Agenda packet — Sonoma Clean Power Board of Directors, March 5, 2026

Agenda Page 1 of 2
AGENDA

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2026, 9:00 A.M.
___________________________________________________________ EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953.8, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MARCH 5, 2026, MEETING AT ANY OF THE LOCATIONS SHOWN BELOW.

SONOMA CLEAN POWER BUSINESS OFFICE
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 54953.8. 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 68
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 February 5, 2026, Draft Board of Directors Meeting Minutes (Staff Recommendation: Approve)

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

3. Receive update on PG&E’s Base Service Charge - Formerly Known as the “Graduated Income Fixed Charge” (Staff Recommendation: Receive and File)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR CALENDAR

4. Receive Internal Operations Report and Provide Direction as Appropriate (Staff Recommendation: Receive and File)

5. Approve the Proposed Budget Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 (Staff Recommendation: Approve)

6. Receive Legislative and Regulatory Updates, Approve Legislative Positions on AB 1761 (Rogers) PCIA Transparency, SB 1138 (Padilla) Resource Adequacy Transactability and Other Bills as Appropriate (Staff Recommendation: Approve)

7. Approve the Proposed Guidelines for New Public-Private Partnerships for the Geothermal Opportunity Zone (Staff Recommendation: Approve)

8. 2026 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Alternatives Discussion (Staff Recommendation: Receive and File)

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. 4
pg. 9
pg. 21
pg. 25
pg. 29
pg. 35
pg. 41
pg. 49
2 of 68

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 68

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2026
9:00 A.M.
___________________________________________________________

CALL TO ORDER
(9:01 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:00:08)
Chair Barnacle called the meeting to order.

Board Members present: Chair Barnacle, Vice Chair Elward, Directors Laskey, Lemus, Stapp, Carter, Farrar-Rivas, Potter, Haschak, Hopkins.

Director Albin-Smith joined remotely under AB2449.

Staff present: Geof Syphers, Chief Executive Officer; Michael Koszalka, Chief Operating Officer; Garth Salisbury, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; Kimberly Beltran, Technical Programs Manager; Neal Reardon, Director of Regulatory Affairs; Miles Horton, Legislative Policy & Community Engagement Manager; and Karen Flores, Clerk of the Board.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSENT CALENDAR
(9:04 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:02:44)

1. Approve January 8, 2026, Draft Board of Directors Meeting Minutes

2. Receive Monthly Financial Report

3. Ratify Generation Rates Effective February 1, 2026, Consistent with Prior Board Direction
Motion to approve January 8, 2026, Board of Directors Consent Calendar by Director Farrar-Rivas
Second: Potter
Motion passed by roll call vote
4 of 68
AYES: Laskey, Lemus, Albin-Smith, Barnacle, Elward, Stapp, Carter, Farrar-Rivas, Potter, Haschak Director Hopkins abstained from the vote on Item 1 but voted Yes on Items 2 and 3

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR CALENDAR

4. Receive Internal Operations Report and Provide Direction as Appropriate (9:05 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:04:22)
Geof Syphers, Chief Executive Officer, provided updates on what’s to come in future meetings including the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), budget adjustments and a draft budget for the next fiscal year.

Michael Koszalka, Chief Operating Officer, introduced Kimberly Beltran, Technical Programs Manager, who presented on the results of SCP’s 2025 event season for GridSavvy Rewards.

Public Comment: None

5. Receive Legislative and Regulatory Updates, Approve Legislative Positions, and Provide Direction as Appropriate
(9:23 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:22:12)
Neal Reardon, Director of Regulatory Affairs, provided some background on the proposed procurement order from the California Public Utilities Commission. The discussion focused on how state procurement mandates interact with Sonoma Clean Power’s long-term resource planning.

Miles Horton, Legislative Policy & Community Engagement Manager, provided updates on the three bills that SCP is sponsoring in 2026:

1. Another attempt to exempt geothermal exploration wells meeting a high standard of environmental and labor protections from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

2. Securing approximately $50 million from the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to support geothermal exploration wells in high potential areas like Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, with the goal of improving geological data, reducing development risk, and catalyzing 5 of 68
next-generation geothermal projects similar to the federal Utah FORGE initiative.

3. Legislation to modernize California’s transmission planning process to create a more flexible and cost-effective system that accelerates renewable energy interconnection, drawing on research sponsored by Sonoma Clean Power and Peninsula Clean Energy through Princeton University’s ZERO Lab.

Public Comment: None

6. Appoint Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2026 and Potentially Calendar Year 2027
(9:51 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:50:00)
The Board chose to vote on Chair and Vice Chair appointments for 2026 and 2027 and nominated Director Barnacle as Chair of the Board for 2026 and Director Elward as Vice Chair for 2026. Director Elward was nominated as Chair of the Board for 2027 and Director Lemus as Vice Chair for 2027.

Public Comment: None
Motion to reappoint Director Barnacle as Chair and Director Elward as Vice Chair for 2026, and appoint Director Elward as Chair and Director Lemus as Vice Chair for 2027 by Director Hopkins
Second: Albin-Smith
Motion passed by roll call vote
AYES: Laskey, Lemus, Albin-Smith, Barnacle, Elward, Stapp, Carter, Farrar-Rivas, Potter, Haschak, Hopkins

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS
(9:58 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 00:57:30)
Director Stapp thanked the SCP employees who showed up for the Transit Equity Day in Santa Rosa. Director Lemus shared that she will be presenting at the Los Cien event on February 13th and Cotati Chamber will also be hosting their annual awards dinner on February 13th. Director Farrar-Rivas shared about the city of Sonoma’s goal setting meeting where climate adaptation and mitigation continue 6 of 68
to be on their list of top five priorities. Director Haschak shared that the Mendocino Council of Governments started participation in the Northern Rural Energy Network training contractors about working with heat pumps. Vice Chair Elward shared that The Petaluma Blacks are hosting various events for Black History Month including an event on February 13th, all other events can be found on The Petaluma Blacks’ website. Director Carter shared Sebastopol’s downtown study on how to manage traffic congestion and asked for any suggestions. Chair Barnacle shared about an installation in the Petaluma Historic Museum for Black History Month.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
(10:03 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 01:02:35)
Public Comment: None

ADJOURN
(10:04 a.m. - Video Time Stamp: 01:02:53)
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent.
7 of 68
Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing 8 of 68
Staff Report – Item 02
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Garth Salisbury, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer Chris Golik, Senior Finance Manager
Jennifer Rafferty, Financial Analyst
Issue: Receive Monthly Financial Report
Date: March 5, 2026
Monthly Financial Report
The Financial Report is to inform the Board of Directors (Board) of monthly financial results and includes 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 (December 31, 2025) The year-to-date change in net position is more than projections by approximately $74,868,000. Year-to-date revenue from electricity sales is above projections by approximately 8% and cost of energy is under budget projections by approximately 48%. Year-to-date electricity sales reached $141,383,000.

SCP maintains a balanced portfolio by procuring electricity from multiple sources.

Net position reached a positive $304,315,000. Approximately $324,252,000 is set aside for operating reserves as of June 30, 2025.

Other operating expenses continued near or slightly below planned levels for the year.

Budgetary Comparison Schedule (December 31, 2025)
The accompanying budgetary comparison includes the 2025/26 Amended Budget approved by the Board of Directors.
9 of 68
The budget is formatted to make comparisons for both the annual and the year-to-date perspective. The first column, 2025/26 YTD Amended Budget, allocates the Board approved annual budget at expected levels throughout the year with consideration for the timing of additional customers, usage volumes, staffing needs etc. This column represents our best estimates, and this granular approach was not part of the Board approved budget.

Revenue from electricity sales to customers is greater than budget by approximately 8% at the end of the reporting period.

The cost of electricity was less than the budget-to-date by approximately 48%.

Variation in this account is typically due to fluctuating market cost of energy on open position purchases as well as supplier delivery delays related to long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs).

Major operating categories of Data Management fees and PG&E Service fees are based on the customer account totals.

In addition to the items mentioned above, SCP continues its trend of remaining near or under budget for most of its operating expenses.

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.

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 (January 2026).

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. 10 of 68
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 January 31st, CAM managed about $83 million of SCP’s reserves. All investments directed by CAM are held at SCP’s custodian, USBank. All investments held as of January 31, 2026, at USBank appear as Attachment 3 with new holdings purchased in January highlighted. USBank transaction details for the month of January, including sales and maturities of securities, are in Attachment 4.

River City Bank
A detailed statement of the investments held at River City Bank as of January 31, 2026, appears as Attachment 5. There were no investment transactions in the month of January at River City Bank.

State of California Local Agency Investment Fund
The LAIF investment balance as of January 31, 2026, appears as Attachment 6.

Agency Goals
SCP’s Financial Report, and more broadly, its financial decisions, directly support two of the Agency’s 2026 goals.

1. Recommend and take all necessary actions to protect customers from rate shock in 2026.

7. Maintain SCP’s ‘A’ credit rating to support cost-effective power procurement.

Community Advisory Committee
The Financial Report is a monthly, information-only, item that requires no action.

There were no questions nor feedback provided.
11 of 68
Attachments
➢ Attachment 1 – December 2025 Financial Statements
➢ Attachment 2 – December 2025 Budgetary Statement
➢ Attachment 3 – January 2026 Statement of Investments Held at USBank, available at this link or by request to the Clerk of the Board
➢ Attachment 4 – January 2026 Statement of Transactions at USBank, available at this link or by request to the Clerk of the Board
➢ Attachment 5 – January 2026 Statement of Investments Held at River City Bank, available at this link or by request to the Clerk of the Board ➢ Attachment 6 – January 2026 Statement of Investments Held at the Local Agency Investment Fund, available at this link or by request to the Clerk of the Board 12 of 68
1 ACCOUNTANTS’ COMPILATION REPORT
Management
Sonoma Clean Power Authority
Management is responsible for the accompanying financial statements of Sonoma Clean Power Authority (a California Joint Powers Authority) which comprise the statement of net position as of December 31, 2025, and the related statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in net position, and the statement of cash flows for the six months then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have performed a compilation engagement in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services promulgated by the Accounting and Review Services Committee of the AICPA. We did not audit or review the accompanying statements nor were we required to perform any procedures to verify the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by management. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion, conclusion, nor provide any assurance on these financial statements.

Management has elected to omit substantially all of the note disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America in these interim financial statements.

Sonoma Clean Power Authority’s annual audited financial statements include the note disclosures omitted from these interim statements. If the omitted disclosures were included in these financial statements, they might influence the user’s conclusions about the Authority’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters.

We are not independent with respect to the Authority because we performed certain accounting services that impaired our independence.

