Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks staff to request Sonoma Clean Power update feasibility study for Lake County CCA service and discusses geothermal potential
Summary
After a presentation from Sonoma Clean Power, the board agreed to request an updated feasibility analysis to evaluate whether Lake County should join the community choice aggregator; the presentation also covered potential geothermal development and timelines for service beginning in 2027 if the county joins.
Sonoma Clean Power representatives briefed the Lake County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday about community choice aggregation (CCA) service, the utility’s customer programs and a coordinated effort to support geothermal development in the region. Following the presentation the board directed staff to request an updated feasibility study for service to Lake County.
Matthew Rothstein, the county’s chief deputy administrative officer, reviewed earlier work: Sonoma Clean Power conducted a feasibility study for Lake County in 2019–2020 that showed expected rates then would have been about 5%–8% higher than PG&E. Rothstein said regulatory and market changes since then — including the reallocation of Diablo Canyon nuclear costs in utility portfolios and possible reductions in the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (an exit/transition fee) — mean the economics may now be different.
SCP CEO Jeff Cyphers described Sonoma Clean Power’s customer services and incentives, its optional premium product (mostly geothermal and local solar) and its record of competitive rates most months. Cyphers and county staff outlined a potential schedule: if Lake County requests feasibility and the parties proceed, SCP would aim to file an implementation plan with the California Public Utilities Commission by Jan. 1, 2026, which could enable customer service to begin in mid‑2027, subject to regulatory steps and board actions.
The SCP presentation also described new geothermal technologies (enhanced geothermal systems and closed-loop approaches) and a regional GeoZone effort to guide development so that locally produced resources can benefit nearby communities. The consultants and county staff said geothermal development is capital‑intensive and that full development timelines including federal permitting can take multiple years; successful projects could bring higher‑wage construction and permanent positions, tax revenues and local contracting opportunities.
Board members expressed interest in the updated feasibility analysis and in coordinating with the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake; Rothstein noted both cities already requested updated work. Supervisors also asked questions about tribal consultation, local job creation, and whether SCP would prioritize Lake County‑based generation for local customers. SCP said community engagement and workforce development would be part of planning should development proceed.
County staff will request the updated feasibility analysis from Sonoma Clean Power and return to the board with findings and recommendations after SCP’s study and its board review.
