at a level of at least 102% of the market value of the Repurchase Agreement. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that MCE may invest, provided that:
• Securities used as collateral for Repurchase Agreements will be delivered to an acceptable third party custodian.
• Repurchase Agreements are subject to a Master Repurchase Agreement between the Agency and the provider of the repurchase agreement. The Master Repurchase Agreement will be substantially in the form developed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA).
• The maximum maturity does not exceed one (1) year.
Corporate Medium-Term Notes (MTNs): Funds may be invested in MTMs provided that:
• The security is issued by a corporation organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States.
• The securities are rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO.
• No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in MTNs. • No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. • The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years.
Asset-Backed, Mortgage-Backed, Mortgage Passthrough Securities, and Collateralized Mortgage Obligations from issuers not defined as issuers of U.S. Treasuries, Federal Agencies, and Government Sponsored Enterprises in the preceding paragraphs of the Authorized Investments section of this policy: Funds may be invested in these securities provided that:
• The securities are rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better by a NRSRO. • No more than 20% of the total portfolio may be invested in these securities. • No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single Asset-Backed or Commercial Mortgage security issuer.
• The maximum legal final maturity does not exceed five (5) years.
Supranationals: Funds may be invested in supranationals provided that:
• Issues are US dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter-American Development Bank. • The securities are rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better by a NRSRO. • No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in these securities. • No more than 10% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. 7 • The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years.
Local Government Investment Pools (LGIP): Defined as shares of beneficial interest issued by a Joint Powers Authority (JPA): provided that:
• The JPA is organized pursuant to California Government Code Section 6509.7 and invests in the securities and obligations authorized in subdivisions (a) to (r), inclusive. • Each share shall represent an equal proportional interest in the underlying pool of securities owned by the JPA.
• The JPA has retained an investment advisor who is registered with the SEC (or exempt from registration), has assets under management in excess of $500 million, and has at least five years’ experience investing in instruments authorized by Section 53601, subdivisions (a) to (q).
Prohibited Investments
Pursuant to Section 53601.6, MCE shall not invest funds in any security that could result in a zero interest accrual, or less, if held to maturity. These prohibited investments include inverse floaters, range notes, or mortgage-derived interest-only strips, futures options. The purchase of foreign currency denominated securities is prohibited. Trading securities for the sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates is prohibited. Purchasing or selling securities on margin is prohibited. The use of reverse repurchase agreements, securities lending or any other form of borrowing or leverage is prohibited. The purchase of a security with a forward settlement date exceeding 45 days from the time of the investment is prohibited.
Investment Portfolio Management
The term to maturity of any funds invested as measured from settlement date to maturity date shall not exceed 5 years pursuant to Section 53601 unless the MCE Board has by resolution granted authority to make such an investment either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the legislative body no less than three months prior to the investment. U.S.
Treasury securities, federal agency obligations, and municipal securities may be invested in securities with maturities no longer than seven (7) years. The Treasurer, or a duly appointed Deputy Treasurer, will allocate funds among authorized investments consistent with the objectives and standards of care outlined in this Policy.
Bids and Purchase of Securities
Prior to the purchase of an investment pursuant to this Policy the persons authorized to make investments shall assess the market and market prices using information obtained from available sources including investment services, broker/dealers, and the media. A competitive bid process, when practical, will be used to place all investment purchases and sales transactions.
Brokers
To the extent practicable, the Treasurer shall endeavor to complete investment transactions using a competitive bid process whenever possible. In accordance with Section 53601.5, institutions eligible to transact investment business with MCE include:
• Institutions licensed by the state as a broker-dealer, as defined in Section 25004 of the Corporations Code, with proof of FINRA certification.
• Institutions that are members of a federally regulated securities exchange. 8 • Primary government dealers as designated by the Federal Reserve Bank and non-primary government dealers.
• Nationally or state-chartered banks.
• Savings association or federal association (as defined in Section 5102 of the Financial Code).
• The Federal Reserve Bank.
• Direct issuers of securities eligible for purchase.
Selection of financial institutions and broker/dealers authorized to engage in transactions will be at the sole discretion of MCE, except where MCE utilizes an external investment adviser in which case MCE may rely on the adviser for selection.
Selection of broker/dealers used by an external investment adviser retained by MCE will be at the sole discretion of the adviser. Where possible, transactions with broker/dealers shall be selected on a competitive basis and their bid or offering prices shall be recorded. If there is no other readily available competitive offering, best efforts will be made to document quotations for comparable or alternative securities. When purchasing original issue instrumentality securities, no competitive offerings will be required as all dealers in the selling group offer those securities at the same original issue price.
The Treasurer shall be prohibited from selecting any broker, brokerage firm, dealer, or securities firm that has, within any 48-consecutive month period following January 1, 1996, made a political contribution in an amount exceeding the limitations contained in Rule G-37 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board to any member of the MCE Board, or any candidate for those offices. The broker/dealers shall be provided with and acknowledge receipt of the Investment Policy.
Losses
Losses are acceptable on a sale before maturity and may be taken if required to rebalance duration, improve credit quality or increase diversification, meet the liquidity needs of the agency or if the reinvestment proceeds will earn an income flow with a present value higher than the present value of the income flow that would have been generated by the original investment, considering any investment loss or foregoing interest on the original investment.
Delivery and Safekeeping
The delivery and safekeeping of all securities shall be made through a third party custodian when practical and cost effective as determined by the Treasurer, or a duly appointed Deputy Treasurer, and in accordance with Section 53608. The Director of Finance or their designee shall review all transaction confirmations for conformity with the original transaction.
Risk Management and Diversification—Mitigating Credit Risk in the Portfolio Credit risk is the risk that a security or a portfolio will lose some or all its value due to a real or perceived change in the ability of the issuer to repay its debt. MCE will mitigate credit risk by adopting the following strategies:
• The diversification requirements included in the “Authorized Investments” section of this policy are designed to mitigate credit risk in the portfolio. • No more than 5% of the total portfolio may be deposited with or invested in securities issued by any single issuer unless otherwise specified in this policy. 9 • MCE may elect to sell a security prior to its maturity and record a capital gain or loss in order to manage the quality, liquidity or yield of the portfolio in response to market conditions or MCE’s risk preferences.
• If a security owned by MCE is downgraded to a level below the requirements of this policy, making the security ineligible for additional purchases, the following steps will be taken:
• Any actions taken related to the downgrade by the investment manager will be communicated to the Treasurer in a timely manner.
• If a decision is made to retain the security, the credit situation will be monitored and reported to the Governing Body.
Risk Management and Diversification—Mitigating Market Risk in the Portfolio Market risk is the risk that the portfolio value will fluctuate due to changes in the general level of interest rates. MCE recognizes that, over time, longer-term portfolios have the potential to achieve higher returns. On the other hand, longer-term portfolios have higher volatility of return.
MCE will mitigate market risk by providing adequate liquidity for short-term cash needs, and by making longer-term investments only with funds that are not needed for current cash flow purposes.
MCE further recognizes that certain types of securities, including variable rate securities, securities with principal paydowns prior to maturity, and securities with embedded options, will affect the market risk profile of the portfolio differently in different interest rate environments.
MCE, therefore, adopts the following strategies to control and mitigate its exposure to market risk:
• MCE will maintain a minimum of $40 million in cash and overnight investments at all times to provide sufficient liquidity for expected disbursements. • The maximum stated final maturity of individual securities in the portfolio will be five (5) years, except as otherwise stated in this policy.
• The duration of the portfolio will generally be approximately equal to the duration (typically, plus or minus 20%) of a Market Benchmark, an index selected by MCE based on MCE’s investment objectives, constraints and risk tolerances.
Conflict of Interest
In accordance with state law, staff shall not accept honoraria, gifts, and gratuities from advisors, brokers, dealers, bankers, or other person with whom MCE conducts business.
Audits
MCE’s funds shall be subject to a process of independent review by its external auditors. MCE’s external auditors shall review the investment portfolio in connection with the annual audit for compliance with the Investment Policy pursuant to Section 27134. The results of the audit shall be reported to the Director of Finance and the Ad Hoc Audit Committee.
Reports
10 Monthly: So long as the Board of Directors’ annual delegation of investment authority pursuant to Section 53607 to the Treasurer is effective, the Treasurer or a duly appointed Deputy Treasurer will perform a monthly review of the investment function and shall submit a monthly report of all investment transactions to the Board of Directors. Investment transactions are defined as the purchase, sale or exchange of securities.
Annually: The Treasurer, or a duly appointed Deputy Treasurer, will submit an annual report to the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer within 45 days of the end of a fiscal year providing the following:
i. A list identifying the type of investment, issuer, date of maturity, par and dollar amount invested on all securities, the market value and source of the market value information;
ii. A statement that the portfolio is in compliance with the Investment Policy and in accordance with Section 53646 or the manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance; and
iii. A statement of MCE’s ability to meet expenditure requirements for the upcoming 12 months.
Annual Review
The Investment Policy will be reviewed annually by the Treasurer, or a duly appointed Deputy Treasurer. Any changes to the Investment Policy will be submitted to the Board for approval. 11 Glossary of Investment Terms
AGENCIES. Shorthand market terminology for any obligation issued by a government-sponsored entity (GSE), or a federally related institution. Most obligations of GSEs are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Examples are:
FFCB. The Federal Farm Credit Bank System provides credit and liquidity in the agricultural industry. FFCB issues discount notes and bonds.
FHLB. The Federal Home Loan Bank provides credit and liquidity in the housing market.
FHLB issues discount notes and bonds.
FHLMC. Like FHLB, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation provides credit and liquidity in the housing market. FHLMC, also called “FreddieMac” issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities.
FNMA. Like FHLB and FreddieMac, the Federal National Mortgage Association was established to provide credit and liquidity in the housing market. FNMA, also known as “FannieMae,” issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities.
GNMA. The Government National Mortgage Association, known as “GinnieMae,” issues mortgage pass-through securities, which are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.
PEFCO. The Private Export Funding Corporation assists exporters. Obligations of PEFCO are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government.
TVA. The Tennessee Valley Authority provides flood control and power and promotes development in portions of the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi River valleys. TVA currently issues discount notes and bonds.
ASKED. The price at which a seller offers to sell a security.
ASSET BACKED SECURITIES. Securities supported by pools of installment loans or leases or by pools of revolving lines of credit.
AVERAGE LIFE. In mortgage-related investments, including CMOs, the average time to expected receipt of principal payments, weighted by the amount of principal expected.
BANKER’S ACCEPTANCE. A money market instrument created to facilitate international trade transactions. It is highly liquid and safe because the risk of the trade transaction is transferred to the bank which “accepts” the obligation to pay the investor.
BENCHMARK. A comparison security or portfolio. A performance benchmark is a partial market index, which reflects the mix of securities allowed under a specific investment policy.
BID. The price at which a buyer offers to buy a security.
BROKER. A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a transaction for which the broker receives a commission. A broker does not sell securities from his own position.
CALLABLE. A callable security gives the issuer the option to call it from the investor prior to its maturity. The main cause of a call is a decline in interest rates. If interest rates decline since an issuer issues securities, it will likely call its current securities and reissue them at a lower rate of interest. Callable securities have reinvestment risk as the investor may receive its principal back when interest rates are lower than when the investment was initially made.
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD). A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate.
Large denomination CDs may be marketable.
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT ACCOUNT REGISTRY SYSTEM (CDARS). A private placement service that allows local agencies to purchase more than $250,000 in CDs from a single financial institution (must be a participating institution of CDARS) while still maintaining FDIC insurance coverage. CDARS is currently the only entity providing this service. CDARS facilitates the trading of deposits between the California institution and other participating institutions in amounts that are less than $250,000 each, so that FDIC coverage is maintained.
12 COLLATERAL. Securities or cash pledged by a borrower to secure repayment of a loan or repurchase agreement. Also, securities pledged by a financial institution to secure deposits of public monies.
COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS (CMO). Classes of bonds that redistribute the cash flows of mortgage securities (and whole loans) to create securities that have different levels of prepayment risk, as compared to the underlying mortgage securities.
COMMERCIAL PAPER. The short-term unsecured debt of corporations.
COST YIELD. The annual income from an investment divided by the purchase cost. Because it does not give effect to premiums and discounts which may have been included in the purchase cost, it is an incomplete measure of return.
COUPON. The rate of return at which interest is paid on a bond.
CREDIT RISK. The risk that principal and/or interest on an investment will not be paid in a timely manner due to changes in the condition of the issuer.
CURRENT YIELD. The annual income from an investment divided by the current market value.
Since the mathematical calculation relies on the current market value rather than the investor’s cost, current yield is unrelated to the actual return the investor will earn if the security is held to maturity.
DEALER. A dealer acts as a principal in security transactions, selling securities from and buying securities for his own position.
DEBENTURE. A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.
DELIVERY VS. PAYMENT (DVP). A securities industry procedure whereby payment for a security must be made at the time the security is delivered to the purchaser’s agent.
DERIVATIVE. Any security that has principal and/or interest payments which are subject to uncertainty (but not for reasons of default or credit risk) as to timing and/or amount, or any security which represents a component of another security which has been separated from other components (“Stripped” coupons and principal). A derivative is also defined as a financial instrument the value of which is totally or partially derived from the value of another instrument, interest rate, or index.
DISCOUNT. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is below par. Some short-term securities, such as T-bills and banker’s acceptances, are known as discount securities. They sell at a discount from par, and return the par value to the investor at maturity without additional interest. Other securities, which have fixed coupons, trade at a discount when the coupon rate is lower than the current market rate for securities of that maturity and/or quality.
DIVERSIFICATION. Dividing investment funds among a variety of investments to avoid excessive exposure to any one source of risk.
DURATION. The weighted average time to maturity of a bond where the weights are the present values of the future cash flows. Duration measures the price sensitivity of a bond to changes in interest rates. (See modified duration).
FEDERAL FUNDS RATE. The rate of interest charged by banks for short-term loans to other banks.
The Federal Reserve Bank through open-market operations establishes it.
FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE. A committee of the Federal Reserve Board that establishes monetary policy and executes it through temporary and permanent changes to the supply of bank reserves.
LEVERAGE. Borrowing funds in order to invest in securities that have the potential to pay earnings at a rate higher than the cost of borrowing.
LIQUIDITY. The speed and ease with which an asset can be converted to cash.
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF). A voluntary investment fund open to government entities and certain non-profit organizations in California that is managed by the State Treasurer’s Office.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL. Investment pools that range from the State Treasurer’s Office Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) to county pools, to Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs). These funds are not subject to the same SEC rules applicable to money market mutual funds.
13 MAKE WHOLE CALL. A type of call provision on a bond that allows the issuer to pay off the remaining debt early. Unlike a call option, with a make whole call provision, the issuer makes a lump sum payment that equals the net present value (NPV) of future coupon payments that will not be paid because of the call. With this type of call, an investor is compensated, or "made whole."
MARGIN. The difference between the market value of a security and the loan a broker makes using that security as collateral.
MARKET RISK. The risk that the value of securities will fluctuate with changes in overall market conditions or interest rates.
MARKET VALUE. The price at which a security can be traded.
MARKING TO MARKET. The process of posting current market values for securities in a portfolio.
MATURITY. The final date upon which the principal of a security becomes due and payable.
MEDIUM TERM NOTES. Unsecured, investment-grade senior debt securities of major corporations which are sold in relatively small amounts on either a continuous or an intermittent basis.
MTNs are highly flexible debt instruments that can be structured to respond to market opportunities or to investor preferences.
MODIFIED DURATION. The percent change in price for a 100 basis point change in yields. Modified duration is the best single measure of a portfolio’s or security’s exposure to market risk.
MONEY MARKET. The market in which short-term debt instruments (T-bills, discount notes, commercial paper, and banker’s acceptances) are issued and traded.
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH SECURITIES. A securitized participation in the interest and principal cash flows from a specified pool of mortgages. Principal and interest payments made on the mortgages are passed through to the holder of the security.
MUNICIPAL SECURITIES. Securities issued by state and local agencies to finance capital and operating expenses.
MUTUAL FUND. An entity which pools the funds of investors and invests those funds in a set of securities which is specifically defined in the fund’s prospectus. Mutual funds can be invested in various types of domestic and/or international stocks, bonds, and money market instruments, as set forth in the individual fund’s prospectus. For most large, institutional investors, the costs associated with investing in mutual funds are higher than the investor can obtain through an individually managed portfolio.
NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STATISTICAL RATING ORGANIZATION (NRSRO).
A credit rating agency that the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States uses for regulatory purposes. Credit rating agencies provide assessments of an investment's risk. The issuers of investments, especially debt securities, pay credit rating agencies to provide them with ratings. The three most prominent NRSROs are Fitch, S&P, and Moody's.
NEGOTIABLE CD. A short-term debt instrument that pays interest and is issued by a bank, savings or federal association, state or federal credit union, or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Negotiable CDs are traded in a secondary market and are payable upon order to the bearer or initial depositor (investor).
PREMIUM. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is above par.
PREPAYMENT SPEED. A measure of how quickly principal is repaid to investors in mortgage securities.
PREPAYMENT WINDOW. The time period over which principal repayments will be received on mortgage securities at a specified prepayment speed.
PRIMARY DEALER. A financial institution (1) that is a trading counterparty with the Federal Reserve in its execution of market operations to carry out U.S. monetary policy, and (2) that participates for statistical reporting purposes in compiling data on activity in the U.S.
Government securities market.
PRUDENT PERSON (PRUDENT INVESTOR) RULE. A standard of responsibility which applies to fiduciaries. In California, the rule is stated as “Investments shall be managed with the care, skill, prudence and diligence, under the circumstances then prevailing, that a prudent 14 person, acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters, would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims to accomplish similar purposes.” REALIZED YIELD. The change in value of the portfolio due to interest received and interest earned and realized gains and losses. It does not give effect to changes in market value on securities, which have not been sold from the portfolio.
REGIONAL DEALER. A financial intermediary that buys and sells securities for the benefit of its customers without maintaining substantial inventories of securities and that is not a primary dealer.
REPURCHASE AGREEMENT. Short-term purchases of securities with a simultaneous agreement to sell the securities back at a higher price. From the seller’s point of view, the same transaction is a reverse repurchase agreement.
SAFEKEEPING. A service to bank customers whereby securities are held by the bank in the customer’s name.
