Agenda packet — Sonoma Clean Power Board of Directors, June 5, 2025

Agenda Page 1 of 2
AGENDA

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2025, 9:00 A.M.
___________________________________________________________ EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(F), MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE JUNE 5, 2025, MEETING AT ANY OF THE LOCATIONS SHOWN BELOW.

SONOMA CLEAN POWER HEADQUARTERS
431 E STREET
SANTA ROSA, CA 95404

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING AT THE ABOVE PHYSICAL LOCATIONS OR VIEW REMOTELY THROUGH:

Webinar link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88546704126
Telephone number: 1 (669) 444-9171
Meeting ID: 885 4670 4126
How to Submit Public Comment:

Comments may be provided in person at the physical meeting locations. Comments may be submitted in writing to [email protected]. For detailed public comment instructions, please visit this page. Please note that live remote public comment will not be taken unless required by Government Code section 54953(f). If required, it will be announced by the Chair. Members of the public should attend in person or provide written comment to ensure they can provide public comment.

For written comments, state the agenda item number that you are commenting on and limit to 300 words. Written comments received prior to the meeting and/or the agenda item you wish to comment on will be read into the record up to 300 words.

Written comments may be provided during the meeting.

DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability which requires an accommodation or an alternative format, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (707) 757-9417, or by email at [email protected] as soon as possible to ensure arrangements for accommodation.

For further clarification on any of the items listed please contact (855) 202-2139 and staff will be available to assist.
1 of 79
Staff recommendations are guidelines to the Board. On any item, the Board may take action which varies from that recommended by staff.

Agenda Page 2 of 2

CALL TO ORDER
(Any private remote meeting attendance will be noticed or approved at this time)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Approve May 8, 2025, Draft Board of Directors Meeting Minutes (Staff Recommendation:

Approve)

2. Receive Monthly Financial Report (Staff Recommendation: Receive and File)

3. Approve and Authorize the Chief Executive Officer or his Designee to Execute a New Contract with Sonoma Water for the Continuation of the Energy and Environment Education Program through June 30, 2027, with an Annual Not-to-Exceed Amount of $300,000 and Aggregate Contract Value of $600,000 (Staff Recommendation: Approve)

4. Approve the Delegation of Authority to the Chief Executive Officer or his Designee to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with S2 Advertising for Comprehensive Media Consulting Services with a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $2,100,000 over a Three-Year Term (Staff Recommendation: Approve)

5. Receive Internal Operations Report and Provide Feedback as Appropriate (Staff Recommendation: Receive and File)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR CALENDAR

6. Receive Legislative and Regulatory Updates, Approve Legislative Positions, and Provide Direction as Appropriate (Staff Recommendation: Approve)

7. Decide whether to Reschedule the Board of Directors July 3, 2025, Meeting to July 10, 2025 (Staff Recommendation: Approve)

8. Receive Geothermal Opportunity Zone Update and Approve the Delegation of Authority to the Chief Executive Officer or his Designee to Execute Amendment #1 to the Geothermal Opportunity Zone Cooperation Agreement with Eavor Inc. (Staff Recommendation:

Approve)

9. Approve Revised Environmental Performance Targets for the Sonoma Clean Power Portfolio to Improve Rate Competitiveness (Staff Recommendation: Approve)

10. Determine that Expansion to Unincorporated Lake County, the City of Clearlake, and the City of Lakeport is Consistent with Policy D-4 and Begin Consideration of Proposed Expansion with an Intent to Offer Service After 60-Day Waiting Period (Staff Recommendation: Approve)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS
(Directors may report on their activities since the last Board meeting, including any reports required by Gov’t Code Section 53232.3(d).)

PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
(Comments are restricted to matters within the Board’s jurisdiction. Please be brief and limit spoken comments to three minutes, or 300 words if written.)

ADJOURN
pg. 5
pg. 11
pg. 15
pg. 17
pg. 19
pg. 23
pg. 25
pg. 27
pg. 33
pg. 39
2 of 79

COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS AND TERMS
CAC Community Advisory Committee
CAISO California Independent Systems Operator – the grid operator CCA Community Choice Aggregator – a community-owned public power provider CEC California Energy Commission
CleanStart SCP’s default power service
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
DER Distributed Energy Resource
ERRA Energy Resource Recovery Account – one of PG&E’s rate cases at the CPUC EverGreen SCP’s 100% renewable, 100% local energy service, and the first service in the United States providing renewable power every hour of every day.

Geothermal A locally available, low-carbon baseload renewable resource GHG Greenhouse gas
GRC General Rate Case – one of PG&E’s rate cases at the CPUC GridSavvy GridSavvy Rewards are available to SCP customers for reducing household energy use to help California increase power reliability.

IOU Investor-Owned Utility - for-profit distribution utilities like PG&E IRP Integrated Resource Plan – balancing energy needs with energy resources JPA Joint Powers Authority
MW Megawatt is a unit of power and measures how fast energy is being used or produced at one moment.

MWh Megawatt-hour is a unit of energy and measures how much energy is used or produced over time.

NEM Net Energy Metering. NEM is a billing mechanism that credits solar energy system owners for the electricity they add to the grid.

PCIA Power Charge Indifference Adjustment – a fee charged by PG&E to all electric customers to ensure PG&E can pay for excess power supply contracts that it no longer needs.

RA Resource Adequacy – a required form of capacity that helps ensure there are sufficient power resources available when needed.

RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard refers to certain kinds of renewable energy which qualify to meet state requirements, including wind, solar, geothermal.

SCP Sonoma Clean Power
TOU Time of Use, used to refer to rates that differ by time of day 3 of 79
Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing 4 of 79

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2025
9:00 A.M.
___________________________________________________________

CALL TO ORDER
(9:02 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:02:31)
Chair Barnacle called the meeting to order.

Board Members present: Chair Barnacle and Vice Chair Elward, Lemus, Fleming, Zollman, Farrar-Rivas, Haschak, and Alt. Director Albin-Smith. Director Laskey, Potter, and Hopkins were absent with prior notice.

Staff present: Geof Syphers, Chief Executive Officer; Michael Koszalka, Chief Operating Officer; Garth Salisbury, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; Neal Reardon, Director of Regulatory Affairs; Felicia Smith, Director of Programs; Kate Kelly, Director of Public Relations & Marketing and Brant Arthur, Program Manager.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSENT CALENDAR
(9:03 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:03:12)

1. Approve April 3, 2025, Draft Board of Directors Meeting Minutes

2. Receive Monthly Financial Report

3. Receive Geothermal Opportunity Zone Update

4. Approve the Proposed Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026

5. Approve and Delegate Authority to the Chief Executive Officer or his Designee to Execute a Contract with Prospect Silicon Valley with a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $393,001 for a Four-Year Demonstration Project in accordance with Sonoma Clean Power’s Virtual Power Plant Grant through the California Energy Commission
5 of 79
Motion to approve May 8, 2025, Board of Directors Consent Calendar by Director Zollman
Second: Director Fleming
Motion passed by roll call vote
AYES: Lemus, Albin-Smith, Barnacle, Elward, Fleming, Zollman, Farrar-Rivas, Haschak
ABSENT: Laskey, Potter, Hopkins

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR CALENDAR

6. Receive Internal Operations Report and Provide Feedback as Appropriate (9:04 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:04:21)
Michael Koszalka, COO, discussed the Workplace Charging Program and he discussed the status of SCP’s new building. Kate Kelly, Director of Public Relations & Marketing, discussed additional donations being given to local food banks because of the current lack of funding. Director Kelly then discussed SCP’s Brand Awareness Survey and explained that SCP is reintroducing itself to the community. She also discussed SCP buying the naming rights to KZST’s studio.

Director Haschak asked what the demographics for KZST listeners were and Director Kelly responded that they mirror SCP’s customers. Chair Barnacle asked about how other CCAs connect with their customers, and Director Kelly explained that SCP works with all the CCAs to expand customer awareness.

Public Comment: None

7. Receive Legislative and Regulatory Updates, Approve Legislative Positions, and Provide Direction as Appropriate
(9:14 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:14:13)
Neal Reardon, Director of Regulatory Affairs, gave an update on the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) hearing which reopened the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) fee PG&E charges. Director Reardon stated that the CPUC is now changing the true-up and will include historical prices to smooth out rate changes. He added that this will apply retroactively as well. 6 of 79
Director Farrar-Rivas asked if this was a double dip and Director Reardon said no if it is done correctly, but he added the question will be if PG&E comes back and asks the CPUC to change the rules yet again when conditions are favorable to PG&E. Director Haschak asked if there were other situations like this that would affect customers and Director Reardon explained that the PCIA is based on procurement contracts. Chair Barnacle asked if legislation could address the PCIA issue and Director Reardon stated that it has come up and may be the solution. Alt. Director Albin-Smith stated that the League of California Cities should take up bills to hold PG&E accountable and she would discuss it with them as a member of the league.

Geof Syphers, CEO, gave an update on the bills SCP has supported and mentioned that they are working their way through committees. Chair Barnacle asked if there was any registered opposition to SCP’s bills and CEO Syphers said that he believed that there was not.

Public Comment: None
There were no positions taken on legislation, so no vote was necessary.

8. Receive Update on Programs that Support Electric Vehicles and Charging (9:45 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:45:10)
Felicia Smith, Director of Programs, announced that the Programs department will present SCP customer offers and incentives at board meetings through July. She introduced Brant Arthur, Program Manager, who discussed SCP’s transportation programs. Mr. Arthur described these programs, their 2024 impacts, and how they were informed by a transportation needs assessment.

Director Lemus asked how SCP plans to reach women and Latinos, who are expected to make up a growing share of EV owners. Mr. Arthur stressed the importance of hosting and attending educational events. Chair Barnacle asked if SCP supports Level 1 charging. Mr. Arthur said the focus is on level 2, but level 1 has potential in multi-family housing. Chair Barnacle also asked about using EVs to power buildings during emergencies. Mr. Arthur responded that many municipalities are incorporating this into emergency planning and SCP engages with them on this. Alternate Director Albin-Smith asked about SCP’s role in hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. CEO Syphers said that SCP is not leading in this area, though many California organizations are exploring it. Chair Barnacle also asked about SCP’s role in EV charging infrastructure. CEO Syphers said 7 of 79
SCP can help by identifying grid locations suitable for added infrastructure without overloading PG&E’s system. Chair Barnacle then asked about data collection for SCP’s E-bike commuter grant program. Scott Salyer, Program Manager, explained that the program tracks mileage but not routes. Chair Barnacle recommended tracking route patterns to help identify safety issues.

Public Comment: None

9. Direct Staff to Study the Feasibility of Expanding Sonoma Clean Power Authority’s Service to Lake County, California
(10:21 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 01:21:59)
CEO Syphers introduced the item, noting it is an addition to previous feasibility requests from the cities of Clearlake and Lakeport. He stated that Lake County has now requested a feasibility study for expanding SCP service. CEO Syphers discussed the challenges and opportunities of including Lake County in SCP’s service territory.

Director Farrar-Rivas asked how residential service in Lake County would differ from business service. CEO Syphers responded that the county has proportionately fewer businesses and more homes, leading to energy demand peaks in the morning, evening, and during the summer and winter. Director Lemus asked about solar energy potential in Lake County. CEO Syphers replied that the outlook is strong due to clear skies, existing solar developments, and local interest.

Public Comment: Tom Coddington discussed wanting SCP to provide energy to Lake County. The comment is attached.

Motion to direct staff to study the feasibility of expanding Sonoma Clean Power Authority’s service to Lake County, California by Director Lemus Second: Director Farrar-Rivas
Motion passed by roll call vote
AYES: Lemus, Albin-Smith, Barnacle, Elward, Fleming, Zollman, Farrar-Rivas, Haschak
ABSENT: Laskey, Potter, Hopkins
8 of 79

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS
(10:32 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 01:32:17)
Directors’ announcements: Director Lemus reported that Cotati held a successful Cinco de Mayo event. Director Farrar-Rivas shared that Sonoma had successful Earth Day and Cinco de Mayo events. Director Haschak noted his attendance at an event in Laytonville and appreciated SCP’s outreach there.

Albin-Smith announced that Fort Bragg hosted its first Blues Festival, will hold a film festival later this month, and is planning more events, including a bicycle race in October. Director Farrar-Rivas thanked SCP for sponsoring the Sonoma Ecology Center’s headwaters hike and noted that Sonoma’s Tuesday night markets have begun. Chair Barnacle expressed appreciation for SCP’s increased food bank funding and encouraged further support for local nonprofits. He also thanked SCP for sponsoring Petaluma’s Butter and Egg Days Parade and mentioned a historic library exhibit on Chinese immigrants in Petaluma.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
(10:38 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 01:38:09)
Public Comment: None

ADJOURN
(10:39 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 01:38:26)
9 of 79
Dear Sonoma Clean Power,
I would be very interested in joining Sonoma Clean Power.

I live in Lake County, and I see from your website that you have budgeted to boost participation. I have solar panels and storage batteries. And I'm interested in 100% renewable power. Could a future meeting include the possibility of including Lake County in your strategic
action plan?
Thank you very much,
Tom Coddington
10 of 79
Staff Report – Item 02
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Garth Salisbury, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer Chris Golik, Senior Finance Manager
Issue: Receive Monthly Financial Report
Date: June 5, 2025
Monthly Financial Report
The Financial Report is to inform the Board of Directors (Board) of monthly financial results and investment activity. Additionally, the Monthly Financial Report will include an Investment Report which is a summary of investments and investment activity in SCP’s portfolio. The Investment Report and associated attachments are to inform the Board pursuant to the requirements of SCP’s Financial Policy B.5 Investments and Government Code Section 53607. This is an informational item only.

Monthly Compiled Financial Statements
As a consequence of SCP’s recent transition from Calpine to SMUD as our data provider, there have been some delays in securing the necessary data to produce the March unaudited financial statements. We hope to have this delay resolved in June to allow us to provide statements through the end of April and will provide updated financial statements at the July Board meeting.

Monthly Investment Report
This report is to verify and report in writing to the Board regarding the responsibilities designated to the SCP Treasurer pursuant to SCP Financial Policy B.5 Investments.

The Investment Policy was amended in 2024 expanding the definition of Permitted Investments, adding several investment diversification requirements, best practices and requiring additional reporting requirements to the Board and stakeholders as follows.
11 of 79
Monthly Obligation to Report on New Investment Transactions Government Code Section 53607 and SCP’s Investment Policy require SCP to report to the Board and stakeholders any investment transactions (defined as purchases, sales or exchanges of securities) made during the month as soon as is practicable after the end of the month. Given the scheduling of the SCP’s Board meetings during the first week of the month, the investment report will indicate investment transactions that occurred two months prior (April 2025). SCP currently maintains bank accounts and investments at River City Bank (RCB), Summit State Bank, the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and USBank. Active individual securities are held at both RCB and USBank. Staff will provide Statements of Investments as required throughout the year.

