Marin Clean Energy has a problem with its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Its annual GHG reductions don’t reconcile.
Case 1 -- The diminishing story of MCE’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Reduction Claims
Jan. 2011 Sept. 2011 April 2012 Nov. 2012 Dec. 2012Larkspur Workshop
Mill Valley City Council Presentation Novato Community Meeting (Q&A) MCE website MCE email 175,000 tons "Our reduction goal" 68,595 tons 15,420 tons 15,420 tons disavows claiming "annual" GHG reductions note (a) note (b,c,d,e) note (f) note (g)GHG Annual reductions are shrinking when they should be growing
A year after MCE’s Mill Valley presentation in 2011 MCE had more customers and was presumably purchasing more “clean” energy to serve them. Why aren’t MCE’s annual GHG reductions increasing? Why are they going down and now no longer disclosed?
In November 2012, MCE had its greatest number of customers, and was purchasing a greater amount of “clean” energy to serve them. MCE was also increasing its renewable energy supply from 27% to 50% (Board approved Feb 2, 2011). Given this, its “annual GHG reduction” should be enormous. MCE’s public record indicates the opposite.
Case 2 – The Nursery vs. the Airport
Relative claims of solar farms
Location System Size # of homes GHG reduction San Rafael Airport .972 megawatt 280 1,255 tons/yr. note (h) Green Point Nursery "a megawatt" 400 53,000 tons/yr. note (i)Claims associated with the completed San Rafael airport solar project and the proposed Green Point Nursery solar farm are as follows:
1) The Nursery project claims it reduces GHGs by 53,000 tons per year, which is 3 times as many GHGs as MCE’s advertised total annual GHG reduction in Nov 2012 of 15,420 tons. How is this possible when Green Point would only be “a megawatt” compared to the many green megawatts supposedly in MCE’s portfolio?
2) The Green Point Nursery claims to eliminate 53,000 tons per year, which is more than 40 times as many GHGs as the comparably sized San Rafael Airport solar project. How?
3) The Green Point project claims to power 400 homes, which is 120 more than the comparably sized San Rafael airport solar farm claims. How is that possible?
Since MCE’s inception, its annual GHG reductions have represented the essence of its mission and have been used to justify its existence.
If these GHG issues trouble you, you may opt out at 1-888-632-3674.
Notes:
(a) City of Larkspur “Workshop Concerning Marin Energy Authority” September 15, 2011, attachment “Introducing Marin Clean Energy,” dated 1/24/2011, p. 5 of 15. MEA also identifies 175,000 tons as its GHG reduction for 2011 in its PowerPoint presentation “Marin Clean Energy ‘Renewable by Choice’ A program of the Marin Energy Authority” dated March 2010, p. 15 of 20.
(b) Marin Energy Authority presentation of Marin Clean Energy to Mill Valley City Council, dated 9/06/2011, p. 2 of 7. Does not include MEA’s subsequent enrollment of the bulk of Marin residences (Phase 2b), who were enrolled in late summer/early fall 2012.
(c) MEA included the same claim of 68,595 tons annual GHG reduction in copies of its Marin Energy Authority – Marin Clean Energy PowerPoint distributed to council members of Ross (9/15/2011), Larkspur, (9/21/2011), and Novato (9/27/2011) when marketing to these municipalities to join the MEA Joint Powers Authority. Does not include MEA’s subsequent enrollment of the bulk of Marin residences (Phase 2b), who were enrolled in late summer/early fall 2012.
(d) City of Larkspur “Workshop Concerning Marin Energy Authority” September 15, 2011, attachment Marin Clean Energy Update – July 2011: “Marin Clean Energy is reducing the amount of CO2 generated in Marin by 68,595 tons of CO2 annually, more than any other reduction effort implemented to-date in Marin County.” Does not include MEA’s subsequent enrollment of the bulk of Marin residences (Phase 2b), who were enrolled in late summer/early fall 2012.
(e) Dawn Weisz (MEA) email to Town of Ross Town Manager Gary Broad, dated July 8, 2011, Subject: Clean Energy Amnesty. “...[MEA is] already achieving a GHG reduction of 68,000 tons each year, a greater reduction than all GHG-reducing programs, countywide, combined.”