Maher Accountancy
San Rafael, CA
February 2, 2026
1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 San Rafael, CA 94901 415 459 1249 mahercpa.com 13 of 68
ASSETS
Current assets
Cash and cash equivalents 234,770,933$
Accounts receivable, net of allowance 20,244,302
Other receivables 4,714,786
Accrued revenue 12,992,607
Prepaid expenses 1,118,313
Deposits 9,343,891
Investments 95,607,481
Total current assets 378,792,313
Noncurrent assets
Investments 70,585,215
Loan receivable 3,215,032
Other receivables 790,995
Deposits 16,000
Capital assets, net of depreciation 17,914,878
Total noncurrent assets 92,522,120
Total assets 471,314,433

LIABILITIES
Current liabilities
Accrued cost of electricity 21,860,052
Accounts payable 1,392,941
Other accrued liabilities 3,633,029
User taxes and energy surcharges due to other governments 771,691 Supplier security deposits 510,000
Total current liabilities 28,167,713
Noncurrent liabilities
Supplier security deposits 1,332,121
Total liabilities 29,499,834

DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Rate stabilization fund 137,500,000

NET POSITION
Investment in capital assets 17,604,372
Unrestricted 286,710,227
Total net position $ 304,314,599

SONOMA CLEAN POWER AUTHORITY

STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
As of December 31, 2025
See accountants' compilation report. 2
14 of 68

OPERATING REVENUES
Electricity sales, net 139,786,198$
Evergreen electricity premium 1,596,573
Liquidated damages 15,032,388
Grant revenue 355,174
Total operating revenues 156,770,333

OPERATING EXPENSES
Cost of electricity 76,136,055
Contract services 5,035,508
Staff compensation 6,020,260
Program rebates and incentives 1,181,042
Other operating expenses 1,458,604
Depreciation 715,621
Total operating expenses 90,547,090
Operating income 66,223,243

NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
Investment income 8,494,151
Charitable contribution (250,000)
Nonoperating revenues (expenses), net 8,244,151
CHANGE IN NET POSITION 74,467,394
Net position at beginning of year 229,847,205
Net position at end of period $ 304,314,599
Six Months Ended December 31, 2025

AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION

STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES

SONOMA CLEAN POWER AUTHORITY
See accountants' compilation report. 3
15 of 68

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Receipts from customers 137,281,684$
Receipts from grantors 135,686
Receipts of security deposits and liquidated damages revenue 12,109,410 Receipts from wholesale sales and other operating activities 25,219,335 Payments to electricity suppliers (97,244,274)
Payments for other goods and services (7,224,077)
Payments for staff compensation (5,916,171)
Payments for program rebates and incentives (1,068,314) Payments of taxes and surcharges to other governments (1,666,277) Deposits and collateral paid (2,054,000)
Net cash provided (used) by operating activities 59,573,002

CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED

FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Purchases of capital assets (745,930)

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Investment income received 6,272,238
Proceeds from sales and maturities of investments 13,414,463 Purchase of investments (17,443,774)
Loan issued (3,215,032)
Net cash provided (used) by investing activities (972,105) Net change in cash and cash equivalents 57,854,967
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 176,915,966 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 234,770,933

SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION
Capital acquisitions included in accounts payable and other liabilties 310,506$

NONCASH INVESTING ACTIVITES
Change in fair value of investments 2,319,646$
Change in interest receivable (97,733)$
Six Months Ended December 31, 2025

STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS

SONOMA CLEAN POWER AUTHORITY
See accountants' compilation report. 4
16 of 68
Operating income (loss) $ 66,223,243
Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net
cash provided (used) by operating activities:

Depreciation expense 715,621
Charitable contributions considered an operating
activity for cash flow purposes only (250,000)
(Increase) decrease in:

Accounts receivable, net of allowance (5,532,234)
Other receivables 1,633,341
Accrued revenue (362,642)
Prepaid expenses 406,692
Deposits (2,837,611)
Increase (decrease) in:

Accrued cost of electricity 1,664,562
Accounts payable (561,069)
Other accrued liabilities 2,281,940
User taxes due to other governments 127,512
Supplier security deposits (3,936,353)
Net cash provided (used) by operating activities $ 59,573,002

SONOMA CLEAN POWER AUTHORITY

STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
Six Months Ended December 31, 2025

RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) TO NET

CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES
(Continued)
See accountants' compilation report. 5
17 of 68
1 ACCOUNTANTS’ COMPILATION REPORT

Board of Directors
Sonoma Clean Power Authority
Management is responsible for the accompanying Budgetary Comparison Schedule for the Operating Fund of Sonoma Clean Power Authority (a California Joint Powers Authority) for the six months ended December 31, 2025, and for determining that the budgetary basis of accounting is an acceptable financial reporting framework. We have performed a compilation engagement in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services promulgated by the Accounting and Review Services Committee of the AICPA. We did not audit or review the accompanying statement nor were we required to perform any procedures to verify the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by management. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion, a conclusion, nor provide any assurance on this special purpose budgetary comparison statement.

The special purpose statement is prepared in accordance with the budgetary basis of accounting, which is a basis of accounting other than accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors of Sonoma Clean Power Authority.

Management has elected to omit substantially all of the note disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America in these interim financial statements.

We are not independent with respect to the Authority because we performed certain accounting services that impaired our independence.

Maher Accountancy
San Rafael, CA
February 2, 2026
1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 San Rafael, CA 94901 415 459 1249 mahercpa.com 18 of 68
2025/26 YTD
Amended
Budget
2025/26 YTD
Actual
2025/26 YTD
Amended Budget
Variance (Under)
Over
2025/26 YTD
Actual / Amended
Budget %
2025/26
Amended
Budget
2025/26 Amended
Budget Remaining
REVENUE AND OTHER SOURCES:

Electricity (net of allowance) * 129,247,141 $ 139,786,945 $ 10,539,804 $ 108% 228,694,000 $ 88,907,055 $ Evergreen Premium (net of allowance) 1,575,000 1,596,573 21,573 101% 3,150,000 1,553,427 CEC Grant Proceeds 379,120 355,174 (23,946) 94% 863,000 507,826 Investment returns 6,000,000 8,494,151 2,494,151 142% 12,000,000 3,505,849 Total revenue and other sources 137,201,261 150,232,843 13,031,582 109% 244,707,000 94,474,157 EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES:

CURRENT EXPENDITURES Cost of energy and scheduling 117,688,088 61,104,414 (56,583,674) 52% 234,986,000 173,881,586 Data management 1,679,400 1,677,293 (2,107) 100% 3,359,000 1,681,707 Service fees- PG&E 495,000 497,847 2,847 101% 990,000 492,153 Personnel 6,238,662 6,020,260 (218,402) 96% 12,781,000 6,760,740 Marketing & communications 2,207,375 1,696,392 (510,983) 77% 4,415,000 2,718,608 Customer service 137,500 104,823 (32,677) 76% 220,000 115,177 General and administration 1,142,438 956,007 (186,431) 84% 2,309,000 1,352,993 Legal 262,500 284,080 21,580 108% 525,000 240,920 Regulatory and compliance 180,000 78,996 (101,004) 44% 360,000 281,004 Accounting 194,900 189,200 (5,700) 97% 340,000 150,800 Legislative 110,000 98,000 (12,000) 89% 220,000 122,000 Other consultants 378,450 339,341 (39,109) 90% 535,000 195,659 Industry memberships and dues 444,567 502,502 57,935 113% 888,000 385,498 Program implementation 3,263,013 1,500,673 (1,762,340) 46% 6,481,000 4,980,327 Total current expenditures 134,421,893 75,049,828 (59,372,065) 56% 268,409,000 193,359,172 OTHER USES Capital outlay 3,486,000 1,021,578 (2,464,422) 29% 7,022,000 6,000,422 Total expenditures, other uses 137,907,893 76,071,406 (61,836,487) 55% 275,431,000 199,359,594 Net increase (decrease) in available fund balance (706,632) $ 74,161,437 $ 74,868,069 $ (30,724,000) $ (104,885,437) $ * Represents sales of approximately 1,042,000 MWh for 2025/26 YTD actual.

RESERVES
Balance - as of
June 30, 2025
Long-Term
Targeted
% of Long-Term
Target
Reserves and Rate Stabilization Funds 324,252,000 $ 267,909,000 $ 121%

SONOMA CLEAN POWER AUTHORITY
Six Months Ended December 31, 2025

BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - OPERATING FUND
See accountants' compilation report. 2
19 of 68
Net increase (decrease) in available fund balance
per budgetary comparison schedule: $ 74,161,437
Adjustments needed to reconcile to the
changes in net position in the
Statement of Revenues, Expenses
and Changes in Net Position:

Subtract depreciation expense (715,621)
Add back capital asset acquisitions 1,021,578
Change in net position $ 74,467,394

TO CHANGE IN NET POSITION
Six Months Ended December 31, 2025

SONOMA CLEAN POWER AUTHORITY

BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - OPERATING FUND (CONTINUED)

RECONCILIATION OF NET INCREASE IN AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE See accountants' compilation report. 3
20 of 68
Staff Report – Item 03
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Erica Torgerson, Managing Director of Customer Service Issue: Receive update on PG&E’s Base Service Charge - Formerly Known as the “Graduated Income Fixed Charge”
Date: March 5, 2026
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors receive and file this information-only report on PG&E’s new Base Service Charge, which begins March 1, 2026, for residential customers. No action is required.

Background
Beginning March 1, 2026, PG&E will implement a new Base Service Charge for residential electric customers. This fixed charge will appear on customer bills regardless of electricity usage and was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). It applies to all PG&E residential electric customers, including those who receive generation service from Sonoma Clean Power (SCP). SCP does not set, control, or receive revenue from this charge.

The Base Service Charge is designed to recover a portion of the fixed costs associated with operating and maintaining the electric grid. It is assessed as a fixed daily fee based on the number of days in a customer’s billing cycle and does not vary with electricity usage. The charge supports essential infrastructure and utility operations, including maintenance of power lines, poles, meters, and billing systems.

The CPUC establishes the Base Service Charge for all investor-owned utilities. Local energy providers, including Community Choice Aggregators, cannot modify the charge.

This new structure separates fixed infrastructure costs from usage-based delivery rates to improve bill predictability and provide a more stable funding mechanism for 21 of 68
long-term grid maintenance and investment. The Base Service Charge applies only to residential customers and is income-based, with lower charges for CARE, FERA, and deed-restricted housing customers*.