Reportable Activities
USBank
In November of 2024, the Board approved amendments to SCP Investment Policy as recommended by SCP’s investment advisor, Chandler Asset Management (CAM). As of April 30th, CAM managed about $60 million of SCP’s reserves. All investments directed by CAM are held at SCP’s custodian, USBank. All investments held as of April 30, 2025, at USBank appear as Attachment 1 with new holdings purchased in April highlighted. USBank transaction details for the month of April, including sales and maturities of securities, are in Attachment 2.

River City Bank
A detailed statement of the investments held at River City Bank as of April 30, 2025, appears as Attachment 3. There were no investment transactions in the month of April at River City Bank.

State of California Local Agency Investment Fund
The LAIF investment balance as of April 30, 2025, appears as Attachment 4. 12 of 79
Attachments
 Attachment 1 - Statement of Investments Held at USBank, available at this link or by request to the Clerk of the Board
 Attachment 2 – Statement of Transactions at USBank, available at this link or by request to the Clerk of the Board
 Attachment 3 – Statement of Investments Held at River City Bank, available at this link or by request to the Clerk of the Board
 Attachment 4 – Statement of Investments Held at the Local Agency Investment Fund, available at this link or by request to the Clerk of the Board 13 of 79
Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing 14 of 79
Staff Report – Item 03
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Sean Dalton, Events Manager
Issue: Approve and Authorize the Chief Executive Officer or his Designee to Execute a New Contract with Sonoma Water for the Continuation of the Energy and Environment Education Program through June 30, 2027, with an Annual Not-to-Exceed Amount of $300,000 and Aggregate Contract Value of $600,000
Date: June 5, 2025
Recommendation
Approve and authorize the CEO to execute a new contract (Attachment 1) with Sonoma Water for the continuation of the Energy and Environment Education program through June 30, 2027, with an annual not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 and aggregate contract value of $600,000.

Background
The Board of Directors approved a two-year agreement with Sonoma Water on June 1, 2023, following the Community Advisory Committee’s recommendation on May 11, 2023. This agreement funded Energy Education programs at $300,000 per year for fiscal years 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 and expires on June 30, 2025.

Community Advisory Committee Review
The Community Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed contract at their May 15, 2025, meeting and recommended the Board of Directors approve and delegate authority to the CEO or Designee to execute the contract. 15 of 79
Discussion
Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) has partnered with Sonoma Water since 2017 to deliver comprehensive energy and environment education programming throughout Sonoma and Mendocino counties. This partnership leverages Sonoma Water's established expertise, educational staff, curriculum, and strong relationships with local schools, enabling SCP to achieve greater educational impact.

Key program highlights include:
• Reaches more than 15,000 K-12 students annually across Sonoma and Mendocino Counties
• Delivers diverse educational formats including musical assemblies, hands-on classroom lessons, and field trips
• Provides specialized programs for elementary, middle, and high school students
• Offers teacher workshops and small grants program supporting climate action projects
• Distributes school supplies with SCP branding and educational messaging • Supports extracurricular STEM events and activities
Fiscal Impact
The proposed agreement maintains the current funding level of $300,000 per fiscal year for a total contract value of $600,000 over two years. The FY 2025/2026 budget includes the first year of funding. The second year ($300,000 for FY 2026/2027) will remain contingent upon Board approval of the FY 2026/2027 budget.

Attachments
 Attachment 1 – Draft Agreement with Sonoma Water for Energy and Environment Education Program available at this link or by request to the Clerk of the Board
16 of 79
Staff Report – Item 04
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Kate Kelly, Director of Public Relations & Marketing Issue: Approve the Delegation of Authority to the Chief Executive Officer or his Designee to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with S2 Advertising for Comprehensive Media Consulting Services with a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $2,100,000 over a Three-Year Term Date: June 5, 2025
Requested Action
Approve the delegation of authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute a professional services agreement with S2 Advertising for comprehensive media consulting services with a not-to-exceed amount of $2,100,000 over a three-year term (7/1/25 – 6/30/28).

Background
The Board of Directors approved a three-year agreement with S2 Advertising on July 1, 2022, following the Community Advisory Committee’s recommendation on May 19, 2022.

Discussion
Since preparing to launch service to customers beginning in 2013, SCP has worked with S2 Advertising as our consultant for comprehensive media placement, development and social media consulting services. The majority of the contract amount is for direct placement of multimedia campaigns for SCP (print, radio, TV, 17 of 79
digital, outdoor, etc.) The contract also includes social media consulting and campaign management and TV/radio spot, web and social media video development and production.

Fiscal Impact
The full one-year cost of this contract is already accounted for the in FY 2025-2026 Outreach and Communications budget, and subsequent years will also be proposed to incorporate this amount in each budget. In addition to actual costs of media placement, Consultant receives a commission, or agency fee, per media placement at a cost of 15% (maximum of $315,000).

Attachments
 Attachment 1 – Agreement with S2 Advertising outlining Scope of Services which includes media placement and pricing negotiations, various media production billing and tracking, available at this link or by request to the Clerk of the Board 18 of 79
Staff Report – Item 05
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Stephanie Reynolds, Director of Internal Operations Mike Koszalka, Chief Operating Officer
Issue: Receive Internal Operations Report and Provide Feedback as Appropriate
Date: June 5, 2025

PROGRAMS UPDATES
GridSavvy Rewards
GridSavvy Rewards empowers customers to help SCP improve grid reliability by shifting electricity usage away from high demand times. Customers have flexibility in how they participate. They can enroll an eligible smart thermostat or EV charger or participate without installed devices. To participate without an installed device, customers decide to receive alerts via email, text, or phone call and then take simple actions like delaying using large appliances and turning off unnecessary lights.

To address summer peak demand, Alerts, EV chargers, and smart thermostats are active from May 1st to October 31st, annually and participation is entirely voluntary with no penalties for not participating.

Launch of the 2025 GridSavvy Rewards Season (May 1st – Oct 31st) The launch of the 2025 GridSavvy Rewards season kicked off on May 1st and an initial test event was called on May 10th when we offered 13,000 participants the opportunity to save energy and earn rewards.

For more information about GridSavvy Rewards, please visit sonomacleanpower.org/gridsavvy-rewards
19 of 79

PUBLIC RELATIONS AND MARKETING
Recent and Upcoming Community Events
Sonoma Clean Power is proud to sponsor, participate in, and host a variety of events that support community engagement, education, and workforce development. Below are some highlights:

May
• May 17 – Santa Rosa Rose Parade (in partnership with Snoopy’s Home Ice) o The entry won “Best Use of Flowers.”
• May 24–26 – Mendocino County Film Festival
• May 31 – Sonoma County Pride Parade & Festival
• May–July – Santa Rosa Wednesday Market
o SCP donates booth space to local nonprofits on select dates.

June
• June 7 – Community Support Network: Boots & Vines Event • June 8 – Food for Thought: Our Long Table
• June 13–August 15 – Ukiah’s Summer Fridays
• June 14 – Sonoma County's 55th Annual MLK/Juneteenth Freedom Day • June 14 – North Bay Organizing Project: Cultura y Cambio July
• July 12 – Cotati Kids Day
• July (ongoing) – Sonoma’s Tuesday Night Market
August
• August 7
o Volunteering at Food for Thought’s Garden – Forestville o Town of Windsor: Thursday Night on the Green
20 of 79
• August 8 – Cloverdale Friday Night Live
• August 9 – 9th Annual Noyo Headlands Race – Fort Bragg • August 30 – 4th Annual African Soul Festival – Rohnert Park September
• September 20 – Russian River Pride Parade & Festival – Guerneville Ongoing Support
• Redwood Empire Food Bank
o Sponsored the Empty Bowls event, which raised $800,000 for regional hunger relief.
o SCP staff regularly volunteer to support the Food Bank’s efforts.

Recent Events at SCP’s Customer Center
• May 2 & 5 – Climate Action Field Trips with Sonoma Water for Casa Grande High School
• May 9 – Skilled Trades Funders: Kitchen Table Discussion with CTE Foundation o A convening of national funders promoting youth education in the trades, including Harbor Freight Tools for Schools, the Smidt Foundation, Texas School Venture Fund, and more.
• May 13 – Bring Back the Build Forum with the LIME Foundation • May 27 – Home Healthcare Documentary Screening with NorCal Public Media Upcoming Events at SCP’s Customer Center
• June 3 & 17 – Emergency Preparedness Help for Seniors (Fully booked) o A free, interactive two-part workshop covering emergency planning, alerts, pet safety, and 2-1-1 resources.
• June 7 – Interview Skills & Resume Writing Workshop with the LIME Foundation • June 20 – Climate Change & Resilience in the North Bay Teacher Workshop with Sonoma Water
21 of 79
• June 25–27 – Host site for Mike Hauser Academy for high school English language learners pursuing STEM careers

SONOMA CLEAN POWER RECOGNIZED BY NORTH BAY LEADERSHIP COUNCIL Sonoma Clean Power was recently honored with the Paint the Community Green award by the North Bay Leadership Council. This award recognizes individuals, organizations, or initiatives demonstrating exceptional leadership in environmental stewardship — including achievements in sustainable development, green business practices, renewable energy, and climate action.

The recognition highlights significant contributions to environmental sustainability in the North Bay region, encompassing Marin, Sonoma, and Napa counties. Award recipients are celebrated for reducing environmental impact, advancing clean energy, and fostering community engagement in sustainability efforts.

UPCOMING MEETINGS
➢ Community Advisory Committee – June 12, 2025 (off cycle due to Juneteenth holiday closure)
➢ Board of Directors – July, TBD, 2025
➢ Community Advisory Committee – July 17, 2025
➢ Board of Directors – August 7, 2025
22 of 79
Staff Report – Item 06
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Neal Reardon, Director of Regulatory Affairs
Miles Horton, Legislative Policy & Community Engagement Manager Geof Syphers, Chief Executive Officer
Issue: Receive Legislative and Regulatory Updates, Approve Legislative Positions, and Provide Direction as Appropriate
Date: June 5, 2025
Requested Action
Receive legislative and regulatory updates, approve legislative positions, and provide direction as appropriate.

Regulatory Updates
California Public Utilities Commission Issues Proposed Decision to Modify Power Charge Indifference Adjustment Calculation
On May 23rd, the CPUC issued a proposal to modify how CCA customers are granted financial credit for their forced investment in for-profit utilities assets. Specifically, this Proposed Decision modifies how the Resource Adequacy (RA) – a product required to support grid reliability – credit is calculated. There were five modifications introduced by CPUC staff. The stated goal of the modifications was to increase the number of transactions included and to increase the accuracy of the result. Sonoma Clean Power staff, working in conjunction with CalCCA, supported 4 of these: removing affiliate and sleeve transactions, combining all RA into the calculation, and calculating monthly values. The Proposed Decision would adopt all those 4 except for calculating monthly values.

However, it would also adopt the modification CalCCA was most strongly opposed to using historical RA prices instead of the current prices to determine market value. Most problematically, it would do so retroactively. In practice, this means the elevated RA prices observed in 2024 would not be fully granted to our customers but would instead 23 of 79
be blended with transactions from 2021-2024. As the earlier years had lower prices, the blended value is depressed, which results in a lower credit to our customers and higher PCIA charge. We do not yet have the underlying data from the earlier transactions to calculate the impact on our customers. However, we estimate the impact will be in the tens of millions of dollars.

This rushed, retroactive change to rates without clear data on the impact is troubling.

However, blending the higher 2024 RA prices into years 2025-2027 would be beneficial for customers’ PCIA credit in the case that future prices do not remain as high. Ultimately, the most significant risk is that there is no guarantee this methodology (using 4 years instead of 1) will stay in place.

If the CPUC were to later adjust the credit calculation back to using 1 year of cost data in the future, the effect would be to transfer costs from one group of customers to another.

Such an outcome would violate the CPUC’s obligation to maintain cost indifference, so staff will be watching closely for any indication that the CPUC might be considering this type of future action.

The Commission intends to implement these rapid changes to the methodology by this Fall and could grant utilities the ability to apply them immediately. SCP staff are contributing to reply comments on this proposal and working to schedule meetings with Commissioners and their advisors to educate them on the negative impacts and dangerous precedents this sets.

Legislative Updates
Sonoma Clean Power is sponsoring two geothermal bills in the California Legislature this year, in partnership with Fervo Energy, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and others: Assembly Bill 527 (Papan), which would mirror federal policy by exempting geothermal exploration wells meeting a high standard of environmental stewardship from review under the California Environmental Quality Act; and Assembly Bill 531 (Rogers), which would allow proposed geothermal power plants to be approved through an existing “one-stop shop” process at the California Energy Commission. Unfortunately, a third bill – Assembly Bill 526 (Papan), which would have directed the state to craft a strategic plan to drive the development of new geothermal resources – was recently killed in the Assembly Appropriations Committee’s “suspense file” process.

Assembly Bill 527 passed off the Assembly floor on a bipartisan vote of 67-0, and at the time of writing Assembly Bill 531 is awaiting its final vote in the Assembly. Once passed, both bills will be referred to the relevant committees of jurisdiction in the Senate. 24 of 79
Staff Report – Item 07
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Darin Bartow, Clerk of the Board
Issue: Decide whether to Reschedule the Board of Directors July 3, 2025, Meeting to July 10, 2025
Date: June 5, 2025
Recommendation
Discuss and decide whether to reschedule the Board of Directors July 3, 2025, meeting to July 10, 2025.

Background
Given the July 4 holiday, staff are asking the Board which date would be best for Board members. The Board may decide to keep the existing July 3 date or move the meeting back one week to July 10.

Section 54954(a) of the California Government Code states that legislative bodies shall provide, by ordinance, resolution, bylaws, or by whatever other rule is required for the conduct of business by that body, the time and place for holding regular meetings. The Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 2022-02 on July 7, 2022, establishing a time and place for regular meetings of the Board. On November 7, 2024, the Board approved the 2025 Board meeting schedule.

Discussion
The proposed schedule, included as an attachment, would largely maintain the regular meeting schedule established by the Board, but would change the date for the July 3, 2025, Board Meeting to July 10, 2025.

Attachments
 Updated 2024 SCPA Board of Directors Meeting Schedule (redlined) 25 of 79

Sonoma Clean Power Authority
Board of Directors
Schedule of Meetings
January – December 2025
9:00 a.m. – 12:00p.m.

(The SCPA normally meets on the 1st Thursday of each month) January 9, 2025 (2nd Thursday due to the New Year’s Holiday) February 6, 2025
March 6, 2025
April 3, 2025
May 8, 2025 (2nd Thursday due to CalCCA Conference)
June 5, 2025
July 3, 2025 July 10, 2025 (2nd Thursday Due to the July 4th Holiday)
August 7, 2025
September 4, 2025 (Tentative)
October 2, 2025
November 6, 2025
December 4, 2025
26 of 79
Staff Report – Item 08
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Ryan Tracey, Director of Planning & Analytics
Geof Syphers, Chief Executive Officer
Miles Horton, Legislative Policy & Community Engagement Manager Claudia Sisomphou, Public Affairs & Advocacy Manager
Issue: Receive Geothermal Opportunity Zone Update and Approve the Delegation of Authority to the Chief Executive Officer or his Designee to Execute Amendment #1 to the Geothermal Opportunity Zone Cooperation Agreement with Eavor Inc.