(f) MEA website https://marincleanenergy.info/electric-services
image dated November 2, 2012 (see attachment 1). MEA revised this page mid-November 2012 so it is no longer possible to read MCE’s “annual GHG reduction.” Also see note (g).
(g) MEA email (Simon Loos), dated 12/07/2012, Subject: annual GHG reduction. “MEA does not claim an annual GHG reduction rate; the reduction varies by year according to best available data, our power portfolio, and the size of our customer base.”
(h) Marin Independent Journal, 10/24/2012
1,138 metric tons claimed. Metric ton: ton conversion = (2,205 / 2,000). Therefore, 1,138 x (2,205/2,000) = 1,255 tons (U.S.)
Is this something the Civil Grand Jury should take up or Ed Berbarian's office or The State of California DA's office? Going forward aside from you as the watchdog, what governemental agency is keeping them in check?
I’m wondering the same thing as another person here... when will our District Attorney go after MCE for consumer fraud? It’s all here in black & white.
My company, and competing construction underwriters are very nervous about renewables because venture capital investments are drying up. One of the first things we look at is the company’s outward compiled record, what it’s saying to everyone about itself. If the records are inconsistent, forget about bonding, especially in this economic climate. That’s true with or without VC backing. Another issue is construction management and, again, good management history is a requirement in this economy. For the heck of it I checked Marin Clean Energy’s record here on Patch and found this, also by Mr. Phelps: http://millvalley.patch.com/blog_posts/public-agencies-at-odds-with-mea
Jim Phelps, can you file a complaint to the Marin County DA's office? I don't know all the tech stuff that you do and couldn't build a case like you have.
Isn’t it about MCE, or is it about Dawn Weisz?
When MEA Board member Rifkind questioned Weisz’s procurement authority, staff consultants “wondered whether the Board would want to be burdened with that level of decision-making.” ** Now, Ms. Weisz is moving for sole contracting authority (yet undisclosed amount), and is selling this move to the Board as “allowing [the Board] greater oversight of contractors performing various scopes of work.” *** i.e. micromanaging. Hopefully MEA’s Board will awaken and find the inner resolve to check Ms. Weisz’s power grab. * Board Retreat, 9.10.12, Agenda # 5. ** Board minutes 11.01.12, Agenda # 7 *** Executive Committee, 02.12.13, Agenda # 6 Board, 3.07.12, Agenda # 11 and #12.
Thank you for your continued attention to the actions of MCE. From the start this was a flawed concept. PGE is more than capable of creating green options on a larger scale for a lesser cost. MCE is about green grandstanding. It should have to prove that its existence and cost are worth maintaining. The new greening of public utilities, like other green branding, has made people assume that it is better without examining what "it" really provides. Without an agency to oversee MCE's actual accomplishments it will be yet another costly foray into the private sector with public funds. Please keep writing. We need to be informed to make better choices. The first thing that we must change is the Opt Out policy. Once that is eliminated we can really see who chooses CCA over PGE.
First of all, we can speak to our own GHG emission reduction estimates, but not those released by other parties for the Green Point Nursery and San Rafael Airport. Also, the metrics released by MEA are in response to specific data inquiries that use specific methodologies. Thus, to make an apples-to-apples comparisons is inaccurate. Please note the following facts regarding figures cited in Phelps’ analysis: • The 65,585 tons MEA reported in September 2011 compares 2011 MCE estimated emission reductions to those generated on average from California’s electric grid. MCE’s power had an emission rate of 0.22 metric tons per megawatt-hour compared to the California grid average of 0.44. • The 15,420 tons we reported in April 2012 were MCE’s actual emission reductions in 2011. This figure compares our power to PG&E’s electric mix, rather than the average from California’s grid. (RESPONSE CONTINUED)
It is important to note that emission reductions can vary by year according to the size of our customer base, our power portfolio and best available data. As we had communicated to Mr. Phelps in early December, we decided to remove the 2011 figure from our website because it is not an accurate representation of actual emission reductions, given our expanding customer base and supply portfolio. We replaced this figure with our lifetime emission reductions, including an estimate for 2012 emission reductions. We stand by the claim that MCE and its customers have reduced approximately 78,000 metric tons of GHG emissions since 2010. This includes 2010 and 2011 figures, as well as our estimates for 2012. MCE will continue to work towards a cumulative GHG reduction of 175,000 tons over time, and will continue to pursue further reductions even after achieving that milestone. While we still have a way to go, we continue to serve more customers and further diversify our clean energy portfolio with each succeeding year. To get accurate information about GHG emission reductions, we encourage customers with questions to contact us at info@mceCleanEnergy.com.
