MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2025
9:00 A.M.
___________________________________________________________
CALL TO ORDER
(9:03 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:02:20)
Chair Barnacle called the meeting to order.
Board Members present: Chair Barnacle and Vice Chair Elward, Lemus, Fleming, Zollman, Farrar-Rivas, Potter, Haschak, and Hopkins. Director Laskey was absent with prior notice. Director Peters was absent without prior notice.
Staff present: Geof Syphers, Chief Executive Officer; Garth Salisbury, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; Miles Horton, Legislative Policy & Community Engagement Manager; Felicia Smith, Director of Programs; Kimberley Beltran, Technical Programs Manager; and Chris Golik, Revenue Manager.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSENT CALENDAR
(9:03 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:03:23)
1. Approve March 6, 2025, Draft Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
2. Receive Monthly Financial Report
3. Receive Geothermal Opportunity Zone Update and Approve the Delegated Authority to the Chief Executive Officer or his Designee to Terminate the Geothermal Opportunity Zone Cooperation Agreement with Cyrq Energy, Inc.
4. Direct Staff to Study the Feasibility of Expanding Sonoma Clean Power Authority’s Service to Lakeport, California
5. Receive Internal Operations Report and Provide Feedback as Appropriate
6. Receive Legislative and Regulatory Updates and Provide Direction as Appropriate
Item 6 was pulled and discussed.
Chair Barnacle discussed an article from the LA Times that was distributed to the Board entitled, “Wildfires are Driving up California Electric Bills. Lawmakers Need to Act.” Chair Barnacle said the Board should look at the burden of fire safety being moved from rate payers to taxpayers in California. Director Lemus agreed and Geof Syphers, CEO, added that lowering the cost of electricity would make the electrification of California easier.
Director Hopkins discussed a trip to Utah she took with SCP staff to visit the Forge geothermal project. Miles Horton, Legislative Policy and Community Engagement Manager, discussed the legislative opportunities that the trip to Utah opened for SCP.
Public Comment: None
Motion to direct staff to investigate fire safety costs being moved from PG&E rate payers to California taxpayers by Director Hopkins Second: Director Lemus
Motion passed by roll call vote
AYES: Lemus, Barnacle, Elward, Fleming, Zollman, Farrar-Rivas, Potter, Haschak, Hopkins
ABSENT: Laskey, Peters
Motion to approve April 3, 2025, Board of Directors Consent Calendar by Director Hopkins
Second: Vice Chair Elward
Motion passed by roll call vote
AYES: Lemus, Barnacle, Elward, Fleming, Zollman, Farrar-Rivas, Potter, Haschak, Hopkins
ABSENT: Laskey, Peters
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR CALENDAR
7. Approve a Draft Policy for Placing Items on the Board Meeting Agenda (9:13 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:13:25)
CEO Syphers thanked Director Zollman for requesting a formalized policy for agenda items and he said that this policy allows members of the Board to request items be placed on an upcoming agenda.
Director Hopkins asked what the timeline would be to get an item on the agenda and CEO Syphers answered no more than 6 months. Director Lemus asked what would happen if there was an emergency and CEO Syphers said that items can be expedited for emergencies.
Public Comment: None
Motion to approve the draft policy for placing items on the Board meeting agenda by Director Haschak
Second: Director Farrar-Rivas
Motion passed by roll call vote
AYES: Lemus, Barnacle, Elward, Fleming, Zollman, Farrar-Rivas, Potter, Haschak, Hopkins
ABSENT: Laskey, Peters
8. Receive Update on Programs that Reduce Peak Demand and Shift Energy to Low-Carbon Electricity
(9:18 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:18:18)
Felicia Smith, Director of Programs, announced that the Programs department will present SCP customer offers and incentives at board meetings through July. She introduced Kimberly Beltran, Technical Programs Manager, who discussed GridSavvy Rewards. Ms. Beltran explained that the program reduces demand by using alerts, smart thermostat adjustments, and managed EV charging. Ms. Beltran also shared that in 2024, the program shifted 5MW of energy during one event. CEO Syphers noted that the program was partly inspired by a 2022 heat event when SCP was asked by the Governor’s office to add energy to the grid.