Date: June 5, 2025
Recommended Action
Approve the delegation of authority to the Chief Executive Officer or his designee to execute an amendment (Attachment 1) extending the term of the Geothermal Opportunity Zone Agreement with Eavor Inc and making certain other amendments enumerated in this staff report.

Background
The Eavor agreement proposed for amendment was approved by the Board of Directors in their March 2, 2023, meeting. The agreement allows for amendment by mutual agreement in writing. The text of the proposed amendment is included as Attachment 1.

The cooperation agreement with Eavor required the completion of several project milestones by June 30, 2025. Eavor has satisfied many of their original obligations, including completing an assessment of development potential, evaluating leasing strategies, and identifying required permits and agreements. In completing these tasks, Eavor has made meaningful investments towards progressing development in the GeoZone and has maintained the GeoZone as one of their key strategic initiatives.

However, Eavor has thus far been unable to satisfy its obligations due this June including obtaining site control for a pilot project, submitting an interconnection 27 of 79
application, and permitting a calibration well.

While progressing its GeoZone project, Eavor has also been constructing its first commercial project in Geretsried, Germany. Eavor’s Geretsried project has already passed all its key technological milestones and is expected to begin generating electricity for the first time this year. Although the project’s cost exceeds initial targets, the project will successfully demonstrate the operation of a closed-loop system and will meet the initial power generation target of 8.2 MW electrical and 64 MW thermal. In executing the Geretsried project, Eavor has learned much which is feeding-back into their long-term technological roadmap.

In evaluating the future design of an Eavor deployment in the GeoZone and building on what it has learned from Geretsried, Eavor has identified an opportunity to deploy a new technology they are developing called Eavor-Jules™. This new proprietary technology, which SCP staff have been briefed on in detail, will provide significant reductions in drilling time. Drilling cost reductions will improve the commerciality of closed-loop and allow projects to be sited in lower geothermal gradients. Targeting areas with lower geothermal gradients will allow Eavor to look over a much wider area for site control opportunities—which has been a key challenge for their GeoZone project thus far. Increased locational flexibility will also allow for unique opportunities such as sitting in industrial or pre-disturbed locations, behind-the-meter configurations, or projects that provide direct resiliency benefits. Eavor-Jules™ is expected to first be demonstrated in Canada, but Eavor is interested in rapidly deploying the technology in the GeoZone.

The amendment replaces the June 30, 2025, the completion date in the original agreement with a series of new milestone-specific deadlines through December 31, 2028. The amendment extends the term of the agreement to last through negotiation of offtake agreements for subsequent projects—which strengthens the non-compete and right of first refusal terms for SCP. The agreement also contemplates the application of Eavor’s forthcoming Eavor-Jules™ Technology in the GeoZone.

The Eavor agreement was one of three active public-private cooperation agreements approved by SCP’s Board of Directors in 2023 to progress the GeoZone. Earlier this year, the GeoZone agreement with Cyrq Energy was terminated after it was determined they were unable to meet their May 31, 2025, milestones. Factors specific to the Cyrq project, along with organizational changes at Cyrq that reduced their interest in GeoZone partnership, made it advisable to terminate. Unlike Cyrq, 28 of 79
Eavor has a strong strategic interest in continuing to partner on the GeoZone. Staff will address the next steps with the third GeoZone agreement with Chevron New Energies later this year, which is still active but has project milestones that are due in March 2026 that Chevron will be unable to meet.

Community Advisory Committee Review
The Committee unanimously voted to recommend the Board authorize the proposed amendment to the Eavor agreement. The Committee voiced that delays are not unexpected in deploying new technology and expressed support in demonstrating patience with a good partner. The Committee also asked staff for more details on the third-party investor. Staff shared that the third-party investor would bring not only capital, but likely development expertise to project development. The Committee also asked about the longevity of closed-loop systems and the potential to site closed-loop projects in Lake County. Staff shared that closed-loop systems will have long lifespans—matching that of the existing facilities at the Geysers and explained how Eavor’s technology roadmap will unlock more opportunities for locating closed-loop, in Lake County but also in new areas of Sonoma and Mendocino Counties.

Discussion
Staff’s top priority with the GeoZone is maintaining momentum with the initiative’s stated objective of building 600 MW of new local geothermal capacity. As such, the proposed amendment extending Eavor’s agreement must be weighed against opening a larger role for new public-private partnerships or focusing staff time on political and regulatory opportunities rather than managing a public-private partnership with Eavor.

Although Eavor has not yet secured site control or started interconnection and permitting as contemplated in the original agreement, Eavor’s investment in the GeoZone thus far has been significant and staff are confident that an extended cooperation agreement will lead to more investment in identifying the opportunities and challenges in deploying next-generation geothermal development in the GeoZone. Eavor’s technology continues to offer characteristics that are desirable in the GeoZone: minimal water usage, negligeable seismicity risk, and highly scalable.

Meanwhile, the advances expected through Eavor-Jules™ should significantly de-risk finding a suitable site—which has been the primary challenge thus far. Importantly, staff’s established relationship with Eavor and understanding of the technology will minimize the burden on SCP staff in managing the commercial relationship, allowing 29 of 79
staff to continue to pursue regulatory and political opportunities and new public-private partnerships in parallel without losing focus.

Instead of working towards a single extended deadline in December 2028, Eavor and SCP have agreed to intermediary milestones in the proposed amendment with activity-specific deadlines. This approach will give SCP the ability to ensure progress is being made, as opposed to offering a blanket extension. The intermediary deadlines include:
• Updated assessment of development potential, including the application of Eavor-Jules™ by June 30, 2026
• Comprehensive assessment of site control opportunities, including high-value opportunities, by December 31, 2026
• Commitment from a Third-Party Project Investor by March 31, 2027 (in order to finance the project, Eavor expects to engage a strategic partner that leads project development and inherits responsibilities of agreement) • Site control for an initial pilot project by December 31, 2027 • Interconnection application for pilot project by October 31, 2028 • Permit for calibration well for pilot project by December 31, 2028 Staff continue to see public-private partnerships as a critical component of the GeoZone. By partnering with industry, SCP is able to get firsthand knowledge of the challenges and opportunities for local geothermal development. Public-private partnership also enables a mechanism for SCP ratepayers to recoup their investment in the GeoZone through favorable commercial terms for scale-up. These commercial terms are preserved in the amendment with Eavor, and strengthened by extending the term of the agreement, which includes a non-compete and right of first refusal, until negotiations of offtake agreements with scale-up projects is complete.

Other GeoZone Updates
SCP is still waiting to hear from the California Energy Commission on the status of Sonoma County’s application for funding to support the Sonoma-Mendocino-Lake region with proactive planning for geothermal development. Funding notices were originally scheduled to be released in March but have been delayed until early July. 30 of 79
There are no substantive updates on the Chevron New Energies project. Chevron has been very helpful in working through trade-offs in amendments under consideration for the geothermal legislative package being progressed this year.

After the Cyrq termination and Eavor amendment, staff will turn attention towards next steps with Chevron New Energies.

Staff have begun outreach in earnest to the larger geothermal industry as the first step in structuring a future solicitation for new GeoZone partners. SCP is also working with California Community Power, the joint procurement entity comprised of SCP and eight other CCAs, on a regional initiative to partner with geothermal developers on project development.

Attachments
 Attachment 1 – Draft Amendment No. 1 to the GeoZone Cooperation Agreement Between Sonoma Clean Power Authority and Eavor Inc., available at this link or by request to the Clerk of the Board
31 of 79
Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing 32 of 79
Staff Report – Item 09
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Ryan Tracey, Director of Planning & Analytics
Geof Syphers, Chief Executive Officer
Deb Emerson, Managing Director of Procurement
Hannah Rennie, Portfolio Manager
Issue: Approve Revised Environmental Performance Targets for the Sonoma Clean Power Portfolio to Improve Rate Competitiveness
Date: June 5, 2025
Recommendation
Approve a revised environmental performance target of mitigating 85% of SCP’s hourly marginal emissions by 2026 and utilize expected cost savings to improve rate competitiveness. This target will supersede the environmental targets approved by the Board in October 2022 in approving the 2022 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).

Background
PG&E’s Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) fee on SCP’s customers is forecast to increase significantly in 2026, so staff have sought new ways to lower SCP’s rates to offset these costs and help customers. This item proposes a way to sustain SCP’s leadership role in lowering California’s greenhouse gas emissions while trimming rates by an estimated $7.7 million in 2026, helping sustain competitive rates.

Current Voluntary Environmental Performance Targets
SCP is required by law to comply with state minimum requirements for the environmental performance of its portfolio, including a minimum contribution of eligible renewable energy (46.7% in 2025 reaching 60% by 2030), a minimum contribution of eligible renewable or zero-carbon resources (90% by 2035 reaching 100% by 2045), and portfolio submissions to the IRP that demonstrate emissions below SCP’s load share of the state’s electric system target. Like most CCAs, SCP’s 33 of 79
Board has adopted more aggressive voluntary environmental performance targets for its portfolio to accelerate climate progress. SCP fulfills environmental targets with both long-term power purchase agreements for new or existing resources and shorter-term contracts that purchase the renewable or carbon-free attribute of a resource. Staff optimize SCP’s portfolio to meet environmental performance targets while managing risk, fulfilling SCP’s other compliance obligations (resource adequacy, procurement orders), and minimizing cost.

In October 2022, the Board adopted two voluntary environmental targets as part of approving the 2022 IRP:

1. 100% Hourly Carbon Mitigation by 2026: contract a supply portfolio that mitigates all the hourly marginal emissions associated with SCP’s load within the next four years

2. 80% Winter Evening Reliability by 2030: build a portfolio that provides at least 80% of the required energy from clean resources in winter evenings by 2030
The 2022 targets superseded annual emissions targets that had previously driven SCP’s portfolio mix. Staff recommended a change to hourly and seasonal targets to better align SCP’s procurement with the types of resources needed to reduce emissions and ultimately retire natural gas capacity. Staff estimated that the cost of the two voluntary targets would increase SCP’s procurement costs by 7% compared to a scenario with no voluntary targets and cost $6.5 million in the first year of implementation in 2026.

Progress on 2022 IRP Targets
The 2022 IRP targets guided staff in procuring a more diverse portfolio of resources than might have been driven by annual targets alone. Since establishing the targets, SCP has signed additional long-term power purchase agreements for: extended offtake of the Geysers (the original 50 MW contract ends in 2026; SCP will have 9 MW in 2027 and 20 MW for 2028-2036), 100 MW of wind from the SunZia project in New Mexico, 60 MW of solar paired with storage in the Central Valley, contracted offtake from two small hydro projects in the Sierra Nevada, and 4 MW solar and storage project in Mendocino County.

SCP has also procured short-term renewable and carbon-free resources, with a focus on technology profiles that deliver higher hourly emissions benefits, towards meeting the 2026, 100% hourly mitigation goal. SCP already has the resources under contract 34 of 79
to deliver 94% hourly mitigation in 2026 and 91% hourly mitigation in 2027. The approved budget includes the incremental costs required to complete procurement to meet the 100% hourly mitigation target, which can be done with additional short-term contracts. To meet a 100% hourly mitigation target, SCP needs to over-procure on an annual basis and currently has over 104% of its expected 2026 annual load covered by renewable or carbon-free sources and over 98% of 2027.

Regulatory and Market Dynamics
SCP’s hourly mitigation targets in 2022 were forward-thinking but also aligned with emerging trends in the market at the time. Peninsula Clean Energy, the CCA serving San Mateo County, adopted a 99% hourly matching goal by 2025 in 2022. Google set a 100% hourly matching goal for their operations by 2030 and was working on developing a time-based renewable energy certificate program to improve market liquidity and transparency at an hourly level. Meanwhile, SCP worked closely with Senator Josh Becker to pass Senate Bill 1158 in 2022 which directed the California Energy Commission to develop requirements for hourly greenhouse gas reporting by 2028 that would clearly distinguish utilities that were procuring resources with more hourly carbon mitigation impact.

The progress on hourly environmental targets has hit roadblocks since 2022. In 2024, Peninsula Clean Energy shifted back to an annual goal for its environmental performance (100% annual renewable or carbon-free by 2030). Time-based renewable energy certificates have also not been implemented in the Western Interconnection, making time-dependent carbon targets much more difficult to achieve. Although Senate Bill 1158 reporting will create a dataset allowing for a comparison of performance between power providers, the more prominent reporting on the power source disclosure and power content label will show annual metrics. The annual reporting also does not allow SCP to take credit for the over-procurement of clean resources it completes to meet hourly targets and even leads to scenarios where its contribution of renewables is understated due to counting rules.

Meanwhile, increased clean energy demand from data centers, electrification, and the ramp-up of compliance targets coupled with procurement mandates amidst a scarcity of transmission and interconnection capacity have significantly increased the cost of short-term contracts for clean energy relative to 2022 estimates.

Interconnection scarcity has also significantly reduced the climate benefits associated with additionality impact of clean energy procurement—buying more short-term clean 35 of 79
energy is driving the price up rather than leading to more resource construction. This is an important consideration in evaluating the merit of voluntary targets, given SCP’s motivation is to provide incremental climate benefits.

Rate Competitiveness
SCP is anticipating a large increase in the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) in 2026. The current price of energy, resource adequacy, and renewable energy is trending measurably lower than the benchmarks set in establishing the 2025 PCIA. If market prices continue at their current levels, the 2026 PCIA will include both the impact of lower 2026 market conditions and a true-up for the “forecast error” in setting the 2025 benchmarks—both of which apply upward pressure on PG&E’s PCIA fee. Although SCP is seeing reduced power costs, the benefits are limited given much of SCP’s energy portfolio is secured through long-term fixed-price contracts. The increase in PCIA will require SCP to decrease rates and utilize the rate stabilization fund it has built-up to retain rate competitiveness.

SCP is taking the appropriate steps to prepare for 2026, but given the economic conditions and limited climate value it is prudent to adjust SCP’s voluntary environmental targets.

Community Advisory Committee Review
The Committee unanimously voted to recommend the Board adopt staff’s proposal to adopt an 85% hourly marginal emissions target for 2026. The Committee discussed the unaccounted-for social cost of pulling back from climate targets, but also the importance of maintaining affordability for SCP customers. Ultimately, the Committee voted to support the proposed 85% hourly marginal emissions target.

The Committee also reinforced the importance of using an hourly marginal emission target, rather than reverting to an annual target.