STRUCTURED NOTE. A complex, fixed income instrument, which pays interest, based on a formula tied to other interest rates, commodities or indices. Examples include inverse floating rate notes which have coupons that increase when other interest rates are falling, and which fall when other interest rates are rising, and "dual index floaters," which pay interest based on the relationship between two other interest rates - for example, the yield on the ten-year Treasury note minus the Libor rate. Issuers of such notes lock in a reduced cost of borrowing by purchasing interest rate swap agreements.
SUPRANATIONAL. A Supranational is a multi-national organization whereby member states transcend national boundaries or interests to share in the decision making to promote economic development in the member countries.
TOTAL RATE OF RETURN. A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time. It is the internal rate of return, which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending value; it includes interest earnings, realized and unrealized gains, and losses in the portfolio.
U.S. TREASURY OBLIGATIONS. Securities issued by the U.S. Treasury and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Treasuries are considered to have no credit risk, and are the benchmark for interest rates on all other securities in the US and overseas. The Treasury issues both discounted securities and fixed coupon notes and bonds.
TREASURY BILLS. All securities issued with initial maturities of one year or less are issued as discounted instruments, and are called Treasury bills. The Treasury currently issues three-and six-month T-bills at regular weekly auctions. It also issues “cash management” bills as needed to smooth out cash flows.
TREASURY NOTES. All securities issued with initial maturities of two to ten years are called Treasury notes, and pay interest semi-annually.
TREASURY BONDS. All securities issued with initial maturities greater than ten years are called Treasury bonds. Like Treasury notes, they pay interest semi-annually.
VOLATILITY. The rate at which security prices change with changes in general economic conditions or the general level of interest rates.
YIELD TO MATURITY. The annualized internal rate of return on an investment which equates the expected cash flows from the investment to its cost.
September 17, 2026
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Maíra Strauss, Chief Financial Officer
Kaladhar R. Bollampalli, Director of Power Systems and Analytics Efren Oxlaj, Manager of Finance
RE: Fiscal Year End 2026: Budget Results, Power Supply Variance, and Ratification of Certain Line Item Variances (Agenda Item #05 C.3) ATTACHMENT: A. Presentation on Fiscal Year End 2026: Budget Results, Power Supply Variance, and Ratification of Certain Line Item Variances B. FYE 2026 Operating Fund Budget Comparison
C. FYE 2026 Operating Fund Budget Comparison – Contingency Applied D. FYE 2026 Program Development Fund Budget Comparison
E. FYE 2026 Resiliency Virtual Power Plant Fund Budget Comparison F. FYE 2026 Energy Efficiency Program Fund Budget Comparison G. Resolution 2026-07 Ratifying Certain Line Item Variances Between Actual and Budgeted Amounts in MCE’s Fiscal Year End 2026 Budget Dear MCE Board Members:
Summary:
This report analyzes MCE's actual results relative to the Board approved Budgets for the fiscal year ended (FYE) March 31, 2026, and requests ratification of certain line item variances between actual and budgeted amounts for FYE 2026 via Resolution 2026-07. On a budget basis, MCE closed the year with a change in net position of $1.5 million1
, compared to a budgeted $16.6 million,
representing a variance of about $15 million or 91%. The fiscal year was shaped by softer than expected demand due to mild summer weather in 2025 which suppressed load. Consequently, energy revenue finished 6.1% below budget. Meanwhile, MCE’s cost of energy fell further, ending $113.0 million or 14.8% below budget on lower market prices, reduced volumes, and favorable CAISO market settlements. Part of that favorability was a matter of timing. A short-term renewable index+ contract, one of the final transactions used to close MCE's calendar year 2025 renewable position, delivered earlier than expected thus moving costs out of FYE 2026. The Renewable Portfolio Planning & Results section below discusses that transaction, its estimated financial impact across FYE 2025 and FYE 2026, and the procurement changes staff have since adopted. 1 The change in net position shown here is a consolidated, budget-basis figure covering all of MCE's funds. It approximates the financial statements but does not tie exactly, as the statements include GASB accounting adjustments that the budget does not.
Furthermore, non-operating revenue exceeded projections on strong investment income, while operating expenses finished 6.8% below budget, and program spending reflected underspending on most customer programs partially offset by stronger than anticipated demand for MCE's EV incentives. As detailed herein, although MCE’s total expenses and capital outlay fell well below budgeted amounts, some expenses have exceeded budgeted amounts listed within the line items of an applicable approved budget (MCE has four approved budgets and collectively they represent the MCE Budget). On August 27 and September 8, 2026 the Finance Committee and the Executive Committee, respectively, unanimously recommended that the Board approve Resolution 2026-07, Ratifying Certain Line Item Variances Between Actual and Budgeted Amounts in MCE’s Fiscal Year End 2026 Budget. This action will formally close FYE 2026.
A high-level summary of the MCE Budget is shown below.
Table 12
: Summary of MCE’s Budget Results
Overview of MCE Fund Budgets
MCE’s fiscal year runs from April 1 through March 31 of the following calendar year. For FYE 2026, your Board approved four budgets: the Operating Fund Budget, the Energy Efficiency Budget, the Program Development Fund Budget, and the Resiliency Virtual Power Plant (VPP) 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, and capital outlay. The Energy Efficiency Fund Budget is entirely funded by the California Public Utilities Commission for energy efficiency programs. The Program Development Fund is funded by 50% of 2 Variance $ is calculated as Actual less Budget. Variance % is calculated as Variance $ divided by the absolute value of Budget. Expenses are presented as negative amounts so the Variance $ column reconciles to Change in Net Position. This methodology applies to this consolidated summary table.
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance %
Energy Revenue, Net 764,392,000$ 813,689,000$ (49,297,000)$ (6.1%) ORF Withdrawal/Transfer (80,000,000) 13,000,000 (93,000,000) (715.4%) Cost of Energy (652,516,000) (765,542,000) 113,026,000 14.8% Operating Expenses (46,825,000) (50,249,000) 3,424,000 6.8% Non-Operating Revenues 26,593,000 18,278,000 8,315,000 45.5% Non-Operating Expenses (1,019,000) (3,503,000) 2,484,000 70.9% Program Expenses (20,935,000) (30,474,000) 9,539,000 31.3% Program Income 11,807,000 21,393,000 (9,586,000) (44.8%) Change in Net Position 1,497,000 16,592,000 (15,095,000) (91.0%) Capital Outlay (5,684,000) (15,999,000) 10,315,000 64.5% Total Expenses & Capital
Outlay
(726,979,000) (865,767,000) 138,788,000 16.0%
the Deep Green premium and grants, and any additional transfers from the Operating Fund, subject to your Board’s approval. This fund supports program incentives for electrification, electric vehicle (EV) adoption and EV charging stations. The Resiliency Virtual Power Plant Fund focuses on scaling MCE’s efforts with virtual power plants and energy storage. This fund may include grants and Board approved transfers from the Operating Fund.
Energy Revenue
Table 2: Energy Revenue Results
Gross energy revenue came in at $780.1 million (6.1% below budget) due to lower sales volume.
The cool summer temperatures in 2025 experienced across MCE's service area suppressed air conditioning related demand that the forecast had anticipated. As a result, sales volume came in
7.8% below forecast. A slightly higher average retail rate ($147.3 actual versus $144.7 budgeted, up
1.8%) partially offset the impact of the softer demand.
The following items reduced energy revenue:
• Uncollectible amounts totaled about $10 million, or 20.2% better than projections. Customer delinquencies were projected at 1.5% of sales, but actual results were closer to 1.3% suggesting stronger payment behavior from customers.
• The MCE Cares Relief Program cost $5.8 million, approximately 15.9% above budget.
Spending exceeded projections due to the timing of program expenditures and delays in reducing participation as the program approached its funding limit. Program expenditures continued beyond the available budget as previously committed bill credits were honored and enrollment adjustments could not be fully implemented until customers progressed through their normal billing cycles. Management has since implemented enhanced budget monitoring, forecasting, reconciliation, and escalation procedures to strengthen oversight of future customer assistance programs.
• The Bi-Directional Vehicle Charging Tariff had no activity against a budget of $79,500.
After these items, net energy revenue was $764.4 million, or $49.3 million (6.1%) below budget, closely tracking the shortfall in gross revenue.
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance %
Energy Revenue 780,138,000$ 831,238,000$ (51,100,000)$ (6.1%) Uncollectible Accounts (9,951,000) (12,469,000) 2,518,000 (20.2%) MCE Cares Relief Program (5,795,000) (5,000,000) (795,000) 15.9% Bi-Directional Vehicle Charging Tariff - (79,500) 79,500 (100.0%) Energy Revenue, Net 764,392,000 813,689,500 (49,297,500) (6.1%) Transfer/Withdrawal to ORF (80,000,000) 13,000,000 (93,000,000) (715.4%) Total Energy Revenue 684,392,000 826,689,500 (142,297,500) (17.2%) Sales (MWh) 5,296,000 5,744,000 (448,000) (7.8%)
Average Retail Rate 147.3$ 144.7$ $ 2.6 1.8%
Revenue was further reduced by the Board approved $80.0 million transfer to the Operating Reserve Fund (ORF), compared with a budgeted $13.0 million withdrawal, resulting in a $93.0 million change from the original budget assumption. This represents a positive results as the transfer strengthens MCE’s ability to provide rate stabilization capacity to help manage future energy market volatility and other financial risks. The transfer is also expected to replenish the ORF balance following the planned withdrawal in the current fiscal year.
Cost of Energy: $652,516,000 (14.8% below the Approved Budget) The cost of energy represents the expenditures MCE incurs to procure the electricity it delivers to customers. It is the largest expense for the agency. It consists of payments to suppliers under long and short-term contracts for renewable, large hydroelectric, and other carbon-free electricity.
Payments to reserve enough capacity (i.e. resource adequacy) to keep the grid reliable per state requirements, are also captured in this category. Other costs in this category include payments to hedge contract counterparties. Because MCE's renewable and clean energy contracts do not fully cover customer demand in every hour, the agency also enters into hedge contracts that lock in fixed prices for a portion of the system power it purchases through the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) market. Hedge contracts stabilize costs against price volatility. Finally, the cost of energy also captures the net cost of load, generation credits, and other charges settled through MCE's participation in the CAISO market. The cost of energy fluctuates from year to year with market conditions, including renewable energy prices, resource adequacy costs, CAISO market prices, hydroelectric availability, renewable generation output, congestion, contract terms, and the timing of procurement.
Table 3: Cost of Energy Results by the “Super Six” Categories3 Cost of energy totaled $652.5 million (14.8% below budget) driven largely by mild weather, softer customer demand, and favorable market prices which sharply lowered the agency's net CAISO costs. A shift of expenses to the previous fiscal year due to early deliveries from a short-term contract further reduced the cost of energy. The following drivers explain the results shown in Table 3. • Hedge Contracts – total costs were higher than projections by about $9.9 million or 3.7% due to additional hedge contracts executed after the budget was set. However, the added 3 Total shown in the table differs by about $1,000 from the total on the budget report due to rounding to the nearest one thousand of the individual categories shown. This rounding may impact subsequent tables shown.
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance %
Hedge Contracts 274,960,000$ 265,050,000$ 9,910,000$ 3.7% Resource Adequacy 130,444,000 145,713,000 (15,269,000) (10.5%) Renewable - Short Term 67,675,000 131,035,000 (63,360,000) (48.4%) Renewable - Long Term 131,837,000 122,588,000 9,249,000 7.5% Net CAISO Costs 19,234,000 85,084,000 (65,850,000) (77.4%) Carbon Free - Large Hydro/ACS 28,367,000 16,072,000 12,295,000 76.5% Total 652,517,000 765,542,000 (113,025,000) (14.8%)
volumes also lowered Net CAISO costs since hedge contracts are settled against CAISO system power costs. MCE pays a fixed price for hedge contracts and receives the floating CAISO price which offsets budgeted open positions for system power under Net CAISO Costs.
• Resource Adequacy – total costs were lower than projections by about $15.3 million or 10.5% due to surplus RA sales, portfolio optimizations, and a post-budget contract termination. • Renewable – Short Term – Costs came in about $63.4 million, or 48.4%, below projections, representing the second largest variance in the portfolio and driven primarily by non-recurring factors. Most significantly, a supplier accelerated renewable deliveries into the prior fiscal year. This reduced FYE 2026 contract costs by approximately $36.4 million relative to budget, as a significant portion of the contract deliveries had already been recognized in FYE 2025. The costs were also lower because the approved budget overstated planned costs by about $10.3 million. In addition, MCE had a smaller open position for renewable energy than planned due to the softer demand which reduced the volumes MCE needed to cover. Finally, MCE terminated a short-term contract after the budget was set. • Renewable – Long Term – costs came in about $9.2 million above projections. Costs are based on forecasted production by projects, but actual production can differ based on delivered energy, curtailment, and deemed delivered energy. As a result of MCE’s three energy prepayments, about $13.8 million in savings was recognized during the fiscal year, reducing the costs for renewable energy from long term contracts by a like amount. • Net CAISO Costs – Costs came in about $65.9 million or 77.4% below projections, the single largest favorable variance in the portfolio. Due to milder weather and consequently softer demand from customers, MCE purchased less energy in the CAISO market. Lower than forecasted spot-market prices reduced the cost of the energy MCE did purchase. As noted above, because MCE executed additional hedge contracts after the budget was set, a portion of costs effectively shifted out of the net CAISO line and into the hedge contracts line4 .
• Carbon Free – Large Hydro/ACS - costs were above forecast by about $12.3 million or 76.5% and reflects higher than expected deliveries associated with import RA purchases, which come with bundled carbon free energy. Import RA is necessary for compliance requirements.
In total, cost of energy came in at about $113.0 million below budget, largely offsetting the drop in energy revenue and significantly contributing to the results for the fiscal year.
Renewable Portfolio Planning & Results
The shift of renewable costs into the prior fiscal year traces back to a single short-term contract. That contract was one of the final transactions used to close MCE's calendar year 2025 renewable position, and the supplier delivered the contracted quantities much earlier than anticipated. 4 The favorable Net CAISO variance and the unfavorable hedge variance are inversely related and partly offsetting.
Although executed to secure MCE’s renewable targets, evolving 2025 energy demand later revealed the contract was unnecessary to fulfill the Board's renewable mandates.
The following section describes how the calendar year 2025 renewable position developed, the estimated financial impact of the additional procurement, and the changes staff have implemented in response.
Renewable procurement occurs in advance of actual customer load and resource generation.
Because both are uncertain and Board approved renewable targets are firm annual targets, planning margins have historically been used to reduce the risk of falling short.
The state Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program provides flexibility across a multi-year compliance period, including the ability to apply excess procurement toward future compliance. In contrast, MCE’s renewable targets are higher than state requirements, and its standard practice is to plan and procure renewable energy to meet annual targets within the year to which they apply. This creates a greater need to manage uncertainty within each year.
For 2025 calendar year, staff procured about 75% of forecast renewable need in advance. Actual load subsequently came in below forecast, while renewable supply declined by a smaller amount, resulting in a long renewable position. Once the long position became clearer following summer 2025, staff pursued opportunities to sell expected excess renewable supplies. The amount and value that could be sold were affected by market timing, liquidity, and prevailing prices.
Table 4: 2025 Renewable Position
2025 Renewable
Position
Renewable
Percentage
Notes Estimated Financial
Impact ($)
Board Target
(Target)
64% Weighted: 100% Deep
Green & 60% Light Green
Target + Loss
Adjustment
68% Target + 6% loss factor for
reporting (effective 2025)
Planned Target 75% Target + 6% (loss factor) +
10% (planning margin)
Actual Renewable Share
of Actual Retail-Sales
77% Actual Renewable Position
Actual Position above
Board Target
+13% 64% 77% $73 million
With perfect hindsight and knowledge of actual load and renewable supply, one of the final procurement transactions used to close the 2025 position would not have been necessary. That transaction contributed to the resulting long position and represents an estimated $72.8 million total financial impact. The impact was spread between two fiscal years: about $54.6 million in FYE 2025 and $18.2 million in FYE 20265
. The transaction largely contributed to the budget overrun observed in FYE 2025 as the supplier delivered the renewable energy quantities much earlier than anticipated.
The $72.8 million figure represents a perfect hindsight assessment based on actual conditions subsequently realized, rather than information that was fully known when the procurement decision was made. Staff have included this analysis to support your Board’s oversight role and to document the procurement process changes already adopted, consistent with the agency's broader focus on strengthening financial and governance practices.
Improvements Implemented for FYE 2027
Staff has already implemented the following changes based on 2025 review:
• Removed the historical 10% planning margin: The 6% loss adjustment incorporated into the portfolio planning provides additional coverage relative to the retail sales, reducing the need for a separate planning margin.
• Strengthened position monitoring: Positions are reviewed on a more frequent basis using updated forecasts, best available metered data and market information to identify emerging risks and opportunities and assess buy, sell, or hold decisions.
Potential Future Policy Considerations
• Flexible annual renewable targets rather than firm annual targets, enabling a more price-responsive and value-driven procurement strategy. • Allowing excess renewable supply to count toward future Board targets, like the flexibility available under the state RPS compliance framework.
• Reassessing voluntary renewable target levels, including the option of greater alignment with state requirements.
• Flexibility to meet the loss-adjusted target using either renewable energy or other carbon-free resources. Current policy guidance is not clearly defined.
Operating Expenses: $46,825,000 (6.8% below the Approved Budget) Operating expenses capture the overhead essential to running MCE, ranging from personnel to occupancy costs. This category also includes a contingency budget that can be drawn upon to offset any overages in any of the operating expense line items. For FYE 2026, total operating expenses came in at $46.8 million or 6.8% under budget, consistent with results in prior years. Except for personnel, data manager fees, and communication services, all lines were below budget. To remain within the Board approved budgets, MCE utilized $296,000 in contingency funds to offset the above budget variance for personnel, data manager, and communication services. 5 On a budget basis, the FYE 2026 Approved Budget assumed about $6 million per month for this contract from April through December 2025 (about $54.6 million). Because the supplier delivered early, only $18.2 million was recognized in FYE 2026, leaving the $36.4 million favorable budget variance noted earlier ($54.6 million budgeted minus $18.2 million actual).
Personnel: $25,484,000 (0.3% above the Approved Budget before applying contingency) Personnel costs include full-time equivalent (FTE) MCE staff salaries and wages, employee benefits, retirement contributions, payroll taxes, and other employee-related expenses.
Personnel costs can fluctuate based on staffing levels, vacancies, hiring timelines, and grant reimbursements that offset staffing costs.