Chair Barnacle inquired about smart meter penetration in SCP’s territory. SCP staff did not have the exact numbers but will report back. Chair Barnacle also asked if master meter mobile home parks could participate in GridSavvy. Ms.
Beltran explained that master meters are not currently included as they do not track individual household usage. Chair Barnacle further asked if GridSavvy serves commercial or industrial customers. Ms. Beltran responded that the only current commercial offering is SCP’s workplace charge program, with additional offers to be developed in the future.
Public Comment: Jack Buckhorn discussed integrated battery storage and EV to home power.
9. Approve Proposed Energy Project Selection Criteria
(9:40 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:39:21)
CEO Syphers gave a background on the proposed energy selection criteria and discussed several compromises made between labor and staff on the final project. He then pointed out the minor differences in wording of the criteria that still existed between labor and staff. CEO Syphers gave an overview of the comments made by the Community Advisory Committee (Committee).
Director Zollman thanked staff for the collaboration with labor and he stated he would recommend adjusting the 3MW threshold. Director Hopkins asked if setting the threshold at 3MW would affect the number of projects bid for and CEO Syphers explained that he would like to see how many projects were bid on under a 3MW threshold. Director Hopkins recommended a 3MW threshold that would sunset to 1 year after a specific period. Director Farrar-Rivas asked what the effect would be on geothermal, and wind and CEO Syphers explained that geothermal and wind are such large projects they usually require a project labor agreement. Director Farrar-Rivas asked why the threshold couldn’t be 2MW and CEO Syphers explained that projects are often bundled at 3MW. Chair Barnacle explained that he would be willing to use the 3MW threshold if the threshold sunsets to 1MW after 1 year. Chair Barnacle added that the sunset should happen in the fiscal year so the sunset would occur on July 1, 2026.
Public Comment: Michael Allen discussed the value of MW versus a dollar value and Federal Labor laws. Jack Buckhorn discussed local labor and misclassification of workers. Tim Frank thanked staff and discussed the 3MW threshold. Jared Mumm discussed a 1 MW threshold for projects. Eric Veium, the EJ Alliance, Jeff Mathias, Holly Adams, and Woody Hastings discussed project selection criteria, their comments are attached to these minutes.
Motion to approve proposed Energy Project Selection Criteria with all recommended wording accepted and the threshold for (D) Workforce: Large Owned Resources set to 3 MW or larger and adjusting to 1 MW or larger on July 1, 2026, by Director Hopkins.
Second: Vice Chair Elward
Motion passed by roll call vote
AYES: Lemus, Barnacle, Elward, Fleming, Zollman, Farrar-Rivas, Potter, Haschak, Hopkins
ABSENT: Laskey, Peters
10.Review and Provide Direction on the Draft Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2025- 2026
(11:17 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 02:17:00)
Garth Salisbury, CFO, explained to the Board that this was the first look at the FY 25-26 budget, and they would get a chance to review once more before the vote to adopt. Chris Golik, Revenue Manager, gave an overview of the budget and stated that this was a chance for the Board to weigh in with feedback. Mr.
Golik discussed revenues and other sources, expenditures, capital outlay, and fund balances.
11:30 a.m. Director Fleming exited the meeting.
Director Haschek asked how much was in the capital outlay reserve and CEO Syphers responded that there was about $17 million. Chair Barnacle asked why there was a dip in program spending and CEO Syphers explained there was some grant funding rolling off, but he would have Felicia Smith, Director of Programs give an update on program spending in the future. Director Haschek asked where the capital outlay number comes from, and CEO Syphers explained that it was a new addition to the budget so it is not standardized yet but will be worked on in the future.