The new Grand Jury will soon be selected from a list of applicants - of which there are now only a few. Sign up! You will learn from the experience. You can obtain an application from the County web site (www.marincounty.org) or by calling 415-473-6132. They say it will take about 20 hours per week, but if you actually get interested in something, you will need 40-60. Alternatively, build your case for an investigation between now and July 1st. That is the date the new jury will be seated. Send them your recommendation for an investigation. Provide as much information as you can. Send it to Marin County Civil Grand Jury, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275, San Rafael, CA 94903.
Isn't it more practical to take an existing public utility and providing the same opportunities to purchase green energy? By using PGE each person will actually have to make a conscious choice to increase their bill in order to go 100% renewable. MCE through the Opt Out model forces people to choose to leave. This mechanism insures that apathy will force the consumer to buy in the direction of the favored agency new green agency. PGE is just as capable as MCE of purchasing REC's. REC's don't provide local green energy. They are offsets exploited through financial gain. PGE has far greater capacity to invest in renewable and to do so while providing jobs to thousands of bay area employees. MCE provides very little, at a high cost and with the appearance of gain when in reality it is just a feel good option. REC's should not be counted in any formula used by MCE. Opt in should be the only way MCE is allowed to operate. When will MCE admit that the selfishness of a small but highly visible political group has resulted in the formation of a whole new venture that has at its top individuals who buy energy.
When comparing to the electric grid, we consider power purchased in the spot market, not power produced under contract. Due to PG&E's large portion of nuclear and hydroelectric sources under contract, their overall power content is indeed much cleaner than grid-purchased power. Again, it is important to note that emission reductions can vary by year according to varying assumptions and best available data. MCE has contracts to build 52 MW of new solar generation within California, and Feed-In Tariff program capacity for 10 MW of generation within our service area. To get accurate information about power sources or GHG emission reductions, we encourage customers with questions to contact us at info@mceCleanEnergy.com.
Thank you for your response. While you are guilty of playing a huge amount of games/spin with numbers (most power is obviously bought on contract, with spot markets used for hedging and peak power demands) at least coming forth and admitting that PGE generated power (which is real power, not financial instruments) is essentially very close to MCE power, is helpful. Good luck on those solar projects, please make sure they don't end up like that debacle in Rocklin...
The numbers issued by MEA are alarming. In May 2011 MEA’s Dawn Weisz provided a national emissions factor to Mill Valley Mayor and future MEA Board member Ken Wachtel. MEA had no business citing a national factor that’s weighted by eastern coal emissions -- factoring off this skews MEA’s GHG reduction claims and gives the impression MEA is achieving fictitiously high GHG reductions that may apply to Kentucky but not California. You write about MEA’s “actual” emissions reductions, and “standing by the claim.” But your GHG reduction numbers, homogenized at best, are unsubstantiated because loads and corresponding generator dispatch locations for balancing the grid vary throughout the day, making “actual” claims impossible to confirm. So MEA defaults to generic factors. If you know this then you are apparently misleading people here. If you don’t know this, then you are in the wrong business. If the engineering firms that design emissions abatement equipment tossed around guaranteed emissions factors in the manner of MEA, they would find themselves getting sued by every power company for malperformance... and then they would be out of business.
http://millvalley.patch.com/blog_posts/public-agencies-at-odds-with-mea
That same IJ story also noted that PG&E raised their rates by 12% on Jan 1. I suppose that it should not come as a surprise to me that competition would actually help justify a rate increase by PG&E. I opted out of MCE from the beginning because it was widely accepted that PG& E rates would lower. However, I find choosing PG&E over anybody to be a tough pill to swallow given their track record so I may need to re-examine that soon.