Table 5: Personnel Expenses breakdown
Personnel costs totaled $25.5 million, or 0.3% above budget. While personnel expenses were $1.0 million below budget, grant reimbursements were $1.1 million below budget. This more than offset the payroll savings and resulted in personnel costs ending $79,000 above budget.
The shortfall in grant reimbursements was primarily driven by lower than budgeted realized reimbursements associated with CPUC Energy Efficiency programs. Reimbursements were lower largely because labor costs charged to grant-funded activities came in below budget.
Additionally, one grant-funded position included in the budget was not filled, resulting in both lower personnel expenses and lower corresponding grant reimbursements. Staffing changes during the year reduced the amount of labor charged to certain grant-funded projects, further decreasing grant reimbursements.
A portion of the grant reimbursements variance was also attributed to challenges with consistently tracking grant-related staff time. As of July 2026, MCE has fully transitioned grant timekeeping and reimbursement tracking to Euna Grants, following recommendations from MCE’s external grant compliance consultant, Award Advisors. The updated process improves the accuracy of labor allocations, reimbursement claims, and grant compliance while centralizing all grant timekeeping into a single system. The system also provides greater visibility into estimated versus actual grant-funded staff hours, improving budget monitoring, staffing allocation, and reimbursement tracking.
Gross personnel expenses came in below budget largely because several positions budgeted to be filled during FYE 2026 remained vacant longer than anticipated or were eliminated during the year.
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance %
Expenses $ 28,500,000 $ 29,517,000 $ (1,016,000) (3.4)% Grant Reimbursements (3,016,000) (4,112,000) 1,095,000 (26.6)% Total 25,484,000 25,405,000 79,000 0.3%
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance Variance %
FTE Staff 108 117 (9) (7.7)%
At the end of the fiscal year, personnel expenses reflected nine fewer FTE positions than assumed in the budget. The remaining FTE positions have already been filled or are expected to be filled during the current fiscal year.
Overall, savings generated by staffing vacancies were more than offset by lower than expected grant reimbursements, resulting in personnel costs ending modestly above budget.
Data Manager: $5,428,000 (2.9% above the Approved Budget before applying contingency) MCE’s data manager provides a wide range of billing services, including billing management for MCE’s customers, technical support for billing issues, and customer enrollment services.
The charges are based on a fixed fee per customer account. Costs came in above budget for two reasons: First, total enrolled accounts were 5% higher than forecast, increasing the data manager’s infrastructure and operational resources required to support the City of Hercules enrollment, and second, MCE requested additional billing and aging-balance reports that were not contemplated in the original budget.
Technical and Scheduling Consultants: $1,246,000 (11.0% below the Approved Budget) These consultants schedule energy resources into the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and assist MCE in managing risk more effectively. They also collaborate with staff to create advanced load management strategies and forecast costs related to market and regulatory changes. Costs came in below budget as staff worked with a more cost-effective vendor for forward price curves and congestion analysis.
Service Fees – PG&E: $2,603,000 (4.9% below the Approved Budget) PG&E service fees consist of a fixed charge per customer account. The fees cover PG&E’s costs for processing customer data and coordinating billing for MCE accounts. All community choice aggregators (CCAs) in PG&E’s territory must pay this fee. The budget built in a rate increase for PG&E's per-account billing fee that the CPUC has not yet approved. Because the higher rate never took effect, actual costs came in below budget.
Legal and Policy Services: $1,125,000 (26.7% below the Approved Budget) This line encompasses external legal and policy services that assist MCE in areas such as contract review for energy suppliers, non-energy vendors, regulatory proceedings, employment matters, and other agency functions. Results were below budget for a few reasons:
• Staff relied more on internal expertise for PPA reviews and engaged a more cost-effective vendor, thereby lowering the costs incurred for external counsel services. • Staff budgeted for outside counsel services related to municipal finance that ultimately did not materialize.
• Staff also budgeted for outside counsel services to support MCE’s Energy Efficiency Business Plan Application. Leveraging the last application, growing internal expertise, and creating efficiencies, Staff were able to decrease anticipated external spend. • Lastly, MCE continues to leverage its membership with the California Community Choice Association (CalCCA) to participate in joint regulatory proceedings, thus reducing the budget for external policy services.
Communication Services: $2,288,000 (2.9% above the Approved Budget before applying contingency)
The majority of the variance reflects a customer noticing software tool that had been budgeted within General & Administrative but was subsequently determined to be a Communication Services cost, given the customer noticing function it serves. Absent the software tool cost classification, this line would be within the Approved Budget.
Other Professional Services: $4,205,000 (11.5% below the Approved Budget) Other professional services cover external contractors that support MCE across a range of key business functions. This includes external services such as accounting, auditing, benefits administration, grant writing, and information technology (IT). This category also includes costs associated with the development and maintenance of MCE’s customer relationship management (CRM) software and data analytics infrastructure. The following drivers led to results coming in below budget:
• Spending on grant writing consultants was lower than planned as changes in federal funding priorities reduced the number of viable grant opportunities. In response, MCE adopted a more targeted approach, supporting municipal-led applications as a sub applicant rather than serving as the primary applicant. This strategy reduced both staff effort and the need for outside consulting assistance.
• Consulting expenses associated with asset ownership and congestion revenue rights optimization initiatives were lower than budgeted, as the anticipated work did not move forward during the year. In addition, consulting costs related to the Remedial Action Scheme project were below budget due to delays in negotiations outside of MCE's control.
• Spending on staff training and coaching services was below budget, as certain nonessential training programs were deferred and demand for employee coaching services was lower than anticipated.
General and Administrative: $4,196,000 (15.5% below the Approved Budget) This category includes items such as load forecasting tools, software licenses for agency-wide tools, insurance, recruitment for open positions, membership dues for the California Community Choice Association (CalCCA) and other office expenses, including registration and traveling costs. The following drivers led to results coming in below budget:
• Costs tied to one of MCE’s storage optimization software were significantly under budget due to a vendor invoicing delay. The vendor did not bill MCE for most of the year; staff are working to secure the outstanding invoices, and a portion of the cost is expected to shift into the current fiscal year.
• Costs tied to marketing tools were lower than budgeted due in part to the reclassification of the customer noticing software noted under Communication Services.
• The cost for Microsoft 365 licenses was deferred for about eight months. Following the onboarding of MCE's new IT Systems Manager, staff determined that a budgeted step-up in Microsoft 365 licensing could be deferred until the Microsoft migration formally began in December 2025, as the higher licensing tier was not required until staff transitioned to Outlook mailboxes.
• Participation in conferences and associated travel was lower than budgeted. Staff attended fewer events than the budget anticipated, reducing registration, airfare, lodging, and related travel expenses for the year.
Occupancy: $250,000 (44.8% below the Approved Budget)
This category includes lease payments for the MCE’s Concord office. Maintenance costs for both the Concord and San Rafael office locations are also included. Spending finished below budget because certain maintenance work was needed less than anticipated, several larger projects were pushed to next fiscal year, and the timing of MCE's move provided a few additional months of complimentary rent.
Contingency: $296,000 (80.3% below the Approved Budget) MCE maintains a budgeted contingency that can be drawn upon to absorb overages in individual operating expense line items. For FYE 2026, approximately $296,000 of the $1.5 million budgeted contingency was applied to cover the spending above budget described for Personnel, Communication Services, and Data Manager.
Grant Income: $4,962,000 (51.4% above the Approved Budget) Results were above budget primarily due to the amount of funding received from the CPUC for MCE's Disadvantaged Communities Green Tariff (DAC-GT)6
. Grant receipts are disbursed by the
CPUC based on MCE's Annual Budget Advice Letter filing rather than MCE's internal budget figure.
The filing applicable to FYE 2026 was overstated, as it double counted a portion of the DAC-GT program, including an embedded energy cost escalator. As a result, the CPUC paid more than the underlying program warranted. The overage represents a timing and reconciliation difference rather than a permanent increase in program funding. The inflated portion is expected to be adjusted through a true-up in future Annual Budget Advice Letter filings. 6 The program provides income-qualified residential customers in disadvantaged communities with 100% renewable energy and a 20% discount on their electricity bills. The associated bill credits reduce MCE's revenue from electricity sales, and the grant income received from the CPUC offsets that reduction.
Other Income: $635,000 (Not budgeted)
Other income reflects damages paid to MCE by counterparties when a project fails to perform in accordance with its contract. MCE does not budget for these payments, as its forecasts assume that projects will perform as contracted and the magnitude of any potential damages is difficult to estimate in advance. As a result, amounts recorded in this category represent favorable variances to the budget.
Interest Income: $20,996,000 (40.0% above the Approved Budget) Interest income reflects what MCE earns on its cash deposits, CDARS, and fixed income investments.
Staff continue to invest MCE’s reserves according to the agency’s investment policy, focusing on safety, liquidity and return on investments. Earnings came in well above plan for three reinforcing reasons. First, lower energy costs left MCE holding more cash than expected, which earned additional interest. Second, although market rates eventually fell, they stayed higher than budgeted, lifting yields on both cash and investments relative to projections. Third, market rates declined over the course of the year, which raised the value of MCE's fixed income holdings. Each increase in the portfolio's value was recorded as an investment gain per accounting guidelines.
Banking Fees and Financing Costs: $270,000 (20.0% above the Approved Budget) Costs exceeded budget due to a significant increase in MCE's Financial Security Requirement (FSR), a posting that California Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) are statutorily required to maintain to cover hypothetical customer re-entry costs to the incumbent utility. A combination of lower PG&E generation rates and higher PCIA charges coupled with changes to the FSR calculation methodology further increased the posting amount for CCAs. As a result, MCE's minimum FSR rose substantially from its historical level, increasing the banking fees associated with maintaining the posting. The size and timing of the FSR are determined by PG&E through a confidential formula driven process.
Changes are communicated to MCE 60 days before each posting date, placing this increase outside of MCE's control.
Capital Outlay and Interfund Transfers: $8,076,000 (56.1% below the Approved Budget) Capital outlay totaled approximately $5.7 million, consisting of $5.4 million for the purchase of MCE's office and $282 thousand for related office improvements. MCE also transferred the $2.4 million Board approved amount to the Program Development Fund. The budget variance reflects the Remedial Action Scheme transmission upgrade, which was not undertaken during the year due to negotiation delays outside of MCE's control.
The following sections transition away from the Operating Fund to the Program Development Fund, the Resiliency Virtual Power Plant Fund and the Efficiency Fund budget results. These funds often support long-term project development (EV charger installation, battery storage or large energy-efficiency retrofits) that spans multiple fiscal years. It can be difficult to project the exact expenditure in any given year for those programs as they can vary based on customers’ project timelines.
Regardless, for externally funded grants, if the total expenditures are under the grant budget and represent eligible grant activities, MCE is reimbursed for those costs.
Program Development Fund
Total Revenue and Other Sources: $2,522,000 (8.4% below the Approved Budget) As approved by your Board, MCE transferred $2.4 million to the Program Development Fund.
The Approved Budget also included contributions of $260,000 from a Marin Community Foundation Grant to support EV Charging at Affordable Multifamily Properties and $100,000 in Community Benefits Funds. The variance is due to lower activity recognized against the Marin Community Foundation Grant due to EV Project timelines being delayed into the subsequent fiscal year. This fund carried a balance of $3.7 million at the start of the fiscal year.
Total Expenditures and Other Uses: $8,032,000 (23.3% above the Approved Budget) Total expenditures came in above budget for the following reasons:
• Spending under MCE's transportation electrification programs totaled $7.0 million, ending the year 32.3% (approximately $1.7 million) above budget. As the federal EV tax credit approached its expiration at the end of September 2025, customers rushed to purchase electric vehicles before the credit was eliminated. This surge in EV purchases drove a sharp increase in demand for MCE's EV incentives, leading to higher than anticipated incentive payments and a need for additional program funding, which staff brought to your Board. To help address the shortfall, staff requested and received Board approval to increase the contract with Energy Solutions, the vendor that facilitates the incentive payouts, by approximately $600,000. This increase partially covered the $1.7 million overage7 . Lastly, greater than
forecasted EV charging project completions during the fiscal year further added to incentive payments under transportation electrification efforts. • Spending under MCE’s Heat Pump Water Heater Incentives program and Community Housing Grants was above budget due to higher than anticipated demand for the associated incentives. Since both programs supplement MCE's other program offerings, the extra spending allowed those related programs to keep going. • Overages in the programs described above were partially offset by lower than planned spending under MCE’s Emergency Water Heater Loaner.
The elevated spending on MCE's transportation electrification programs resulted in a year end deficit of approximately $1.8 million. The Approved Budget for the current fiscal year includes an $8.1 million transfer that eliminates this deficit in addition to funding the planned spending.
Resiliency Virtual Power Plant (VPP) Fund
Total Revenue and Other Sources: $294,000 (80.0% below the Approved Budget) 7 Although the Board approved roughly $600,000 in additional spending, the Program Development Fund budget was not amended to reflect this.
The Approved Budget included additional contributions of $200,000 in Federal Grants to support Energy Storage, $72,000 in funding from the Marin Community Foundation to support resiliency at critical facilities and a $1.2 million grant from the California Energy Commission (CEC) to scale MCE’s virtual power plant (VPP) program. Work associated with this grant was significantly delayed as the transition away from a pilot version of the program took longer than expected. The anticipated program adaptations were not immediately possible to implement due to a potential conflict with prevailing wage concerns. Separately, three VPP summer solicitations took longer than expected to approve and launch.
Consequently, MCE received less grant income but also incurred less expenses. Costs are expected to be rebalanced once the solicitations are completed and the project team can begin paying for equipment and integration costs. This fund carried a balance of $3.9 million at the start of the fiscal year.
Total Expenditures and Other Uses: $1,520,000 (65.5% below the Approved Budget) Total expenditures came in below the budget for the following reasons:
• As described above, work for the CEC VPP Flex Grant program was significantly lower than projected leading to less costs incurred.
• MCE's Energy Storage program came in under budget as project activities did not reach scheduled milestones, largely due to delays in PG&E's permission-to-operate (PTO) approval process. As a result, project work and related expenditures shifted to later periods than planned.
• MCE Sync finished under budget as fewer incentives were claimed than forecasted and certain implementation activities, such as Application Programming Interface (API) integration work, were not fully completed as planned. MCE Sync incentives in FYE 2026 included the standard smart charging incentives and a new pilot program, ChargeWise, which offers dynamic rates for EV Charging that are aligned with wholesale electricity prices. Customers who opt into this pilot can take advantage of very low daytime pricing to earn EV charging credits.
• PeakFLEX expenditures were well below the budget as there was lower than expected enrollment in the program. In addition, the mild summer season limited participation days and associated performance payments.
• Federal Earmark for MCE’s energy storage initiatives:
Grant funding: No project expenditures were incurred against the federal budget line item in FYE 2026 because activities remained on hold pending U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) authorization. DOE is currently conducting the National Environmental Policy Act review, which was expected to take approximately 1–3 months following submission on April 30, 2026. The DOE has recently informed MCE that due to internal capacity constraints the review process may take until early November 2026.
MCE Match Funding: Although the federally earmarked energy storage initiatives were delayed, MCE incurred modest costs for staff time on the grant as part of its cost sharing obligations. Expenditures were nonetheless below budget.
• Marin Community Foundation Resiliency at Critical Facilities: This line item incurred higher than anticipated expenditures during this reporting period due to project milestones, including Permission to Operate approval, being achieved sooner than originally projected.
• No costs were incurred for the San Rafael Office Resiliency Buildout project during the fiscal year because the project did not advance as originally anticipated. • Richmond VPP Pilot: The pilot ended and the team started the transition to MCE’s VPP Flex program, resulting in less expenses than projected.
The fund balance at the end of the fiscal year for this fund was about $2.7 million.
Energy Efficiency Fund $11,383,000 (41.8% below the Approved Budget) The energy efficiency (EE) fund supports the installation of energy efficient measures and retrofits for residential, commercial, industrial, and multifamily properties. The Energy Efficiency Fund programs are fully funded by the CPUC which follows a calendar year reporting cycle. Energy Efficiency Programs are required by the CPUC to budget funds in the year a project is reserved, even though most projects do not start and finish within the same year. The primary driver of the budget to actual variance is timing. Several EE programs show both revenue and expenses below budget, which may reflect differences between when program activity was originally budgeted to occur and when costs are actually incurred, submitted, reimbursed, or recognized. In those cases, lower spending does not necessarily indicate a reduction in planned activity, but rather that costs are expected to occur later than originally budgeted.
The Low-Income Families and Tenants Program is fully funded by the CPUC. While the program overspent its projected FY budget due to projects completing earlier than expected, it did not exceed its total awarded CPUC budget.
Progress toward reserve goals and liquidity
At the close of FYE 2026, MCE's net position increased by $1.4 million8 , bringing the year-end total
to $418.3 million. Net position represents the agency's reserves. Under Board-approved Policy 13 (Reserve Policy), MCE aims to maintain reserves equivalent to 60% of energy and operating expenses. Based on the actual expenses incurred, that target equated to about $433 million; MCE's actual reserves of $418.3 million represented about 97% of the goal. The target is a moving figure that shifts with actual energy costs and operating expenses. For example, in the prior fiscal year MCE fell short of the goal at 84%, reflecting a smaller change in net position alongside higher energy and operating costs. Measured by cash and cash equivalents plus investments, the ending liquidity position was $495 million, equivalent to 250 days or 10 days above the Policy goal of 240 days.
Resolution 2026-07
The proposed Resolution provides the opportunity for the Board to close out FYE 2026 and ratify past expenditures and reconcile MCE’s expenditures that exceeded specific line items in the budgets, but did not exceed the MCE Budget as a whole. Discussion of overages of line items are listed earlier in this report. Table 6 below provides the specific line item expenditures for the Board to approve through the proposed resolution.
Table 6: Expenditures Exceeding Approved Budget Line items for FYE 2026 8 As reported in the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position. $418
495
433
474
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
Reserves Liquidity
Millions $
Progress to Reserves and Liquidity
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Goal
On August 27, 2026, the Finance Committee unanimously recommended that the Board approve Resolution 2026-07, Ratifying Certain Line Item Variances Between Actual and Budgeted Amounts in MCE’s Fiscal Year End 2026 Budget. This action will formally close FYE 2026.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
Receive information regarding the Fiscal Year End 2026: Budget Results, Power Supply Variance and approve Resolution 2026-07 Ratifying Certain Line Item Variances Between Actual and Budgeted Amounts in MCE’s Fiscal Year End 2026 Budget.9
9 This item is an administrative matter as outlined in OR&R Article VI. Action requires a majority vote of the full membership of the Board for a motion to carry.
