Readers may wonder why a Contra Costa newsletter is covering a Marin-based utility. Well, despite the name, most Marin Clean Energy customers are in our County, so our job at CoCoTax includes holding this public power provider accountable.

The Red Ink Behind the Green Label: A Fiscal Reality Check on MCE

For years, Marin Clean Energy (MCE) has operated under a halo of environmental virtue, promising ratepayers locally controlled, greener energy at competitive rates. But in the world of municipal finance, virtue is not a line item on a balance sheet. Recent disclosures, audited financial statements, and a comparative analysis of MCE’s peers reveal a troubling reality: this agency is an outlier in the worst possible way.

While MCE management blames "market volatility" for its fiscal woes, the data suggests a deeper issue of mismanagement, opaque governance, and a drift away from fiscal prudence.

An Outlier in Red Ink

The most damning evidence against MCE’s current trajectory comes from a simple comparison with its peers. Every Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) in California faces the same regulatory environment and the same wholesale energy market. Yet, while other CCAs are stabilizing their finances, MCE is hemorrhaging cash.

According to a recent analysis by the Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers (CST), MCE’s financial performance for the fiscal year ending in 2025 was "dismal" compared to nine other large California CCAs. Consider the following disparities:

·         Skyrocketing Energy Costs: MCE saw its energy costs explode by 30% in 2025. The average increase for its peer group? Just 4%.

·         Negative Margins: While the average CCA generated a healthy 16.1% net energy margin, MCE posted a negative margin of -1.9%. In simple terms, MCE paid more to buy power than it earned selling it, while almost every other agency turned a profit.

·         Operating Losses: MCE swung from a $144 million operating profit in fiscal 2024 to a $12 million operating loss in fiscal 2025.

The excuse offered by MCE executives—that energy markets are volatile—does not hold water when you see that their peers, such as Orange County Power Authority and Clean Power Alliance, managed to navigate the exact same market without generating such massive losses. The data indicates that MCE’s losses were likely self-inflicted, the result of purchasing short-term contracts at peak market prices rather than prudent long-term hedging.

The High Cost of "Green" Paper

Ratepayers are often willing to pay a premium if they believe they are funding new steel-in-the-ground renewable energy. However, MCE’s procurement strategy raises questions about what we are actually buying.

Much of MCE's "green" compliance comes from purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) or "attributes"—essentially paper trading—rather than directly funding new generation that wouldn't otherwise exist. Critics have noted that MCE spent $178 million on short-term contracts approved unilaterally by the CEO, many of which were for these attributes or gas-generated power to meet targets.

This is the "bathtub" problem: MCE claims to sell 100% renewable power in its "Deep Green" plan, but the grid doesn't work that way. When the sun goes down, MCE customers are using the same gas-fired electrons as everyone else. By purchasing expensive attributes to paper over this reality, MCE is arguably driving up costs for a marketing claim rather than a genuine environmental impact.

Failure of Board Governance

How did a public agency drift this far off course? The answer lies in its governance structure. MCE is overseen by an unwieldy 34-member board of local elected officials.

In corporate governance, a board of that size is a recipe for dysfunction and staff capture. It is nearly impossible for 34 part-time city council members, few of whom have energy or finance backgrounds, to provide effective oversight of an $837 million trading operation.

When board members like Larkspur Vice Mayor Stephanie Andre and Belvedere’s Sally Wilkinson attempted to ask tough financial questions, they were met with resistance rather than transparency. We have seen:

·         Stonewalling: Management shut down the audit committee after it flagged financial control issues.

·         Unilateral Spending: The CEO signed contracts committing ratepayers to hundreds of millions of dollars without prior board consultation during peak price periods.

·         Staff Domination: The push for a permanent finance committee was fought tooth and nail by management and only recently passed after a contentious battle.

Bloated Overhead and Executive Pay

While the balance sheet bleeds, administrative costs are rising. MCE’s staff costs as a percentage of revenue stand at 3.2%, significantly higher than the peer average of 2.5%. As an agency scales, these costs should theoretically go down due to economies of scale, but at MCE, the opposite is happening.

Most egregiously, despite the operating losses and the governance friction, the board recently approved a raise for CEO Dawn Weisz, bringing her base salary to $568,828. When benefits are included, her total compensation package has previously topped $680,000. For context, she earns more than the head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, a utility with millions of customers and a budget nearly ten times the size of MCE’s.

The Path Forward

MCE has recently taken a small step in the right direction by finally voting to create a standing finance committee. But this is only a band-aid. To restore fiscal sanity and protect ratepayers from future shocks, three things must happen:

1.       Independent Audit: We need a forensic audit of MCE’s energy contracts to understand exactly why their costs rose 30% when the market only rose 4%.

2.       Governance Reform: The board must be shrunk to a manageable size (e.g., 9 members) with requirements for financial or energy industry expertise, as suggested by governance experts.

3.       Halt the Greenwashing: Stop paying premiums for unbundled RECs. If MCE cannot provide cheaper power than PG&E, it must demonstrate it is building new renewable capacity, not just shuffling paper to claim a "100% renewable" label that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

California Coming for Your Gas Appliances and it Could Cost You a Fortune

Check out this informative video:

Next Meeting, Free and Online

Join us for a FREE ONLINE meeting Tuesday, December 9^th at Noon as we hear from Contra Costa Community College District President Andy Li. The District Board is considering a new general obligation bond for the November 2026, so you may be affected by the District regardless of whether your kids attend one of its colleges. Please register at this Zoom link.