Customer Category Daily
Charge
Monthly
Charge
Non-CARE or FERA $0.80 ~ $24.00
FERA or Deed Restricted
Housing*
$0.40 ~ $12.00
CARE $0.20 ~ $6.00
The change affects only delivery charges and does not impact SCP generation rates.

PG&E will continue to provide electric delivery service and issue a single consolidated bill that includes both delivery and SCP generation charges.

The Base Service Charge is distinct from volumetric delivery rates, which are charged on a per kilowatt-hour basis and vary based on electricity usage. Customers with higher usage, such as electric vehicle owners and households adopting electric appliances, should benefit from lower per kilowatt-hour delivery rates under this model. By reducing usage-based costs, the pricing approach is also intended to support electrification, align with clean energy goals, and reduce seasonal bill volatility. Clear communication about the charge is important to reinforce that it is CPUC-mandated, applies only to residential customers, and is separate from SCP’s generation services. SCP will provide customer education and direct customers to PG&E for income tier verification. SCP programs and incentives remain unaffected.

Discussion
Implementation of PG&E’s Base Service Charge is expected to generate significant customer inquiries and potential confusion. Staff have prepared internal talking points to support consistent customer communication. Key messages emphasize that the charge is fixed, does not replace per-kWh usage charges, does not affect generation charges, and cannot be avoided by switching providers. The charge supports PG&E’s delivery-related costs, including grid maintenance, wildfire * Deed-restricted housing is housing with legally recorded deed limits on who can live there and how much it can be sold or rented for in order to keep it affordable over time. 22 of 68
mitigation, and other infrastructure needs such as poles, wires, meters, and billing systems.

The Base Service Charge shifts a portion of delivery cost recovery from volumetric per-kWh charges into a fixed monthly amount. As a result, per-kWh delivery rates are expected to be lower, which can benefit high-usage customers such as electric vehicle owners and households adopting electric appliances. Lower usage-based rates also support electrification goals by reducing the marginal cost of using electricity for transportation and home energy needs.

This billing approach may also improve bill predictability by reducing seasonal fluctuations that occur when costs are primarily recovered through usage-based rates. The charge structure includes reduced fixed charges for CARE, FERA, and deed-restricted housing customers, supporting affordability and equity objectives for income-qualified households.

However, the Base Service Charge creates tradeoffs for low-usage customers who are not enrolled in CARE or FERA. These customers previously paid most costs through usage, meaning minimal electricity use resulted in very low bills. With a fixed monthly charge of approximately $24 for non-CARE/FERA customers, low-usage customers are likely to see bill increases even if they consume very little electricity. The charge may be viewed by some customers as diminishing the financial benefits previously gained by early adopters of energy efficiency measures and those households that have consistently maintained low electricity usage.

Solar customers are also expected to raise concerns because the previous Minimum Bill Charge could be offset by solar credits, while the Base Service Charge cannot. As a result, solar customers will pay the charge each month regardless of net over-generation. Staff will continue to prioritize clear communication to reinforce that SCP does not control this CPUC-approved charge and to help customers understand how it affects different usage profiles.

Fiscal Impact
None.

Community Advisory Committee Review
This item went to the Committee on February 19, 2026, on the consent calendar. The Committee had no comments or questions and recommended the Board review the item for information only.
23 of 68
Attachments
➢ Attachment 1 – Examples of PG&E communications to customers, available at this link or by request to the Clerk of the Board
24 of 68
Staff Report – Item 04
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: March 5, 2026

CUSTOMER PARTICIPATION RATES
COUNTY Eligible SCP % Part. % Opt Out
Total 38,347 30,573 79.7% 20.3%
FORT BRAGG INC 4,110 3,476 84.6% 15.4%
POINT ARENA INC 347 300 86.5% 13.5%
UNINC MENDOCINO CO 31,135 24,610 79.0% 21.0%
WILLITS INC 2,755 2,187 79.4% 20.6%
Total 233,366 206,146 88.3% 11.7%
CLOVERDALE INC 3,958 3,289 83.1% 16.9%
COTATI INC 3,940 3,549 90.1% 9.9%
PETALUMA INC 27,911 24,916 89.3% 10.7%
ROHNERT PARK INC 19,975 17,630 88.3% 11.7%
SANTA ROSA INC 81,805 72,852 89.1% 10.9%
SEBASTOPOL INC 4,500 4,111 91.4% 8.6%
SONOMA INC 6,464 5,705 88.3% 11.7%
UNINC SONOMA CO 74,569 65,122 87.3% 12.7%
WINDSOR INC 10,244 8,972 87.6% 12.4%
271,713 236,719 87.1% 12.9%

MENDOCINO
SONOMA
Total
25 of 68

COMMUNITY PARTNERS SELECTED FOR GRANT
As part of the GridSavvy Rewards Virtual Power Plant Grant, primarily funded by the California Energy Commission, Sonoma Clean Power allocated $250,000 to partner with two to five local community-based organizations to support their outreach and education services over the next two years. Nuestra Comunidad, Latino Service Providers, North Coast Opportunities/Vision Family Resource Center, and Council on Aging have been selected to assist SCP with expanding access to smart energy devices, specifically smart thermostats and electric vehicle chargers, for customers who are low-income and/or live in disadvantaged communities. In the context of this project, the term “disadvantaged communities” refers to the designation established by Senate Bill 535 (De Leon) and formalized by CalEPA.

The four partners were selected through a formal Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process conducted between September 16th and October 24, 2025. Applicants submitted letters of interest detailing the geographic areas and general community groups their organization serves, a brief description of the organization’s existing approach for delivering services to, and engaging with, low-income households and disadvantaged communities, a proposed budget for staff time and outreach expenses, and a brief description of how the organization would fulfill the desired services of the RFQ. COUNTY TOT_DESC SCP MetersEverGreen MetersEverGreen % Total 30,579 443 1.45%
FORT BRAGG INC 3,476 45 1.29%
POINT ARENA INC 300 31 10.33%
UNINC MENDOCINO CO 24,616 349 1.42%
WILLITS INC 2,187 18 0.82%
Total 206,146 4,119 2.00%
CLOVERDALE INC 3,289 28 0.85%
COTATI INC 3,549 129 3.63%
PETALUMA INC 24,916 640 2.57%
ROHNERT PARK INC 17,630 235 1.33%
SANTA ROSA INC 72,853 1,222 1.68%
SEBASTOPOL INC 4,111 181 4.40%
SONOMA INC 5,705 103 1.81%
UNINC SONOMA CO 65,121 1,317 2.02%
WINDSOR INC 8,972 264 2.94%
236,725 4,562 1.93%

MENDOCINO
SONOMA
Total
26 of 68
The desired services were categorized into the following five areas:

1. Community trust building

2. Outreach and education

3. Events and material development

4. Ambassador training

5. Tracking and reporting
Staff were thrilled and appreciative to receive a total of ten responses to the RFQ.

After evaluating each submission and interviewing finalists, four community partners were selected for the project. The scope of services and grant award are unique to each organization. Through a collaborative process, the final scopes and budgets were designed to emphasize each organization’s strengths and interests, while appropriately weighing their geographic reach, demographic focus, and how many desired services from the RFQ they are addressing.

Ahead of starting their community education and outreach efforts in May, SCP looks forward to hosting training with the four community partners in April 2026. 421 RENOVATION UPDATES
Progress continues on the renovations of the office building at 421 E Street, just next to our solar panels in the 431 E Street parking lot. Once the dust has cleared we will provide the opportunity for a walk thru of the space.

27 of 68

UPCOMING MEETINGS
• Community Advisory Committee – March 19, 2026
• Board of Directors – April 2, 2026
• Community Advisory Committee – April 16, 2026
• Board of Directors – May 7, 2026

AGENCY GOALS
This Internal Operations update, which is provided monthly to the Board of Directors and Community Advisory Committee provides background on how all SCP staff support several Agency Goals, such as taking actions to protect customers, working on outreach to underrepresented communities, and maintaining a strong credit rating. We work to support our Board, Committee and all internal staff in their various work.
28 of 68
Staff Report – Item 05
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Geof Syphers, Chief Executive Officer
Garth Salisbury, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer
Chris Golik, Senior Finance Manager
Issue: Approve the Proposed Budget Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Date: March 5, 2026
Recommendation
Approve the proposed budget adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget as detailed in Attachment 1 of this report.

Background
SCP commonly brings a mid-year budget adjustment to the Board to account for changes in energy prices, actual customer energy usage, customer participation rates, bank interest rates, and regulatory decisions relating to the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) and utility retail rates. The initial Sonoma Clean Power Authority budget for July 2025 through June 2026 was adopted on May 8, 2025, and was first revised to add the board-approved grant for the Economic Launchpad Hub (now known as the Business One-Stop Shop) on October 2, 2025.

Throughout 2025, PG&E was expected to reduce their generation rates and increase the PCIA fee that they charge to SCP customers on January 1, 2026. This was confirmed when PG&E ultimately published their January 2026 rates. Staff anticipated that SCP would reduce rates in early 2026 to remain competitive, resulting in a decrease in SCP’s long-term financial reserves in calendar year 2026. To help mitigate the expected impact in 2026, SCP updated rates in September 2025 to a reduced savings target of

0.5% below PG&E’s bundled service total bills to generate additional revenues/reserves to be used in 2026 and 2027. Lower than projected power costs in 2025 also helped to keep SCP in a strong financial position heading into 2026. 29 of 68
Discussion
The proposed budget adjustments are shown in Attachment 1. The budget categories are intentionally general enough to allow some measure of staff discretion, without requiring frequent budget adjustments. Additional detail on the most significant changes is provided here:

Revenues
SCP updated rates in September 2025, reducing the savings target relative to PG&E’s bundled service total bills to 0.5%. This partially offset SCP’s larger than budgeted decrease in rates that took effect on January 1, 2026. Because SCP’s January rates were set based on PG&E’s expected January rates, SCP updated rates again effective February 1, 2026, to correct for PG&E’s errors in forecast. The proposed Electricity Sales adjustment reflects the rate setting that the Board approved on August 7, 2025, and November 6, 2025.

Investment Returns are projected to be higher than the original budget due to high interest rates that have persisted and Staff’s efforts to capture those higher interest rates throughout the fiscal year.

Cost of Energy
Year-to-date, Cost of Energy inclusive of energy cost, resource adequacy (RA) renewable portfolio credits, etc., has been under budget by 48%. This was due to lower market prices, the lack of a severe weather event between July 2025 and December 2025 that was assumed in the original budget, damages from project delays, and lower than expected load due to mild weather. Cost of Energy is currently expected to be 31% below the original budget for the total fiscal year, primarily based on the latest projections of market prices.