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance % Fund Cost Relief Program
(CARES)
5,795,000 5,000,000 795,000 15.9% Operating
Banking Fees and Financing
Costs
270,000 225,000 45,000 20.0% Operating
San Rafael Office Building
Purchase
5,401,000 5,400,000 1,000 0.0% Operating
MCE Resiliency at Critical
Facilities
275,000 72,000 203,000 281.9% Resiliency VPP
Public Purpose Low Income
Families and Tenants Pilot
Program
1,323,000 800,000 523,000 65.4% Energy Efficiency
Transportation
Electrification Programs
7,024,000 5,310,000 1,714,000 32.3% Program Development Heat Pump Water Heater
Incentives
620,000 540,000 80,000 14.8% Program Development
Community Housing Grants 349,000 260,000 89,000 34.2% Program Development Fiscal Year End 2026: Budget Results, Power Supply Variance, and Ratification of Certain Line Item Variances
MCE Board of Directors
September 17, 2026
FYE 2026 Budget Review
2 FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance % Energy Revenue, Net (excluding ORF) $ 764,392,000 $ 813,689,000 $ (49,297,000) (6.1%) ORF Withdrawal/Transfer (80,000,000) 13,000,000 (93,000,000) NM Cost of Energy (652,516,000) (765,542,000) 113,026,000 14.8% Operating Expenses (46,825,000) (50,249,000) 3,424,000 6.8% Non-Operating Revenues 26,593,000 18,278,000 8,315,000 45.5% Non-Operating Expenses (1,019,000) (3,503,000) 2,484,000 70.9% Program Expenses (20,935,000) (30,474,000) 9,539,000 31.3% Program Income 11,807,000 21,393,000 (9,586,000) (44.8%) Change in Net Position 1,497,000 16,592,000 (15,095,000) (91.0%) Capital Outlay (5,684,000) (15,999,000) 10,315,000 64.5% Total Expenses & Capital Outlay (726,979,000) (865,767,000) 138,788,000 16.0% Legend: Red variances are unfavorable, green variances are favorable, and NM is not meaningful.
Variance $ is calculated as Actual less Budget. Variance % is calculated as Variance $ divided by the absolute value of Budget. Expenses are presented as negative amounts so the Variance $ column reconciles to Change in Net Position. This methodology applies to this consolidated summary table.
Cost of Energy
3 $265
$146 $131 $123
$85
$16
$275
$130
$68
$132
$19 $28
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
$0
$100
$200
$300
Hedge Contracts Resource Adequacy Renewable - Short
Term
Renewable - Long
Term
Net CAISO Costs Carbon Free - Large
Hydro/ACS
Millions
Cost of Energy Breakdown
FYE 2026 Budget FYE 2026 Actual
About $13.8 million in savings from
prepays was recognized during the
fiscal year
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance %
Hedge Contracts $ 274,960,000 $ 265,050,000 $ 9,910,000 3.7% Resource Adequacy 130,444,000 145,713,000 (15,269,000) (10.5%) Renewable - Short Term 67,675,000 131,035,000 (63,360,000) (48.4%) Renewable - Long Term 131,837,000 122,588,000 9,249,000 7.5% Net CAISO Costs 19,234,000 85,084,000 (65,850,000) (77.4%) Carbon Free - Large Hydro/ACS 28,367,000 16,072,000 12,295,000 76.5% Total 652,517,000 765,542,000 (113,025,000) (14.8%)
Calendar Year 2025 Renewable Position
4 64%
68%
75%
77%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Board Target
(Retail Sales Basis)
Target
+ Loss Adjustment
(+6%)
Planned Target
(+10% Margin)
Actual Renewable
Position
(as % of Actual Retail
Sales)
+13%
2025 Key Results:
• Lower load vs. expected long position
• Some excess sold (Value impacted by market
conditions)
• Perfect-hindsight: 13% excess I $73M impact
FYE 2027 Improvements:
• Removed 10% planning margin
• Enhanced position monitoring
Future Policy Considerations:
• Flexible annual targets price-responsive
procurement strategy
• Bank excess for future years
• Reassess renewable target levels relative to
state requirements
Note:
• 64% weighted renewable content, based on 100% Deep Green and 60% Light Green participation
• ~6% loss adjustment reflects CEC portfolio-level reporting (retail sales grid) and provides additional coverage to the retail-sales-based Board target • All percentages and dollar amounts are rounded
Operating Expenses
5 FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance % Personnel $ 25,484,000 $ 25,405,000 $ 79,000 0.3%
Data Manager 5,428,000 5,276,000 152,000 2.9%
Technical and Scheduling Consultants 1,246,000 1,400,000 (154,000) (11.0%) Service Fees - PG&E 2,603,000 2,738,000 (135,000) (4.9%) Legal and Policy Services 1,125,000 1,534,000 (409,000) (26.7%) Communication Services 2,288,000 2,223,000 65,000 2.9%
Other Professional Services 4,205,000 4,754,000 (549,000) (11.5%) General and Administrative 4,196,000 4,966,000 (770,000) (15.5%) Occupancy 250,000 453,000 (203,000) (44.8%)
Contingency - 1,500,000 (1,500,000) (100.0%)
Total 46,825,000 50,249,000 (3,424,000) (6.8%)
Personnel, Data Manager, and Communication Services are shown before Contingency. Applying contingency caps each line at its budgeted amount and shifts the combined overage, about $296,000, to the Contingency line.
MCE Funded Program Budgets
6 Program FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance % Fund Transportation Electrification $ 7,025,000 $ 5,310,000 $ 1,714,000 32.3% Program Development MCE Sync 658,000 952,000 (294,000) (30.9%) Resiliency VPP Heat Pump Water Heater Incentives 620,000 540,000 80,000 14.8% Program Development Community Housing Grants 349,000 260,000 89,000 34.2% Program Development Energy Storage Program 52,000 306,000 (254,000) (83.0%) Resiliency VPP PeakFLEX 17,000 100,000 (83,000) (83.0%) Resiliency VPP Richmond VPP Pilot 12,000 171,000 (159,000) (93.0%) Resiliency VPP Emergency Water Heater Loaner 9,000 142,000 (133,000) (93.7%) Program Development San Rafael Office Resiliency Buildout
- 200,000 (200,000) (100.0%) Resiliency VPP
Matching Funds:
CEC VPP Flex Match 281,000 1,000,000 (719,000) (71.9%) Resiliency VPP Federal Earmark Match Expense 86,000 200,000 (114,000) (57.0%) Resiliency VPP Total 9,108,000 9,181,000 (73,000) (0.8%)
Recommendation
Recommend to the Board of Directors for approval, Resolution 2026-07 Ratifying Certain Line Item Variances Between Actual and Budgeted Amounts in MCE’s Fiscal Year End 2026 Budget.
Thank you!
mceCleanEnergy.org
[email protected]
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance %
ENERGY REVENUE
OPERATING REVENUES $ 780,138,000 $ 831,237,000 $ (51,099,000) (6.1%) Transfer from Operating Reserve Fund (80,000,000) 13,000,000 - 0.0% Cost Relief Program (5,795,000) (5,000,000) (795,000) 15.9% Bi-Directional Vehicle Charging Tariff - (80,000) 80,000 (100.0%) Uncollectible Accounts (9,951,000) (12,469,000) 2,518,000 (20.2%) REVENUE - ELECTRICITY NET 684,392,000 826,689,000 (142,297,000) (17.2%)
ENERGY EXPENSES
Cost of Energy 652,516,000 765,542,000 (113,026,000) (14.8%) NET ENERGY REVENUE 31,876,000 61,147,000 (29,271,000) (47.9%)
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel 25,484,000 25,405,000 79,000 0.3%
Data Manager 5,428,000 5,276,000 152,000 2.9%
Technical and Scheduling Consultants 1,246,000 1,400,000 (154,000) (11.0%) Service Fees - PG&E 2,603,000 2,738,000 (135,000) (4.9%) Legal and Policy Services 1,125,000 1,534,000 (409,000) (26.7%) Communication Services 2,288,000 2,223,000 65,000 2.9%
Other Professional Services 4,205,000 4,754,000 (549,000) (11.5%) General and Administrative 4,196,000 4,966,000 (770,000) (15.5%) Occupancy 250,000 453,000 (203,000) (44.8%)
Contingency - 1,500,000 (1,500,000) (100.0%)
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 46,825,000 50,249,000 (3,424,000) (6.8%) OPERATING INCOME (14,949,000) 10,898,000 (25,847,000) (237.2%)
NONOPERATING REVENUES
Grant Income 4,962,000 3,278,000 1,684,000 51.4%
Other Income 635,000 - 635,000 -
Interest Income 20,996,000 15,000,000 5,996,000 40.0%
TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES 26,593,000 18,278,000 8,315,000 45.5%
NONOPERATING EXPENSES -
Banking Fees and Financing Costs 270,000 225,000 45,000 20.0% Grant Expenses 749,000 3,278,000 (2,529,000) (77.2%)
TOTAL NONOPERATING EXPENSES 1,019,000 3,503,000 (2,484,000) (70.9%) CHANGE IN NET POSITION 10,625,000 25,673,000 (15,048,000) (58.6%) Budgeted Net Position Beginning of Period 416,863,000 416,863,000 - 0.0% Change in Net Position 10,625,000 25,673,000 (15,048,000) (58.6%) BUDGETED NET POSITION END OF PERIOD 427,488,000 442,536,000 (15,048,000) (3.4%)
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, INTERFUND TRANSFERS & OTHER
Software Transmission Upgrade - 10,250,000 (10,250,000) (100.0%) San Rafael Office Building Purchase 5,401,000 5,400,000 1,000 0.0% Office Improvements and Retrofits 282,000 349,000 (67,000) (19.2%) Transfer to Program Development Fund 2,392,000 2,392,000 - -
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, INTERFUND TRANSFERS &
OTHER 8,076,000 18,391,000 (10,315,000) (56.1%)
BUDGETED NET INCREASE IN OPERATING FUND BALANCE 2,549,000 7,282,000 (4,733,000) (65.0%) MCE Operating Fund Without Contingency Applied
Approved Budget Comparison FYE 2026
From April 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance %
ENERGY REVENUE
OPERATING REVENUES $ 780,138,000 $ 831,237,000 $ (51,099,000) (6.1%) Transfer from Operating Reserve Fund (80,000,000) 13,000,000 - 0.0% Cost Relief Program (5,795,000) (5,000,000) (795,000) 15.9% Bi-Directional Vehicle Charging Tariff - (80,000) 80,000 (100.0%) Uncollectible Accounts (9,951,000) (12,469,000) 2,518,000 (20.2%) REVENUE - ELECTRICITY NET 684,392,000 826,689,000 (142,297,000) (17.2%)
ENERGY EXPENSES
Cost of Energy 652,516,000 765,542,000 (113,026,000) (14.8%) NET ENERGY REVENUE 31,876,000 61,147,000 (29,271,000) (47.9%)
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel 25,405,000 25,405,000 - 0.0%
Data Manager 5,276,000 5,276,000 - 0.0%
Technical and Scheduling Consultants 1,246,000 1,400,000 (154,000) (11.0%) Service Fees - PG&E 2,603,000 2,738,000 (135,000) (4.9%) Legal and Policy Services 1,125,000 1,534,000 (409,000) (26.7%) Communication Services 2,223,000 2,223,000 - 0.0%
Other Professional Services 4,205,000 4,754,000 (549,000) (11.5%) General and Administrative 4,196,000 4,966,000 (770,000) (15.5%) Occupancy 250,000 453,000 (203,000) (44.8%)
Contingency 296,000 1,500,000 (1,204,000) (80.3%)
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 46,825,000 50,249,000 (3,424,000) (6.8%) OPERATING INCOME (14,949,000) 10,898,000 (25,847,000) (237.2%)
NONOPERATING REVENUES -
Grant Income 4,962,000 3,278,000 1,684,000 51.4%
Other Income 635,000 - 635,000 -
Interest Income 20,996,000 15,000,000 5,996,000 40.0%
TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES 26,593,000 18,278,000 8,315,000 45.5%
NONOPERATING EXPENSES -
Banking Fees and Financing Costs 270,000 225,000 45,000 20.0% Grant Expenses 749,000 3,278,000 (2,529,000) (77.2%)
TOTAL NONOPERATING EXPENSES 1,019,000 3,503,000 (2,484,000) (70.9%) CHANGE IN NET POSITION 10,625,000 25,673,000 (15,048,000) (58.6%) Budgeted Net Position Beginning of Period 416,863,000 416,863,000 - 0.0% Change in Net Position 10,625,000 25,673,000 (15,048,000) (58.6%) BUDGETED NET POSITION END OF PERIOD 427,488,000 442,536,000 (15,048,000) (3.4%)
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, INTERFUND TRANSFERS & OTHER
Software Transmission Upgrade - 10,250,000 (10,250,000) (100.0%) San Rafael Office Building Purchase 5,401,000 5,400,000 1,000 0.0% Office Improvements and Retrofits 282,000 349,000 (67,000) (19.2%) Transfer to Program Development Fund 2,392,000 2,392,000 - -
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, INTERFUND TRANSFERS &
OTHER 8,076,000 18,391,000 (10,315,000) (56.1%)
BUDGETED NET INCREASE IN OPERATING FUND BALANCE 2,549,000 7,282,000 (4,733,000) (65.0%) MCE Operating Fund With Contingency Applied
Approved Budget Comparison FYE 2026
From April 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance %
Revenue And Other Sources
Transfer from Operating Fund and Deep Green Premium $ 2,392,000 $ 2,392,000 $ - 0.0% Marin Community Foundation Grant 30,000 260,000 (230,000) (88.5%) Community Benefits Funds 100,000 100,000 - 0.0%
Total Revenue and Other Sources 2,522,000 2,752,000 (230,000) (8.4%) Expenditures And Committed Funds 0
Transportation Electrification Programs 7,024,000 5,310,000 1,714,000 32.3% Heat Pump Water Heater Incentives 620,000 540,000 80,000 14.8% Emergency Water Heater Loaner Fund 9,000 142,000 (133,000) (93.7%) Marin Community Foundation EV Charging at Affordable Housing 30,000 260,000 (230,000) (88.5%) Community Housing Grants 349,000 260,000 89,000 34.2%
Total Expenditures And Other Uses 8,032,000 6,512,000 1,520,000 23.3% Net Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance (5,510,000) (3,760,000) - - Fund Balance at Beginning of Period 3,738,000 3,760,000 - - Fund Balance at End of Period (1,772,000) - - -
MCE
Program Development Fund
Approved Budget Comparison FYE 2026
From April 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance %
Revenue And Other Sources
CEC VPP Flex Grant 19,000$ 1,200,000$ (1,181,000)$ (98.4%) Federal Earmark Funding - 200,000 (200,000) (100.0%)
Marin Community Foundation Grant 275,000 72,000 203,000 281.9% Total Revenue and Other Sources 294,000 1,472,000 (1,178,000) (80.0%) Expenditures And Other Uses
CEC VPP Flex Grant Expenses 139,000 1,200,000 (1,061,000) (88.4%) Energy Storage Program 52,000 306,000 (254,000) (83.0%) CEC VPP Flex Grant Match 281,000 1,000,000 (719,000) (71.9%) MCE Sync 658,000 952,000 (294,000) (30.9%)
PeakFLEX 17,000 100,000 (83,000) (83.0%)
Federal Earmark- Energy Storage - 200,000 (200,000) (100.0%) MCE Resiliency at Critical Facilities 275,000 72,000 203,000 281.9% Federal Earmark Match Expense 86,000 200,000 (114,000) (57.0%) San Rafael Office Resiliency Buildout - 200,000 (200,000) (100.0%) Richmond VPP Pilot 12,000 171,000 (159,000) (93.0%)
Total Expenditures And Other Uses 1,520,000 4,401,000 (2,881,000) (65.5%) Net Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance (1,226,000) (2,929,000) - - Fund Balance at Beginning of Period 3,879,000 3,086,000 - - Fund Balance at End of Period 2,652,000 157,000 - -
MCE
Resiliency Virtual Power Plant Fund
Approved Budget Comparison FYE 2026
From April 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance %
Revenue And Other Sources
Public Purpose Energy Efficiency Program $ 10,060,000 $ 18,761,000 $ (8,701,000) (46.4%) Public Purpose Low Income Families and Tenants
Pilot Program 1,323,000 800,000 523,000 65.4%
Total Revenue And Other Sources 11,383,000 19,561,000 (8,178,000) (41.8%) Expenditures And Other Uses -
Public Purpose Energy Efficiency Program 10,060,000 18,761,000 (8,701,000) (46.4%) Public Purpose Low Income Families and Tenants
Pilot Program 1,323,000 800,000 523,000 65.4%
Total Expenditures And Other Uses 11,383,000 19,561,000 (8,178,000) (41.8%) Balance - - - -
MCE
Energy Efficiency Fund
Approved Budget Comparison FYE 2026
From April 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026
RESOLUTION 2026-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MARIN CLEAN ENERGY
RATIFYING CERTAIN LINE ITEM VARIANCES BETWEEN ACTUAL AND BUDGETED AMOUNTS IN MCE’S FISCAL YEAR END 2026 BUDGET
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, in Fiscal Year End 2026 (FYE 2026), MCE’s total actual expenses and capital outlay were $138,788,000 lower than total budgeted amounts, as set forth in the high level summary of the MCE Budget shown below:
WHEREAS, although FYE 2026 total expenditures were well within total budgeted amounts, actual expenses for certain line items exceeded budgeted amounts; and FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance %
Energy Revenue, Net 764,392,000$ 813,689,000$ (49,297,000)$ (6.1%) ORF Withdrawal/Transfer (80,000,000) 13,000,000 (93,000,000) (715.4%) Cost of Energy (652,516,000) (765,542,000) 113,026,000 14.8% Operating Expenses (46,825,000) (50,249,000) 3,424,000 6.8% Non-Operating Revenues 26,593,000 18,278,000 8,315,000 45.5% Non-Operating Expenses (1,019,000) (3,503,000) 2,484,000 70.9% Program Expenses (20,935,000) (30,474,000) 9,539,000 31.3% Program Income 11,807,000 21,393,000 (9,586,000) (44.8%) Change in Net Position 1,497,000 16,592,000 (15,095,000) (91.0%) Capital Outlay (5,684,000) (15,999,000) 10,315,000 64.5% Total Expenses & Capital
Outlay
(726,979,000) (865,767,000) 138,788,000 16.0%
WHEREAS, in order to formally close FYE 2026, MCE desires to ratify these variances between actual and budgeted amounts in these line items and reconcile MCE’s expenditures with the FYE 2026 MCE Budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of MCE does hereby resolve, determine, and order as follows:
The Fiscal Year End 2026 expenditures shown below in Table 1 are hereby ratified and authorized by the Board.
