Recent discussions among consumers have raised questions concerning the Orange County Power Authority (OCPA), particularly regarding the sourcing of its claimed green energy from solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. Concerns have also been voiced suggesting that OCPA may be directing consumers toward its most expensive 100% Renewable rate plan, implying a lack of transparency and potential disadvantage to ratepayers. David Rynerson, a retired voice and data network systems engineer residing in Huntington Beach, recently examined these assertions.
Rynerson's assessment first addressed the issue of rate plan choice. He noted that when a city opts to utilize OCPA, that municipality makes a selection for the default rate plan for its constituents. For instance, in Huntington Beach, the default plan chosen was Smart Choice, OCPA’s mid-tier offering, which Rynerson indicated was, at the time, less expensive than Southern California Edison’s (SCE) standard rate. Importantly, Rynerson stated that every subscriber retains the ability to either accept the default plan or to select any of the three available OCPA plans: Basic Choice, Smart Choice, or 100% Renewable. Furthermore, each subscriber has the option to entirely opt out of OCPA service and continue with SCE. This information, according to Rynerson, was communicated to all ratepayers via billing statements for approximately three months preceding the transition, along with a dedicated website for recording their plan selections.
Regarding transparency in rate information, Rynerson highlighted that OCPA's current rate plan charts explicitly indicate that the listed rates cover generation costs only. These charts also detail the percentage of renewable energy included in each generation plan. Moreover, OCPA's information clearly states that consumers will incur separate charges for SCE's delivery rate and additional surcharges, both of which are also clearly presented. An example demonstrating an actual 523kWh bill for each of the three plans is also provided. In contrast, while SCE offers a similar rate comparison, and the numbers it uses for OCPA's offerings, including green energy percentages, align with OCPA's data, Rynerson noted a striking difference: SCE's own charts do not specify the percentage of green energy in SCE's offerings.
Rynerson’s review extended to the transparency of green energy sourcing. He reported that a review of the SCE website did not readily yield detailed information about its green energy suppliers. While a PowerPoint presentation on hydroelectric generation was available, it lacked data on what percentage of SCE's total power is supplied by this source. The section on green energy on SCE's website, Rynerson observed, primarily focuses on consumer efficiency rather than SCE's own sourcing. Through a detailed search, Rynerson located an archived 2024 Power Content Label on the SCE website, which indicated a maximum of 5% of any SCE power plan was provided by hydroelectric power, but no 2025 label was found. Conversely, Rynerson stated that OCPA's website provides an easily accessible chart detailing the specific generation sources and their respective percentages for each different OCPA rate plan. This chart also includes the carbon footprint per MWh for each plan and links directly to the state’s power source disclosure program, which establishes the regulations for creating Power Content Labels.
Based on his analysis, Rynerson concluded that OCPA provides more current Power Content Labels on its website, covering all its rate plans, while SCE's corresponding information was found archived and two years old. OCPA also directs consumers to the state’s Energy Commission for its Power Content Disclosure program, which allows examination of Power Content Labels for both OCPA and SCE, suggesting a clearer pathway for consumers to access energy generation data.
