Orange County Power Authority Faces Scrutiny Over Energy Transparency and Financial Risks for Member Cities

The Orange County Power Authority (OCPA), a community choice energy agency launched in 2022, has promoted local control, lower prices, and greener energy compared to Southern California Edison (SCE). However, questions have been raised regarding the specific energy OCPA delivers to ratepayers and the public's ability to independently verify these claims. OCPA's "resistance to meaningful transparency" has become an increasingly pressing concern for observers.

This transparency issue is particularly significant as OCPA member cities consider making the highest-priced "100% Renewable" option their default product. Critics point out that under firm-and-shape wind energy contracts, wind may not always be dispatched to serve OCPA load. Instead, "substitute power," such as natural gas, may be used while still being advertised as "wind" on power content labels. While electricity on California's interconnected grid is fungible, the fundamental question remains: what energy resources were actually purchased by OCPA and dispatched to serve its load?

Irvine Councilmember and OCPA Vice Chair Kathleen Treseder's claim that all OCPA ratepayers were receiving 95.5% renewable energy has led to questions about leadership's understanding of what is being promoted. This delivery claim reportedly contradicts a presentation Treseder attended eight months earlier from OCPA's energy procurement consultant. Furthermore, Treseder's statements reportedly disregard non-renewable substitute power associated with OCPA’s wind contracts, which is not clearly explained to potential OCPA city members.

Challenges with governance and transparency are not unique to OCPA within the community choice energy sector. A June 2026 Marin County Civil Grand Jury report identified governance and board problems at Marin Clean Energy, an agency that OCPA used as a model. Additionally, the California State Auditor’s 2023 report noted that "OCPA does not share the confidential terms of its purchase agreements with its board at open meetings or in closed sessions."

While Treseder later provided unredacted power contracts, enabling Irvine staff to review them, these documents alone are insufficient. According to analysis, such contracts establish key terms but do not, by themselves, establish the annual energy content represented to ratepayers, requiring reconciliation with numerous other records. Moreover, unredacted power contracts are not considered sufficient to reveal potential "greenwashing."

Transparency issues have also extended to OCPA's Improvement Plan, a document developed to address failures identified in various audits. The Plan cited a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Huntington Beach as an OCPA "Transparency" success. However, four months prior, OCPA had reportedly denied Huntington Beach's access to energy procurement records, sought under the same NDA to verify the 100% Renewable product. This handling of the dispute reportedly contributed to Huntington Beach's decision to leave OCPA.

This history is pertinent because OCPA presented a different narrative to Fountain Valley. When asked about Huntington Beach's exit, OCPA described it to Fountain Valley's city council 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 from OCPA, it could meet its financial obligations by selling the energy contracts entered into on its behalf.

However, critics argue that what was not disclosed to Grandis's fellow council members is that liquidating energy contracts effectively places Fountain Valley in the role of a commodities trader. This means the city’s general fund would ultimately assume associated risks within OCPA, potentially leaving taxpayers exposed after being told that opting out of OCPA "doesn't affect you."

This proposed departure safety net could face challenges, particularly during an economic downturn similar to the COVID-19 pandemic, when community choice programs reportedly failed or postponed their launches. Similarly, if the "AI/data-center growth bubble bursts," Fountain Valley could find itself "saddled with relatively high-priced energy contracts."

In either scenario, customers may have greater incentives to opt out, which could potentially accelerate a cycle of declining participation and increasing financial pressure on the city’s OCPA obligations, a situation described by some as a potential "death spiral." To make informed decisions, cities and ratepayers need transparent information before trusting OCPA with their funds. Jim Phelps, a former power contractor and utility rate analyst who has contributed to energy reporting legislation, advocates for OCPA to disclose energy procurement records from January 1, 2021, through April 30, 2026. These records, he asserts, should detail 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 advertised energy products. Phelps emphasizes that the public does not require OCPA's confidential energy prices to verify energy content. Given OCPA's stated lack of transparency, Phelps concludes that an individual's decision to opt out is a reasonable response, as choice is beneficial only when consumers have sufficient information for independent evaluation.