When Irvine carries the financial risk, its representatives should fight to protect the city’s influence—not surrender it prematurely.
Irvine residents deserve an explanation for why two of their representatives on the Orange County Power Authority (OCPA) board appear willing to give up additional representation just as the agency approaches a critical turning point.
At a recent OCPA board meeting, Democratic Irvine Council Member Kathleen Treseder argued against giving Irvine a third board seat. Vice Chair James Mai, another Republican Irvine representative, ultimately supported a proposal that would give every participating city two seats, regardless of the amount of electricity demand it represents or its financial stake in the agency.
Their position raises a fundamental question: Whose interests are Irvine’s representatives supposed to protect?
OCPA is a public power agency serving participating Orange County communities. Irvine has played a major financial role in the agency, including providing a loan that, according to the meeting discussion, was expected to be repaid by the end of 2026. That contribution should matter when decisions are made about governance and accountability.
Yet the meeting transcript shows Irvine’s representatives stepping away from an opportunity to preserve additional representation.
Treseder said she did not believe Irvine needed more board members than other cities. She also argued that participating cities had understood Irvine would eventually return to equal representation after its loan was repaid. Finally, she suggested that equal representation might encourage other cities to join OCPA by alleviating concerns about Irvine being overrepresented.
Those arguments deserve scrutiny.
First, equal representation is not automatically equitable representation. Cities may have different populations, electricity demand, financial exposure and levels of responsibility for an agency’s success. A governance structure that treats every member identically can overlook those differences.
Second, Irvine’s financial contribution was not incidental. The city supplied substantial financing to help OCPA operate, residents have a legitimate interest in ensuring that their representatives retain sufficient influence over the agency’s future.
Third, the argument that additional Irvine representation might discourage other cities from joining is a prediction, not proof. The meeting transcript does not establish that prospective members would refuse to participate because Irvine had a third seat.
Treseder may believe that equal representation is the fairest approach. But fairness to other member cities should not come at the expense of a careful assessment of Irvine’s own interests.
The question is not whether Irvine should dominate OCPA. It is whether Irvine should voluntarily give up influence without demonstrating that doing so serves its residents.
Mai’s comments are equally revealing.
He acknowledged that he originally wanted Irvine to have a majority share, which he believed would be best for the city. He then explained that he had reconsidered because of the board’s working relationships and the collaborative atmosphere among its members.
That is a remarkable change in rationale.
Mai’s original position recognized a basic principle of public governance: representation can matter when decisions become contentious. His later position placed greater confidence in collegial relationships and the board’s record of cooperation.
Good working relationships are valuable. But they are not a substitute for sound governance.
Board members can agree today and disagree tomorrow. Financial pressures, rate decisions, energy procurement, agency management and future policy disputes can create conflicts even among officials who currently get along.
A city’s representation should not depend on the hope that today’s cordial relationships will continue indefinitely.
Mai should explain what concrete benefits Irvine receives in exchange for giving up the additional seat. Did he evaluate the potential effects on voting power, accountability or future policy decisions? Did he determine that equal representation would protect Irvine just as effectively? The meeting transcript provides no detailed analysis establishing those conclusions.
The chair’s proposed amendment would give every member city two directors and eliminate alternate directors. Under the original draft presented by staff, Irvine would instead have received three directors because it represented more than 50% of OCPA’s electricity load.
The distinction matters. The third seat was not described as permanent or unconditional. It would have depended on Irvine continuing to account for more than half of the agency’s load, and the draft contemplated the new structure taking effect January 1, 2027.
In other words, the proposal already tied Irvine’s additional representation to an objective threshold.
Rather than preserve that arrangement, the board moved toward a uniform two-seat structure. The chair cited the burden of managing additional directors and the original understanding that cities would have equal representation after Irvine’s loan was repaid.
Those are legitimate administrative and governance considerations. But they do not eliminate the need to assess the consequences for Irvine.
The transcript records a motion and second to advance the amended proposal. It does not, by itself, establish that the amendment received final approval. The distinction matters because the ultimate adoption of the revised agreement requires further action.
Irvine Residents Deserve Accountability
Treseder and Mai were elected to represent Irvine residents, not simply to maintain friendly relationships with fellow board members or make governance easier for the agency.
Their decisions deserve public scrutiny precisely because OCPA’s future may affect Irvine ratepayers for years to come.
Treseder should explain why relinquishing the additional seat is in Irvine’s best interests. Mai should explain why he abandoned his initial preference for stronger Irvine representation and what evidence persuaded him that equal representation offers adequate protection.
Neither official should be condemned merely for favoring a different governance structure. But neither should escape criticism for making a consequential decision without a convincing, publicly articulated case for its benefits to Irvine.
Irvine does not need to control OCPA. It does need representatives who carefully evaluate the city’s financial interests, preserve appropriate safeguards and explain their decisions to the people who elected them.
A seat at the table is not about ego or domination. It is about accountability. When Irvine has made substantial financial commitments to OCPA, its representatives should demonstrate why giving up additional influence is prudent—not simply assure residents that everyone is getting along.
Irvine residents deserve that explanation before their city’s position is weakened by design rather than necessity.