Discussion
Given the regulatory and market dynamics and rate competitiveness concerns described above, staff determined it was prudent to revisit the voluntary environmental targets. Staff evaluated three alternatives in developing a recommendation:

1. Status Quo: maintain the existing 100% hourly emissions mitigation target by 2026 voluntary target
36 of 79

2. 85% Hourly: maintain the existing hourly emissions target methodology for 2026, but reduce the target to 85%

3. Compliance Only: eliminate voluntary environmental targets and sell any excess clean energy above compliance requirements1
Below are three tables comparing key metrics between the three alternatives. Given the “status quo” target is incorporated into the recently approved budget, the financial impact of other alternatives is represented as savings relative to executing the status quo. These savings would be realized by selling excess energy that is already under contract or reducing the amount of energy that SCP has still needs to purchase to meet current targets (and is already included in the budget).

Table 1. Financial Savings by Environmental Target Alternative ($ million) 2026 2027 2028
Status Quo 0 0 0
85% Hourly 7.7 6.3 6.0
Compliance Only 17.9 16.0 12.8
Table 2. Estimated Annual CleanStart % Eligible Renewable or Carbon Free 2026 2027 2028
Status Quo 111.9% 109.4% 107.7%
85% Hourly 94.0% 95.2% 92.0%
Compliance Only 69.3% 71.8% 74.2%
Table 3. Estimated Portfolio Hourly Emissions Mitigation % 2026 2027 2028
Status Quo 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
85% Hourly 85.0% 85.0% 85.0%
Compliance Only 62.2% 63.1% 68.8%
The potential savings from adjusting SCP’s environmental targets are measurable.

The potential $17.9 million savings in 2026 from adopting the “compliance only” alternative implies the current voluntary targets cost ratepayers 0.7 cents extra per 1 This scenario retains SCP’s allocation of clean energy from PG&E’s hydropower fleet and Diablo Canyon that SCP receives at no direct cost. SCP is not allowed to resell its Diablo Canyon allocation and although it could sell the PG&E hydropower energy, staff are assuming that would not happen in this scenario.
37 of 79
kWh. Due to market conditions, this implied cost is also significantly higher than the $6.5 million estimated when the Board adopted the IRP targets in 2022.

Staff are recommending the 85% hourly alternative as a reasonable compromise between affordability concerns, demonstrating incremental progress in decarbonizing SCP’s portfolio, and sustaining SCP’s conviction in the merits of hourly emissions accounting. The $7.7 million in savings in 2026 will provide 0.35 cents per kWh of flexibility for maintaining competitive rates in a rising PCIA environment. The 85% hourly alternative also avoids a situation where SCP is over-procuring energy on an annual basis that it is unable to claim on its annual power source disclosure. The incremental cost of the 85% hourly mitigation scenario versus a compliance only scenario is $10.2 million in 2026, which is still greater than the $6.5 million cost estimated when establishing the 2022 IRP targets—but much closer than the status quo.

For the time being, staff is recommending that the 85% hourly mitigation target by 2026 become the sole voluntary environmental performance target. Although the 2022 IRP’s second target (80% clean winter reliability by 2030) has been informing long-term power purchase agreement decisions, it is not yet driving short-term procurement. Understanding the cost of the 80% winter target will be better accomplished through a long-term portfolio analysis, which staff will perform as part of the 2025 IRP later this year. Staff will evaluate the need to reinstitute a winter reliability target as part of its 2025 IRP development.

Fiscal Impact
If approved, the 85% hourly emissions target will provide an estimated $7.7 million in savings in calendar year 2026, $6.3 million savings in calendar year 2027, and $6.0 million savings in calendar year 2028. These savings are incremental to what has been included in the recently approved budget. Staff propose to use the savings to enable rate reductions to sustain competitiveness through a rising PCIA environment.

These savings are based on staff’s view of current market conditions and may fluctuate depending on the timing of transactions and market dynamics. 38 of 79
Staff Report – Item 10
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Ryan Tracey, Director of Planning & Analytics
Geof Syphers, Chief Executive Officer
Miles Horton, Legislative Policy & Community Engagement Manager Chris Golik, Senior Finance Manager
Issue: Determine that Expansion to Unincorporated Lake County, the City of Clearlake, and the City of Lakeport is Consistent with Policy D-4 and Begin Consideration of Proposed Expansion with an Intent to Offer Service After 60-Day Waiting Period
Date: June 5, 2025
Recommended Action
Review the attached feasibility study (Attachment 1) on SCP expansion and make a determination that expansion to Unincorporated Lake County, the City of Clearlake, and the City of Lakeport (collectively all of Lake County) is consistent with Policy D-4 (Attachment 2).

In making this determination, the Board will be setting an intention to offer service at the August 2025 SCP Board meeting. The 60-day waiting period between this vote and a formal offer of service allows each of SCP’s existing member cities and counties an opportunity to review the feasibility study’s findings with their jurisdictions.

Staff recommend the Board approve today’s action with the intent to ultimately make an offer of service in August with the following conditions: (1) Two seats on the SCP Board – one for the county and one to be shared by the two incorporated cities; (2) Confirm that participating in the GeoZone is also a top priority for each of the new jurisdictions; and (3) Confirm that each of the new member jurisdictions understands and agrees to abide by the SCP Joint Powers Agreement.
39 of 79
Background
The City of Clearlake, City of Lakeport, and Lake County Board of Supervisors (Attachment 3) submitted written requests earlier this year requesting SCP complete a feasibility study on expanding SCP service to their jurisdictions. Lake County jurisdictions are interested in the potential for CCA service to create an opportunity for Lake County to use some of the locally generated geothermal power, provide new economic opportunities, manage and seek to reduce energy costs, and augment Lake County’s voice in energy-related advocacy. The SCP Board accepted these requests and directed staff to move forward with completing a feasibility study.

SCP Administrative and General Policy D-4 provides a set of seven criteria to guide whether applications to serve new communities deserve consideration. These criteria are as follows:

1. The community is relatively close to existing SCPA service territory, so that regular meeting attendance and community engagement is practical.

2. The community agrees to abide by the SCPA Joint Powers Agreement, all existing SCPA adopted policies, and any conditions of service proscribed by SCPA’s Board of Directors, and to take all steps required by the Joint Powers Agreement and California law to participate in the SCP program, with governance representation determined by the existing SCPA Board of Directors.

3. The SCPA Board of Directors finds that service to the new region:
a. will decrease greenhouse gas emissions;
b. will not increase costs or financial risks to existing SCP customers; c. will be consistent with SCPA’s purposes of promoting renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation

4. There should be significant political and public alignment of values between existing and proposed participants, so that fundamental conflicts over key underlying issues are less likely. This would be important, for example, in determining the balance of environmental and economic goals.

5. The addition of the new community is likely to increase the voice of SCPA in legislative and regulatory matters at the California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission, California Air Resource Board, the California State Legislature and other relevant venues.
40 of 79

6. The addition of the new community will not harm SCPA’s autonomy over its portfolio of power sources, customer programs, and its ability to serve local, community interests.

7. The addition of the new community will not harm the quality of service to existing SCPA customers and will not give rise to operational risks that could significantly harm SCPA’s existing functions.

Staff prepared a feasibility study (Attachment 1) to evaluate these criteria, as well as provide both Lake County and the SCP Board of Directors with a comprehensive understanding of the financial impacts, benefits, and risks of expanding SCP service.

In addition to establishing evaluation criteria, Policy D-4 also specifies the approval and enrollment process for a new candidate community. Following the presentation of the feasibility study to the SCP Board of Directors, SCP Board members have a 60-day period to consider the proposed expansion with their own governing bodies and city and county staff. After the 60-day waiting period, the SCP Board of Directors will vote on whether to extend a formal offer of service. If the SCP Board votes to extend an offer to Lake County, the next step would be for each Lake County jurisdiction to approve its own ordinance authorizing CCA service through SCP. The SCP Board would then adopt a final resolution authorizing membership and SCP staff would then submit an updated Implementation Plan to the CPUC. To start service in the year 2027, the Implementation Plan must be filed no later than January 1, 2026, and ideally sometime in November 2025.

Discussion
Staff’s feasibility study finds that expansion to Lake County is expected to be mutually beneficial for SCP and Lake County. Those benefits include:
• Efficiencies of scale: Lake County would add a 15.4% increase on SCP sales but only increase SCP power costs by an expected 14% and administrative costs by about 4%--providing cost savings to existing SCP customers. • Competitive Lake County rates: More favorable PCIA for newer customers enables SCP to offer Lake County competitive rates, including rate savings across a range of future market scenarios. Note that SCP cannot promise rate savings due to uncertainty in future regulations, PG&E fees and energy market conditions. 41 of 79
• Expanded GeoZone: If Lake County joins SCP service and the GeoZone, it will create more opportunities for deployment of next-generation geothermal technologies and provide regional long-term economic development benefits. • Accelerated building electrification: The inaccessibility of natural gas in Lake County makes building electrification more cost-effective, which could accelerate adoption of SCP’s rebates and home electrification work.

The feasibility study finds that in addition to the above benefits, the proposed expansion appears to meet the Policy D-4 criteria to warrant further consideration, while leaving all the political considerations to the SCP Board and the acceptance of SCP’s Joint Powers Agreement to the Lake County jurisdictions. In evaluating compatibility of Lake County load with SCP’s existing portfolio, as well as considering revenue and customer service impacts, the feasibility study recommends a start of service date of sometime between April and June 2027, with the exact date to be selected by early 2026. Staff recommend that the SCP Board of Directors be expanded by two seats: one seat for a representative of the Lake County Board of Supervisors and one seat shared between the City of Clearlake and City of Lakeport, in a manner that mirrors representation in Mendocino County.

Importantly, the study also discusses several important considerations for the SCP Board and Lake County jurisdictions in determining whether to move forward. These include:
• Startup costs: The feasibility study estimates startup costs amounting to $578,000 in expanding service to Lake County. These costs would fund outreach, noticing requirements, marketing, and other administrative costs associated with rolling-out service. • Reserves implications: SCP’s financial policy requires a minimum reserve balance of 180 days of operating costs. Expanding to Lake County will increase this minimum by $21.4 million. SCP’s financial policy also sets a target reserve balance of 365 days of operating costs with rates that are set to reach that target within 5 years. Adding Lake County would increase the target reserve balance by $42.7 million, which would require adding 0.28 cents per kWh for all SCP customers through 2032 to achieve. This would mostly offset the savings associated with the expansion of service to existing SCP customers in the short term. • Financial risk to Lake County jurisdictions: There is no direct financial risk to Lake County jurisdictions joining SCP, given that the JPA shields participating jurisdictions from SCP’s financial liabilities and allows cities and counties to opt out 42 of 79
their own accounts when rates are higher. However, if any jurisdiction in Lake County chose to exit from participating in SCP altogether at some time in the future, they would either have to wait a very long time – potentially as long as 20 years – to exit without any additional cost obligation, or be held liable for costs associated with long-term contracts SCP signed on their behalf (generally an amount that is too great to pay, at least tens of millions for Lake County).

Accordingly, Lake County jurisdictions should only consider SCP participation if they intend on making a very long-term commitment that will weather different rate and political environments.
• SCP credit rating: Expanding to Lake County could have adverse impacts on SCP’s investment-grade credit rating due to the impact on its reserves target and lower household income observed in Lake County. SCP will seek to mitigate this issue by socializing the financial merits with rating agencies. • Market and regulatory uncertainty: The power market and regulatory environment are dynamic, and it is very likely that conditions in 2027 will vary from the assumptions used in this study. This means that the actual customer savings and financial benefits will vary from the assumptions in the feasibility study.

Community Advisory Committee Review
The Committee unanimously voted to recommend that the Board determine that the proposed expansion to Lake County is consistent with Policy D-4 and begin consideration of proposed expansion with an intent to offer service after a 60-day waiting period. The Committee expressed a strong interest in an expansion of the GeoZone occurring alongside an extension of electric service and were enthusiastic about potential electrification opportunities in Lake County. The Committee also discussed the trade-offs of a Lake County expansion, including the need to increase SCP’s target financial reserve balance. Staff shared that the structural cost reductions from expansion provide a durable benefit that balances the short-term impact of an increased need to contribute to reserves.

Attachments
➢ Attachment 1 - Feasibility Study: Sonoma Clean Power Expansion to Unincorporated Lake County, the City of Clearlake, and the City of Lakeport ➢ Attachment 2 – Policy D.4 New Customer Communities
43 of 79
Feasibility Study
Sonoma Clean Power Expansion to Unincorporated Lake
County, the City of Clearlake, and the City of Lakeport May 2025
Version 1.1
44 of 79
2 v1.1
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Executive Summary....................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2. Background ................................................................................................... 4 Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) ....................................................................... 4 SCP Cannot Promise Lower Rates.............................................................................. 5 Lake County Interest in CCA Service .......................................................................... 6 Sonoma Clean Power Policy for New Customer Communities.................................... 7 Chapter 3. Lake County Electricity Demand.................................................................... 9 Lake County Load ....................................................................................................... 9 Comparison to Existing Customers of Sonoma Clean Power.................................... 10 Chapter 4. Sonoma Clean Power Electric Service ........................................................ 12 Products & Resource Portfolio................................................................................... 12 Credit & Financial Resources .................................................................................... 14 Customer Programs and Customer Service .............................................................. 15 Chapter 5. Economic Evaluation ................................................................................... 16 Power Costs .............................................................................................................. 16 Administrative Costs.................................................................................................. 18 Uncollectible Revenue............................................................................................... 19 Revenue Requirement............................................................................................... 19 Startup Costs............................................................................................................. 20 Customer Type and Usage Pattern Impacts to Unit Revenue ................................... 20 PG&E Generation Rates, PCIA, and Rate Competitiveness ..................................... 21 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................... 23 Reserves and Rate Stabilization Fund Considerations.............................................. 25 Chapter 6. Local Resource Development Opportunities ............................................... 26 Geothermal Opportunity Zone (GeoZone)................................................................. 26 Other Clean Energy Opportunities............................................................................. 28 Chapter 7. Additional Benefits ....................................................................................... 28 Chapter 8. Risks............................................................................................................ 29 Chapter 9. Implementation............................................................................................ 31 Enrollment Process ................................................................................................... 31 Governance............................................................................................................... 32 45 of 79
3 v1.1
Chapter 1. Executive Summary
Staff recommend the SCP Board consider extending service to all of Lake County.