Public Comment: None
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS
(11:35 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 02:35:35)
Directors’ announcements: Director Hopkins announce the Occidental Fools Parade and the Apple Blossom Festival. Chair Barnacle announced that Petaluma would be holding their Butter and Egg Days.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
(11:37 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 02:36:34)
Public Comment: Madge Strong discussed Item 6, her comment is attached to these minutes. Tim Frank thanked the Board and staff for all their hard work on Item 9.
ADJOURN
(11:38 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 02:37:30)
Respectfully Submitted,
Darin A. Bartow, JD
Clerk of the Board
Dear Board,
My name is Woody Hastings, Phase Out Polluting Fuels Program Director with The Climate Center. I'm sorry that I am unable to be there in person today.
I'm writing today to urge your aye vote to adopt the Energy Project Selection Criteria before you.
First, thank you for including this item on your agenda and for your work on it over the past few months. The Climate Center is a proud member of the CCA Workforce & EJ Alliance.
The Alliance's mission and goals align well with the Climate Center's guiding principles of climate justice and a high road transition for oil and gas workers.
In the US, California is the leader in demonstrating the right way to battle the climate crisis, avoiding the wrongs of the past while we innovate to develop new energy resources. In California, CCAs are looked to as the leaders in this innovation. Adopting these criteria is a fundamental and necessary step to help guide future procurements and projects.
Over the past several months the Alliance has done the heavy lifting of engaging with unions, environmental, and EJ organizations to hammer out a set of criteria that should help meet the needs of working families and protect the environment. Representatives of the labor community are there in the room today to share their perspective on workforce issues.
I would like to highlight the criteria outlined on page 84, Benefits Accruing to Underserved and Low-Income Communities. As many of you at SCP know, I am a lifelong advocate of robust and meaningful public participation. Early and ongoing engagement with impacted communities is a must if you want to avoid headaches down the road. And lower income communities and historically neglected and/or burdened communities deserve better. The communities impacted by projects should have standing to participate in decision making, and to receive benefits via a Community Benefits Agreement or otherwise.
Developers should be given the opportunity and incentive to consider and communicate early (pre-entitlement) community engagement strategies and activities. I request that early/pre-entitlement engagement be included in this section in addition to entitlement and construction engagement.
Again, please support this policy. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Woody
Dear SCP Board of Directors, Pattern Energy would like to submit comments below for Agenda Item 9 regarding the Energy Project Selection Criteria.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment to the SCP Board of Directors. Pattern Energy is a leader in renewable energy and transmission infrastructure. We have developed or are currently developing and operating 29 GWs of wind, solar, transmission and energy storage projects across North America. Our projects have created over 10,000 construction and operations jobs.
SCP is one of several off-takers of SunZia Wind, which, together with SunZia Transmission, is the largest clean energy infrastructure project in U.S. history. This project is comprised of two wind energy facilities that will generate over 3,500 MWs of renewable energy much of which will be delivered to Southern California through the 550-mile transmission line under construction in New Mexico and Arizona.
SunZia fits well within SCP’s IRP and provides renewable energy during hours most needed in the state of California. Critical projects like SunZia may have difficulty being selected under this draft policy. While we always try to hire local, the scale of SunZia makes 30% challenging. By applying an arbitrary percentage, it disadvantages large projects that probably hire more local workers than a smaller project on a pure numbers’ standpoint.
Our experience is that local hire requirements may adversely impact workers by cutting workers ability to work in multiple areas. We need projects spread throughout California and neighboring states to deliver resource diversity. Workers need to be able to work on multiple projects, over multiple areas throughout their careers. On SunZia, the IBEW members working under the PLA have moved over a 550-mile two-state area.
Instead, Pattern supports local enrollment into qualified apprentice programs. This provides stable long-term employment that brings reliable, lower cost power. Please consider impacts to projects like SunZia, and whether SCP is willing to close the door on those opportunities due to this proposed policy.
Respectfully,
Holly Adams
Holly Adams
Vice President of Origination
1 Mathias
Energy Consulting
3/29/25
To Geoff Syphers and Members of the Board.