Table 1: Expenditures Exceeding Approved Budget Line items for FYE 2026 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the MCE Board of Directors on this 17th day of September 2026, by the following vote:
AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT
County of Marin
County of Contra Costa
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
FYE 2026 Actual FYE 2026 Budget Variance $ Variance % Fund Cost Relief Program (CARES) 5,795,000 5,000,000 795,000 15.9% Operating Banking Fees and Financing
Costs
270,000 225,000 45,000 20.0% Operating
San Rafael Office Building
Purchase
5,401,000 5,400,000 1,000 0.0% Operating
MCE Resiliency at Critical
Facilities
275,000 72,000 203,000 281.9% Resiliency VPP
Public Purpose Low Income
Families and Tenants Pilot
Program
1,323,000 800,000 523,000 65.4% Energy Efficiency
Transportation Electrification
Programs
7,024,000 5,310,000 1,714,000 32.3% Program Development Heat Pump Water Heater
Incentives
620,000 540,000 80,000 14.8% Program Development
Community Housing Grants 349,000 260,000 89,000 34.2% Program Development 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
September 17, 2026
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Stephen Mariani, Manager of Power Resources
Haynes Stephens, Senior Policy Analyst
RE: MCE 2025 Power Source Disclosure Attestation
(Agenda Item #05 C.4)
ATTACHMENTS: A. MCE 2025 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report Template B. Proposed Resolution 2026-08 Approving and Attesting to the Veracity of the Information Presented in MCE’s 2025 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report
C. MCE 2025 Power Source Disclosure Attestation Presentation from the September 4, 2026 Technical Committee Meeting
Dear Board Members:
Summary:
Staff recommends the Board of Directors adopt proposed Resolution 2026-08, as recommended by the Technical Committee at their September 4, 2026 meeting, approving MCE’s 2025 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report (PSD Report) and attesting, to the best of its knowledge and belief, to the veracity of information presented therein.
Background:
The California Energy Commission (CEC), as directed by California Public Utilities Code, administers California’s Power Source Disclosure (PSD) program.1 The PSD program is intended to ensure customers receive energy-source and greenhouse gas (GHG) information on the electricity they use.
The PSD program requires all retail sellers of electric energy, including MCE, to annually disclose “accurate, reliable, and simple-to-understand information on the sources of energy, and the associated emissions of greenhouse gasses, that are used to provide electric services.”
2 The PSD program has two main required elements: 1) a Power Source Disclosure Annual Report (PSD Report); and the Power Content Label (PCL).
To comply with PSD regulations, MCE must first submit a PSD Report to the CEC detailing its 1 California Public Utilities Code 398.1 et seq.
2 California Public Utilities Code Section 398.1(b)
specified-source power purchases for each retail service offering that was made available during the previous year, using a CEC required template. 3 After MCE submits its PSD Report to the CEC, the CEC uses the information reflected in the PSD Report to create and finalize MCE’s annual PCL. Similar to the standardized presentation of information on a nutritional label, the PCL informs retail electricity customers of the power sources that were procured to serve their electric energy retail sales. Once finalized, the PCL is provided to MCE (recent CEC guidance indicated that the CEC will provide MCE the official 2025 PCL by the end of September 2026), and MCE must distribute customer communications regarding the PCL by December 31 of that year.
The PCL includes information on the “the power mix and greenhouse gas emissions intensity associated with each electricity portfolio” that MCE offers to its customers. Each portfolio’s power mix reflects annual retail energy sales and the specified power purchases, by resource type, used to meet those sales. Specified power is electricity that is traceable to a specific generating facility, whereas unspecified power is not traceable and typically comprises a mix of resource types, some of which may be renewables. If a retail seller uses unspecified power purchases to meet retail sales, or if it relies on grid power to meet retail sales, then such unspecified power is reflected on its PCL. Beginning with the 2025 reporting year, the PCL will also show loss-adjusted load for each portfolio, reflecting the electricity lost during transmission and distribution across the grid.
MCE’s 2025 PSD Report:
Consistent with applicable regulations, MCE must also provide the CEC with a Board attestation regarding the accuracy of information included in its PSD Report for the 2025 operating year. Regarding this internally administered attestation process, applicable regulations state:
4 A retail supplier that is a public agency providing electric services is not required to comply with the provisions of subdivision (a)(1) if the board of directors of the public agency submits to the Energy Commission an attestation of the veracity of each annual resource report for the previous year.5
Evidence of MCE’s attestation must be provided to the CEC no later than October 1, 2026.
To prepare MCE’s 2025 annual PSD Report, staff performed a detailed review of all power purchases completed during the 2025 calendar year, including an inventory of all renewable energy credit transfers within MCE’s Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS) account, related contract documents, and pertinent transaction records associated with other specified energy purchases. Based on staff’s review of available data, 3 California Code of Regulations Title 20, Div 2, Ch 3, Article 5, Section 1393(a). 4 Note that California Code of Regulations Title 20, Div 2, Ch 3, Article 5, Section 1394.(a)(1), as referenced in the excerpt from applicable PSD regulations, refers to the completion of an annual independent audit containing summary of results and proof of service of the annual power content label to customers. 5 California Code of Regulations Title 20, Div 2, Ch. 3, Article 5, Section 1394(a)(2), as amended by Rulemaking to Amend Regulations Governing the PSD Program (Docket No: 21-OIR-01). Pursuant to the amended regulations and new procedures, the CEC will provide a PCL to each LSE following PSD Report submission. the information presented in the annual report was determined to be accurate.
This item was also discussed and voted on at the September 4, 2026 Technical Committee meeting, where MCE staff brought this item to the Technical Committee for review and recommended that the Technical Committee recommend the Board of Directors adopt proposed Resolution 2026-08 approving the PSD Report and attesting to the veracity, to the best of its knowledge and belief, of the information contained therein at the September Board of Directors Meeting. The Technical Committee unanimously adopted this recommendation.
In consideration of (a) MCE’s internal review, (b) the Technical Committee’s recommended adoption of MCE’s 2025 PSD Report and proposed Resolution 2026-08, and (c) applicable regulations, staff recommends that the Board of Directors adopt proposed Resolution 2026- 08 approving the PSD Report and attesting to the veracity, to the best of its knowledge and belief, of the information contained therein. Should the Board adopt proposed Resolution 2026-08, a copy of the executed Resolution 2026-08 will be forwarded to the CEC, and a copy of MCE’s PCL will be posted to its website by October 1, 2026.6
To fulfill its obligations under the PSD program, MCE will complete requisite customer communications after the organization receives its PCL from the CEC, which is expected to occur sometime prior to October 1, 2026. Retail sellers are required to post its 2025 PCL to its website no later than October 1, 2026, and must distribute customer communications regarding the PCL by December 31, 2026.
The tables below are excerpts from MCE 2025 PSD Report. These tables reflect that during the 2025 calendar year, MCE delivered a substantial portion of its electric energy supply from various renewable energy sources, including wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectricity, biomass and landfill gas-to-energy. For the Light Green portfolio, 75 percent of energy retail sales were met with specified purchases from CEC-certified renewable resources, with the remaining 25 percent sourced from zero-carbon resources. For the Deep Green, Local Sol and Green Access portfolios, energy retail sales were met entirely with specified purchases from renewable resources.
6 California Code of Regulations Title 20, Div 2, Ch. 3, Article 5, Section 1393.1(b)(2). 2025 Draft PCL: Deep Green Portfolio
2025 Draft PCL: Local Sol Portfolio
2025 Draft PCL: Light Green Portfolio
2025 Draft PCL: Green Access Portfolio
Fiscal Impacts:
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this item.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Board of Directors adopt proposed Resolution 2026-08, as recommended by the Technical Committee at their September 4, 2026 meeting, approving MCE’s 2025 PSD Report and attesting, to the best of its knowledge and belief, to the veracity of information presented therein.7 7 This item follows the voting shares method. Action requires (1) a majority vote of all Directors and (2) the Directors voting in the affirmative have more than 50% of voting shares based on MCE’s total energy usage.
Attachment A
MCE 2025 Annual PSD Report
Template
Due to file size and complexity, this document can be
downloaded by clicking here: LINK. Once
downloaded, this file can be accessed via your
computer's downloads folder.
RESOLUTION 2026-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
MARIN CLEAN ENERGY APPROVING AND ATTESTING TO THE VERACITY OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN MCE’s 2025 POWER SOURCE DISCLOSURE
ANNUAL REPORT
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, California Public Utilities Code Section 398.1 requires all retail suppliers of electric energy, including MCE, to disclose to their customers “accurate, reliable, and simple-to-understand information on the sources of energy, and the associated emissions of greenhouse gases, that are used to provide electric services” to their respective customers, referred to as the “Power Content Label”; and WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 398.5 and associated California Energy Commission (CEC) regulations require all retail suppliers of electric energy, including MCE, to report to the CEC, on or before June 1 of each year, purchases from specified and unspecified sources as well as the disclosure made to customers pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 398.4, collectively referred to as the “Power Source Disclosure Annual Report”; and
WHEREAS, MCE staff completed and submitted such Power Source Disclosure Annual Report to the CEC in compliance with applicable law and CEC regulations; and WHEREAS, the applicable CEC regulations require retail suppliers, including MCE, to have an auditor prepare a report by October 1 of each year validating the retail supplier’s Power Source Disclosure Annual Report (referred to in CEC regulations as the “annual resource report”). Such CEC regulations also exempt a retail supplier that is a public agency from the audit requirements if the public agency’s governing board approves the submission of an attestation on the veracity of the Power Source Disclosure Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, MCE Staff is presenting to the MCE Board of Directors for its review MCE’s 2025 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, the MCE Board of Directors wishes to attest, to the best of its knowledge and belief, to the veracity of information presented in MCE’s 2025 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of MCE does hereby resolve, determine, and order as follows:
SECTION 1: The MCE Board of Directors approves MCE’s 2025 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report.
SECTION 2: The MCE Board of Directors attests, to the best of its knowledge and belief, to the veracity of information presented in MCE’s 2025 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report.
SECTION 3: The MCE Board of Directors authorizes MCE Staff to submit this Resolution 2026-08 as the attestation of MCE’s 2025 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report to the California Energy Commission.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the MCE Board of Directors on this 17th day of September, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT
County of Marin
County of Contra Costa
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
2025 Power Source Disclosure
Attestation
Technical Committee Meeting
September 4, 2026
Today’s Meeting
2 • Seeking recommendation for the Board to approve and attest to the veracity of MCE’s 2025 Power Source Disclosure (PSD) Annual Report via proposed Resolution 2026-08.
• MCE must annually submit a PSD Report to the California Energy Commission (CEC) disclosing the electricity it used in the previous calendar year.
• MCE must also provide the CEC with a Board attestation as to the veracity of the information included in its PSD Report by October 1, 2026.
What is the Power Source
Disclosure Program?
• Administered by the California Energy
Commission
• Ensures California electricity consumers receive
energy source and greenhouse gas information
on the electricity used by their retail suppliers.
• Requires all electricity retail suppliers to submit
an annual report including: • Annual retail sales of each portfolio • All specified power purchases by resource type
• Purchases of unspecified power • Energy toward charging/discharging storage resources
• Loss-adjusted load (beginning 2026)
3 What is the Power Content Label (PCL)?
4 • A “nutrition label” for each electricity provider
• Discloses the electricity used to meet retail sales for the previous year, including associated GHG emissions
• Aggregated on an annual basis
• Created from the PSD Report submission
• Broken down by portfolio (Light Green, Deep Green, Local Sol, Green Access)
• The electricity provider creates a “power mix” for each portfolio, aggregated by resource type
• Power mixes are mutually exclusive
5 The PCL does not reflect
• Resource Adequacy only
contracts
• Hourly energy or emissions data
• Energy beyond what was used
to meet annual retail sales
(i.e., oversupply)
The PCL reflects
• Energy delivered to meet retail
sales on an annual basis
• Power mixes for each portfolio
• Associated GHG intensities
• Loss-adjusted load
• Unspecified power, if used to
meet retail sales
• Partitioned by fossil fuel and
renewable/zero-carbon resources
(to be calculated by the CEC)
What’s reflected in the PCL?
6 Data Tracking and Compiling (PEA & MCE Staff)
WREGIS database, contracts & settlement data, meter data Quality Check and Verification (MCE Staff)
Expected volumes, timing, and facilities specified in contracts Quality Assurance (MCE & CEC Staff)
Multiple reviewers, pre-screened by CEC staff
PSD Annual Report Template Submission
Respond to CEC feedback, seek attestation, and await PCL MCE’s process for completing the PSD Report
MCE’s Draft 2025 PCL
7 • Displays each of MCE's four
portfolios/product offerings
• Shows energy delivered to
meet retail sales, now
including line losses
• Reflects that all four
portfolios met their retail
sales with 100% renewable
and zero-carbon resources
*Preliminary values, to be finalized by the CEC (mid-September) *
Future changes to the PSD Report
8 Hourly reporting
• Starting in 2028 (for reporting year 2027)
• For each hour of the year, electricity providers will report:
• Procurements of delivered electricity
• Loss-adjusted load
• Charging/discharging energy for storage resources
• Procurements will be stacked for comparison with loss-adjusted load • Hourly reporting will not be reflected on the PCL. The PCL will continue to reflect information on an annual basis.
Staff Recommendation
9 Staff recommends the Technical Committee recommend the Board of Directors adopt proposed Resolution 2026-08 at the September 17, 2026 Board of Directors Meeting approving MCE’s 2025 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and
attesting, to the best of its knowledge and belief, to the veracity of information presented therein.
Thank you!
mceCleanEnergy.org
[email protected]
MCE Governance Assessment | Findings & Recommendations
MCE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT
Findings and Recommendations
September 11, 2026
Introduction
A governance assessment of Marin Clean Energy (MCE) was conducted by Leading Resources Inc. (LRI) in the months of July and August 2026. The assessment process included 47 interviews inclusive of MCE Board members (24), management team members (7), and a diverse array of external stakeholders (16). The assessment process also included a survey of all Board members, Board alternates, and the management team. The overall survey response rate was 59% (48 of 82). This comprises the following response rates by respondent type: 65% of Board members (22 of 34), 31% of Board alternates (10 of 32), and 100% of management team members (16 of 16). Appendix A provides the tabulation of all survey results.
This document summarizes the assessment findings based on areas of convergence and LRI’s recommendations for improved governance. Appendix B provides a cross-reference of LRI’s recommendations to the Grand Jury Report’s recommendations.
Assessment Findings
1. The Board is not aligned around a shared vision of the Board’s role or a common understanding of how it governs.
Board and management interviewees repeatedly referred to uncertainty about the Board’s role.
Interviewees described materially different expectations of the Board’s role—ranging from high-level policy leadership to detailed scrutiny of implementation. External stakeholders likewise called for a clearer description of what the Board is responsible for doing.
Survey results showed that:
▪ 75% of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “Board members understand the difference between their governance/policy responsibilities and management’s operational responsibilities.” 62% of Board member respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement.
▪ 76% of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “The Board spends an appropriate amount of its time on strategy, policy, and long-term direction rather than operational matters.” 76% of Board member respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.
▪ 62% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “The Board provides direction to the organization through the CEO and other direct reports to the Board, as appropriate.” 60% of Board member respondents agreed or strongly agreed. ▪ 51% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “The Board respects the CEO’s operational role and avoids micromanaging MCE.” 52% of Board member respondents agreed or strongly agreed.
Interviews revealed that many Board members recognize a conventional governance distinction:
the Board establishes direction and exercises oversight; the CEO and staff determine how to execute within that direction. Multiple Board members explicitly said their role is policy setting, public representation, and oversight—not operations. However, interviews also revealed that in the absence of a shared vision of how it governs, Board members either “rubber stamp” management’s recommendations and decisions or individual Board members attempt to direct operations.
MCE Governance Assessment | Findings & Recommendations
This pattern is similar to what LRI observes with other public agency boards when the Board’s governance role is unclear: Board members are perceived as either too passive or too much “in the weeds.” The root problem is a lack of alignment around the Board’s governance role – and the limitations on that role.
2. The Board needs a clear governance framework defining the Board’s role in setting high-level direction and goals for MCE.
Based on the interviews, the Board lacks a coherent framework and process for identifying strategic goals for MCE and adopting the policies needed to advance them.
Across interviews, individuals called to clarify the Board/CEO relationship. The governance framework should make clear that the Board leads and that the CEO manages. It should translate general principles into decision rights, processes, information flows, and accountability mechanisms.
Survey results showed that:
▪ 60% of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “The Board sets clear goals and policies for MCE.” Board member respondent perspectives were split, with 50% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing and the other 50% agreeing or strongly agreeing.
▪ 50% of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “The Board’s role in decision-making, and the limits of that role, are clearly articulated in Board policies.” 40% of Board member respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed. ▪ 65% of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “The Board provides the CEO with clear delegations of authority and the boundaries of that authority.” 59% of Board member respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed. ▪ 52% of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “The CEO’s role in decision-making, and the limits of that role, are clearly articulated in Board policies.” 60% of Board member respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.
3. The Board lacks an effective system for performance monitoring.
In interviews, Board members expressed a desire to set goals and then monitor whether MCE is accomplishing them. Management interviewees acknowledged the lack of Board-level goals and performance metrics. External stakeholders called for measurable priorities, clearer evidence of results, and stronger oversight of the core business.
Survey results showed that:
▪ 76% of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “The Board establishes meaningful measures of organizational performance and regularly monitors progress against them.” 77% of Board member respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.
▪ 73% of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “The Board uses performance information to provide effective oversight and address areas requiring improvement.” 65% of Board member respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.
▪ 63% of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “The Board and CEO regularly review organizational performance against Board-approved goals and objectives.” 52% of Board member respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.
The Board should establish a systematic way of regularly monitoring the organization’s performance vis-à-vis defined Board goals and expected results.