This feasibility study provides a comprehensive review of the requirements to expand Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) service to unincorporated Lake County, the City of Clearlake, and the City of Lakeport (referred to as “Lake County”). The study characterizes the load of Lake County and performs an economic evaluation to assess the financial feasibility of expansion. This report also provides background on Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) and SCP’s current electric service, and discusses resource development opportunities, benefits of expansion, potential risks, and outlines implementation steps. The main findings of this study and considerations are as follows:
• Expanding service to all of Lake County appears to be financially beneficial to both Lake County customers and existing SCP customers in a majority of years. • Key considerations for the SCP Board of Directors are:
o Should an offer of service to Lake County and the Cities of Clearlake and Lakeport be made at this time?
o Does the Board agree to staff’s recommendation for starting service between April and June 2027?
o Does the Board wish to use the same practice as in Mendocino County by offering one Board seat to the County of Lake Supervisors and one shared seat for the two incorporated cities of Clearlake and Lakeport? o Does the Board wish to stress the importance of the GeoZone and seek to confirm that Lake County is aligned and wishes to join the GeoZone? • Expansion to Lake County appears to be well aligned with the criteria established in SCP’s Policy for New Customer Communities D.4.
• SCP’s current portfolio of long-term renewable contracts is sufficient to accommodate expansion to Lake County without requiring additional long-term procurement to maintain compliance.
• Startup costs for an expansion to Lake County are estimated to be $578,000, which forecasts indicate would be recouped through rates in the first year of service.
• In the base market scenario used for evaluation, Lake County customers see total bill savings of 4% or more, however, it is important to note that there is a clear possibility that total bills will be higher with SCP some of the time due to changing PG&E fees outside SCP’s control and energy market conditions. 46 of 79
4 v1.1
• An expansion to Lake County will increase SCP’s target for reserves by $42.7 million (using 2030 costs), which would have the effect of reducing SCP’s ability to provide savings until that higher balance is achieved. The time estimated to accumulate the additional reserves while sustaining competitive rates is difficult to estimate, but likely could be completed by 2032.
• Lake County’s participation in the GeoZone is mutually beneficial and it is strongly recommended that Lake County join the GeoZone concurrently with SCP’s electric service.
• Expansion to Lake County offers additional benefits such as more cost-effective building electrification opportunities, increased portfolio flexibility, improved advocacy, and additional phone and web support for customers in Lake County. • Risks that should be considered before proceeding with an expansion include the impacts of a jurisdiction withdrawing from SCP service, high customer opt-outs, possible impacts to SCP’s credit rating, and the inability to guarantee rates that are lower than PG&E.
• The feasibility plan outlines steps leading up to an April to June 2027 start date, including approvals from SCP’s Board and Lake County jurisdictions, as well as filings with the CPUC, customer noticing, and outreach.

Chapter 2. Background
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA)
CCAs were created in response to California’s
2000-2001 energy crisis through Assembly Bill
117 in 2002. CCAs enable local governments to
purchase electricity generation for their residents
and businesses that is delivered to customers by
an investor-owned utility (IOU). In Northern
California, the IOU is Pacific Gas & Electric
(PG&E). The first CCA, Marin Clean Energy
(now MCE), started service in 2010. Sonoma
Clean Power (SCP) started service as the state’s
second CCA in 2014. There are now 25 CCAs in
the state serving over 14 million customers and
participation continues to grow. Figure 1 shows
the expected footprint of CCA service in
California by 2027.

Figure 1. Map of areas expected to be served by
CCAs by 2027.
47 of 79
5 v1.1
CCAs are governed by elected officials from participating jurisdictions and operate as government agencies that are not-for-profit and return all revenues to ratepayers in the form of competitive electric rates and customer education and incentives.

Figure 2. Roles of SCP and PG&E in delivering electric service to customers.

The role of CCAs, including SCP, is primarily to buy or build power generation resources on behalf of all customers, while PG&E continues to maintain and operate all of the poles, wires and substations of the grid. Figure 2 illustrates the roles of SCP and PG&E in delivering electric service to customers.

When a CCA is formed or expands, new customers must be automatically enrolled as a CCA customer unless they choose to opt-out and continue relying on PG&E to procure electricity for their home or business. If a customer opts-out after 60 days of starting service with a CCA, they must remain on PG&E service for one year before being eligible to enroll in CCA service.

SCP Cannot Promise Lower Rates
CCA customers receive a consolidated bill from PG&E including generation charges from the CCA as well as transmission and distribution charges from PG&E. The bill for CCA customers includes a charge called the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) that covers costs for energy that was procured by the IOU prior to a customer’s departure from IOU service. The PCIA changes annually depending on market conditions - if the IOU’s energy portfolio that was procured for CCA customers performs well (due to high market prices), the PCIA is lower; if the portfolio performs poorly, the PCIA is higher. This fee ensures that PG&E cannot lose any money as a result of CCA formation. To limit opt-outs, CCAs generally seek to offer rates that are competitive and lead to total bills (including the impact of PCIA) that are at or below the total bill for IOU customers – as often as possible. Figure 3 shows SCP’s history of total bill savings relative to PG&E, which shows a strong historical record of providing savings to 48 of 79
6 v1.1
customers. Importantly, SCP cannot guarantee future rate savings—and did go through a period of two years where its customers paid higher bills than opt-out customers.

Figure 3. Historical bill comparison between SCP and PG&E.

CCA customers retain eligibility for ratepayer-funded programs through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), such as income qualified assistance programs, energy efficiency rebates, and medical baseline discounts. CCA customers also gain access to incremental programs offered by the CCA which are not otherwise available from PG&E. SCP offers incremental equipment rebates, incentives for participation in its demand response program, and a variety of other programs for energy efficiency and electrification. SCP, like other CCAs, also offers a net energy metering (NEM) and solar billing plan (SBP) program that compensates solar customers.

In addition to CCAs, California law also created a program called Direct Access (DA) that allows customers to purchase electricity from a competitive third-party. DA has an annual load cap that is currently fully subscribed. The vast majority of DA customers are non-residential. There are currently around 70 meters in Lake County with service from DA, representing 7.4 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of annual load (which is less than 2% of Lake County’s total). Unlike PG&E customers, DA customers will not be automatically enrolled in CCA service. Although if SCP expands to Lake County DA customers would have the option of CCA service, this study evaluates service to only non-DA customers although inclusion of DA customers would have negligeable impact.

Lake County Interest in CCA Service
The Lake County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed Ordinance 3206 on June 23, 2015, to authorize implementation of a CCA program, with the goal of reducing energy costs for Lake County residents. Lake County explored various options to 49 of 79
7 v1.1
implement CCA service on its own at the time, but ultimately did not proceed. Lake County re-evaluated CCA service in 2019, when it requested SCP to study the feasibility of expanding service to Lake County. SCP’s study, which was released in March 2020, found that it would be unable to offer competitive service to Lake County residents at the time due to the expected cost of PG&E’s PCIA fee on Lake County relative to the PCIA fee on SCP’s existing customers.

Market and regulatory dynamics following the feasibility study in 2020 have greatly improved the economic prospects for new CCA service. As described in detail in Chapter 5, PG&E’s PCIA fee is now lower for new CCA jurisdictions relative to the PCIA for SCP’s customers. These conditions led to Sonoma Clean Power reengaging with Lake County, the City of Clearlake, and City of Lakeport in early 2025. After preliminary discussions with SCP, the city managers of City of Clearlake and City of Lakeport made a written request to the Sonoma Clean Power Board of Directors to complete a new feasibility study. Likewise, the Lake County Board of Supervisors authorized staff to submit a written request for a feasibility study after discussion during the April 15, 2025 meeting. The Sonoma Clean Power Board of Directors directed SCP staff to respond to Lake County interest by completing the requested feasibility study.

In the 2025 discussions between SCP and the Lake County jurisdictions, SCP staff captured several factors that are driving interest in CCA expansion: the opportunity to reduce energy costs for Lake County residents, increased economic development opportunities (through geothermal and other types of local project development), improved customer service, and better representation in energy-related advocacy.

Sonoma Clean Power Policy for New Customer Communities
In December 2015, the Sonoma Clean Power Board of Directors adopted Policy D.4 that guides the procedure for evaluating and facilitating expansion to new jurisdictions.

The policy includes a set of criteria that must be met to proceed with an expansion that are summarized in Table 1 below, along with SCP staff’s recommended determination and if applicable, a reference to the applicable chapter of this study.

In addition to the evaluation criteria, Policy D-4 also establishes the series of steps SCP shall follow in expanding participation to a new region. After completing a feasibility study and presenting the results to the candidate community and SCP Board of Directors, the current SCP Board members have a 60-day period to evaluate expansion and discuss the opportunity with their own city councils or Board of Supervisors. The SCP Board of Directors will then vote on whether to extend a formal offer for service.

The timing of this process, along with the required steps to formally enroll Lake County in SCP service, are further detailed in Chapter 9.
50 of 79
8 v1.1
Table 1. Policy D-4 New Community Evaluation Criteria
Criteria SCP Staff’s Recommended Determination
Community is close to SCP service
territory to make meeting attendance
and community engagement practical
(Criteria 1).

Pass – Lake County jurisdictions directly border SCP
territory. The commute to Santa Rosa is not quick but is comparable to many parts of SCP’s existing territory in Mendocino County.

Community agrees to abide by SCP
Joint Powers Agreement (JPA),
policies, and conditions of service
(Criteria 2).

TBD - This is subject to the careful review and determination by Lake County and the Cities of Clearlake and Lakeport.

Service to new region will decrease
greenhouse gas emissions and be
consistent with purpose of promoting
renewable energy, energy efficiency,
and conservation (Criteria 3a and 3c).

Pass – Expansion would provide additional room for
expansion in SCP’s renewable portfolio, improve
opportunities for local clean energy development, and enable more cost-competitive electrification. See Chapters 6 and 7.

Service to new region will not increase
cost or financial risks to existing
customers (Criteria 3b).

Pass – Expansion to Lake County would leverage
efficiencies of scale and increases flexibility in SCP’s power portfolio with the effect of generally decreasing cost and risk to existing customers. The additional load would come with additional procurement obligations and a potential increase in meeting those additional obligations. However, the overall expectation is that, on average, costs would remain or
decline due to serving Lake County. See Chapter 5 and 7.

Significant political and public
alignment between new community
and proposed participants and addition
of new community will increase voice
of SCP in relevant venues (Criteria 4
and 5).

TBD – Staff note that Lake County shares many of the same regional priorities as Sonoma and Mendocino County: wildfire mitigation, energy affordability, water scarcity, sustainability of small businesses and the agricultural industry. California’s 4th Congressional District and the 2nd State Senate District span both SCP and Lake County. Expansion would add the 4th
State Assembly District to SCP’s territory, currently
represented by Assembly Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry.

Ultimately, however, this determination must be made by the SCP Board of Directors, the County of Lake Board of
Supervisors, and the City Councils of Clearlake and
Lakeport.

Addition of the new community will not
harm SCP’s autonomy (Criteria 6).

Pass – Expansion to Lake County is expected to involve two new seats on the current eleven-seat Board of Directors (one for the County and one shared seat between the two
incorporated cities). Staff do not see how the scale of the expansion would threaten the autonomy of SCP’s power
sources and priorities. However, staff urge SCP and all of the jurisdictions in Lake County to consider the political alignment of objectives carefully.

Addition of the new community will not
harm the quality of service or give rise
to operational risks (Criteria 7).

Pass – The economic study includes budgeted costs to
expand staff and SCP’s investments to serve Lake County without impacting existing customers. See Chapter 5.
51 of 79
9 v1.1
Chapter 3. Lake County Electricity Demand
Lake County Load
In order to facilitate a feasibility study, Sonoma Clean Power obtained customer data and hourly load for all customers in Lake County from PG&E for the years 2022, 2023, and 2024. Like Sonoma Clean Power’s current load, Lake County’s load is fairly stable and most year-to-year fluctuations are driven by weather. For the purposes of this study, staff have decided to use Lake County’s 2024 load and customer composition as the basis for evaluating feasibility—even though some modest growth is expected due to electrification. Table 2 below shows a breakdown of meter count and annual load by jurisdiction and residential and non-residential meters using the 2024 data. This table excludes the DA meters discussed in Chapter 2 which would not be automatically enrolled but could opt-in to CCA service in the future.

Table 2. Lake County Load and Customer Breakdown by Jurisdiction City of Clearlake City of Lakeport Unincorporated
Lake County Total
Residential
Meters 7,216 2,418 22,361 31,995
Non-residential
Meters 610 671 3,067 4,348
Total Meters 7,826 3,089 25,428 36,343
Residential
Annual Load 61.5 GWh 18.6 GWh 174.8 GWh 254.8 GWh
Non-residential
Annual Load 23.2 GWh 17.6 GWh 95.9 GWh 136.7 GWh
Total Annual
Load 84.7 GWh 36.2 GWh 270.7 GWh 391.5 GWh
Lake County’s load has two peak seasons—with increased usage in the summer due to hot temperatures driving air conditioning demand and is similarly high in the winter due to electric heating needs. Figure 4 shows the monthly load for Lake County. Lake County does not have access to PG&E’s natural gas system and accordingly has more electric heating1. Due to more extreme summer heat, air conditioning ownership is also more prevalent in Lake County, which increases summer energy needs. 1 Data from the American Community Survey from the U.S. Census Bureau estimates 42.7% of Lake County residences use electricity as their main heating source, compared to 24.4% in Sonoma and

19.1% in Mendocino counties.
52 of 79
10 v1.1
Figure 4. Monthly load for Lake County.

The average hourly load profile for Lake County is shown in Figure 5. Hourly load is low in the middle of the day due to generation from behind-the-meter solar. Customer data suggests 15% of Lake County’s meters have Net Energy Metering (NEM) solar.

Increased load in the evening is driven by cooling and heating needs as residents return home. Figure 5 shows an average across the year, but for context Lake County’s load varied in 2024 from as low as 7 MW midday on a sunny day in May to 96 MW on a hot July evening.

Figure 5. Hourly load profile for Lake County.

Comparison to Existing Customers of Sonoma Clean Power
The addition of Lake County could increase the number of meters served by Sonoma Clean Power by 15.6% and Sonoma Clean Power’s load by 18.5%. Table 3 shows a breakdown of how Lake County’s meter count and load compares to Sonoma Clean Power. The annual electric usage per residential meter is over 56% higher in Lake -
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
GWhr
Monthly Lake County Load
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MW
Hour Ending
Average Hourly Lake County Load
Residential Non-residential
53 of 79
11 v1.1
County (8.0 MWh/year in Lake County versus 5.1 MWh in SCP)—which leads to a disproportionate increase in load compared to meter count. Lake County’s meter count and load is also more residential (less commercial) than SCP. The figures for Lake County in Table 3 include 100% of eligible customers and do not reflect the effect of customers who choose to opt-out—which are assumed to be 10% in the evaluation in Chapter 5. The conclusions of this analysis are not sensitive to the actual opt-out rate.

Table 3. Lake County Load vs. Sonoma Clean Power
Sonoma Clean
Power Lake County Total % Potential Increase
Residential
Meters 200,824 31,995 232,819 15.9%
Non-residential
Meters 31,862 4,348 36,210 13.6%
Total Meters 232,686 36,343 269,029 15.6%
Residential
Annual Load 1,022.6 GWh 254.8 GWh 1,277.5 GWh 24.9%
Non-residential
Annual Load 1,090.0 GWh 136.7 GWh 1,226.6 GWh 12.5%
Total Annual
Load 2,112.6 GWh 391.5 GWh 2,504.1 GWh 18.5%
Figure 6 shows the monthly load per meter for Lake County compared to SCP. Like Lake County, SCP has high usage in the summer and winter—although the Lake County fluctuations are amplified. Figure 7 shows an average hourly load comparison.