I am concerned about the direction put forth in the upcoming board meeting to exclude the private sector commercial solar companies from bidding on projects with SCP. The private sector already must meet prevailing wage criteria, leveling the field with PLA’s (primarily the IBEW Union).
First let me be clear I am not anti-union, one of the greatest men I have known was my grandfather, a 65-year member of the IBEW. He taught me to remember where you came from and who helped you along the way. The local solar community (private sector) was highly active in the support and creation of SCP, while PG&E, supported by the IBEW, were fighting to stop and limit CCA’s. Local solar companies, myself included, competed in many solar deals, where IBEW back installers recommended customers stay with PG&E muddying the water while local installers recommended SCP and why their services were superior.
During a solar lobby day many years ago, I went to Sacramento to meet with a congress women from Bakersfield (sorry do not recall her name). She had a pro-union bias, and believed only unions protected their members and paid a living wage to employees.
After explaining to her our generous wages and benefit packages at Synergy, she asked if we were hiring. The Sonoma County private sector solar companies are local and treat their employees like family with living wages.
All commercial jobs now fall under prevailing wage and the private sector has adapted to this model. Also as noted in your pre-agenda notes, the private sector has the highest concentration of “local” companies and employees. So, my question is, why if the employees are getting the same wage and benefits, the labor force is more local, the union training programs are being funded and the costs are similar, my question is: why would Sonoma Clean Power exclude the private sector and minimize the competition in this marketplace.
I encourage you all to dig deep and realize that excluding the private sector from bidding on SCP’s jobs is excluding those folks who have been SCP’s greatest supporters since its inception.
Thank you for your consideration
Jeff Mathias
Mathias Energy Consulting
April 2, 2025
Chair Barnacle and Honorable Directors
Sonoma Clean Power
431 E Street
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Re: Support for Advancing the Project Selection Policy as a Risk-Reduction, Cost-Saving, and Market-Smart Strategy for Sonoma Clean Power (April 3, 2025: Board of Directors Meeting, Staff Report - Item 9)
Dear Chair Barnacle and Honorable Directors,
We begin with sincere appreciation for CEO Geof Syphers and other supportive staff that have been instrumental in the collaborative effort that has delivered a leadership Project Selection Policy for your consideration. We are requesting a few refinements, requiring your direction, that we believe deliver greater value for SCP, its customers, and the communities it serves. We are confident that the remaining issues can be resolved and see an opportunity for joint celebration of what we think is a proud moment for SCP. We are looking forward to our continued collaboration.
Outstanding Issues in the Proposed Policy
Location in Draft
Policy
Current SCP Policy
Proposed Language
Issue Suggested Updates
(See highlight/bold)
Pg. 81 – Section D:
Workforce: Large Owned
Resources
“When considering
contractors or developers
for SCP-owned generation
or storage projects
requiring a Large
Generator Interconnection
Agreement from the
California Independent
System Operator
(currently 20MW and
larger), SCP will use
commercially
reasonable efforts to
negotiate a multi-trade
project labor
agreement…”
Nearly all SCP-owned
projects are under 20
MW. Without PLA
language, these projects
avoid enforceable labor
standards, leaving out
local workers and
apprentices. The CAISO
definition for a “Large”
used in the context of a
“Large Generator
Interconnection
Agreement” isn’t designed
to address labor policy
and would not meet the
needs of creating high
road employment in the
SCP territory.
“Commercially
reasonable” is generally
understood as a standard
that is less demanding
than "best efforts".
Suggested update:
D. Workforce: Large
Owned Resources
When considering
contractors or developers
for SCP-owned generation
or storage projects greater
than 1 MW), SCP shall
use best efforts to
negotiate a multi-trade
project labor agreement
having:
Pg. 81 – Section E:
Generator Size Definition
“…requiring a Small
Generator Interconnection
Agreement from the
California Independent
System Operator
(currently less than 20
MW).”
