Clear Lake council hears Sonoma Clean Power feasibility briefing; staff directed to continue review

Sonoma Clean Power CEO Jeff Seifers told the Clear Lake City Council on July 21 that his agency’s feasibility study indicates a possible financial benefit for most years if Lake County and its two cities join the community choice aggregation (CCA) already serving Sonoma and Mendocino counties.

The feasibility work showed potential savings under many scenarios but added that outcomes are sensitive to state regulatory changes and energy-market volatility. Seifers said the agency’s board will consider a formal offer on Aug. 7 and urged the city to perform legal, financial and staff-level due diligence before deciding whether to join.

The presentation matter-of-factly separated generation from delivery: Sonoma Clean Power would supply electricity generation while Pacific Gas & Electric would continue to own and operate the poles, wires and delivery services. Seifers emphasized the limits of CCA authority: "We replace power sources but we don't do anything with the wires," and said the California Public Utilities Commission’s rules and long-term contracts create both opportunity and volatility for CCAs.

Why it matters: joining a CCA would make the public agency the default supplier of generation to the city’s residents and businesses unless individual customers opt out. Proponents cite local control over generation choices and programs (including incentives, workforce grants and local renewable projects such as geothermal) and the agency’s record of advocacy before regulators to reduce customer bills. Critics and several council members raised concerns about long-term commitments, the potential need for multi‑decade contracts, and exposure to regulatory and market risk.

Council and public questions focused on four areas: (1) whether joining would protect low‑income rate protections (Seifers said those remain intact and are administered through PG&E-delivered charges), (2) what happens during PG&E public-safety power shutoffs (PSPS) — delivery and shutoffs remain PG&E responsibility, though Sonoma Clean Power can advocate for targeted mitigations — (3) how voting and governance would work (Lake County would have representation on the Sonoma Clean Power board but Seifers said most board votes historically are unanimous and that local permitting remains with local governments), and (4) job and local investment opportunities from new generation such as geothermal.

Public commenters urged caution but also noted benefits. Resident Cheryl Lohman, a former PG&E staffer, urged the council to be cautious because of CPUC and delivery complexities. Resident Michael Graves said PSPS events left local residents severely affected in 2019 and asked whether reliance on PG&E for delivery would undercut any advantage of changing generation providers. County Supervisor Salvatore (present at the meeting) described the county’s request that staff vet the proposal and noted that county staff and county counsel will also examine legal and fiscal impacts.

Council direction: without a formal vote, the council reached consensus to have city staff continue the review, coordinate with county staff, and return with recommendations if Sonoma Clean Power makes a formal offer after its August board meeting.

What’s next: Seifers said the earliest feasible service start would be May of a calendar year that follows PUC timing and enrollment notices (a process he described as requiring about an 18‑month runway if started promptly). He also described Sonoma Clean Power’s GeoZone effort to promote new geothermal resources and said those projects would be subject to local permitting and could be shaped by local policies.

Sources: Presentation by Jeff Seifers, CEO, Sonoma Clean Power; public comments from residents and County Supervisor; council questions and staff remarks during the City Council meeting of July 21, 2025.