The Orange County Power Authority (OCPA), launched in 2022, has promoted itself to cities and ratepayers with claims of local control, lower prices, and greener energy than Southern California Edison (SCE). However, questions have emerged regarding the actual energy OCPA delivers and the public's ability to independently verify these claims. OCPA's resistance to transparency has made these questions increasingly pressing.
The nature of OCPA's "100% Renewable" product, which some member cities might make their default, is a key area of concern. For instance, under firm-and-shape wind energy contracts, wind is often not dispatched to serve OCPA load. Instead, this energy may be "substitute power," such as natural gas, which is still advertised as "wind" on power content labels. While electricity on California’s interconnected grid is fungible, the issue remains whether the energy resources purchased by OCPA were actually dispatched to serve its load.
Irvine Councilmember and OCPA Vice Chair Kathleen Treseder claimed that all OCPA ratepayers were receiving 95.5% renewable energy. This assertion has raised questions about leadership’s understanding of what is being promoted. Treseder’s delivery claim contradicted a presentation by OCPA’s energy procurement consultant, which she had attended eight months earlier. Furthermore, Treseder disregarded non-renewable substitute power associated with OCPA’s wind, a detail not clearly explained to potential OCPA city members.
Governance and transparency issues are not unique to OCPA within the community choice energy model. A June 2026 Marin County Civil Grand Jury report found governance and board problems at Marin Clean Energy, the agency after which OCPA modeled itself. The California State Auditor’s 2023 report, for example, noted OCPA's practice of not disclosing the confidential terms of its purchase agreements to its board during either open or closed meetings. Though Treseder later provided unredacted power contracts for Irvine staff review, these documents alone do not establish the annual energy content represented to ratepayers; such verification requires reconciliation with numerous other records and does not, by itself, reveal potential greenwashing.
Transparency issues have also appeared in OCPA’s Improvement Plan, a document intended to address agency failures identified by previous audits. The plan represented a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Huntington Beach as a "Transparency" success for OCPA. However, four months earlier, OCPA had denied Huntington Beach’s request for energy procurement records, which the city sought to verify its 100% Renewable product under the same NDA. OCPA’s handling of this dispute contributed to Huntington Beach’s subsequent decision to leave the agency.
This history becomes relevant as OCPA presented a different account to Fountain Valley several months later. When asked about Huntington Beach’s departure by Fountain Valley’s city council, OCPA described it as "just a change of priorities." This framing was central to Fountain Valley’s pending vote to join OCPA. Fountain Valley’s representative on the OCPA board, Glenn Grandis, has expressed satisfaction with the agency’s transparency. Grandis suggested that if Fountain Valley ever wished to depart, it could satisfy its financial obligations by selling the OCPA energy contracts entered into on its behalf.
However, it was not disclosed to his fellow council members that liquidating energy contracts would effectively place Fountain Valley in the role of a commodities trader. This would expose the city’s general fund to associated risks within OCPA, leaving taxpayers exposed after being assured that opting out meant OCPA "doesn’t affect you." This proposed safety net for departure could face challenges during an economic downturn, such as a COVID-type scenario, when other community choice programs have failed or postponed their launches. Similarly, if a potential AI/data-center growth bubble were to burst, Fountain Valley could find itself with relatively high-priced energy contracts. In such scenarios, customers might have greater incentives to opt out, potentially accelerating a cycle of declining participation and increasing financial pressure on the city’s OCPA obligations—a potential "death spiral."
For cities and ratepayers to make informed decisions about trusting OCPA with their money, transparent information is necessary. The disclosure of energy procurement records from January 1, 2021, through April 30, 2026, would provide crucial details. Such records should show, in megawatt-hours, what OCPA purchased, what energy was delivered, what substitute power was supplied, how energy was shaped, how transactions were settled, and how these correspond to the energy products advertised. This analysis should not be performed by conflicted consultants. The public does not require OCPA’s confidential energy prices to verify energy content. Given the agency’s current lack of transparency, an individual’s decision to opt out is presented as a reasonable response, highlighting that choice is only truly beneficial when consumers have sufficient information to evaluate their options independently.
