Clear Lake City Council rejects resolution to join Sonoma Clean Power after geothermal and local-control concerns

The Clear Lake City Council voted against a resolution to request that Sonoma Clean Power Authority act as the community choice aggregator (CCA) for the city, rejecting the measure on a 3-2 vote Tuesday night.

The resolution, numbered 2025-34 in the packet, would have asked Sonoma Clean Power to implement its CCA program within Clear Lake, enabling the city to buy electricity on behalf of its residents and businesses through Sonoma Clean Power rather than defaulting wholly to PG&E. The council vote failed after several council members said unanswered questions about geothermal development and local control outweighed projected rate savings.

City Manager Flora summarized prior outreach and noted Sonoma Clean Power had already presented to the council in July and at a joint meeting with Lake County and Lakeport earlier in the week. Jeff Cyphers, introduced as a Sonoma Clean Power representative, and Brian Barnacle, identified as the authority’s board chair and a Petaluma council member, spoke to council members about the agency’s programs, the so-called GeoZone process for evaluating geothermal projects and the potential for lower retail rates. Cyphers said the GeoZone is “a process for engaging the public” and not a specific project, developer or map and that any geothermal development would come only after local community input.

Public comment was extensive and largely skeptical. West Baker of Lower Lake urged a no vote, saying geothermal drilling risked contamination from hydraulic fracturing and warning developers could drill horizontally “under the lake.” Sterling Wellman and other speakers argued Lake County’s geothermal resources should be developed under local control or via county-run projects rather than through Sonoma Clean Power. Norman Kimes and Margaret Garcia also urged caution, citing limited local control and the need to consult tribes and local stakeholders.

Council members expressed a mix of positions. Council member Downey and Council member Wilson said they were uncomfortable joining without clearer assurances on what projects would look like and stronger tribal consultation; both voted no. Council member Hooton also voted no, citing uncertainty. Mayor Kramer and Vice Mayor Slotin voted yes. Vice Mayor Slotin said the agency had shown it could deliver lower bills and resources and stressed that residents could opt out during the enrollment window; opponents said opt-outs and future permitting do not address long-term land-use or water concerns.

The motion to approve the resolution was made by Vice Mayor Slotin and seconded on the record by another council member. The clerk announced the motion did not pass, with Mayor Kramer and Vice Mayor Slotin voting in favor and Council members Downey, Hooton and Wilson voting against.

The rejected resolution would have placed Clear Lake on a timetable for Sonoma Clean Power to act at its November board meeting; with the vote failing, no formal step toward joining the Sonoma Clean Power JPA will occur at this time. Sonoma Clean Power representatives told the council they plan further outreach and engagement but said nothing in the meeting would remove the need for local permitting and environmental review for any future projects.

Council discussion and public testimony emphasized three recurring points: (1) uncertainty about what geothermal development might entail on or under local land and water resources; (2) desire for direct, early tribal consultation and stronger local control over siting and permitting; and (3) interest from some residents in potential rate savings and regional clean-energy programs. The council did not direct staff to return with a revised timeline or follow-up steps at the meeting.

Votes at a glance Resolution 2025-34 — Request Sonoma Clean Power Authority act as community choice aggregator and implement CCA program in the city: failed, 2 yes (Kramer, Slotin) — 3 no (Downey, Hooton, Wilson).