Why the Large Variance?
SCP’s variance in energy expenses relative to forecast is likely to continue and will go in both directions; some years will see significantly higher monthly costs than forecast, and other years lower. This is intentional, and part of SCP’s strategy for sustaining SCP’s long-term competitiveness by absorbing more short-term market price volatility.

Once SCP reached its long-term reserve target, the agency began accepting more short-term volatility, using its rate stabilization fund to manage the variability. In exchange, SCP has greatly reduced its exposure to conditions where its expenses 30 of 68
greatly exceed PG&E’s expenses. In that scenario, SCP’s rates could be higher than PG&E’s thus risking major opt outs. The following discussion explains how this dynamic came about.

A community choice aggregator buys electricity for customers, but the local investor-owned utility still owns the power lines and sends the bill. Customers can switch back and forth between the two, so the community choice program has to keep its rates somewhat close to the utility’s rates to avoid unreasonable numbers of opt outs. If its rates get too high, too many customers may leave resulting in the need for the CCA to raise rates further to cover costs, worsening the risk of further opt-outs.

At the same time, SCP’s customers still have to help cover losses from PG&E’s legacy fixed price power contracts through the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment or PCIA. When a CCA is formed, this charge exists so the utility is not harmed when those customers leave. When short-term market prices decline and move against those old fixed-price contracts, the PCIA charge can increase. That increase shows up on customers’ bills even though SCP did not cause it and cannot control it.

Because of this, SCP has limited room to absorb that risk. If SCP locked in too much power far in advance at fixed prices and market prices later fell, customers would see higher bills. Those higher bills would sit on top of the PCIA charge that protects PG&E from its past decisions, making SCP look relatively expensive by comparison.

Small amounts of variability are unavoidable and tolerable. But if SCP’s rates must be unreasonably higher than PG&E’s, large numbers of customers could choose to leave SCP, causing a risk that the agency may not be able to achieve its mission of creating solutions to the climate crisis or even continue to operate.

To avoid that, SCP leaves a portion of its future power needs unpurchased for now.

This is called an “open position.” By waiting, it can buy more power closer to the time it is needed, when prices are clearer and usually lower. That flexibility helps keep customer rates closer to PG&E’s rates, even when PG&E’s legacy costs push bills up.

The result is that 2025 saw a windfall of lower energy costs and therefore relatively high net income. However, 100 percent of those additional revenues will be utilized in 2026 and 2027 to lower customer costs and to maintain competitive customer rates.

Because SCP is on a July-June fiscal year, it is important to recognize the different conditions in calendar years 2025 and 2026 will both be reflected at the end of the current fiscal year on June 30, 2026. This means that SCP was collecting significant 31 of 68
net revenues through December 31, 2025, and then started subsidizing rates with those revenues beginning January 1, 2026. At the end of the current fiscal year on June 30, 2026, SCP is expected to need to defer all the remaining net revenues (around $38 million) to use for continuing to subsidize rates into the future.

Fiscal Impact
These budget adjustments reflect a Net Increase in Fund Balance of $38,478,000 for the fiscal year 2025-2026, up $69,202,000 from the original budget of -$30,724,000.

Agency Goals
SCP’s budget setting process, and more broadly, its financial decisions, directly support two of the Agency’s 2026 goals.

1. Recommend and take all necessary actions to protect customers from rate shock in 2026.

7. Maintain SCP’s ‘A’ credit rating to support cost-effective power procurement.

Community Advisory Committee Review
The Sonoma Clean Power Community Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed budget adjustments at their February 19, 2026, meeting and unanimously voted to recommend the Board approve the adjustments.

Attachments
➢ Attachment 1 – FY25-26 Budget Adjustment Table
32 of 68
Revision 1 Proposed Revision 2
Budget Adjustment Budget
FY25-26 FY25-26 FY25-26 Comments

REVENUES & OTHER SOURCES
Electricity Sales (net of allowance) $ 228,694,000 $ (7,315,000) $ 221,379,000 Larger than anticipated rate decrease in January 2026EverGreen Premium (net of allowance) 3,150,000 - 3,150,000 Investment Returns 12,000,000 3,994,000 15,994,000 Interest rates have remained highCEC Grant Proceeds 863,000 - 863,000 Total Revenues 244,707,000 (3,321,000) 241,386,000

EXPENDITURES
Product
Cost of Energy & Scheduling 234,986,000 (72,523,000) 162,463,000 Updated outlook for market price of energy, damages from project delays, & mild weather Data Management 3,359,000 - 3,359,000 Service Fees to PG&E 990,000 - 990,000 Product Subtotal 239,335,000 (72,523,000) 166,812,000
Personnel 12,781,000 - 12,781,000
Marketing & Communications 4,415,000 - 4,415,000 Customer Service 220,000 - 220,000 General & Administration 2,309,000 - 2,309,000 Other Professional Services Legal 525,000 - 525,000 Regulatory & Compliance 360,000 - 360,000 Accounting 340,000 - 340,000 Legislative 220,000 - 220,000 Other Consultants 535,000 - 535,000 Other Professional Services Subtotal 1,980,000 - 1,980,000 33 of 68
Revision 1 Proposed Revision 2
Budget Adjustment Budget
FY25-26 FY25-26 FY25-26 Comments
EXPENDITURES – continued
Industry Memberships & Dues 888,000 - 888,000
Program Implementation 6,481,000 - 6,481,000
Total Expenditures 268,409,000 (72,523,000) 195,886,000 Revenues Less Expenditures (23,702,000) 69,202,000 45,500,000

OTHER USES
Capital Outlay 7,022,000 - 7,022,000
Total Expenditures, Other Uses 275,431,000 (72,523,000) 202,908,000 Net Increase/(Decrease) in Fund Balance $ (30,724,000) $ 69,202,000 $ 38,478,000 34 of 68
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 on AB 1761 (Rogers) PCIA Transparency, SB 1138 (Padilla) Resource Adequacy Transactability and Other Bills as Appropriate Date: March 5, 2026
Requested Action
Receive legislative and regulatory updates, approve legislative positions, and provide direction as appropriate.

Regulatory Updates
Governor Newsom Appoints New CPUC President and CPUC Commissioner On February 18th, Governor Newsom named a new CPUC President and CPUC Commissioner. The current President, Alice Reynolds, is stepping down to join the California Independent System Operator Board of Governors. Her six-year term at the CPUC was scheduled to run through December 31, 2027. She will be replaced by John Reynolds, a current CPUC Commissioner first appointed in December of 2021.

Mr. Reynolds’ term as President will run through December of 2028. The press release from Newsom’s Office emphasized the continued need for focus on affordable service, and highlighted Commissioner Reynolds’ experience overseeing rate cases.

The newly appointed Commissioner, Christine Harada of Los Angeles County, has served as the Undersecretary of the California Government Operations Agency since 2025. Prior to that role, she served as Senior Advisor at the United States Office of Management and Budget from 2023-2025 and was the Executive Director at the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council from 2021 to 2023. While she has 35 of 68
yet to be confirmed by the Senate, she can begin performing her duties as a Commissioner in March.

Legislative Updates
Sonoma Clean Power staff are continuing to work on our three sponsored legislative efforts this year. The Board of Directors had previously approved advancing these three bill proposals:
• Another attempt to exempt geothermal exploration wells meeting a high standard of environmental and labor protections from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Federal policy already exempts these types of wells from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, putting California at a significant competitive disadvantage. This bill would be similar to AB 527, which was vetoed last year. Assemblymember Diane Papan has introduced AB 2234 as a placeholder to move this idea forward.
• Securing roughly $40-50 million in state funding, possibly through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, for new geothermal exploration wells in areas of California that have high potential for next-generation geothermal development, including Sonoma and Mendocino Counties. The goal would be to develop better geologic data for these areas and lower the risk of future geothermal development, similar to how the federal government’s “Utah FORGE” project galvanized new development in that region. • Legislation to revamp the transmission planning process in California to produce a more flexible, adaptable system that can lower ratepayer costs over the long term and allow faster interconnection of new renewable energy resources. This is based off the research that SCP and Peninsula Clean Energy sponsored through Princeton University’s ZERO Lab. This legislation has been introduced by Assemblymember Diane Papan as AB 2111.

Because of bill language deadlines, staff are conferring with Chair Barnacle and Vice Chair Elward to seek permission to pursue joining the Abundance Network in cosponsoring a bill to lower the costs and reduce the timelines for developing renewable energy resources called “connect & manage.” Staff will update the Board in the meeting on the status of that effort. The Community Advisory Committee had a chance to review this bill concept before the legislative deadline and recommended that SCP co-sponsor. More details follow.
36 of 68
Connect & Manage
Overview
Today, most of California is functionally off-limits to new renewable energy development due to a lack of interconnection availability caused by transmission constraints. Over 21 gigawatts (GW) of projects currently in CAISO’s queue are facing this problem, and that’s just in 2026. The state risks losing hundreds of GW of projects over the next two decades if this challenge is not addressed, along with the associated ratepayer benefits, jobs, and reinvestment in our communities.

A connect and manage approach to grid management can help resolve this problem by allowing vastly more clean energy resources to interconnect to the grid through a smarter, more sophisticated approach to grid management. A statutory change is needed to authorize this new approach.

Background
This legislation relates to the concept of “connect and manage,” a grid management practice that has proved successful in several other areas of the country, but which is not currently in use in California. Right now, when a new resource (such as a wind farm or geothermal power plant) wants to interconnect to the grid, that resource typically needs to show “deliverability:” the ability to provide power to the state’s largest source of energy demand (the Los Angeles area) during the most extreme grid conditions (a major heatwave in which everyone is running their air conditioners).

Under current law, a resource needs to have deliverability 24/7/365 (“full deliverability”) to get full value.

Due to transmission constraints, many projects seeking interconnection are unable to meet this high standard. Projects that are not fully deliverable are not granted resource adequacy, which means the project will likely never get built because the economics don‘t warrant it. The result is that a significant number of new renewable energy projects are not completed. This has two significant effects:
• First, California needs to be adding 7-10 GW of new renewable energy every year for the next twenty years to meet our ambitious climate goals. We are not currently on track to do so, in large part due to lack of interconnection. • Just as importantly, the current system raises ratepayer costs significantly.

Load-serving entities like Sonoma Clean Power are unable to secure cheaper, newer resources to save their ratepayers money and are forced to rely on 37 of 68
older, pricier contracts. To make matters worse, the few resources that can interconnect – even if they would be relatively cheap – can artificially jack up their prices due to lack of competition in the market.

One solution to this challenge is adoption of a “connect and manage” approach. The basic premise is in the name: the grid operator allows new resources to interconnect without assigning them full deliverability and then manages the system to receive resource adequacy from those resources on an hourly basis instead of requiring deliverability in every single moment of the day.