The CAISO definitions for
large and small
interconnection
agreements are not
designed to address labor
issues and are the wrong
reference point for labor
policy. The section of the
policy addressing “Small
Generator Interconnection
Agreements should simply
be deleted.
Suggested update:
Delete section “E.
Workforce: Small Owned
Resources”
Pg. 81 – Section E: Staff
Footnote
Staff anticipate that union
contractors would be
competitive in SCP
solicitations requiring
certified prevailing wages,
but argue against criteria
excluding our significant
non-union workforce,
which is a majority of
contractors in Sonoma
and Mendocino Counties.]
This note overlooks the
fact that public PLAs are
already required by law to
allow both union and
non-union contractors,
promoting open
competition and inclusivity
in public projects. (Public
Contract Code §§
2500–2503)
Pg. 84 – Section I(2):
Benefits Accuring to
Underserved and
Low-Income Communities
“Commit to meaningful
engagement with local
communities throughout
the entitlement and
construction processes…”
Omits the pre-entitlement
phase, when early input is
most impactful.
Suggested update:
I. Benefits Accruing to
Underserved and
Low-Income Communities
Commit to meaningful
engagement with local
communities throughout
the pre-entitlement,
entitlement, and
construction processes…
A Risk-Reduction, Cost-Saving, and Market-Smart Strategy The policy is preference-based – not mandates. This simple framework articulates SCP’s preferences for what great projects look like alongside financial and technical considerations, at the very beginning of the procurement process. This clarity attracts stronger, more thoughtful proposals from developers, helps avoid costly oversights such as environmental conflicts or community opposition, and produces higher overall value aligned with the agency’s commitments and long-term goals. This is not just a ‘values’ exercise—it’s a strategic approach to procurement that reduces risks to SCP, its customers, and the clean energy industry as a whole. Peer CCAs, including Ava Community Energy, CCCE, and SFPUC have adopted similar standards. Clean Power Alliance—the largest CCA in the State—has signaled similar preferences in its RFOs for years - demonstrating that this policy is practical and achievable.
This approach is an important response to challenges facing the clean energy industry. There are a growing number of examples of projects that have been delayed, denied, or otherwise failed due to avoidable issues that might have been identified and addressed during project selection. In fact, according to a recent study by LBNL, surveying clean energy project developers, after interconnection, community opposition due to misalignment with or lack of community, economic, and local workforce benefits is the second leading cause of costly project delays, litigation, or denial.
At its core, this policy provides SCP with a flexible, transparent structure that:
● Avoids delays and cost overruns by prompting early attention to labor, permitting, and community expectations.
● Reduces costs for both SCP and developers by identifying and addressing opportunities and risks early in the process while minimizing time-consuming negotiation and project revisions or other delays later on.
● Protects long-term value by avoiding misaligned or poorly scoped projects that carry delivery, financial, or reputational risks.
● Strengthens the competitive field by encouraging developers to align with SCP’s goals, as other leading CCAs have successfully done.
Through clear, upfront guidance to developers regarding best practices promoted by SCP and other CCA industry leaders, SCP can elicit more projects that align with its preferences while retaining full discretion and flexibility for the staff and board to accommodate projects needed to meet technical requirements.
Clarifying What This Policy Does and Doesn't Do
● It is not a mandate. The policy signals preferences—not hard rules. SCP retains full discretion to pursue any project necessary to meet technical, financial, or regulatory requirements.
● It builds on existing public standards. Cities and counties in SCP’s territory already require prevailing wage and apprenticeship on small public works projects. These practices are well-established.
We urge the Board to adopt this policy framework as a market-smart and risk-conscious strategy to improve project quality, reduce risks, and protect SCP’s fiscal and community priorities. Thank you for your continued leadership in building a clean energy future that works for everyone.
Sincerely,
Eric Veium, Tim Frank, & Leslie Austin
Co-coordinators, CCA Workforce & EJ Alliance
Public comment, On item 6, another reason to support more clean power IN California is reducing loss of electricity in transmission, which is substantial.
Madge Strong