The hourly load shapes are also very similar given similar penetrations of NEM solar and increased energy needs in the evening. In looking at 2024 data, the hourly load for Sonoma Clean Power and Lake County together would have fluctuated between 99 MW to 567 MW. The peak load of 567 MW is 17.5% higher than Sonoma Clean Power’s standalone peak of 483 MW—and would occur at the same hour on a hot July evening.

Understanding the impact of Lake County to SCP’s load shape and peak are critical to evaluating the revenue requirement that is detailed in Chapter 5. 54 of 79
12 v1.1
Figure 6. Monthly load comparison for Sonoma Clean Power and Lake County.

Figure 7. Hourly load comparison for Sonoma Clean Power and Lake County.

Chapter 4. Sonoma Clean Power Electric Service
Products & Resource Portfolio
SCP offers customers a choice between two products: CleanStart and EverGreen.

CleanStart is SCP’s standard offering and the default product for new customers.

Power from CleanStart is sourced from renewable and carbon-free resources across 0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MWh/meter
Monthly Load per Meter
Sonoma Clean Power Lake County
0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1

1.2 1.4

1.6 1.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hourly Load per Meter (kW)
Hour Ending
Average Hourly Load per Meter
Sonoma Clean Power Lake County
55 of 79
13 v1.1
the Western Interconnection. A small portion, approximately ten to twelve percent, of CleanStart is provided by unspecified resources—which are primarily natural gas.

EverGreen is SCP’s premium product that customers can opt-in to for an additional cost of 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. This premium translates to $17 extra per month for a typical Lake County household. EverGreen is completely sourced from local renewable resources within SCP’s territory. Unlike products offered by other power providers, EverGreen is unique in that it is backed by resources that deliver clean energy for every hour—rather than relying on natural gas power to back up variable resources like solar and wind power. If Lake County were to join SCP, resources within Lake County would become eligible to provide EverGreen-eligible generation.

SCP contracts for power from long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs), short-term contracts that give SCP claim to the bundled renewable or carbon-free attribute of energy, and purchases from the spot market. Table 4 is a list of long-term PPAs expected to be in SCP’s portfolio in 2027. If Lake County were to join SCP, incremental energy needs would be first filled with new short-term contracts and spot market purchases, but long-term SCP would seek additional PPAs to optimize costs.

Importantly, the resources in Table 4 provide 1,271 GWh of renewable annual energy, which is sufficient to meet the long-term contract compliance minimum for Sonoma Clean Power after an expansion to Lake County2.

Table 4. Long-term Power Purchase Agreements
Facility Technology Capacity Annual Energy
Geysers
Sonoma County, CA Geothermal 20 MW3 175.2 GWh
Mustang
Kings County, CA Solar 70 MW 156.2 GWh
Golden Hills
Alameda County, CA Wind 46 MW 124.6 GWh
Proxima
Stanislaus County, CA Solar 70 MW 169.1 GWh
2 State law requires 65% of SCP’s renewable energy for meeting compliance requirements is sourced from long-term contracts. The renewable compliance requirement for renewable energy maxes out at 60% in 2030—which means SCP would need 39% of its total energy in long-term renewable contracts. 3 Contract includes 9 MW in 2027 that ramps-up to 20 MW in 2028-2037; table shows ramp-up values 56 of 79
14 v1.1
Facility Technology Capacity Annual Energy
Azalea
Kern County, CA Solar 60 MW 150.9 GWh
SunZia
New Mexico Wind 100 MW 328.1 GWh
Ormat Portfolio
Imperial County, CA &
Nevada
Geothermal 14 MW 122.6 GWh
Fish Lake
Nevada Geothermal 1.5 MW 13.3 GWh
Redemeyer
Mendocino County, CA Solar 4 MW 10.1 GWh
ProFIT
Sonoma & Mendocino
County, CA
Solar 6 MW
(6 projects x 1 MW) 13.8 GWh
Montgomery Creek
Shasta County, CA Small Hydro 2.6 MW 7.4 GWh
Total: 1, 271 GWh
Credit & Financial Resources
In 2021, SCP received an ‘A’ issuer credit rating from S&P Global Ratings that was reaffirmed in 2024. SCP’s investor-grade credit rating is important in negotiating favorable power contract terms and reflects the agency’s fiscal strength. SCP has no outstanding debt. In 2024, on behalf of SCP, the California Community Choice Financing Authority (CCCFA) issued $775.6 million in pre-pay bonds that provide SCP’s customers with significant reductions in energy costs. Notably, those bonds do not appear on SCP’s financial statements or impact SCP’s borrowing capacity.

SCP’s latest financial statement from February 2025 shows $373 million in total assets.

SCP is targeting an end-of-year reserves balance of about $268 million which reaches the Board of Directors’ target reserves of 365 days of annual budgeted operating expenses. SCP’s financial policy dictates a minimum reserves balance of 180 days of operating expenses. SCP has funded a rate stabilization fund with a current balance of $56 million, which makes up a portion of total reserves. The rate stabilization fund is meant to provide flexibility in setting competitive rates in future years with a high PG&E PCIA fee. Conditions warranting the use of the rate stabilization fund are expected in 2026, but not necessarily in 2027 when service to Lake County would begin, though 57 of 79
15 v1.1
forecasting the PCIA fee is difficult due to frequent regulatory changes and energy market price movement. The fee on SCP customers has varied by over $100 million in a single year, so the scale of this fee is important to consider.

Customer Programs and Customer Service
SCP offers programs and incentives to customers and the community to improve energy affordability, encourage electrification, and increase energy efficiency. These programs are incremental to programs offered by PG&E. A list of currently offered programs is included below. Note that these are subject to change at any time, including before Lake County would begin service in 2027, but are indicative of the types and scale of programs to expect.
• GridSavvy Rewards: GridSavvy is a demand response program that invites customers to sign-up to receive alerts for energy conservation or connect a smart thermostat or EV charger to be dispatched during energy-savings events in the summer. Customers receive a sign-up cash bonus and a modest payment for their performance in reducing energy during periods of grid stress. • Electric Appliance Rebates: SCP offers rebates that can be added to state and local incentives for heat pump HVAC, induction cooking, and heat pump water heaters. The rebates are higher for low-income customers - providing up to $10,000 toward equipment and installation.
• Energy Savings Box: A free energy savings box packed with easy-to-use tools to conserve energy including things like LED lightbulbs, smart plugs, and weather stripping. The box contains over $100 of useful equipment and shipped directly to customers.
• Commercial Energy Assistance Program: An internal energy expert will identify energy savings opportunities for interested businesses and conduct an onsite visit with a detailed follow-up report.
• Non-profit EV Incentives: Up to $22,500 for non-profits to assist non-profits with the purchase of an electric vehicle.
• Solar: SCP compensates customers with solar by applying credits toward a future bill or as part of an annual cash-out.

SCP staffs a customer call center and the Sonoma Clean Power Customer Center in downtown Santa Rosa to assist customers with utility bills, electrification questions, customer programs, and other needs. SCP staff can assist residential and commercial customers with selecting an optimal rate plan and have a strong track record of identifying opportunities for customer cost savings.
58 of 79
16 v1.1
SCP also supports the community through partnerships and funding. As examples, SCP currently partners with the Career Technical Education Foundation and the LIME Foundation for training and curriculum for careers in clean energy and sustainability.

SCP also offers scholarships at local colleges, sponsors many key community events, and raises donations for food banks in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties.

Chapter 5. Economic Evaluation
In assessing the viability of SCP expansion to Lake County, results must both provide Lake County a reasonable expectation of competitive electric rates and the SCP Board of Directors with confidence that the expansion is not disadvantageous to SCP’s current customers. The power market is very dynamic and conditions are certain to vary from the forecasts used as the basis for this evaluation. Accordingly, this chapter also includes several sensitivities to test the robustness of the results.

Power Costs
In assessing the cost of power for Lake County, this feasibility study assumes a 90% opt-in rate - which is slightly higher than SCP’s current opt-in rate of 87% but a reasonable expectation given the experience of recent CCA expansion elsewhere in the state4. This feasibility study also assumes a start date of April 2027, which appears optimal from a monthly review of cost and compatibility with SCP’s portfolio but may occur as late as June. Costs are forecasted through 2030, when the price forecast SCP uses begins to stabilize. The projections for 2030 are a reasonable proxy for future years. SCP’s direct costs of power for Lake County are driven by four components: the cost of wholesale power, the cost of energy attributes, grid charges from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), and the cost of resource adequacy (RA).

These are considered together with PG&E’s charges for transmission, distribution and numerous fees and surcharges, including the PCIA in evaluating total bill impacts.

The cost of wholesale power for Lake County is highly dependent on its hourly load profile. Power costs directly correlate to the availability of renewable and hydro resources. Power is often cheaper in the spring and midday and more expensive in the evening and winter months when solar, wind and battery storage are less available. To assess the cost of power for Lake County, SCP developed an hourly load profile using smart meter data from 2024 and leveraged future hourly price forecasts available through its Ascend PowerSIMM platform as of April 12, 2025. The feasibility study assumes that the early years of power for Lake County will be procured entirely from the spot market, although in practice SCP would likely seek to optimize costs through 4 Pioneer Community Energy achieved 99% opt-in rates in their 2024 expansion to Grass Valley and Nevada City. Peninsula Clean Energy achieved 89% opt-in rate in their 2022 expansion to Los Banos. 59 of 79
17 v1.1
signing additional long-term PPAs. SCP needs to procure sufficient power to cover metered sales plus losses on the distribution system, which adds an additional 6%.

Table 5 shows the unit cost, volume, and total dollars needed to provide wholesale energy to Lake County with a 90% participation rate (equal to 10% opt out). Note that the per unit results are not very sensitive to the actual participation rate.

In expanding to Lake County, SCP would need to maintain compliance with state-mandated renewable energy requirements while also seeking to maintain its Board-adopted voluntary environmental performance targets. As with wholesale power, SCP would seek to optimize the cost of its portfolio long-term through signing PPAs with resources that provide renewable or carbon-free energy. In the short-term, the volume of renewables needed for Lake County is estimated by applying the state’s compliance minimum by year against the metered load. The volume of carbon-free energy needed to meet SCP’s voluntary targets is calculated to reach a portfolio that is 93.5% renewable or carbon-free5. The required procurement of resources for Lake County is reduced by allocations SCP would expect to receive for Lake County’s portion of carbon-free power from the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and PG&E’s hydropower fleet that is included in PCIA. Table 5 shows the resulting need for renewable and carbon-free to serve Lake County, along with the expected procurement cost based on current market prices.

CAISO charges SCP grid charges in addition to wholesale power costs to cover its costs of operation. These grid charges are expected to grow proportional to load. For this evaluation, SCP is assuming grid charges add an additional $1.50 per MWh of wholesale load.

SCP is required to procure resource adequacy (RA) for its load. RA is a contract with power plants to provide standby capacity to respond to peak grid conditions and is California’s regulatory solution for ensuring system reliability. Recent revisions to RA rules require SCP to prove it has a resource fleet, battery storage, and short-term RA contracts sufficient to provide capacity across 24 hours for a peak load day each month.

This new structure is known as “slice of day” and differs from the past approach of planning for a single peak hour. The incremental RA cost for serving Lake County is related to how Lake County’s load profile interfaces with SCP’s existing resource fleet and load shape. The cost of RA included in the table below is based on an assessment of how much additional RA, either firm capacity from natural gas plants or battery storage capacity, SCP needs to maintain compliance with its RA obligation when adding Lake County’s load to its portfolio.
5 A 93.5% renewable or carbon-free annual metric is consistent with a recent staff recommendation to adopt an 85% hourly renewable or carbon-free target for 2026 and beyond 60 of 79
18 v1.1
The total power cost for Lake County is forecasted to grow from $25.6 million in the 9 months of participation and grow to $40.2 million per year in 2030, which represents around a 14% increase relative to SCP’s power cost forecast in outer years without Lake County participation. This increase is lower than the anticipated 15.4% growth in sales, which importantly indicates that Lake County participation is expected to reduce power costs borne by SCP’s current customers.

Table 5. Power Cost Forecast
2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
90% Opt-in Metered Sales MWh 255,342 351,182 351,182 351,182 Wholesale Power $/MWh 59.01 63.36 70.59 77.65
Wholesale MWh 270,663 372,253 372,253 372,253
Wholesale $ thousands 15,970 23,585 26,278 28,906
Renewable Need % 52.0% 54.7% 57.3% 60.0%
Carbon Free Allocation % 18.6% 18.3% 17.3% 13.0%
Carbon Free Need % 22.9% 20.5% 18.8% 20.5%
Renewable Need MWh 132,778 191,991 201,333 210,709
Carbon Free Need MWh 58,513 72,008 66,141 71,845
Clean Energy $ thousands 4,490 5,136 5,217 5,507
CAISO Grid Charges $ thousands 402 553 553 553
Resource Adequacy $ thousands 4,823 5,274 5,274 5,274
Total Power Cost $ thousands 25,690 34,554 37,327 40,246 Total Power Cost ¢/kWh 10.06 9.84 10.63 11.46
Administrative Costs
Adding Lake County to SCP would introduce some efficiencies of scale, but there are costs associated with data management and PG&E service fees that directly scale with meter count. SCP also anticipates growing customer service staff to maintain its high level of service, and expanding the budget for marketing, communications, and programs incentives for Lake County. Program participation for Lake County is forecasted to grow to the level of adoption SCP currently sees in Mendocino County.

Overall, expansion to Lake County is expected to increase SCP’s administrative costs by around 4%--which is lower than the anticipated 15.4% growth in sales. A breakdown of the administrative cost forecast is included in Table 6. 61 of 79
19 v1.1
Table 6. Administrative Cost Forecast, $ Thousands
Category 2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
Data Management 337.5 450.0 450.0 450.0
PG&E Service Fees 11.3 15.0 15.0 15.0
Personnel 250.0 270.0 280.0 290.0
Marketing & Communications 570.0 400.0 410.0 420.0
Customer Service 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
Programs Incentives 120.0 240.0 330.0 350.0
Total Administrative Cost 1,338.8 1,425.0 1,535.0 1,575.0 Total Administrative Cost ¢/kWh 0.52 0.41 0.44 0.45
Uncollectible Revenue
A consideration in determining the revenue requirement for a utility is the amount of revenue that is uncollectible. SCP’s collectible rate on its current customers is 98.6%, which means rates need to be set to recover 101.4% of projected costs. Lake County is expected to have a lower collectible rate due to lower average household incomes than SCP territory. Whereas 16.5% of SCP meters are enrolled in the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) income-assistance program, 43.1% of Lake County meters are enrolled. This feasibility study applies SCP’s observed CARE-specific collection rate of 96.6% and non-CARE collection rate of 98.7% using the 43.1% weighting of CARE meters in Lake County to estimate an overall 97.8% collection rate. In evaluating the revenue requirement for Lake County, rates are therefore set at 102.2% of projected costs.