MCE Governance Assessment | Findings & Recommendations
4. Management needs to support—not manage—the Board’s leadership role and provide the Board sufficient education to fulfill the Board’s oversight responsibilities.
Across all groups, interviewees emphasized the importance of Board education because MCE’s business is complex. In addition, Board members and external stakeholders described occasions when the Board appeared to receive decisions from management after they were substantially formed. Management interviewees themselves recognized the need for clearer authority, more transparent information, and a better partnership with the Board.
Management’s responsibility is to equip the Board to govern: identify issues requiring Board direction, frame meaningful policy choices, explain consequences and risks, recommend action, provide education, and report candidly on implementation and results. ▪ Survey results showed that 73% of all respondents (and 71% of Board member respondents) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “The Board is explicit about the information it needs from the CEO to fulfill its governance responsibilities.”
▪ At the same time, 65% of all survey respondents (and 67% of Board member respondents) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "The CEO and staff provide the information the Board needs to make informed decisions and exercise effective oversight.”
Management acknowledged that historical briefings were sometimes insufficient and that Board members now seek more detail. Participants also reported progress when staff used workshops, shorter presentations, and clearer explanations.
Effective delegation requires transparency. Based on the interviews, the Board lacks understanding of the major assumptions, alternatives, risks, and processes that management uses—particularly for consequential financial, procurement, contracting, risk, and organizational decisions.
5. The Board needs to act collectively as MCE’s leadership body.
Management interviewees described direct staff requests from Board members, last-minute demands, and Board member forays into implementation detail. Board interviewees also recognized the need to define “lanes,” clarify how Board members communicate with staff, and avoid relitigating operational matters. Both groups called for clearer delegations and protocols.
The Board—rather than individual directors, committees, management, or informal factions—is the governing entity. It must establish direction through duly authorized collective decisions and then support those decisions while retaining its right to monitor, reconsider, or revise them through governance processes. The principle of “unity of control” – that it is the Board that directs MCE, not individual Board members – needs to be firmly implanted.
Survey results showed that:
▪ 54% of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “Board members recognize that the Board, acting as a body rather than individual Board members, guides and directs the organization.” 45% of Board member respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.
▪ 51% of all respondents (and 45% of Board member respondents) disagreed or strongly disagreed with: “Individual Board members do not direct the CEO or staff.” The Board’s right to information and responsibility for oversight does not create authority for individual directors to direct staff, make operational choices, or substitute their judgment for the CEO’s on implementation. Oversight should occur through the Board acting collectively, using established reporting and inquiry mechanisms.
MCE Governance Assessment | Findings & Recommendations
6. MCE’s vision and mission are supported by a majority of Board members and management, but greater alignment is needed.
Interviewees described different views about MCE’s fundamental priorities, including the relative emphasis on affordability, greenhouse-gas reduction, financial reserves, and customer programs.
At the same time, 83% of all survey respondents reported they agree or strongly agree with MCE’s vision and mission statements. Survey results of Board member respondents showed that 86% agreed or strongly agreed with the vision statement and 76% agreed or strongly agreed with the mission statement.
7. The MCE Board is perceived as too large by a preponderance of stakeholders.
A majority of interviewees and survey respondents expressed that the MCE Board is not the appropriate size to effectively govern the organization and should be smaller.
Survey results showed that:
▪ 77% of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “The Board is the appropriate size for effective governance of MCE.” 67% of Board member respondents disagreed of strongly disagreed.
▪ 77% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “The Board would be more effective if it were smaller.” 70% of Board member respondents agreed or strongly agreed. 15% of Board member respondents strongly disagreed.
In interviews, proponents of a smaller Board suggested this change would create an opportunity for:
▪ More manageable deliberation and shorter, less repetitive meetings. ▪ Clearer accountability, attendance, engagement, and collective direction. ▪ Greater continuity and ability to develop technical and financial knowledge. ▪ Less staff time spent briefing and supporting a very large number of members. ▪ Greater ability to meet together and build stronger working relationships.
A small minority of interviewees explicitly opposed reducing the size of the Board. They felt that the current size offered the following value:
▪ A direct voice for every city or member jurisdiction. ▪ Elected accountability to ratepayers and local communities. ▪ A broad ambassador network for communicating difficult or unpopular decisions.
These interviewees’ main opposition to a smaller Board were:
▪ Concern that consolidation could dilute smaller communities or reduce legitimacy. ▪ Belief that weaknesses in governance framework, Board process, and meeting preparation and design—not size—are the root problems to address.
8. Changing the Board composition to increase industry expertise is not broadly supported.
A majority of interviewees did not support changing the Board’s composition to include industry expertise. Rather, most suggested that Board members could gain needed technical literacy through effective Board education, onboarding, staff support, accessible information, preparation, and committee work.
Across all three groups, interviewees repeatedly called for:
MCE Governance Assessment | Findings & Recommendations
▪ Baseline literacy and continuing education in energy markets, energy procurement, rate-setting, finance, contracts, and risk management. ▪ Stronger committees with defined scopes, appropriate membership criteria, and access to outside or nonvoting advisors.
▪ Concise, decision-ready materials that explain options, tradeoffs, implications, and the policy questions before the Board.
▪ Expert staff and in-house capacity, with management responsible for making complex issues understandable.
▪ A governance design that preserves public accountability and community representation while strengthening independent oversight.
Survey results showed that:
▪ A majority of respondents (58%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that “The Board would be more effective if it were composed of energy industry experts.” 55% of Board member respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.
▪ 61% of all respondents (and 67% of Board member respondents) agreed or strongly agreed that “The Board has the range of expertise needed to govern MCE effectively.” ▪ 58% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that “The Board’s composition provides an appropriate balance of public accountability, member-community representation, relevant expertise, and diverse perspectives.” Of note, 68% of Board member respondents and 80% of management team member respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
9. Committee work is essential and needs clearer delegation rules and processes.
Interviewees generally viewed committees as indispensable to governing a large, technically complex organization. They often described committees as the place where members can examine an issue in greater depth, engage staff, test alternatives, and frame a recommendation before the full Board acts.
At the same time, interviewees repeatedly described a committee system that does not consistently convert that deeper work into more efficient or more trusted Board decisions. The most common concerns were unclear committee mandates, overlap among committees, repeated presentations and debate at the full Board, uneven or opaque membership processes, and limited visibility into agendas and decisions.
Survey results showed that:
▪ 76% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “The Board has the right committees.” 83% of Board member respondents agreed or strongly agreed. ▪ 54% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that “Committee roles are well-defined.”68% of Board member respondents agreed or strongly agreed.
A strong thread across the interviews was that committees should be substantive working bodies—not simply an additional stop in a sequence of nearly identical presentations. Several respondents described frustration when a committee studied an issue, voted, and forwarded a recommendation, only for the full Board to receive the same presentation and begin the discussion again from the beginning.
This theme also revealed a genuine tension. Some interviewees wanted stronger delegation so committees could make a large Board workable. Others cautioned that consequential policy choices should not become opaque committee actions or routine consent items. The recurring MCE Governance Assessment | Findings & Recommendations
point of agreement was the need for explicit decision boundaries rather than either automatic delegation or automatic re-litigation.
Several interviewees raised concerns about the composition or selection of committees. The comments did not point to one preferred membership model, but they converged on the need to be more intentional than an informal volunteer or self-selection process.
Survey results showed that:
▪ 56% of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement:
“Committee member qualifications are well-defined.” 63% of Board member respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Executive Committee
In regard to the Executive Committee specifically, interviews revealed a divide over how the committee should function. Some interviewees saw the Executive Committee as the experienced, dedicated working body a large Board needs; others saw an unclear and potentially factional center of power. Across both perspectives, legitimacy depended on a clearer mandate, a defined process for determining Executive Committee membership, defined relationships with other committees to avoid duplication, and reliable reporting to the full Board.
Taken together, the interviews suggested that an Executive Committee can be either the mechanism that makes a large Board workable or the mechanism that intensifies distrust. The difference depends on whether its authority and accountability are visible. Recurring recommendations based on the interviews include: transparent selection of committee members with attention to balance, tenure, and qualifications; clear chair terms and succession; published agendas and concise report-outs; contract and procurement thresholds; an explicit charter and a defined relationship to other committees and the full Board; and a disciplined consent pathway for matters fully vetted by the committee.
LRI Recommendations
1. Develop and adopt a Board governance framework.
Recommended action: Build a coherent governance framework through which the Board articulates the organization’s mission, vision, strategic goals and expected results; the Board’s delegations to the CEO; and other relevant Board policies. Build a shared understanding that the CEO then establishes operational policies that direct how staff will implement the Board’s policies.
Intended result: Board members and staff have a shared understanding of the Board’s role as MCE’s governing entity that has set the strategic direction for MCE. The Board’s role and the role of CEO, respectively, are clearly defined consistent with this direction.
Recommended Governance Framework
MCE should adopt a governance framework with the following connected policy elements. The value lies in the full system: no single policy or training session will resolve the ambiguity by itself.
MCE Governance Assessment | Findings & Recommendations
Policy Element Description Examples of Policies
Governance
Process
Responsibilities
of the Board of
Directors and
Board members
▪ Board purpose and role
▪ Expectations of Board members
▪ How committees are formed and their function
▪ Election of officers
▪ Code of behavior for Board members
▪ Conflict of interest policy
Strategic
Direction
Results the
Board wants the
organization to
achieve
▪ Mission
▪ Vision
▪ Goals, e.g.:
– Rates
– Resource mix
– Financial sustainability
– Customer programs
– Workforce development
Board-Staff
Linkage
Delegations to
the chief
executive
▪ Relationship between the Board and chief executive
▪ Relationship between the Board and other staff
▪ “Unity of control” - only the Board, acting as a Board, can direct the chief executive or staff
▪ Delegations to the chief executive
▪ Process of evaluating the chief executive
▪ Protocols for handling requests from individual Board members
2. Establish a regular performance reporting and monitoring process.
Recommended action: Establish the principle of regular policy monitoring in the Board’s governance policies. Establish a calendared cycle of staff reporting to the Board on the organization’s performance vis-à-vis the Board’s policies that enables the Board to monitor performance, assess the organization’s compliance, and provide direction to the CEO relevant to articulated outcomes.
Intended result: The Board has visibility into and oversight of the organization’s performance using a coherent framework of governing. There is regular accountability for results without inviting the Board into day-to-day management.
3. Standardize an approach to Board decision making.
Recommended action: For matters requiring Board direction, utilize a standard decision-making process in which management states the decision requested, connects the decision to the Board’s policy goals, provides alternatives, facilitates discussions of the implications of different options, and uses the results of the Board’s discussions to develop a recommended course of action for the Board. Place technical detail in appendices.
Intended result: The Board receives meaningful choices and understands management’s reasoning without being overwhelmed by operational detail.
4. Provide continuing Board education.
Recommended action: Establish the expectation and importance of ongoing Board education in the Board’s policies. Require orientation and recurring learning on public-agency governance, the Board/CEO relationship, CCA economics and regulation, rates, procurement, finance, risk, and MCE’s policies. Route individual Board member questions through an agreed channel and share material responses with the full Board.
MCE Governance Assessment | Findings & Recommendations
Intended result: Board members have the shared foundation necessary to make policy choices and evaluate management recommendations. The Board remains informed and able to exercise oversight while management retains authority to execute.
5. Align committee work with the governance framework.
Recommended action: Define the role of committees in the Board’s governance policies.
Define each committee’s policy and oversight responsibilities, its delegated authority, and the matters it recommends to the full Board. Committees should deepen analysis, monitor performance, and develop policy recommendations for the Board to act upon. Committees should not make important Board policy decisions nor direct operations.
Clarify how committee membership is determined. Determine how to apportion committee assignments based on qualifications, tenure and geographic representation.
Intended result: More effective use of smaller forums while preserving the authority of the full Board.
6. Make explicit the expectations of the CEO to support effective Board governance.
Recommended action: Evaluate the CEO’s performance based on MCE’s performance vis-à-vis the Board’s goals, the quality and timeliness of Board information, the CEO’s effectiveness in framing policy choices, support for Board member education, responsiveness to Board direction, and respect for governance processes.
Intended result: Management behavior consistently reinforces the Board’s leadership role.
7. Evaluate Board governance effectiveness on an ongoing basis.
Recommended action: On an annual basis, assess the effectiveness of MCE Board governance, using input from Board members, the CEO, and management. Review Board meeting and committee performance to determine whether roles are clearer and accountability has improved. Amend governance documents and practices based on the results.
Intended result: Governance becomes a disciplined system of continuous improvement rather than a one-time response to current conflict.
8. Implement other improvements in governance before deciding about Board size or composition.
Recommended action: While the survey showed 70% of Board members support a smaller Board, there are those on the Board who strongly resist changing the size of the Board. It is also the case that other CCAs (as well as other public agencies) in California have similarly large Boards and do not experience Board size as a problem. We recommend establishing and operationalizing a coherent Board governance framework before making a decision about shrinking the Board.
Intended result: Address the root governance issues prior to making decisions about Board size and composition.
Suggested Implementation Sequence
Timing Primary work Deliverables
First 60 days
Gain Board approval
to adopt
recommended
governance
framework.
Facilitate a decision by the Board to adopt the
recommended governance framework.
MCE Governance Assessment | Findings & Recommendations
Timing Primary work Deliverables
60–120 days
Develop the initial
tranche of Board
policies.
Facilitate development of initial set of policies with
Executive Committee or new Governance Committee and
bring to the Board for feedback and refinement.
4–18 months Develop remaining
Board policies.
Facilitate development of remaining Board policies. Define each committee’s policy and oversight responsibilities, its delegated authority, and the matters it recommends to the full Board.
18–24 months
Establish Board
policy monitoring
processes and refine.
Establish policy monitoring process and related calendar, establish Board education work plan, develop
standardized approach to Board decision-making.
Conclusion
The central governance problem that the interviews surfaced and the survey results confirmed is that MCE lacks a shared, practical framework for Board governance: how the Board establishes direction for MCE, how policies and goals are developed, what authority is delegated to the CEO, what information the Board receives, and how the Board evaluates organizational performance.
Although most Board members understand that they should not make day-to-day operating decisions, the absence of a coherent goal-setting, policy-making, delegation, and monitoring system pulls the Board toward two unproductive extremes: excessive deference to management or involvement in operational detail.
The CEO and management should support the Board’s leadership role by presenting meaningful choices, educating directors about MCE’s business, explaining how the Board’s policies are being implemented, reporting results and risks, and seeking Board direction when circumstances require it. At the same time, the Board must respect the CEO’s authority to determine how approved goals and policies are carried out.
The principal recommendation is to adopt an integrated governance framework that connects mission and vision, Board goals, policy direction, CEO delegation, regular policy monitoring, and effective Board education. Adopting such a framework will make accountability stronger while protecting the operational authority necessary to run MCE effectively.
Page A-1
Appendix A: Tabulation of MCE Assessment Survey Results Note: Total responses per survey statement vary based on the number of respondents who selected “not observed” for a particular statement. In each case, this type of response was omitted from the total and from the calculation. In addition, due to rounding, some percentages may total 101% rather than 100%.
Survey Statement Respondents
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% # #
1. Board Accountability and
Oversight:
The Board acts in the best interests
of MCE’s customers, member
communities, and other
stakeholders.
All 81% 19% 39 9 48
Board members 91% 9% 20 2 22
Board alternates 70% 30% 7 3 10
Management 75% 25% 12 4 16
2. Board Accountability and
Oversight:
The Board exercises appropriate
diligence and objectivity in fulfilling
its responsibilities.
All 63% 38% 30 18 48
Board members 73% 27% 16 6 22
Board alternates 10% 90% 1 9 10
Management 81% 19% 13 3 16
3. Board Accountability and
Oversight:
The Board sets clear goals and
policies for MCE.
All 40% 60% 19 29 48
Board members 50% 50% 11 11 22
Board alternates 10% 90% 1 9 10
Management 44% 56% 7 9 16
4. Board Accountability and
Oversight:
The Board establishes meaningful
measures of organizational
performance and regularly monitors
progress against them.
All 24% 76% 11 34 45
Board members 23% 77% 5 17 22
Board alternates 11% 89% 1 8 9
Management 36% 64% 5 9 14
5. Board Accountability and
Oversight:
The Board uses performance
information to provide effective
oversight and address areas
requiring improvement.
All 27% 73% 12 33 45
Board members 35% 65% 7 13 20
Board alternates 10% 90% 1 9 10
Management 27% 73% 4 11 15
6. Board-CEO Relationship and
Unity of Control:
Board members recognize that the
Board, acting as a body rather than
individual Board members, guides
and directs the organization.
All 46% 54% 22 26 48
Board members 55% 45% 12 10 22
Board alternates 50% 50% 5 5 10
Management 31% 69% 5 11 16
Page A-2
Survey Statement Respondents
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% # #
7. Board-CEO Relationship and
Unity of Control:
The Board provides direction to the
organization through the CEO and
other direct reports to the Board, as
appropriate.
All 62% 38% 28 17 45
Board members 60% 40% 12 8 20
Board alternates 44% 56% 4 5 9
Management 75% 25% 12 4 16
8. Board-CEO Relationship and
Unity of Control:
Individual Board members do not
direct the CEO or staff.
All 49% 51% 22 23 45
Board members 55% 45% 12 10 22
Board alternates 57% 43% 4 3 7
Management 38% 63% 6 10 16
9. Board-CEO Relationship and
Unity of Control:
The Board provides the CEO with
clear delegations of authority and
the boundaries of that authority.
All 35% 65% 17 31 48
Board members 41% 59% 9 13 22
Board alternates 0% 100% 0 10 10
Management 50% 50% 8 8 16
10. Board-CEO Relationship and
Unity of Control:
The Board respects the CEO’s
operational role and avoids
micromanaging MCE.
All 51% 49% 23 22 45
Board members 52% 48% 11 10 21
Board alternates 75% 25% 6 2 8
Management 38% 63% 6 10 16
11. Role Clarity and Strategic Focus:
The Board’s role in decision-making, and the limits of that role, are clearly articulated in Board
policies.
All 50% 50% 21 21 42
Board members 40% 60% 8 12 20
Board alternates 50% 50% 4 4 8
Management 64% 36% 9 5 14
12. Role Clarity and Strategic Focus:
The CEO’s role in decision-making,
and the limits of that role, are clearly
articulated in Board policies.