Example
Here is an example of how a specific scenario would play out. Let’s say a new geothermal power plant is seeking interconnection. Unfortunately, however, there are transmission constraints between the location of that project and Los Angeles. (This is the situation in almost the entire state today.) That transmission line has constraints two hours per day, but there is capacity during the other 22 hours.

The connect and manage approach would allow that geothermal power plant to provide resource adequacy for 22 hours per day and then curtail the project or allow it to operate “energy only” (without resource adequacy) for the other two hours. The developer is still getting resource adequacy over 90% of the time, making it likely that they would still want to pursue the project.

This approach also allows new synergies to emerge through the interplay of market forces. For example, a battery developer might want to interconnect slightly further down the line and store that other two hours of power and then discharge during the 22 hours – making even more resource adequacy available to load-serving entities and helping provide more options in the market and lower costs. Under the current policy, however, both proposed projects would have to individually provide full deliverability 24/7/365. As a result, neither project could interconnect. Under connect and manage, they both could.

Finally, upgrades to that transmission line could be made down the road to grant all of those projects full deliverability. The decision to upgrade the line would be based on real projects that are already interconnected and operational, not a hypothetical central planning process – a major upgrade over today’s transmission planning paradigm.
38 of 68
Need for Legislation
Current California law states that, in order to receive resource adequacy, a proposed project must be fully deliverable.

This proposed legislation would create a legal path for new resources to interconnect under a “connect and manage” approach, at the discretion of the developer. This proposal could ultimately help lower overall system costs and accelerate the deployment of clean energy within California’s borders.

Importantly, this legislation would not necessarily prevent the state from securing as many fully deliverable resources as it needs to protect reliability. This would simply allow additional projects above and beyond that amount – projects that are ready but cannot be interconnected today – to also interconnect, helping us achieve our climate goals faster and lower ratepayer costs.

CalCCA-Sponsored Legislation
Staff would also like to seek the Board’s support position for two pieces of legislation that our association, CalCCA, is sponsoring in the California Legislature this year:
• AB 1761 (Rogers): This legislation would improve transparency around the calculation of the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA). The PCIA has a significant impact on anyone who pays an electric bill (not just CCA customers), but the ways in which it is set each year are often obscure. AB 1761 is a commonsense measure that would simply increase transparency around the inputs into the valuation of the PCIA so that this important process is happening in the public eye.
• SB 1138 (Padilla): Today, load-serving entities like SCP are required to secure resource adequacy on an hourly basis (for example, a load-serving entity should not be able to count an overproduction of solar power during the day toward its resource adequacy requirements in the middle of the night).

Unfortunately, load-serving entities can only buy or sell resource adequacy on a monthly basis, meaning that they may need to buy a whole extra month’s worth of supply to cover just a few additional hours. This is like having to buy a whole carton of lemons when you only want one slice to put in your iced tea.

The extra expense ultimately falls on ratepayers, who are paying hundreds of millions of dollars each year for this legal inanity. SB 1138 is another commonsense measure that simply allows resource adequacy to be bought and sold on an hourly basis.
39 of 68
Agency Goals
This item aligns with several agency goals. The achievement of Goals 3 & 4 (reducing reliance on natural gas power, including through development of “clean firm” power sources like geothermal as part of our GeoZone effort) is heavily reliant on statutory changes that make it more straightforward and cost-effective to build new geothermal power plants in California. Goal 10 (continuing to develop Sonoma Clean Power’s leadership on transmission planning in a manner that advances ratepayer affordability and climate progress) will also be served by advancing transmission planning and “connect & manage” legislation in 2026.

Community Advisory Committee Review
On February 19, as was noted above, the Community Advisory Committee recommended that the Board move forward with sponsoring “connect & manage” legislation in Sacramento.

Attachments
➢ None.
40 of 68
Staff Report – Item 07
To: Sonoma Clean Power Board of Directors
From: Ryan Tracey, Chief Strategy Officer
Geof Syphers, Chief Executive Officer
Miles Horton, Legislative Policy & Community Engagement Manager Claudia Sisomphou, Director of Community & Governmental Relations Issue: Approve the Proposed Guidelines for New Public-Private Partnerships for the Geothermal Opportunity Zone
Date: March 5, 2026
Recommended Action
Approve staff’s proposed guidelines for shaping new bilaterally-negotiated public-private partnerships in the Geothermal Opportunity Zone (GeoZone). Any agreements developed within the approved guidelines were reviewed by the Community Advisory Committee (Committee) and must be approved by the Board at a future meeting prior to execution.

Background
The GeoZone is SCP’s initiative to secure affordable, reliable clean energy for our customers by driving the development of 600 megawatts (MW) of new geothermal power capacity in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties. This will eventually enable SCP to phase out its dependence on natural gas power plants for reliability.

Public-private partnerships are a key component of the GeoZone. Geothermal development is capital-intensive and carries significant development risk, and SCP relies on private partners to provide the capital and technology to develop geothermal projects.

Partnerships also provide SCP direct access to the details of regulatory and technical challenges facing geothermal development, which informs SCP’s legislative and regulatory advocacy priorities. Partnerships with SCP are valuable to industry partners because they signal commercial interest to investors, create a valuable ally in tackling regulatory challenges, and facilitate relationship building with the local community.

SCP approved three public-private partnerships in 2022 for GeoZone development with Eavor Inc., Cyrq Energy, and Chevron New Energies. SCP’s partnership with Eavor remains 41 of 68
active after the Board approved extending Eavor’s agreement milestones. In 2025, the Board approved terminating agreements with Cyrq Energy and Chevron New Energies.

The agreement with Cyrq Energy was terminated because the company no longer had a strategic interest in progressing their proposed project in the GeoZone. The agreement with Chevron New Energies was terminated because, although Chevron plans to develop their project in the GeoZone, they are first progressing development in other western states with less complex geology and more favorable regulatory conditions. While terminating the immediate agreement with Chevron, SCP’s Board approved a superseding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Chevron to facilitate collaboration on opportunities in other states with the objective of leveraging learnings to support GeoZone development.

Beyond the GeoZone effort, SCP is also using public-private partnerships to progress geothermal development through California Community Power (CC Power), the joint procurement agency of nine Northern California CCAs, including SCP. Consistent with SCP’s adopted Integrated Resource Plan, CC Power’s Board approved three “Geothermal Exclusivity, Offtake, and Development Engagement” (GEODE) agreements in its January 2026 meeting. CC Power’s GEODE agreements are with Atlantica Development Company (the operator of the Coso geothermal field in Inyo County), XGS Energy (a closed-loop developer), and Zanskar Geothermal and Minerals (a conventional developer leveraging state-of-the-art exploration tools). Although the GEODE agreements are structured to support development across the state, SCP and CC Power have discussed the possibility of using a GeoZone public-private partnership to more specifically focus development on SCP’s region.

With the termination of the Cyrq Energy and Chevron New Energies agreements, staff see a need for additional public-private partnerships to scale local geothermal development to the GeoZone goal of 600 MW. Staff waited on pursuing new partnerships last year due to uncertainty about the role Lake County may play in the future GeoZone. With Lake County opting not to join SCP service, staff now have the clarity to move forward.

Lessons Learned
It’s important to note that, although two of the three original agreements were terminated, the cumulative successes of the GeoZone thus far are notable: SCP has had a direct role in accelerating regulatory changes to attract investment, reforming the transmission planning and interconnection process to accommodate geothermal resources, and growing the expected role geothermal resources will play in California’s future grid. SCP’s GeoZone has also served as an example for CC Power’s GEODE agreements and a recent solicitation by Clean Energy Alliance, the CCA serving cities in northern San Diego County, for 42 of 68
proactive partnerships with geothermal developers.

Over the past year, staff have reflected on the first set of GeoZone partnership agreements to inform the structure and design of new public-private partnerships. Below are several of the important lessons learned captured by staff:
• Scalability: It is desirable to partner with developers pursuing technologies that are scalable within the GeoZone and beyond. High scalability motivates partners to invest in progressing projects, even when project economics are challenging or the early-stage development risk is high. The Cyrq Energy project is an example of a project with less than desirable scalability – although well suited for the Geysers, the technology had limited direct application beyond the benefits it provided existing power plants. Scalability is also critical to our broader mission of helping incubate emerging technologies that can ultimately be used to fight climate change and lower energy costs around the world.
• Staged Commitments: Partnerships should be structured with SCP’s level of commitment staged to match the level of commitment from the counterparty. In at least one of the initial GeoZone partnerships, SCP spent considerable staff time supporting grant writing, economic evaluation, and advocacy without a reciprocal level of commitment from the partner. Future partnerships should withhold significant SCP support until key project milestones are achieved to ensure staff time and agency resources are wisely invested.
• Advocacy Partner: GeoZone partners should be a visible partner in advocacy at state agencies, the Legislature, and community. In the initial GeoZone partnerships, SCP found itself the primary and sometimes sole voice in advocacy. This was either because of political considerations from SCP’s GeoZone partners or lack of capacity.

SCP sees a need for its GeoZone partners to be visible in driving advocacy and should include such a commitment in future partnerships. • Co-investment: The initial round of GeoZone partnerships did not entail any investment by SCP in supporting project development outside of dedicated staff time. Without an investment in the project, SCP had limited agency in driving project progress. The opportunities for co-investment may be limited, but whereas co-investment was completely out-of-scope for the first round of GeoZone agreements, staff recommend considering it as an optional element in future partnerships.
• Leverage: Beyond co-investment, there are other opportunities for SCP to increase its leverage with GeoZone partners. SCP could consider securing property that 43 of 68
could be used for development, financing transmission infrastructure, or offering firmer offtake commitments, amongst other options.
• Technological Diversity: An important strength of the first round of GeoZone agreements was its technological diversity. SCP specifically chose partners with three different promising technologies: advanced closed-loop geothermal systems, enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), and thermal storage. Given that EGS and advanced closed loop are still in early stages of commercialization, and specifically with regards to uncertainties in their compatibility with local conditions, staff believe it is important to maintain diversity in technical maturity when pursuing new partnerships.
• Resource Characterization: Given the extensive historic drilling in and around the Geysers, staff were surprised by the level of geologic risk and uncertainty facing developers exploring next-generation geothermal technologies in the GeoZone.