Revenue Requirement
Table 7 below incorporates the incremental load, power costs, administrative costs, and uncollectible rates associated with an expansion to Lake County alongside the SCP financials for the status quo to evaluate the impact of expansion to SCP’s revenue requirement. Importantly, the results show that due to efficiencies of scale and compatibility with SCP’s portfolio, an expansion is expected to provide a reduction in the per-kilowatt-hour revenue requirement for SCP. These results suggest that an expansion to Lake County would not create an additional financial burden on existing SCP ratepayers and are an indication of the generation rates SCP could offer given the assumed market conditions. The revenue requirement does not include any contributions to reserves, which is discussed in a later section. 62 of 79
20 v1.1
Table 7. Revenue Requirement Comparison, ¢/kWh
Scope 2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
SCP (Status Quo) 11.79 12.55 13.12 13.62
SCP + Lake County Expansion 11.66 12.27 12.88 13.43
Change -0.13 -0.28 -0.24 -0.19
Startup Costs
The power and administrative costs above reflect ongoing expenses pertinent to evaluating the long-term viability of a Lake County expansion. There are also one-time costs that SCP would incur in expanding to Lake County. These costs cover enrollment notices, staff outreach, travel expenses, preparation of this feasibility report, and marketing. The SCP Board will want to take these costs into consideration while establishing its offer for service to Lake County. For context, the revenue requirement reduction detailed in Table 7 generates $238,000 of reduced costs for SCP ratepayers per month in 2027, implying that the payout for SCP’s investments in startup costs will likely occur within three months.

Table 8. Startup Costs
Category Startup Cost, $ Thousands
Feasibility Report Staff Time 15
Implementation Plan Update 10
Outreach Staff Time 236
Enrollment Notices 150
Travel Expenses 24
Marketing & Communication 143
Total Startup Costs 578
Customer Type and Usage Pattern Impacts to Unit Revenue SCP currently sets rates by making adjustments to PG&E’s rate schedule, all of which fluctuate with season and customer type and many that also vary based on time of day.

Because Lake County’s load profile and customer mix is different than SCP’s existing customers, a potentially important consideration is whether the different customer mix will impact revenue. To approximate the impact of these dynamics, the average rate for a given month, hour, and residential or non-residential customer was determined from SCP’s current rates. These implied rates were then applied to the hourly residential and non-residential load profiles for Lake County. The results imply Lake County would 63 of 79
21 v1.1
provide 0.6% more revenue per kilowatt-hour. The results of this analysis were close enough to treat the revenue contribution of Lake County and SCP the same when assessing the revenue contribution of an overall generation rate.

PG&E Generation Rates, PCIA, and Rate Competitiveness
A key priority for Lake County in exploring SCP service is the potential for delivering lower cost electricity to its residents. To evaluate the potential for rate savings compared to PG&E service, the revenue requirement estimated for the expansion in Table 7 should compare favorably to generation rates expected to be offered by PG&E, net of the effects of PG&E’s PCIA fee. Both PG&E’s competing generation rate and PCIA depend on market conditions. If market prices of energy are lower, PG&E is able to reduce its generation rates and yet the PCIA paid by CCA customers increases due to poorer market performance of the portfolio PG&E procured for departing customers.

Although a CCA’s revenue requirement also decreases in a low-price market, the lower PG&E generation rate and higher PCIA make it difficult to maintain cost competitiveness. Conversely, in a high-price market scenario PG&E’s generation rates increase to cover costs and the PCIA is reduced, making CCA competitiveness generally easier.

PCIA rates vary by the date customers depart PG&E service (called “vintage” by PG&E). Most SCP customers are on the 2014 vintage with a PCIA based on the portfolio of resources PG&E procured before 2014. If Lake County were to join SCP service in April through June 2027, they would be assigned vintage year 20266. Their 2026 vintage portfolio would include the resources in SCP’s PCIA portfolio but also resources procured between 2014 and 2026. The resources PG&E has procured in that timeframe have by and large been more cost-competitive than their older vintage portfolio, which has had the impact of significantly reducing PG&E’s PCIA fee for newer vintages of CCA customers. To offer savings, SCP must offer rates that are at or below the PG&E generation rate minus the PCIA - a term referred to as “competitive differential”. Table 9 shows the 2025 generation rate paid by PG&E customers, PCIA credit, and resulting competitive differential for three different vintages to illustrate how PCIA has reduced over time. The table shows that 2025 vintage customers pay 3.25 cents less per kWh for PCIA than SCP’s 2014 vintage customers. At SCP’s current generation rate of 11.5 cents per kWh, SCP’s current customers enjoy a discount of 2.4 cents per kWh versus service with PG&E. At that same rate, as an example, a 2025 vintage customer would enjoy a discount of 5.7 cents per kWh. A 2.4 cent per kWh discount is a 16% decrease from PG&E for generation and reduces total bills (which 6 PG&E assigns vintage based on a fiscal year that runs from July 1st through June 30th. April 2027 through June 2027 is thus in the 2026 vintage year.
64 of 79
22 v1.1
include 20 cents per kWh of additional costs paid to PG&E for transmission and distribution) around 7%.

Table 9. PG&E Gen Rate, PCIA, and Competitive Differential by Vintage, ¢/kWh 2014 Vintage 2020 Vintage 2025 Vintage
2025 PG&E Generation Rate 14.99
2025 PCIA 1.06 0.31 -2.19
2025 Competitive Differential 13.93 14.68 17.17
PG&E’s generation rate, PCIA, and resulting headroom are expected to change before 2027. The PCIA is currently lower due to high-price market conditions in 2024 that were used as the basis for setting 2025 rates. Market prices have since fallen and the forecast model SCP used to estimate the power costs for this feasibility study provide conditions in 2027 for a lower PG&E generation rate and higher PCIA. SCP has access to a model that can provide an estimate for future generation rates and PCIA by vintage using market assumptions and has leveraged that model to predict competitive differential for the same market conditions underpinning the power cost estimates.

However, it is important to note that actual PG&E rates and fees have historically varied significantly from estimates – both estimates made by SCP and estimates made by PG&E. Table 10 shows the anticipated PG&E competitive differential for a 2026 vintage (Lake County) and 2014 vintage (SCP) compared to the revenue requirement estimate for an expansion from Table 7.

Table 10. Competitive Differential Forecast vs. Revenue Requirement, ¢/kWh 2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
SCP Expansion Revenue Requirement 11.66 12.27 12.88 13.43 PG&E 2026 Vintage Competitive
Differential (Lake County) 16.35 15.55 15.22 14.89
PG&E 2014 Vintage Competitive
Differential (SCP) 12.95 12.69 12.74 12.78
SCP currently sets the same generation rates for its customers, regardless of PCIA vintage. If SCP continues that practice in expanding to Lake County and sets rates at its revenue requirement, Table 10 indicates Lake County with its 2026 vintage PCIA would enjoy higher savings than SCP customers in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties (1.46 cents per kWh to 4.69 cents per kWh of savings relative to PG&E service, which 65 of 79
23 v1.1
represents 9.8% to 28.7% savings on generation or 4.2% to 12.9% savings on a total bill basis). In this same scenario, current SCP customers would be seeing comparatively smaller discounts (or a slight premium) due to their 2014 vintage, but with increased savings relative to the status quo without expansion. In 2027, SCP would need to add some costs to its revenue requirement to build reserves up to the new higher target balance beyond the amounts reflected in Table 10.

Sensitivity Analysis
Changes in regulations are a key uncertainty in predicting the future but are difficult to model and forecast. As a result, staff have completed this analysis assuming the existing regulatory conditions. In contrast, power market conditions are the other key uncertainty in determining the economic feasibility of expanding SCP service to Lake County and are possible to model. Power prices not only drive the costs for serving Lake County’s load, but also directly influence PG&E’s generation rate, PCIA, and competitive differential that determines whether SCP service offers cost savings. In order to understand the robustness of the feasibility study’s findings, scenarios have been evaluated for both a high and low market price scenario. Figure 8 shows the power price assumptions used in the low and high price scenarios compared to the base case described above.

Figure 8. Power price assumptions for low and high price sensitivities vs. base case.

Table 11 shows the expected total power costs in the low price and high price scenarios compared to the base case. Whereas the base case represents a scenario with an average power cost of 10.5 cents per kWh, the low case averages 8.45 cents per kWh and the high scenario averages 14.23 cents per kWh. Because this feasibility study assumes power for the expansion to Lake County will be first procured on the spot market, the overall power costs are very sensitive to market price assumptions. 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
2027 2028 2029 2030
North Path 15 Hub Price
($/MWh)
Annual Hub Price vs. Sensitivity Scenario
Base Case Low Price Market High Price Market
66 of 79
24 v1.1
Table 11. Power Costs for Lake County by Sensitivity Scenario, ¢/kWh Scenario 2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
Base Case 10.06 9.84 10.63 11.46
Low Price Market 9.01 8.17 8.49 8.11
High Price Market 13.36 12.89 15.28 15.39
In order to understand whether the changes in power costs impact the determination that a Lake County expansion lowers the revenue requirement to existing SCP ratepayers, SCP’s existing load profile and power portfolio were tested using the same scenarios with and without a Lake County expansion. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Revenue Requirement Comparison by Sensitivity Scenario, ¢/kWh Scenario Scope 2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
Low Price Market
SCP (Status Quo) 11.29 11.61 11.89 11.77
SCP + Lake County
Expansion 11.08 11.23 11.53 11.37
Change -0.21 -0.38 -0.37 -0.40
High Price Market
SCP (Status Quo) 13.65 14.69 16.26 16.27
SCP + Lake County
Expansion 13.72 14.54 16.24 16.26
Change +0.07 -0.15 -0.02 -0.01
Unlike Lake County’s power costs, a large portion of SCP’s power is contracted through long-term power purchase agreements at fixed prices. These contracts reduce the sensitivity of SCP’s revenue requirement to variations in market price. Accordingly, the revenue requirement benefits for an expansion to Lake County are amplified in the low market scenario compared to base case results in Table 7 because an expanded portfolio can realize more benefits from reduced power costs. Conversely, the revenue requirement benefits in a high price scenario are muted because SCP’s portfolio becomes more exposed to high market prices with an expansion. However, even in the high price scenario, the revenue requirement with an expansion is either similar or lower than the status quo—indicating that expansion is likely advantageous to SCP across a range of market conditions.
67 of 79
25 v1.1
The low price and high price market scenarios were also tested in the PCIA and competitive differential model—as different market conditions will impact the competitiveness of the rates SCP is able to offer. Table 13 shows the revenue requirement results from Table 12 alongside the PG&E competitive differential model outputs for the low and high price scenarios. In the low-price scenario, the competitive differential is reduced due to higher PCIA and reduced PG&E generation rates. The results show that the revenue requirement reductions, however, are likely sufficient to continue providing discounts to the 2026 vintage for Lake County. The low scenario for 2014 vintage customers shows reduced discounts in 2027 and 2028 and increased premiums in 2029 and 2030—but the amplified revenue requirements benefits in the low scenario improve their outcome relative to service without Lake County. In the high market scenario, the differential increases disproportionately to the revenue, allowing greater potential for savings for the 2026 vintage. These results demonstrate that the feasibility study’s finding that SCP could likely deliver competitive rates for Lake County is applicable across a range of market conditions.

Table 13. Competitive Differential Forecast by Scenario, ¢/kWh Scenario Scope 2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
Low Price
Market
SCP Expansion Revenue
Requirement 11.08 11.23 11.53 11.37
2026 Vintage Competitive
Differential (Lake County) 15.31 14.16 13.39 12.04
2014 Vintage Competitive
Differential (SCP) 11.92 11.31 10.92 9.95
High Price
Market
SCP Expansion Revenue
Requirement 13.72 14.54 16.24 16.26
2026 Vintage Competitive
Differential (Lake County) 19.25 18.21 19.35 18.18
2014 Vintage Competitive
Differential (SCP) 15.84 15.33 16.85 16.05
Reserves and Rate Stabilization Fund Considerations
The results above assume the rates are set at SCP’s revenue requirement and no contribution is made to reserves or a rate stabilization fund7. In practice, SCP will need to budget for contributions to reserves and the rate stabilization fund in years with sufficient competitive differential. Conversely, in years where the revenue requirement is above the competitive differential, SCP would likely draw from its stabilization fund or reserves to provide competitive electric bills to customers. 7 SCP’s rate stabilization fund is a subset of SCP’s reserves entirely made up of deferred revenue. In contrast, the rest of SCP’s reserves are comprised of revenue that was recognized. 68 of 79
26 v1.1
Expanding to Lake County equates to a $21.1 million increase in SCP’s minimum reserves requirement using 2030 costs (the reserves minimum is 180 days of operating costs). Given its current assets and budget for the next year, SCP expects to have a sufficient reserves balance to accommodate the increased requirement without supplemental revenue requirements before or after the start of service.

SCP’s current financial policy sets a target reserves balance of 365 days and stipulates that during periods when SCP is below its target, rates should be set to meet it within 5 years while still protecting customers from unreasonable rates. Adding Lake County increases SCP’s target reserves balance by $42.7 million using 2030 costs. In order to build $42.7 million in additional reserves by the end of 2032, rates would need to be set at 0.28 cents per kWh above the revenue requirement (on average). Depending on the market scenario, this would likely offset the cost reductions for expanding service projected for existing SCP ratepayers in the short term but still allow for discounts to Lake County customers.

An important consideration in expanding to Lake County is that the reserves and rate stabilization fund built-up from SCP’s existing participants will be spread out over 15.4% more load.

Chapter 6. Local Resource Development Opportunities
Since inception, a core value of SCP has been supporting the construction of local energy resources that provide economic development opportunities to the communities it serves. SCP has contracted with the Geysers, built six 1 MW local solar projects, and is currently building a 4 MW solar with storage project in Mendocino County. SCP has created the Geothermal Opportunity Zone (GeoZone) in partnership with Sonoma and Mendocino counties with the aim of building 600 MW of new geothermal capacity. SCP has also recently created a capital projects department specifically focused on building local energy resources. In expanding to Lake County, SCP may find new opportunities for partnership in resource development and use its leverage as a large power customer and regulatory advocate to steer development towards positive outcomes for the region.

Geothermal Opportunity Zone (GeoZone)
SCP’s GeoZone is structured as a public-private partnership to promote local geothermal development. SCP sees clean firm resources such as geothermal as key components of the future grid. The motivation of GeoZone is to leverage SCP’s community relationships, power offtake, and political and regulatory advocacy to build geothermal capacity that is cost-competitive at scale-up and that generates significant local economic benefits. GeoZone partners commit to offering SCP a first right-of-refusal on all future capacity—locking-in long-term ratepayer benefits if a scale-up is 69 of 79
27 v1.1
successful.