All 48% 52% 20 22 42
Board members 40% 60% 8 12 20
Board alternates 50% 50% 4 4 8
Management 57% 43% 8 6 14
Page A-3
Survey Statement Respondents
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% # #
13. Role Clarity and Strategic Focus:
Board members understand the
difference between their
governance/policy responsibilities
and management’s operational
responsibilities.
All 25% 75% 11 33 44
Board members 38% 62% 8 13 21
Board alternates 0% 100% 0 8 8
Management 20% 80% 3 12 15
14. Role Clarity and Strategic Focus:
The Board spends an appropriate
amount of its time on strategy,
policy, and long-term direction
rather than operational matters.
All 24% 76% 11 34 45
Board members 24% 76% 5 16 21
Board alternates 38% 63% 3 5 8
Management 19% 81% 3 13 16
15. Role Clarity and Strategic Focus:
Board members appropriately
balance their responsibility to all 38
member communities with their role
as representatives of their own
community.
All 41% 59% 18 26 44
Board members 50% 50% 10 10 20
Board alternates 25% 75% 2 6 8
Management 38% 63% 6 10 16
16. Board-CEO Feedback and
Performance:
The Board and CEO regularly
review organizational performance
against Board-approved goals and
objectives.
All 50% 50% 26 26 52
Board members 48% 52% 15 16 31
Board alternates 50% 50% 4 4 8
Management 54% 46% 7 6 13
17. Board-CEO Feedback and
Performance:
The CEO brings material risks,
changing circumstances, and
concerns about Board policies or
strategic direction to the Board in a
timely manner.
All 53% 47% 24 21 45
Board members 55% 45% 11 9 20
Board alternates 20% 80% 2 8 10
Management 73% 27% 11 4 15
18. Board-CEO Feedback and
Performance:
The CEO provides the Board with
well-developed alternatives and
recommendations on significant
strategic issues.
All 54% 46% 25 21 46
Board members 60% 40% 12 8 20
Board alternates 10% 90% 1 9 10
Management 75% 25% 12 4 16
Page A-4
Survey Statement Respondents
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% # #
19. Board-CEO Feedback and
Performance:
The Board gives thoughtful and
respectful consideration to the
CEO’s recommendations.
All 85% 15% 40 7 47
Board members 90% 10% 19 2 21
Board alternates 70% 30% 7 3 10
Management 88% 13% 14 2 16
20. Board-CEO Feedback and
Performance:
The Board is open to reconsidering
assumptions and exploring
alternatives when circumstances or
information warrant.
All 78% 22% 36 10 46
Board members 76% 24% 16 5 21
Board alternates 67% 33% 6 3 9
Management 88% 13% 14 2 16
21. Board-CEO Feedback and
Performance:
The Board conducts a formal annual
evaluation of the CEO based on
agreed-upon goals and
organizational performance.
All 75% 25% 27 9 36
Board members 67% 33% 12 6 18
Board alternates 63% 38% 5 3 8
Management 100% 0% 10 0 10
22. Trust, Relationships, and
Conduct:
Board members trust one another to
act in the best interests of MCE.
All 22% 78% 10 36 46
Board members 38% 62% 8 13 21
Board alternates 11% 89% 1 8 9
Management 6% 94% 1 15 16
23. Trust, Relationships, and
Conduct:
Board members have effective
working relationships with one
another.
All 33% 67% 15 31 46
Board members 52% 48% 11 10 21
Board alternates 10% 90% 1 9 10
Management 20% 80% 3 12 15
24. Trust, Relationships, and
Conduct:
Board members communicate with
one another openly and
constructively, including when they
disagree.
All 41% 59% 19 27 46
Board members 48% 52% 10 11 21
Board alternates 33% 67% 3 6 9
Management 38% 63% 6 10 16
Page A-5
Survey Statement Respondents
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% # #
25. Trust, Relationships, and
Conduct:
Board members understand and
follow appropriate standards of
conduct in public and private
settings when representing or
discussing MCE.
All 49% 51% 22 23 45
Board members 52% 48% 11 10 21
Board alternates 63% 38% 5 3 8
Management 38% 63% 6 10 16
26. Trust, Relationships, and
Conduct:
When problems or mistakes occur,
Board and executive leaders
address them candidly and
constructively.
All 41% 59% 18 26 44
Board members 40% 60% 8 12 20
Board alternates 11% 89% 1 8 9
Management 60% 40% 9 6 15
27. Board Structure and
Composition:
The Board is the appropriate size
for effective governance of MCE.
All 23% 77% 10 34 44
Board members 33% 67% 7 14 21
Board alternates 0% 100% 0 9 9
Management 21% 79% 3 11 14
28. Board Structure and
Composition:
The Board would be more effective
if it were smaller.
All 77% 23% 34 10 44
Board members 70% 30% 14 6 20
Board alternates 90% 10% 9 1 10
Management 79% 21% 11 3 14
29. Board Structure and
Composition:
The Board has the range of
expertise needed to govern MCE
effectively.
All 61% 39% 28 18 46
Board members 67% 33% 14 7 21
Board alternates 20% 80% 2 8 10
Management 80% 20% 12 3 15
30. Board Structure and
Composition:
The Board would be more effective
if it were composed of energy
industry experts.
All 41% 59% 17 24 41
Board members 44% 56% 8 10 18
Board alternates 56% 44% 5 4 9
Management 29% 71% 4 10 14
Page A-6
Survey Statement Respondents
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% # #
31. Board Structure and
Composition:
The Board’s composition provides
an appropriate balance of public
accountability, member-community
representation, relevant expertise,
and diverse perspectives.
All 58% 42% 25 18 43
Board members 68% 32% 13 6 19
Board alternates 0% 100% 0 9 9
Management 80% 20% 12 3 15
32. Board and Committee Meetings:
Board members consistently attend
Board meetings.
All 74% 26% 32 11 43
Board members 86% 14% 18 3 21
Board alternates 43% 57% 3 4 7
Management 73% 27% 11 4 15
33. Board and Committee Meetings:
Board meetings are managed
effectively.
All 50% 50% 23 23 46
Board members 43% 57% 9 12 21
Board alternates 60% 40% 6 4 10
Management 53% 47% 8 7 15
34. Board and Committee Meetings:
Committee meetings are managed
effectively.
All 89% 11% 31 4 35
Board members 88% 13% 14 2 16
Board alternates 100% 0% 4 0 4
Management 87% 13% 13 2 15
35. Board and Committee Meetings:
The length of Board meetings is
appropriate.
All 64% 36% 29 16 45
Board members 57% 43% 12 9 21
Board alternates 78% 22% 7 2 9
Management 67% 33% 10 5 15
36. Board and Committee Meetings:
The Board has sufficient meeting
time to delve into complex issues,
discuss alternatives, and make
effective decisions.
All 53% 47% 25 22 47
Board members 48% 52% 10 11 21
Board alternates 50% 50% 5 5 10
Management 63% 38% 10 6 16
Page A-7
Survey Statement Respondents
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% # #
37. Board and Committee Meetings:
The Board has the right committees.
All 76% 24% 31 10 41
Board members 83% 17% 15 3 18
Board alternates 38% 63% 3 5 8
Management 87% 13% 13 2 15
38. Board and Committee Meetings:
Committee roles are well-defined.
All 54% 46% 22 19 41
Board members 68% 32% 13 6 19
Board alternates 29% 71% 2 5 7
Management 47% 53% 7 8 15
39. Board and Committee Meetings:
Committee decision-making
processes are well-defined.
All 56% 44% 23 18 41
Board members 60% 40% 12 8 20
Board alternates 33% 67% 2 4 6
Management 60% 40% 9 6 15
40. Board and Committee Meetings:
Committee member qualifications
are well-defined.
All 44% 56% 16 20 36
Board members 38% 63% 6 10 16
Board alternates 0% 100% 0 7 7
Management 77% 23% 10 3 13
41. Board and Committee Meetings:
There is an appropriate balance
between work done by committees
and work done by the full Board.
All 59% 41% 24 17 41
Board members 67% 33% 14 7 21
Board alternates 40% 60% 2 3 5
Management 53% 47% 8 7 15
42. Board and Committee Meetings:
Board meetings should be held in a
single location.
All 37% 63% 16 27 43
Board members 39% 61% 7 11 18
Board alternates 40% 60% 4 6 10
Management 33% 67% 5 10 15
Page A-8
Survey Statement Respondents
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% # #
43. Board Information Flow:
The Board is explicit about the
information it needs from the CEO
to fulfill its governance
responsibilities.
All 27% 73% 12 32 44
Board members 29% 71% 6 15 21
Board alternates 0% 100% 0 9 9
Management 43% 57% 6 8 14
44. Board Information Flow:
The Board receives information
sufficiently in advance of meetings
to prepare for discussions and
decisions.
All 89% 11% 40 5 45
Board members 90% 10% 19 2 21
Board alternates 78% 22% 7 2 9
Management 93% 7% 14 1 15
45. Board Information Flow:
The CEO and staff provide the
information the Board needs to
make informed decisions and
exercise effective oversight.
All 65% 35% 30 16 46
Board members 67% 33% 14 7 21
Board alternates 20% 80% 2 8 10
Management 93% 7% 14 1 15
46. Board Information Flow:
Reports and meeting materials
provided to the Board are clear and
concise.
All 65% 35% 30 16 46
Board members 57% 43% 12 9 21
Board alternates 30% 70% 3 7 10
Management 100% 0% 15 0 15
47. Board Operations and
Development:
Board members are familiar with the
MCE’s operating rules and
regulations.
All 44% 56% 18 23 41
Board members 38% 62% 8 13 21
Board alternates 78% 22% 7 2 9
Management 27% 73% 3 8 11
48. Board Operations and
Development:
MCE's operating rules and
regulations are clear and current.
All 44% 56% 19 24 43
Board members 35% 65% 7 13 20
Board alternates 50% 50% 4 4 8
Management 53% 47% 8 7 15
Page A-9
Survey Statement Respondents
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% # #
49. Board Operations and
Development:
MCE's operating rules and
regulations are consistently
followed.
All 40% 60% 17 25 42
Board members 16% 84% 3 16 19
Board alternates 38% 63% 3 5 8
Management 73% 27% 11 4 15
50. Board Operations and
Development:
Board voting rules are clearly
defined.
All 58% 42% 26 19 45
Board members 43% 57% 9 12 21
Board alternates 60% 40% 6 4 10
Management 79% 21% 11 3 14
51. Board Operations and
Development:
Board voting rules are followed
consistently.
All 69% 31% 29 13 42
Board members 60% 40% 12 8 20
Board alternates 38% 63% 3 5 8
Management 100% 0% 14 0 14
52. Board Operations and
Development:
New Board members receive the
orientation and ongoing education
needed to be effective.
All 68% 32% 28 13 41
Board members 74% 26% 14 5 19
Board alternates 50% 50% 4 4 8
Management 71% 29% 10 4 14
53. Board Operations and
Development:
The Board regularly assesses and
discusses its own effectiveness.
All 16% 84% 7 36 43
Board members 15% 85% 3 17 20
Board alternates 0% 100% 0 9 9
Management 29% 71% 4 10 14
54. Vision and Mission:
I agree with MCE’s current vision
statement: “To lead California to an
equitable, clean, affordable, and
reliable energy economy by serving
as a model for community-based
renewable energy, energy efficiency,
and cutting-edge, clean-tech
products and programs.”
All 83% 17% 38 8 46
Board members 86% 14% 18 3 21
Board alternates 60% 40% 6 4 10
Management 93% 7% 14 1 15
Page A-10
Survey Statement Respondents
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% # #
55. Vision and Mission:
I agree with MCE’s current mission
statement: “To confront the climate
crisis by eliminating fossil fuel
greenhouse gas emissions,
producing renewable energy, and
creating equitable community
benefits.”
All 83% 17% 38 8 46
Board members 76% 24% 16 5 21
Board alternates 80% 20% 8 2 10
Management 93% 7% 14 1 15
Page B-1
Appendix B: Grand Jury Recommendations Requiring a Board Response Item Grand Jury Recommendation LRI Recommendation
R1 MCE’s Board of Directors should review
whether its current delegation of authority
provides adequate oversight regarding
contract approval, setting / evaluating
performance metrics for senior management,
and overall company strategy.
LRI's recommendation is for the Board to adopt an
integrated policy governance framework in which
Board policies will be grouped into three buckets: 1)
Strategic Direction (SD) policies, defining the Board's goals for MCE; 2) Governance Process (GP)
policies, defining the role of the Board and how it
governs MCE; and 3) Board-Staff Linkage (BL)
policies, defining the delegations to the CEO, the
evaluation of the CEO, and the principle of unity of
control.
R2 The Board should amend its Operating Rules
and Regulations to reinstate approval
authority for hiring of the CEO and General
Counsel, to require Board approval for hiring
all C-level employees, and to require an
open, competitive process for all such hiring.
LRI's recommendation is for the Board to define in its
Board-Staff Linkage (BL) policies the relationship to
the CEO and General Counsel, and the specific
delegations to the CEO with regard to hiring of C-level employees.
R3 The Board should determine whether its
current size and composition are
impediments to oversight and governance.
LRI's recommendation is to make the ongoing
education of the Board about MCE’s business an
explicit expectation of the CEO. And to evaluate
Board size and composition at a later date, after the
Board establishes a new governance framework and
has operationalized it.
R4 The Board should revise its Operating Rules
and Regulations to regain responsibility for
jointly creating meeting agendas in order to
improve meeting efficiency and prioritization
of agenda items.
LRI's recommendation is for the Board to codify in its
Governance Process (GP) policies its procedures
regarding agenda setting.
R7 The MCE Board should evaluate whether
changes to Board composition or access to
energy expertise would improve oversight
and governance, and if necessary, consider
amending its Joint Powers Agreement to
allow the governing body of each jurisdiction
to appoint and designate a Board member
(or alternate Board member) who is not a
member of its governing body, but who has
strong energy industry experience and can
commit to serve for multiple years.
See response to R3.
R8 The Board should review and assess the
value to ratepayers of certain costly contracts
that may serve primarily to allow MCE to
claim a higher renewable Power Content
Label.
LRI's recommendation is for the Board to set
strategic direction for MCE with regard to resource
mix in one of its Strategic Direction (SD) policies.
R9 The MCE Board should hire an impartial,
outside auditor to provide a comprehensive
review of energy contracts executed in FY
2024–25, including review of cost, capacity,
length of contract, fuel source, facility
No LRI recommendation related to this.
Page B-2
Item Grand Jury Recommendation LRI Recommendation
location and approval processes, in order to
avoid future similar recurring contract
variances and overruns.
R10 The Board should conduct an internal review
concerning the apparent April 2023 elevation
of then-Associate General Counsel to the
position of General Counsel, in order to
determine whether that elevation occurred
consistently with MCE’s then-operative
Operating Rules and Regulations.
No LRI recommendation related to this.
R11 The Board should direct management to
issue a Request for Proposal concerning (1)
services provided by independent energy
consultants, and (2) services of all other
consultants when the duration or cost
exceeds a de minimis amount (as defined by
the Board).
LRI recommends that the Board articulate its
delegations to the CEO in the Board-Staff Linkage
(BL) policies, including the CEO's authority to
determine the use of independent energy
consultants.
R12 The Board should review its August 17, 2023
amendment of its Operating Rules and
Regulations to determine if, in doing so, (1)
the Board received adequate and
independent legal advice, and (2) whether
MCE and the Board complied with the public
inspection requirements of the Brown Act,
California’s open public meetings law.
No LRI recommendation related to this.
R13 The Board should review its existing policies
and internal controls to determine whether
they are consistent with and adequate for a
company approaching one billion dollars in
revenue.
LRI recommends that the Board clearly differentiate
between the Board's policy setting role and
management's policy setting role. The Board needs
to articulate in its Board-Staff Linkage (BL) policies
how it expects the CEO to manage MCE's business -
including appropriate guardrails - and then let the
CEO and management determine other internal
controls and procedures.
September 17, 2026
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Andy Twilling, Power Procurement Manager
RE: Approved Contracts for Energy Update (Agenda Item I.1) Dear MCE Board Members:
Summary:
This report summarizes contracts for energy procurements entered into by the Chief Executive Officer or their delegate and, if applicable, the Chair of the Technical Committee, since the last report was prepared for the regular Board meeting in August 2026. 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 timely basis.
No energy contracts have been signed since the August report.
Contract Approval Process:
Energy procurement is governed by MCE’s Energy Risk Management Policy as well as Board Resolutions 2020-04 and 2026-01. 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 evaluation of every new energy contract is based upon 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 as part of the overall approval process, an approval matrix is implemented whereby the draft contract is routed to key MCE departments 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 lists the MCE departments and consultants (and examples of relevant staff) assigned to review and approve, before the contract is forwarded to the next stage of review.
Review Owner Review Category
CB Hall (MCE, Director 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 (Process & CPUC Compliance)
Maira Strauss (MCE, Chief Financial Officer) Credit/Financial Vicken Kasarjian (Acting CEO and COO) Executive
Pursuant to Resolution 2020-04, contracts for terms of less than or equal to 12 months can be approved and executed by the CEO.
Pursuant to Resolution 2020-04 and Resolution 2026-01, MCE consults with the Interim Advisory Committee (IAC) regarding potential contracts for terms of 1-5 years. After consultation with the Interim Advisory Committee, the CEO and Technical Committee Chair are jointly authorized to approve and execute the agreement.
Fiscal Impacts:
Expenses and revenue associated with these Contracts and Agreements that are expected to occur during FYE 2027 are within the FYE 2027 Operating Fund Budget. Expenses and revenue associated with future years will be incorporated into budget planning as appropriate.
Recommendation:
Information only.
September 17, 2026
TO: MCE Board of Directors
FROM: Sabrinna Soldavini, Vice President of Policy
RE: Legislative and Regulatory Updates (Agenda Item I.2) ATTACHMENT: Regulatory Filings
Dear 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. California Legislature
The California Legislature gaveled down around midday on September 1, after extending its session as permitted by law to take up last-minute measures on wildfire liability reforms and the state budget, including appropriations of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) revenues and Proposition 4 (2024) funds. However, the Assembly declined to take up the negotiated wildfire liability reform bill, leaving the issue largely unresolved. Costs associated with utility wildfire liability is currently one of the most significant drivers of electric rate increases. As of the drafting of this staff report, it is unclear whether the Governor will call a special session this fall to allow one more chance to address the issue before he terms out or leave it for the next administration to tackle in 2027.