However, the target for these technologies is often away from the zones explored for conventional hydrothermal development at the Geysers, and historic datasets are much less rich than what would be gathered from a modern exploration well. In seeking new partnerships, SCP should specifically prioritize partners that are well equipped to overcome this challenge. Meanwhile, SCP is working with Sonoma County on a California Energy Commission-funded grant to geologically model the GeoZone region through the National Lab of the Rockies (formerly NREL) and seeking state funding to cost-share on exploration drilling supporting deployment of next-generation technologies.

Bilateral Agreements
The initial set of GeoZone agreements were selected from responses to a public solicitation. SCP assembled a group of experts to review proposals, including support from a veteran Geysers geologist and a representative of the Department of Energy’s Geothermal Technologies Office. The public solicitation process was necessary for the first round of GeoZone partnerships because SCP had limited relationships with the geothermal industry and no visibility on the types of opportunities it could pursue through public-private partnerships.

SCP has now developed strong relationships with nearly all the major players in the geothermal industry. Through SCP’s role as a lead advocate for supportive regulatory reform in California, leadership in CC Power’s own geothermal initiative, and participation in geothermal industry forums, staff are now well-equipped to identify the right partners and opportunities to overcome local development challenges. 44 of 68
Given these capabilities, staff see significant advantages to pursuing new GeoZone partnerships bilaterally rather than releasing a second solicitation, particularly given the inherent complexity of geothermal development and the need for customized agreements. Bilateral negotiations allow SCP to be more targeted and collaborative in structuring partnerships that meet the specific needs in the GeoZone, rather than passively relying on solutions proposed by industry. Bilateral negotiations also allow SCP to engage partners that might find it difficult to speculatively respond to a public solicitation.

Guidelines
GeoZone partnership agreements represent a strategic commitment by SCP. As such, the Board and Committee will review, and the Board will ultimately approve, any GeoZone partnership agreements, including contracts negotiated bilaterally. To ensure alignment between bilateral agreements and Board priorities, staff believe it is valuable to agree on an a set of high-level guidelines to inform development of new GeoZone agreements.

Staff propose the following guidelines, subject to feedback from the Committee and Board:
• Local Focus: Any GeoZone agreements should work towards supporting future geothermal development in SCP’s territory in service of the overall 600 MW goal. If agreements include collaboration on projects outside SCP’s territory, it must be clear that success on those projects has direct applications to development in the GeoZone.
• Expertise: GeoZone partners must have demonstrated expertise in geothermal development. Ideally, this includes experience in geothermal drilling and project development. Partners without direct geothermal experience must at least have staff with industry experience and a robust plan for resourcing projects in the GeoZone.
• Strategic Focus and Scalability: GeoZone partners must demonstrate that GeoZone projects will be a strategic priority for their company and that development in the GeoZone has a high level of scalability within the GeoZone and beyond. GeoZone agreements shall also include requirements for partners to be visible and vocal advocates for needed regulatory reform alongside SCP. • Ratepayer Benefits: GeoZone agreements must provide measurable financial benefits to SCP’s ratepayers. These could include preferential commercial terms for offtake, equity, or royalty. Financial benefits are especially important for any agreements that include SCP co-investment. SCP staff time used in support of GeoZone agreements shall be staged to match the level of commitment from 45 of 68
GeoZone partners.
• Workforce: GeoZone agreements will be prioritized in accordance with Section II.C of SCP’s Project Selection Criteria Policy C.6. SCP will prioritize GeoZone agreements that commit to a multi-trade project labor agreement and include goals for local hires and targeted hiring. Secondarily, SCP will prioritize projects that commit to using prevailing wage and benefits rates. GeoZone agreements that fail to meet the above criteria will not be considered.
• Environment: GeoZone partners must commit to strict environmental standards for project development within the GeoZone and propose an achievable approach to project development that minimizes environmental impacts including land use, water consumption, and pollution. EGS projects must commit to a seismicity monitoring and mitigation plan and fluid disclosure requirements. SCP will also prioritize GeoZone agreements in accordance with Section II.H and Section II.I of SCP’s Project Selection Criteria Policy C.6, which enumerate specific environmental benefits and benefits to underserved communities.
• Public Input and Transparency: GeoZone partners must be aligned with the objective of GeoZone to facilitate proactive and regular community engagement with opportunities for public input to drive successful project development.

Additionally, GeoZone partners must commit to being transparent about their development process, potential risks, and important project updates.

Next Steps
Staff will use the guidelines approved by the Board to engage industry partners in earnest.

With the clarity of such guidelines, staff believe they will be able to move quickly and return to the Board with multiple proposed partnership agreements potentially as soon as this summer. Expanding SCP’s public-private partnerships will enable SCP to maintain momentum on the GeoZone and better leverage many of the benefits SCP has been fighting for in the legislative and regulatory arenas.

Agency Goals
The GeoZone activities are directly related to the 2026 agency goal to continue progress on the GeoZone, which SCP sees as a key initiative in supporting deployment of technology that will be critical to meeting long-term climate goals, addressing affordability, and providing reliability while creating local economic opportunities. 46 of 68
Community Advisory Committee Review
The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the Board approve the proposed guidelines subject to the addition of a requirement for public input and transparency. Staff have included the Committee’s recommended guideline in the proposal to the Board.

The Committee benefited from numerous public comments during the meeting, all of which were generally supportive of staff’s recommendation. Comments from the public included a call to select partners with the proven capability to finance GeoZone development, emphasis on public oversight when working with private partners, questions on the value and need for a bilateral process, and endorsement of the Committee’s call for public input and transparency. The public also stressed the need to include union representatives from various trades in labor discussions, beyond just the building trades.

Attachments
➢ None.
47 of 68
Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing 48 of 68
Staff Report – Item 08
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Ryan Tracey, Chief Strategy Officer
Geof Syphers, Chief Executive Officer
Spandan Gandhi, Energy Analytics Manager
Amit Ranjan, Strategic Energy Resource Manager
Issue: 2026 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Alternatives Discussion Date: March 5, 2026
Recommended Action
Review the proposed scope, assumptions, and alternatives for SCP’s 2026 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and provide recommendations to staff in preparation of SCP’s final IRP portfolio for later this year.

Background
The IRP is a process for load serving entities (LSEs) such as SCP to evaluate long-term strategic decisions with consideration of financial, environmental, and regulatory impacts.

Although the IRP places significant emphasis on planning the portfolio of energy resources to supply energy in the wholesale market, it is also useful for characterizing the scale and impact of customer-facing technologies SCP supports such as demand response, distributed resources, and load shifting.

As an LSE under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), SCP is required to submit an IRP regulatory filing. The CPUC IRP regulatory filing must be approved by a formal vote of SCP’s Board of Directors. The planned schedule is:
• Feb 19, 2026: Committee IRP Public Input and Alternatives Discussion (complete) • Mar 5, 2026: Board IRP Alternatives Discussion
• Apr 16, 2026: Committee Final IRP Review
• May 7, 2026: Board Final IRP Adoption
49 of 68
• June 1, 2026: IRP Filing Deadline to CPUC
The regulatory filing’s scope is narrow relative to the strategic questions SCP endeavors to address in its IRP and focused on validating SCP is building a portfolio that supports the state’s decarbonization and reliability requirements. Importantly, the IRP filing is also directly used to inform the CPUC’s statewide portfolio composition and transmission planning.

Accordingly, it is critical that SCP submits an IRP filing that is representative of the resource mix needed to meet SCP’s priorities for procurement. These priorities are best identified through a rigorous internal process that incorporates feedback from the public, the Committee, and Board and modeling that evaluates the tradeoffs between cost, environmental performance, location, and customer-facing technologies.

The modeling SCP uses to recommend IRP portfolios has grown increasingly sophisticated since SCP’s first IRP in 2018. The 2018 and 2020 IRP were developed using deterministic scenario planning in spreadsheet models (meaning forecasts looked at a single “most likely” future scenario as opposed to multiple possible futures), relying on historic market conditions to forecast the performance of different resource fleets. In 2022, SCP developed portfolio opportunities using Ascend’s PowerSIMM platform that reflected a long-range market forecast with characterization of weather uncertainty and volatility. For 2026, SCP is evaluating portfolios using a decision-making under uncertainty (DMUU) approach that mirrors Princeton University’s ZERO Lab statewide modeling. Candidate portfolios for the 2026 IRP are being stress tested against seven future market forecasts, enabling a conversation on the trade-offs between cost and robustness for SCP’s own portfolio of resources. For all IRP modeling, resource portfolios are optimized given a set of constraints.

These constraints include generating sufficient supply to serve load, providing sufficient capacity for meeting SCP’s resource adequacy requirements, meeting SCP’s obligations through the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), and achieving SCP’s internal voluntary environmental targets.

The Board selected a portfolio for the 2022 IRP that met two voluntary environmental targets:
1) contracting a supply portfolio that mitigates all the hourly marginal emissions associated with SCPA’s load by 2026 and 2) a portfolio that provides at least 80% of the required energy in winter evenings from clean sources by 2030. Notably, these targets far exceed the climate benefits of simply reaching 100% reportable renewable resources on an annual basis, a more common LSE objective. The 2022 IRP identified a need to complete the following procurement activities through 2030:
• Co-located Solar and Storage: Commission the 70 megawatt (MW) Proxima project and 11.6 MW Tubbs Island project (since cancelled) and contract with 40 MW of additional co-located solar and storage.
50 of 68
• Wind: Contract with a 100 MW of out-of-state wind resource and 150 MW of in-state wind
• Geothermal: Commission SCP’s 1.52 MW share of CC Power’s Fish Lake project and 14 MW share of CC Power’s Ormat portfolio, contract with 40 MW of existing geothermal and 30 MW of new local geothermal
• Standalone Storage: Commission the CC Power long-duration storage projects, contract with 138 MW of standalone 4-hour storage and 30 MW of long-duration storage
• Demand Response: Ramp-up GridSavvy to 5 MW by 2026 and 10 MW by 2030 In June 2025, the Board approved a recommendation by staff to adopt revised environmental targets due to the large increase in PG&E’s Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) fee anticipated in 2026 and interest in preserving SCP’s rate competitiveness. The Board approved a single environmental target of mitigating 85% of hourly emissions by 2026 --still a strong leadership target that exceeded California’s climate goals. Any supplemental environmental targets, including the winter reliability target, were suspended until the next IRP analysis.

Due to proactive procurement and favorable hydro and load conditions in 2025, SCP met its new 85% hourly emissions mitigation a year early. Figure 1 shows the hourly contribution of different resources in SCP’s fleet compared to load emissions, which is expected to easily exceed 90% in 2025. The graph shows how SCP mitigates more than its share of emissions in peak load hours in the evening using battery storage but does not fully mitigate emissions through the evening and when charging battery storage. A similar dynamic is true seasonally—SCP mitigates more than its share of emissions in the summer but is not fully mitigated in the winter.