The Clear Lake Volcanic Field that underlies the Geysers creates a regional temperature anomaly that provides favorable conditions for both conventional geothermal development—such as the existing operation at the Geysers—as well as deployment of next-generation geothermal technologies. Although next-generation technologies such as Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) and advanced closed loop (ACL) are technically viable far beyond
the reaches of existing geothermal
fields, the elevated temperatures in that
area allow for them to be tested at
shallower depths and lower cost. SCP
has identified an “Early Interest Area” in
the GeoZone where elevated
temperatures and transmission
availability are likely to attract near-term
development interest. Figure 9 shows
how SCP expects the “Early Interest
Area” could expand should Lake
County join the GeoZone. Figure 9
also shows the Geothermal Setback
Area where Lake County has passed a
moratorium on geothermal
development that would be left
unchanged.

Adding Lake County to the GeoZone
would be mutually beneficial. By
expanding the total land area of
opportunities, SCP and GeoZone
partners are more likely to identify viable projects. Lake County offers high rock temperatures, lower land costs, and significant transmission infrastructure that are likely to attract development interest. Through participation in the GeoZone, Lake County would have an increased influence on guiding project development and selecting project partners and importantly would retain its existing jurisdiction over projects proposed within its borders. It would also benefit from SCP’s investment in community engagement and through long-term cost savings from commercial commitments in the GeoZone cooperation agreements. Although Lake County is likely to see geothermal development regardless of participation in the GeoZone, participation in the GeoZone will attract additional interest from industry—accelerating and increasing the scale of investment.

Figure 9. Early interest area for an expanded GeoZone
with Lake County.
70 of 79
28 v1.1
Given the strategic nature of the GeoZone and potential long-term ratepayer benefits, it is strongly recommended that Lake County join the GeoZone concurrently with SCP’s electric service. The SCP Board may want to establish expectations or a requirement on Lake County’s participation in the GeoZone in its offer for service.

Other Clean Energy Opportunities
Lake County has excellent conditions for clean
energy development beyond geothermal power
as well. In 2024, Calpine installed two utility-scale
battery storage systems totaling 38 MW at the
Geysers. AES is in the early stages of developing
a 70 MW wind project in Morgan Valley (see
Figure 10). Lake County and the Hidden Valley
Lake Community Services District have been
exploring the development of closed-loop pumped
hydropower systems. Lake County has high solar
irradiance, high wind power density, relatively
affordable land, and access to transmission.

Lake County’s participation in SCP would support
clean energy development that maximizes local
benefits. As a potential buyer of local projects,
SCP can increase the importance of local
considerations in siting and constructing projects.

SCP offtake of local projects also allows Lake County residents to directly benefit from electricity generation. SCP is also very active in advocacy at the CPUC, California Energy Commission (CEC), and CAISO and can advocate for infrastructure and grants to support local project development for Lake County. Importantly, SCP’s new capital projects team provides an avenue for SCP to directly invest and build resources in Lake County.

Chapter 7. Additional Benefits
SCP expansion to Lake County offers potential benefits beyond ratepayer savings and increased opportunities for partnership in local resource development. These additional benefits include:
• Cost-effective building electrification: SCP has invested heavily in building programs, incentives, and expertise to promote building electrification. However, electrification in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties is challenging because it is not clearly cost-effective due to the relatively low cost of natural gas compared to Figure 10. Wind power density map for Lake
County with location of Morgan Valley project.
71 of 79
29 v1.1
electricity. Lake County does not have access to natural gas and instead relies on higher-cost propane for heating. SCP thus expects the cost-effectiveness of electrification to be significantly better in Lake County which will result in higher adoption rates and allow faster and larger impact.
• Increased portfolio flexibility: As shown in Table 4, over half of SCP’s existing load is served by long-term contracts, which limit SCP’s flexibility to optimize its portfolio if costs decline or new resources or technologies become available.

Adding additional load increases opportunities for SCP to optimize its portfolio.

Adding load also increases utilization of SCP’s existing resources, including its large battery storage fleet. Although the revenue requirement estimates in Chapter 5 assume spot market purchases for incremental load, SCP will look for new long-term contract opportunities that provide supplemental savings. • Improved advocacy: Adding Lake County would expand SCP’s voice to be representative of energy-related issues across a broader region and a more diverse set of experiences. Partnering with Lake County would give SCP more direct experience in understanding the concerns of tribes, low-income communities, and regions that are net exporters of electricity. Lake County would gain access to SCP’s expertise in engaging in energy-related issues with the CPUC, CEC, CAISO, and PG&E to address local priorities. • Improved customer service: SCP staffs a call center and a Customer Center in Santa Rosa that provides very responsive customer service. SCP is able to answer questions on both its own charges and PG&E bill overall. SCP staff also has a long-track record of delivering savings to customers by identifying optimal rate plans, low cost or no cost tips for energy savings, and information on energy efficient appliances.
• Customer choice: An intrinsic benefit of a jurisdiction participating in CCA service is that it provides customers with a choice for two options for their electric provider, where before they had only PG&E. Providing choice to Lake County gives customers greater control over their electricity sources and costs, and creates competition that encourages better service and lower costs.

Chapter 8. Risks
The economic evaluation and benefits listed in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 provide support for moving forward with expansion of SCP service to Lake County. However, in evaluating whether to proceed it is important to understand the following risks:
• Financial risk to Lake County jurisdictions: Section 3.3 of the JPA governing SCP stipulates that the debts, liabilities, and obligations of SCP shall not be the 72 of 79
30 v1.1
debts, liabilities, or obligations, of participating jurisdictions. Accordingly, participation in SCP should not have any impact on the credit rating or books of Lake County jurisdictions. This also means that member cities and counties of SCP have absolutely no access to the funds or other assets of SCP. In addition, if a jurisdiction decides to completely withdraw from SCP service, Section 7.3 of the JPA give that jurisdiction a choice: (A) they may withdraw on a date of SCP’s choosing without cost obligation, noting that date may be as far in the future as the length of SCP’s longest energy contract (typically 20 or 25 years); or (B) the withdrawing jurisdiction must pay SCP for the financial liability for costs related to the jurisdiction’s participation in SCP service—including losses from the resale of power contracts entered to serve load (an amount that will generally exceed $40 million for a region the size of Lake County). Given the practical difficulty of withdrawal, Lake County jurisdictions should only consider SCP participation if they intend on making a very long-term commitment that will weather different rate and political environments.
• Customer opt-outs: This study assumes a 90% participation rate. However, given the flexibility allowed to individual customers in switching power providers, the participation rate could be higher or lower. High opt-outs could lead to a situation where SCP has excess energy procured in long-term contracts that is not offset by customer revenues. SCP seeks to mitigate customer opt-out risk by investing heavily in marketing and community engagement leading up to start of service and make procurement decisions for the expansion with the flexibility to adapt to lower or higher opt-out rates.
• SCP credit rating: SCP’s current investor-grade credit rating is based on its financial assets, portfolio position, industry conditions, and the demographics of its customers among other conditions. Although this study demonstrates that expansion is financially prudent, credit rating agencies may see it as adding risk—particularly given the impact to the reserves target and the lower average household income observed in Lake County. SCP will seek to mitigate this issue by socializing the financial merits of the expansion with rating agencies and building up reserves to the new higher target balance.
• PG&E Generation Rates & PCIA: As demonstrated in Chapter 5, the ability of SCP to offer competitive rates is very sensitive to the generation rate and PCIA PG&E charges. SCP’s estimates of PG&E’s rates and fees are based on a model calibrated to long sets of historical data, but regulatory changes or changes in PG&E’s procurement practices could cause future generation rates and PCIA to diverge from SCP’s forecasts in Chapter 5. Although this analysis provides strong evidence that SCP will be able to offer competitive rates to Lake County, discounts cannot be guaranteed.
73 of 79
31 v1.1
• Legislative and regulatory risk: SCP is subject to many different compliance requirements, which can be changed through new legislation or rulemaking.

Compliance requirements can challenge the ability of SCP to compete or can devalue its existing resources. SCP seeks to mitigate this risk by investing heavily in its own legislative and regulatory capacity and working through its trade association CalCCA.

Chapter 9. Implementation
Enrollment Process
The steps for Lake County joining SCP service are established in SCP’s Policy D-4, CPUC Resolution 4907, and guided by best practices by other CCA expansions. The steps in Table 14 below include the activities SCP anticipates in working towards a start of service date between April and June 2027 (exact date to be determined following CPUC approval of an updated Implementation Plan).

Table 14. Enrollment Activities and Expected Timing
Expected Timing Activity
June 2025 Socialize Feasibility Study: Feasibility Study presented to SCP Board and Lake County jurisdictions. Starts 60-day clock for SCP jurisdictions to review.

July 2025 Tribal Engagement: SCP, with support from Lake County, begins engaging Lake County tribes to build awareness of CCA service and address concerns.

August to
September 2025
(depending on
meeting schedule)
SCP Board Invitation: SCP Board of Directors votes on whether to extend a formal offer of service
Lake County Ordinance Approval: Lake County jurisdictions approve resolution requesting SCP membership and ordinance authorizing CCA service through SCP. Note: this requires two consecutive meetings.

October 2025 SCP Resolution: SCP Board of Directors adopts resolution authorizing participation of Lake County jurisdictions.

Drafting: SCP staff write an updated Implementation Plan and circulate to the SCP Community Advisory Committee for review.

November 2025 Implementation Plan: SCP Board certifies the updated Implementation Plan and SCP staff submits updated Implementation Plan to CPUC with Lake County expansion
February 2026 Implementation Plan Certified: CPUC must certify it has received the Implementation Plan within 90 days of filing.
74 of 79
32 v1.1
Expected Timing Activity
April 2026 RA: SCP submits its load forecast for 2027 RA requirements including Lake County.

Sep 2026 Customer Outreach: SCP hires necessary staff and begins community outreach in Lake County in earnest including participation in community events, advertising/marketing, and dedicated townhall meetings.

July 2026 Procurement: SCP is assigned RA obligation for Lake County and begins supplemental procuring resources to serve load in earnest.

February 2027 First Notice: SCP will mail notices to all prospective customers describing terms of service and customer’s opt-out opportunity before service.

March 2027 Second Notice: SCP will mail second notice to all prospective customers describing terms of service and customer’s opt-out opportunity before service.

Between April and
June 2027 (TBD)
Start of Service: PG&E will transfer eligible accounts to SCP service based on billing period.

Governance
SCP is governed by a Board of Directors composed of elected members from participating jurisdictions. The early Board included one appointee from Sonoma County and one from each of the participating municipalities in Sonoma County. When SCP expanded to Mendocino County in 2017, one seat was assigned to Mendocino County and one seat was shared by the three participating cities: Fort Bragg, Point Arena, and Willits. The SCP Board currently has eleven total board members.

Decisions of the Board of Directors are generally made by a majority of directors present at the meeting, but a director can request approval of any matter also require the majority of voting shares. Voting shares are allocated between participants proportional to annual load.

It is the staff’s recommendation that the Board consider following the approach used in expanding to Mendocino County. Adding one seat from Lake County’s Board of Supervisors and a shared seat between the City of Clearlake and City of Lakeport would expand the SCP Board of Directors to thirteen seats. The three Lake County jurisdictions are expected to represent 13.5% of SCP’s load after expansion. Two seats on a 13-member board closely approximates their load share (15.4% vs. 13.5%), which will still be used as the basis for allocating voting shares. 75 of 79
Adopted: December 3, 2015
Administrative and General Policy D.4
New Customer Communities
Whereas, the Sonoma Clean Power Authority’s (SCPA) purposes include:
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions related to the use of power in Sonoma County and neighboring regions;
• Providing electric power and other forms of energy to customers at a competitive cost;
• Carrying out programs to reduce energy consumption;
• Stimulating and sustaining the local economy by developing local jobs in renewable energy; and
• Promoting long-term electric rate stability and energy security and reliability for residents through local control of electric generation resources; and
Whereas, creating opportunities for new communities to benefit from community choice aggregation programs may allow SCPA to further progress towards these purposes; and
Whereas, SCPA’s default CleanStart service reduces greenhouse gas emissions when compared to the incumbent utility’s default service; and

Whereas, the addition of new communities to SCPA’s service territory will accelerate progress toward SCPA’s and the State of California’s goals on renewable energy and greenhouse gas reductions;
Therefore, in light of these considerations, it is SCPA’s policy to consider providing electric service in new communities to further SCPA’s goals, consistent with the criteria set forth below.

Applications to serve new communities will be considered if all of the following criteria are met:

1. The community is relatively close to existing SCPA service territory, so that regular meeting attendance and community engagement is practical.

6. The addition of the new community will not harm SCPA’s autonomy over its portfolio of power sources, customer programs, and its ability to serve local, community interests.

An applicant community that initially appears to meet the above criteria may be referred by the SCPA Board of Directors to SCPA staff for a more detailed analysis of the applicability of above criteria, and any other relevant issues, following the New Customer Community Application Procedure set forth below.
77 of 79
Adopted: December 3, 2015
Sonoma Clean Power
New Customer Community Application Procedure
Step 1 Governing body of applicant community submits letter to SCP requesting consideration for service.

Step 2 Staff evaluates timing of request to determine if internal resources are available to consider request, and to ensure no impact to core agency functions.

Step 3 Staff submits request to SCPA Board of Directors along with staff’s initial opinion, and the Board determines whether a full analysis is warranted. If so, staff sends a letter of
acknowledgement to the applicant region.

Step 4 Staff executes contract with governing body of new community to fund costs of membership analysis and other SCPA costs relating to adding community (e.g., cost of updating
Implementation Plan). These costs would be deducted from program funding that normally would flow to the new territory until startup costs are reimbursed to SCPA’s operating fund. Staff undertakes and completes a full analysis.

Step 5 Results of membership analysis presented to governing body of new community and to SCPA Board of Directors. SCPA Board determines whether providing service to new community is consistent with Policy D-4, whether new community will be offered representation on the Board, and what other conditions will apply to new service.

Step 6 A 60-day period will be provided for SCPA Board members to request a presentation by SCPA staff before their city or town councils or county board of supervisors, and to allow adequate time for city/town and county staff to evaluate the proposed extension of service.

Step 7 SCPA Board of Directors votes on whether to extend a formal offer for service.

Step 8 Governing body of new community approves resolution requesting membership and ordinance authorizing community choice aggregation service through SCPA, and takes any other actions required by the SCPA Board of Directors as a condition of service.

Step 9 SCPA Board of Directors adopts resolution authorizing membership of the additional community, and staff submits updated Implementation Plan to CPUC.
78 of 79
Adopted: December 3, 2015
Step 10 SCPA Staff develops service plan and schedule, begins buying additional energy, and starts community outreach.
79 of 79

Sonoma Clean Power Board of DirectorsJune 5, 2025

Sonoma Clean Power Board of Directors
June 5, 2025