Regarding CalCCA’s sponsored bills, AB 1761 (Rogers), on PCIA data transparency, was voted out of the Senate and has been sent to the Governor’s desk for signature or veto. Unfortunately, SB 1138 (Padilla), which would have saved customers more than $100 million every year in excess resource adequacy costs, did not advance past the Assembly Appropriations committee.
The following table includes the status of all bills on which MCE has taken a position, as of the drafting of this staff report. The Governor has until September 30 to sign or veto the bills that have been sent to his desk.
Bill Number and
Author
Subject MCE Position Status
AB 1761 (Rogers) Power Charge Indifference
Adjustment (PCIA) data
transparency
Support Passed, sent
to Governor
SB 1138 (Padilla) Resource Adequacy (RA) hourly
transactability
Support Held in
Assembly
AB 2111 (Papan) Transmission planning Support Passed, sent to Governor
AB 1684 (Ward) Cooling systems in common
interest developments
Support Passed, sent
to Governor
AB 2508 (Hoover) Funding for Public Purpose
Programs including energy
efficiency
Oppose Held in
Assembly
AB 2383 (Zbur) Electricity service for large data
centers
Neutral Passed, sent
to Governor
SB 1282 (Becker) Vehicle grid integration Support Held in Senate
AB 2313 (Berman) Alternatives to gas distribution
service line replacements
Support Passed, sent
to Governor
AB 2369 (Rogers) Resource adequacy and full
capacity deliverability status
Support Passed, sent
to Governor
SB 1265 (Richardson) GoGreen Financing Program Support Held in Assembly
AB 1577 (Bauer-Kahan)Data centers: reporting on energy
usage
Support Passed, sent
to Governor
II. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
a. Resource Adequacy (RA) Proceeding
The RA proceeding aims to ensure the reliability of California’s electricity supply by requiring all load serving entities (LSEs), including MCE, to procure sufficient capacity resources to meet their load plus a Planning Reserve Margin (PRM). Rulemaking (R).25-10-003 was opened by the CPUC to continue to refine the program and adopt future requirements.
The PRM for 2026-2027 is set to 18% of an LSE’s monthly RA requirement. In Track 2 of the RA proceeding, the CPUC is conducting its 2026 Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) studies. The LOLE studies model statewide grid reliability, and the CPUC will use the final LOLE results to set the PRM for 2028, ultimately impacting MCE’s RA procurement obligations. On August 14, 2026, the CPUC issued its Draft LOLE study for 2028, to be used toward suggesting a 2028 PRM. The study results suggest a September PRM value of 21.9% for 2028-2029 to meet grid-reliability standards.
MCE worked with CalCCA to submit an alternative LOLE study proposal on August 14, 2026, highlighting the value of focusing on cost-effectiveness while still achieving a reliable grid. MCE then worked with CalCCA to file informal comments on the CPUC’s Draft study on August 26, 2026, re-iterating the value of considering cost-effectiveness in the PRM calibration and advocating for fair inputs and assumptions regarding grid reliability conditions.
Following the submission of informal comments, the CPUC plans to finalize the results of its LOLE study, as well as make their recommendation for 2028-2029 PRM standards.
Fiscal Impacts: There is no direct fiscal impact on MCE at this time. However, changes to RA requirements ultimately affect MCE’s procurement costs. All else being equal, RA procurement costs are likely to track with PRM changes, with PRM increases leading to cost increases, and vice versa. b. Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA)
In February 2025, the CPUC issued an Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) to update Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA) and Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) policies and processes.
Per law, the CPUC is required to ensure “indifference” and prevent cost shifts between bundled and unbundled customers. This entails the Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs), such as Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) recovering electricity costs from CCA customers that were incurred on their behalf before they departed PG&E service and reducing those costs by the value of benefits that remain with PG&E customers. To facilitate this process, the Commission established the PCIA, a charge paid by all customers on the PG&E side of the bill.
In this proceeding, the CPUC is evaluating potential changes to the methodology of calculating the PCIA through three tracks.
Track 2
Track 2 of the PCIA proceeding is considering the valuation of pre-2019 banked Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). In August, the CPUC issued a Proposed Decision (PD) in Track 2. The PD affirmed the Commission’s ruling from prior ERRA Forecast cases, allowing the IOUs to value pre-2019 banked RECs at zero. MCE supported CalCCA in filing opening comments on the PD on September 3, urging the Commission to reject the PD on the basis of legal violations and legal error, and to replace the PD with an Alternate Decision that properly and fairly values the pre-2019 banked RECs to provide appropriate value for departed load customers (such as MCE customers) who paid for those RECs.
Track 3
In August, the CPUC issued a Scoping Ruling in Track 3 of this proceeding outlining the remaining, additional PCIA issues to be considered in this proceeding. The Scoping Ruling proposes to break Track 3 into three phases: Track 3A, Track 3B, and Track 4. A high-level description of each of the additional tracks is provided below:
• Track 3A: Refinements to Existing PCIA Structures
o Whether and how the Commission should modify the benchmarks used to calculate the PCIA.
o Whether and how the Commission should provide additional policy guidance regarding re-vintaging of existing resources.
• Track 3B: Structural Framework Changes
o Whether the Commission should pursue structural framework changes to the PCIA, PG&E’s portfolio, etc., to achieve indifference.
• Track 4: Additional Issues
o Whether the Commission should make additional PCIA and ERRA process refinements.
Track 3A will begin in Q4 2026, and the schedule for Track 3B is expected to be issued later this year, with the majority of activity happening in 2027.
MCE staff will continue to actively engage in this proceeding and provide updates as they become available.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no immediate fiscal impacts to MCE. The PCIA is a charge on the PG&E side of the bill, but changes to the PCIA impact MCE customers’ overall bills and MCE’s rate competitiveness.
c. Integrated Resource Planning
The Integrated Resources Planning (IRP) proceeding is an “umbrella” procurement planning proceeding overseen by the CPUC that considers all of the CPUC’s policies and programs to ensure the state has a safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric supply.
Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program (RCPPP)
The RCPPP is a new, proposed enhancement to current ad-hoc procurement framework under the IRP. The goal is to build a procurement framework that allows the CPUC to track LSE progress towards the state’s GHG reduction targets and reliability goals.
In June 2026, the CPUC issued a Ruling with an Alternative Proposal (Option 3) for the RCPPP. Under Option 3, the CPUC proposes to use its Preferred System Plan (PSP) modelling as the basis for compliance requirements, with LSEs subject to 100% contracting requirements 3 years forward from when the compliance requirements are issued and 100% online requirements 5 years forward.
Procurement requirements would also be bucketed by attributes (such as clean, firm or long lead time) and each LSE would be responsible for contracting and bringing online the specific quantity of resources meeting the different attribute categories.
CalCCA filed Opening Comments in response to the Option 3 proposal in August 2026 stating that Option 3 should be rejected because it would establish binding procurement requirements based on modelling assumptions that may not align with market realities and may risk distorting the market, creating the potential for supplier market power, and raising ratepayer costs. The CPUC should instead adopt Option 1 + Clean Energy Standard (an earlier proposal issued in April 2025) 1 , because
a procurement framework based on total needs including new plus existing resources will better align reliability and policy procurement needs with an efficient and affordable procurement environment. To the extent the CPUC moves forward with Option 3, CalCCA recommended the following significant modifications: (1) Establish technology neutral procurement requirements using Slice of Day (SOD) accounting; (2) Remove procurement buffers to avoid unnecessary and costly over procurement; (3) Allocate requirements associated with data center loads through a separate, milestone-based process that accounts for the significant uncertainty associated with these loads; (4) Allocate requirements based on each LSEs’ load ratio share in the year of need to ensure allocations accurately reflect each LSEs’ contributions to the need; and (5) Adopt a “good faith efforts” standard that accounts for circumstances outside an LSE’s control that affect its ability to comply.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no immediate fiscal impacts to MCE. d. Billing Modernization
In October 2024, PG&E submitted an Application for approval to recover 2023-2030 revenue requirements ($761.3 million) for its Billing Modernization Initiative (BMI). BMI will replace PG&E’s aging billing system currently used to serve its electric and gas customers, including MCE customers, as the IOUs are statutorily required to serve as the billing agents for CCAs. PG&E proposes to recover the costs of these upgrades from all customers, bundled and unbundled. 1 For additional context, see MCE Board of Directors Meeting Packet, September 18, 2025. https://mcecleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/MCE-Board-Meeting-Packet-September-2025.pdf.
MCE has been working with a group of Joint CCAs in PG&E’s service territory to advocate for billing systems and processes that result from this upgrade to be: 1) sufficient to meet CCA customer needs and 2) designed to equitably serve both PG&E’s bundled and unbundled (CCA) customers. The Joint CCAs also stated the need for the costs of this upgrade to be fairly allocated.
As part of this engagement, the Joint CCAs discussed and reached a Partial Settlement Agreement with PG&E on specific contested issues in PG&E’s Application. In July 2026, the Joint CCAs filed a Joint Motion with PG&E for adoption and approval of the Partial Settlement Agreement2 . Following
the Motion, the Joint CCAs filed a Joint Reply Brief with PG&E explaining the importance of BMI that enables PG&E to implement an end-state billing system to meet the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
The Utility Reform Network (TURN), California Public Advocates Office (PAO), and Small Business Utility Advocates (SBUA) filed joint comments on the Settlement opposing the cost provisions and arguing that the cost terms are unreasonable and the Joint CCAs position regarding cost reasonableness is weak. The Joint CCAs filed Joint Reply Comments with PG&E arguing that: (1) the cost terms are reasonable because they enable PG&E to implement core functionalities in an upgraded billing system whose benefits will flow through to all customers; and (2) the Commission should not dismiss the Joint CCAs unique perspectives as ratepayer advocates. The Joint CCAs advocated for cost reasonableness, cost functionalization, and cost effectiveness−i.e., ensuring the BMI project is well designed and benefits all customers, including CCA customers.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no direct fiscal impacts on MCE at this time. e. PG&E 2027 Energy Resource and Recovery Account (ERRA) Forecast Proceeding MCE is currently engaging in PG&E’s 2027 ERRA Forecast Proceeding with CalCCA. This proceeding determines PG&E’s generation and PCIA rates for 2027.
PG&E filed its 2027 ERRA Forecast Application in May 2026. The forecast generation and PCIA rates are preliminary and do not incorporate multiple factors that would affect the final rates published on January 1, 2027, including changes in energy prices or changes implemented through the ongoing PCIA OIR. CalCCA filed Intervenor Testimony in August 2026 responding to PG&E’s testimony and application. The testimony was broadly aimed at ensuring that PG&E’s methodology and accounting of PCIA resources values them fairly, accurately, and are consistent with current market realities. Two main focal points were how PG&E is implementing the Slice of Day (SOD) methodology and PG&E’s data center forecast methodology and its impacts on PCIA volatility. 2 For additional details regarding the settlement provisions, see MCE Board of Directors Meeting Packet, August 20, 2026. https://mcecleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/MCE-Board-Meeting-Packet-August-2026.pdf MCE will continue to work with CalCCA on additional filings in this proceeding due in October and November 2026.
Fiscal Impact: There is no immediate fiscal impact to MCE. However, the outcomes from this proceeding will impact PCIA rates for MCE’s customers in 2027. f. Climate Credit
The Climate Credit proceeding is evaluating potential modifications to the California Climate Credit, which is funded through revenues generated by California's Cap-and-Invest Program and distributed to residential gas and electric customers. In June 2026, the CPUC issued a Phase 1B Proposed Decision that establishes key priorities and guiding principles for this stage of the proceeding and presents several alternative credit distribution methodologies.
Options under consideration include climate zone-based tiers, baseline usage-based tiers, targeted support for lower-income customers, such as CARE and FERA participants, and a fully volumetric approach that ties credit allocations directly to energy consumption.
On August 11, the CPUC convened a Climate Credit workshop to evaluate these distribution concepts and solicit stakeholder input. At the workshop, CalCCA presented a proposal supporting the existing distribution framework, with consideration for enhanced benefits for CARE and FERA customers. Parties have until September 14, 2026, to submit formal proposals, and a Ruling providing further guidance on the Assigned Commissioner's preferred approach is expected on September 25, 2026.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no immediate fiscal impacts to MCE. However, the proceeding considers alternative ways to distribute the climate credit, which directly impacts customer bills. g. Disconnections
In July, the CPUC issued a Proposed Decision to extend the Arrearage Management Program (AMP) from its current October 1, 2026, sunset date to February 1, 2027. MCE worked with CalCCA to submit comments supporting the extension, noting that aligning AMP’s sunset date with the Percentage of Income Payment Plan (PIPP) Pilot Program’s sunset date is a straightforward, low-burden solution. On August 13, the Proposed Decision was approved by the CPUC, officially extending AMP through February 1, 2027.
Fiscal Impacts: The extension of the AMP program allows MCE to continue recovering its AMP program costs through the program’s new sunset date of February 1, 2027. h. High Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) Future
The High DER Future proceeding aims to prepare the grid for a high number of DER connections to the distribution-level grid. The proceeding includes three tracks, with two phases each for Tracks 1 and 3: (1) Distribution Planning and Execution Process (DPEP) and Data Improvements; (2) Distribution System Operator (DSO) Roles and Responsibilities; and (3) Smart Inverter Operationalization (SIO) and Grid Modernization Planning.
Track 1 focuses on the implementation of recent improvements to the DPEP of each IOU. The scope also includes the Electrification Impact Studies (EIS) and integration capacity analysis (ICA) maps. The CPUC issued a Proposed Decision on July 28, 2026, that would revise the ICA workshop schedule to occur biannually rather than quarterly and order the IOUs to produce Grid Modernization Progress Reports in the fall of even-numbered years. MCE and CalCCA decided to not file comments or responses to the Proposed Decision and are awaiting the subsequent Final Decision and respective comment period.
Track 2 focuses on the roles and responsibilities of a potential DSO. This Summer, the CPUC held two workshops related to this track, the first on their proposal to have IOUs serve as the DSOs in their respective territories, and the second on how the DSOs would coordinate with CAISO serving as the Transmission System Operator (TSO). In July, the CPUC drafted a report from the workshops that will inform the development of a DER Orchestration Framework, including data access and coordination between the IOUs and CAISO on DERs. MCE worked with CalCCA to file opening and reply comments on the CPUC report, advocating for a holistic approach to creating a demand flexibility marketplace, which should be operated by an objective third party. Such a marketplace would remove the conflicts of interest for IOU-owned DERs, as well as provide fair market access and data visibility to all non-IOU parties.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no direct fiscal impacts on MCE at this time. i. Electric Rule 21: Generating Facility Interconnections The Rule 21 proceeding was opened in August 2025 to update distribution-level interconnection rules for DERs under Electric Rule 21. Rule 21 covers interconnection pathways and standards, cost sharing responsibilities, DER communications interoperability, and more.
On July 14, the CPUC issued a ruling directing the IOUs to produce data related to Rule 21 applications and the current associated flat fee. The Commission seeks data from the IOUs to optimize cost recovery and adjust the fee structure. The IOUs issued their responses to the ruling on August 11, answering the questions posed to them by the CPUC. MCE deliberated with CalCCA and ultimately decided not to file comments on the ruling or IOU responses.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no direct fiscal impacts to MCE at this time.
III. California Energy Commission (CEC)
a. Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR)
The 2026 IEPR Update is currently underway. Through the IEPR process, the CEC will create the state’s baseline electricity and natural gas demand forecast. In August, the CEC hosted two workshops on inputs and assumptions for its energy demand forecasts. The first workshop focused on forecasts for known loads and data center forecasts. Known loads are energization requests at the distribution level, handled by the IOUs. Presentations from the workshop conveyed that known load and data center forecasts are large but still very uncertain in how much of the requested load will materialize. The second workshop focused on load modifiers, exploring the inputs and assumptions around behind-the-meter solar and storage supply in California, as well as various sensitivity scenarios for fuel substitution, transportation electrification, and energy efficiency.
MCE is currently working with CalCCA to file comments on the workshops by the September 15 deadline, after which the CEC will conduct their energy forecasts and release their draft results over November and December.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no direct fiscal impacts to MCE at this time. However, updates to the IEPR energy demand forecast are used by the CPUC to determine future compliance requirements, including procurement mandates. Thus, changes to the energy demand forecast may ultimately impact MCE’s procurement costs.
IV. California Independent System Operator (CAISO)
a. Demand and Distributed Energy Market Integration (DDEMI) The DDEMI working group is focused on the creation and enhancement of distributed energy resource (DER) participation models and market rules in the CAISO day-ahead and real-time markets.
In August, the CAISO postponed the planned August 27 meeting, as well as the release of a further Revised Straw Proposal for a model of end-use customer exports, until further notice.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no direct fiscal impacts to MCE at this time.
V. Bay Area Air District (Air District)
a. Regulation 9, Rule 6 – Building Appliance Rules
In August, MCE along with CleanPowerSF, Sonoma Clean Power, San Jose Clean Energy, and Silicon Valley Clean Energy (Joint CCAs) jointly submitted comments to the Air District supporting draft language on exemptions to Regulation 9, Rule 6 published in July 2026 on Small Water Heaters. In July, the Air District proposed delaying the existing implementation date of the rule from January 2027 to January 2028 and other limited exemptions. The Air District adopted Regulation 9, Rule 6 in March of 2023 and established a zero nitrogen oxides standard for all sales and installations of water heaters beginning with those manufactured after January 2027.
Following the adoption of Regulation 9, Rule 6 in March of 2023, Air District staff have collaborated with stakeholders, including CCAs, on potential amendments and research related to the corresponding technology readiness, possible costs, workforce, permitting, grid, equity and access to related incentives and financing topics.
In July 2026, the Air District proposed draft exemptions for space constrained installations, existing electrical system or panel upgrades, low-income qualified property owners, water heaters with less than 30 gallons capacity, delaying hydronic water heating systems until 2031, delay multifamily and deed-restricted affordable housing installations until 2033, businesses with high-heat demand (e.g. restaurants, healthcare, dry cleaners) and temporary emergency gas water heater installed by licensed contractor.
In August 2026 comments, Joint CCAs supported the draft exemptions because they respond to known space constrained installation issues, affordability, and equity issues. The Joint CCAs found the time extensions create more time for beneficial public education on the rules prior to the moment of an emergency replacement scenario. The Joint CCAs explained further support for low-income exemptions and recommended upgrades to streamline the proposed income verification process. The Joint CCAs finally supported sunset dates for temporary exemptions to help market certainty and planning.
The Air District is tentatively scheduled to vote on the draft exemptions in November 2026.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no direct fiscal impacts to MCE at this time.