For context, the hourly emissions performance SCP achieved in 2025 is similar to the type of statewide grid conditions that the state anticipates seeing in the early 2040s. 51 of 68
2026 IRP
Evolving Landscape
Following the Board’s approval of the 2022 IRP in October 2022, there have been a variety of new conditions that will impact SCP’s 2026 IRP. These new conditions include:
• Market Dynamics: In December 2022 through January 2023, California electricity prices hit their highest level over a decade that averaged over five times higher than the historical average. This event, alongside increased solar capacity in the summer, has caused a fundamental shift in forward energy prices with a structural premium expected in the winter, which favors geothermal and wind resources. Meanwhile, the state’s battery storage fleet has scaled from negligeable levels in 2022 to over 15,000 MW by the end of 2025, largely driven by mandates. This scale-up, while also retaining natural gas capacity and the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, have significantly reduced market volatility, and depressed the value of energy storage. As a result, ratepayers are paying an artificially high premium for battery storage due to state policies retaining gas and nuclear plants.
-20
0 20
40 60
80 100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Thousand Tonnes
Hour Ending
Figure 1. 2025 SCP Estimated Hourly Emissions Mitigation by Hour Battery Geothermal Nuclear Solar Wind Hydro Load
52 of 68
• Tax Credits and Tariffs: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which provided significant expansion of clean energy tax credits, was signed into law in August 2022 and not fully incorporated in SCP’s 2022 IRP analysis. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), which undid many, but not all the IRA tax credits, was subsequently signed into law in July 2025. The interplay of IRA and OBBB adds complexity in evaluating the cost of different resources, with tax credits dependent on both the technology and online date. The aggressive expansion of tariffs adds additional impacts to resource procurement, given the import dependency for technologies such as solar cells and lithium-ion batteries.
• Project Selection Criteria: The SCP Board formalized criteria to prioritize project selection in April 2025 by adopting Policy C.6. After resources are determined to comply with SCP’s procurement obligations to meet state compliance and fulfill the Board-adopted IRP, cost-effective resources are prioritized by workforce development, location (with a specific preference for resources within SCP’s territory), and benefits to the environment, underserved and low-income communities, and innovation that accelerates decarbonization or energy affordability. Although the 2022 IRP is well aligned with Policy C.6, the 2026 IRP must include a more explicit discussion of its application to SCP’s long-term portfolio planning.
• Capital Projects and Engineering Department: SCP formed the Capital Projects and Engineering Department in Fall 2024, which now gives SCP the ability to directly build and operate energy projects. This new capability gives SCP first-hand experience in local project development and provides an opportunity to overcome historic challenges that were difficult to overcome through its traditional role as an off-taker.

The 2026 IRP provides an opportunity to explore the role SCP-owned projects can play in fulfilling long-term portfolio objectives.

Contracted Resources
SCP’s 2026 IRP will include all resources currently under contract by SCP, both resources that are currently online and those under development. A map of those resources is included below in Figure 2. In modeling, these resources are “locked in” through their contract term and provide the foundation for candidate resources to build on for meeting the model’s objectives.
53 of 68
Figure 2. Map of Contracted Resources in SCP Portfolio
SCP’s 2026 IRP will also include an annual allocation of hydropower from our customer’s share of PG&E’s generation fleet (provided as compensation to payers of the PCIA) and nuclear power from Diablo Canyon (provided as compensation to ratepayers from Senate Bill 846 through 2030). SCP’s 2026 IRP model also assumes an investment in the GridSavvy Rewards demand response program that is aligned with internal targets of growing capacity to 7 MW in 2026 to 9 MW by 2028.

The contracted resources in Figure 2 include the following projects that were contracted following the 2022 IRP:
• Co-located Solar and Storage: The 60 MW Azalea project in the Central Valley (currently online), 4 MW Redemeyer project in SCP’s territory (online in 2026) were contracted following the 2022 IRP to replace the Tubbs Island project and meet the incremental solar and storage needs identified in the 2022 IRP. The 2026 IRP also includes the 1.5 MW Ukiah Superfund project being developed by SCP’s Capital Projects and Engineering Department.
• Wind: The 100 MW SunZia project in New Mexico (online in 2026) was contracted to meet the 2022 IRP need for out-of-state wind.
54 of 68
• Geothermal: SCP has extended its contract with the Geysers (which expires at the end of 2026) for up to 20 MW of output through 2037 to meet the 2022 IRP need for geothermal.
• Standalone Storage: The 59 MW Sagebrush project in the Antelope Valley and 100 MW Pome project in San Diego County (both currently online) were contracted to meet the 2022 IRP need for standalone storage.
• Small Hydro: The 2.6 MW Montgomery Creek and 14.5 MW Forks of Butte projects in Northern California were contracted to meet the 2022 IRP’s needs for resource diversity and as replacement to the additional geothermal and in-state wind capacity that were not available in the market.

Figure 3. Photos of Newly Contracted Resources

Emerging Technologies
In June 2025, staff presented emerging energy technologies to the Committee and solicited feedback on which technologies to evaluate for further consideration in the IRP. The IRP provides an ideal venue for evaluating the strategic role emerging resources could play in meeting SCP’s future needs—and helping prioritize SCP-driven strategic initiatives to support their development. Table 1 below provides an inventory of the technologies discussed with the Committee, a summary of Committee feedback, and staff’s application of the feedback in setting up the 2026 IRP.

SunZia Pome Geysers
55 of 68
Table 1. Emerging Technologies Discussed in June 2025 Committee Technology June 2025 Committee
Feedback 2026 IRP Application
Next-gen Geothermal
Reaffirmed interest in
supporting through GeoZone
and beyond
Included as candidate resource;
strategic initiative will be
sustained if selected
Floating Offshore Wind Likely better led by others (e.g.

Humboldt)
Included as a candidate
resource, but not expected to
be a strategic initiative
Small Modular Reactors
No interest in considering due
to concern on waste, security,
and fuel scarcity
Not included
Green Hydrogen
Interest in exploring as seasonal
storage, but concerns about
transportation
Not included, but monitoring
statewide developments
Carbon Capture & Storage
No interest in considering due
to concerns on potential for
leakage and perpetuating fossil
fuel industry; staff asked to
monitor
Not included; staff monitoring
through California Community
Power engagement
Methanol Electricity Interested in exploring as
seasonal storage
Included as candidate resource;
strategic initiative will be
considered if selected in model
Iron-Air Battery Interested in exploring as
seasonal storage
Included as candidate resource;
strategic initiative will be
considered if selected in model
Thermal Storage Interested in exploring as
intraday storage
Included as candidate resource;
strategic initiative will be
considered if selected in model
Pumped Hydro
Interested in exploring as
intraday storage, including in-conduit
Included as candidate resource;
strategic initiative will be
considered if selected in model
56 of 68
Supply-side Candidate Resources
To meet IRP objectives, the model for the 2026 IRP draws from a pool of candidate supply-side resources. For each resource, staff calibrates the contribution of each resource (including energy, market revenues, compliance, and emissions mitigation), expected cost, and availability. The cost estimates for resources are largely aligned with the assumptions the CPUC published in Fall 2025 for their input to the 2026-27 Transmission Planning Process (TPP) but adjusted where necessary based on internal market intelligence. Resource availability estimates are calibrated based on interconnection queue data, CPUC assumptions, and direct input from SCP’s procurement staff and developers. Candidate resources include the following:
• Solar: Solar resources are included from SCP’s territory, which are assumed to be more limited and costly, and from larger-scale development in the Central Valley. • Wind: Wind resources are included from four regions: Baja California in Mexico (given status in CAISO queue, available in 2030), Wyoming (available in 2031 from TransWest Express transmission line), Northern California (limited availability in early 2030s due to development challenges), and New Mexico (available in 2035 as a second phase of SunZia). The model also includes floating offshore wind in Humboldt, but at pricing that makes it difficult to select.
• Geothermal: Geothermal resources are included in Northern California and Nevada.

The model does not distinguish between conventional and next-gen, given the convergence of market pricing (scarcity has driven conventional pricing to be commensurate). If the model selects more Nevada resources than SCP’s import capacity, the geothermal does not contribute to SCP’s capacity obligations. • Storage: Storage resources are included in SCP’s territory and the Central Valley with the following configurations: 4-hour lithium-ion, 8-hour lithium-ion, 14-hour pumped hydro, 14-hour thermal storage, 100-hour iron-air, and 240-hour methanol electricity. • Biogas: SCP is investigating an opportunity for biogas to play a limited role in SCP’s portfolio. Biogas is distinct from biomass, and generated electricity from methane emissions for landfills or wastewater treatment facilities that must be combusted.

In addition to the candidate resources listed above, the model can use short-term contracts for renewable energy, carbon-free energy, firm capacity, and battery capacity to meet compliance requirements and voluntary objectives. The model also assumes SCP can procure energy from the spot market. The pricing for energy and short-term contracts is tied to the seven market scenarios used in SCP’s 2026 IRP modeling. The scenarios include projections from two different vendors and reflect sensitivities in load growth, resource 57 of 68
availability, and different policy trajectories. Staff explicitly excluded local biomass from woody forest materials, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) as candidate resources based on past input from the Committee and public.

Local Resources
Since its inception, local resource development has been a priority for SCP. SCP’s premium energy product, EverGreen, is sourced 24/7 from renewable resources within SCP’s service area. Local resource development provides local economic development, reduces SCP’s dependency on long-distance transmission and remote resources, and enables SCP to demonstrate leadership and self-sufficiency in providing needed energy and climate solutions.

SCP’s initial approach to local resource development was through the ProFIT feed-in-tariff program. Through ProFIT, SCP contracted for offtake from six 1 MW projects in its service area. SCP subsequently contracted for the 4 MW co-located Redemeyer solar and storage project north of Ukiah. Meanwhile, SCP has retained offtake agreements with geothermal at the Geysers in Sonoma County to supply the EverGreen product on a 24/7 basis. These agreements are included in the 2026 IRP and provide sufficient output to serve EverGreen at its current subscription level.

Resource development in SCP’s service area is not easy: the cost of land, topography, extensive land conservation, and limited interconnection capacity all present challenges. SCP has two tools to actively address local development challenges: GeoZone and self-build capacity through the Capital Projects and Engineering Department. SCP’s GeoZone is a strategic initiative to leverage public-private partnership and next-generation technologies to expand local geothermal capacity. The Capital Projects and Engineering Department enables SCP to directly initiate projects and shepherd them through early project development activities that are difficult for a traditional private developer in SCP’s territory.

The Capital Projects and Engineering Department has already secured site control and is in early engineering for SCP’s first self-build project: the 1.5 MW co-located Ukiah Superfund project.

The 2026 IRP provides an opportunity to evaluate the cost and benefits of strategic investments to unlock additional local resource development. An expanded budget for de-risking projects for GeoZone and self-build opportunities could significantly accelerate local development. Investments could include geothermal exploration grants, transmission financing, real estate services, land acquisition, and programmatic permitting. Staff propose testing a scenario in the 2026 IRP that uses strategic investments to accelerate GeoZone development and enable 100 MW of local self-build solar and storage development by 2040. 58 of 68
Customer Energy Solutions
In concert with supply-side resources, SCP can leverage customer-sited resources and programs to accomplish long-term portfolio objectives. Customer energy solutions can reduce SCP’s procurement requirements and have the opportunity to not just avoid infrastructure limitations, but to unlock additional capability on existing wires. The 2026 IRP includes customer energy solutions to understand their ability to reduce supply-side resources and calibrate the level of investment and prioritization. The following customer energy solutions are being considered in the 2026 IRP:
• Event Solutions: SCP’s GridSavvy Rewards demand response program enabled event-based reductions in load that can reduce SCP’s dependency on natural gas capacity for reliability and exposure to high spot market prices. SCP’s GridSavvy Rewards is composed of a fleet of smart thermostats, EV chargers and a behavioral option that uses text alerts to encourage energy conservation. GridSavvy Rewards provided over

4.5 MW of capacity in 2025, and SCP has an internal goal of growing GridSavvy to 9 MW by 2028. The 2026 IRP assumes these are achieved in all scenarios, but staff propose using the 2026 IRP to evaluate the cost and benefits of more ambitious growth in GridSavvy Rewards. GridSavvy Rewards is currently structured to address reliability needs of the bulk system, but event-based resources also provide an opportunity to avoid local infrastructure costs and constraints. Capturing the avoided costs of local infrastructure upgrades and expanding GridSavvy Rewards to commercial and industrial customers provide significant opportunities for growth.

Staff propose testing a scenario in the 2026 IRP where GridSavvy Rewards expands to 30 MW by 2035.
• Distributed Solar Solutions: Sonoma and Mendocino County already host more than 340 MW of distributed solar capacity. Although the expiration of the IRA tax credits and updates to the Net Energy Metering program challenge the economics of distributed solar, SCP expects capacity to continue to grow. Figure 4 shows the incremental distributed solar included in SCP’s forecast for the IRP, which includes 110 MW of incremental additions through 2045, reaching a total of 450 MW. Staff are not proposing to test incrementally distributed solar beyond the forecast in the 2026 IRP. 59 of 68
Figure 4. Distributed Solar Forecast in 2026 IRP
Load Shift Solutions: A key uncertainty in forecasting future resource needs and infrastructure needs is load shape. This is particularly true with load growth from electric vehicles which currently charge mostly at night, but with the appropriate incentives and infrastructure could charge more in daytime. Load from electric vehicles, along with building electrification, will not only require more supply-side resources to accommodate but will also trigger upgrades in transmission and distribution to SCP’s region. In addition to encouraging daytime EV charging, behind-the-meter battery storage resources provide an opportunity to shift load to hours with lower energy costs and infrastructure constraints. SCP’s customer energy solutions targeting load shift are limited to daily-managed smart EV charging, but staff propose using the 2026 IRP to test an ambitious scale-up with a goal of shifting 400 megawatt-hours (MWh) per day by 2045. Figure 5 provides an illustrative example of how 400 MWh of load shift could impact SCP’s 2045 load shape. Although this is an average load shape, it illustrates how load shift can both move energy requirements to more affordable solar hours and reduce infrastructure requirements (the 540 MW peak is reduced to 470 MW).

Figure 5. 2045 Load Shape with 400 MWh of Load Shift
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Distributed Solar
Growth (MWdc)
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Average MW
2045 Load Shape Forecast 400 MWh of Daily Load Shift
60 of 68
Load Forecast
SCP has developed a rigorous process for forecasting hourly load based on historic usage patterns, changing demographics, and the projected adoption of technologies such as distributed solar, electric vehicles, and building electrification. In forecasting future conditions, SCP uses both data that is specific to its territory (such as vehicle miles travelled and natural gas usage) and datasets created by state agencies (such as technology adoption rates, improved energy efficiency, hourly usage profiles, etc.). Figure 6 shows how technology adoption and energy efficiency are represented as impacts to SCP’s load.

Figure 6. Technology Adoption and Energy Efficiency Impacts to SCP Load Although SCP uses considerable care in using best-available datasets, SCP’s future load growth is inherently uncertain. Accordingly, staff have set up the 2026 IRP modeling to test IRP decisions across a range of future load conditions. In addition to SCP’s base forecast, the 2026 IRP model will include the following two scenarios, which are also shown for comparison in Figure 7:
• Low Load Growth Forecast: SCP’s low load forecast tests conditions if the level of adoption of electric vehicles and building electrification are half of the assumptions included in base forecast that is illustrated in Figure 6. The low load forecast experiences a 1.6% annual growth rate through 2045, compared to 2.8% in the base forecast.
• High Load Growth Forecast: SCP’s high load forecast scales SCP’s base forecast to match the CPUC’s load assignment to SCP for the 2026 IRP process. The load forecast being used by the CPUC for assigning load in the 2026 IRP includes a prorate share of expected data center growth in PG&E territory. Staff are not aware of any significant interest in data center development in SCP’s territory and accordingly see the CPUC’s -500
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Annual Sales Impact (GWh)
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Distributed Solar Growth Light-duty EV Growth Medium-duty EV Growth Energy Efficiency Building Fuel Switching
61 of 68
load assignment as an upper bound. The high load forecast experiences a 3.9% growth rate through 2045. Importantly, although modeling across a range of uncertain load scenarios will inform SCP’s internal IRP decisions, SCP will ultimately need to demonstrate to the CPUC that its portfolio will provide sufficient reliability and climate benefits for this high load scenario. Staff will include this validation when a portfolio is shared with the Committee and Board for approval later this year.

Figure 7. 2026 IRP Load Forecast Scenarios
Infrastructure Constraints & Regulatory Advocacy
The key bottleneck to executing portfolios selected in the 2026 IRP will be infrastructure.

SCP’s IRP model assumes that new resources in the model cannot be built before 2030 due to lack of interconnection capacity on the grid. As an example, in the most recent interconnection cluster, practically all resources north of Tracy, California were off-limits for new resources seeking deliverability.

SCP’s 2026 IRP will directly signal to the CPUC what kind of infrastructure upgrades are necessary to build its portfolio. It will also guide SCP staff on how to prioritize regulatory advocacy. SCP’s work with Peninsula Clean Energy and Princeton University on demonstrating the value in Decision Making Under Uncertainty (DMUU) and more proactive and adaptive transmission planning provides an opportunity to directly address current constraints. SCP is building on this work by also exploring opportunities for more flexible approaches to interconnection and advocacy targeted at serving key resource areas, including SCP’s own territory and other regions that can site diverse resources. 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Annual Sales - Gigawatt-horus (GWh)
Low Mid High
62 of 68
Example Portfolio
Staff have prepared an example IRP portfolio to facilitate discussion. This example portfolio includes updates to SCP’s load forecast, regulatory requirements, existing contracts, and candidate resources. The example portfolio does not include the incremental customer energy solution and local resource prioritization scenarios, nor does it reflect the upcoming requested feedback from the public or Committee and Board. Capacity decisions in the portfolio before 2035 are made in “Stage 1” and are made without the benefit of knowing future market conditions or SCP’s level of load growth. The example portfolio assumes “middle of the road” market conditions are prevalent and SCP’s mid load forecast. Short-term contracts are not included but may be needed to meet compliance requirements and the 85% hourly emissions target. Figure 8 shows the annual generation from new contracts in the example portfolio and Table 2 contains details on the selected resources.

Figure 8. Example Portfolio – Annual Generation from New Contracts -
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Annual GWh
Existing Contracts Wind Solar Geothermal Load
63 of 68
Table 2. Example Portfolio – New Contract Decisions
Technology Stage 1 (before 2035) Stage 2 (2036+)
Solar 230 MW Central Valley between 2030 and
2032 20 MW Central Valley in 2042
Wind
50 MW Baja California in 2030 and 70 MW
Northern California between 2032 and
2033
180 MW Northern California between
2037 and 2041 and 100 MW New
Mexico wind between 2037 and 2040
Geothermal 100 MW Northern California between 2031
and 2034 (none)
Storage 210 MW co-located 8-hour storage
between 2030 and 2032
330 MW 8-hour storage between 2035
and 2044
The example portfolio demonstrates that geothermal resources and wind paired with storage provide the necessary portfolio diversity to meet SCP’s long-term reliability and climate needs. Because wind resources are not available locally, especially in the near-term, the model needs to select more remote resources in Baja California and New Mexico and wait until Stage 2 to complete scale-up. If local development is given additional emphasis in SCP’s portfolio selection, out-of-state wind resources would likely be replaced by geothermal and local solar and storage. Although SCP continues to build solar in Stage 1 of the example portfolio, the “middle of the road” scenario does not make additional solar attractive in Stage 2 of the example portfolio. Instead, the model relies more on short-term contracts in Stage 2 to meet SCP’s portfolio needs, along with additional wind and storage capacity. Beyond geothermal resources, the model did not select emerging technologies as part of the example portfolio.

To be clear, staff are not recommending the example portfolio for selection as a portfolio in the 2026 IRP. Staff’s recommendation later this year will incorporate the type of modeling used to generate the example portfolio as well as feedback from the public, Committee, and Board.

Portfolio Alternatives
Staff will present several alternatives to the Board in May alongside a recommended portfolio. Presenting the recommendation alongside alternatives will enable a transparent discussion between the trade-offs between cost and other value drivers for guiding SCP’s portfolio. In formulating these alternatives, staff propose evaluating portfolios that vary the 64 of 68
following specifications:
• Affordability: One alternative staff plan to provide in May is a “compliance only” scenario – which prioritizes minimizing costs and will include no voluntary environmental targets or strategic investments. This alternative will provide a baseline for which to compare other portfolio alternatives, which will be more costly but be responsive to other objectives.
• Voluntary Climate Targets: Staff propose to continue using a voluntary hourly emissions mitigation target to prioritize portfolios that deliver increased climate benefits. Staff will include an alternative that sustains the current 85% hourly mitigation target and could test more aggressive scenarios, including reinstating a 100% mitigation target in the future.
• Short-term Index Plus Contracts: SCP achieved the 85% hourly emissions target in 2025 by contracting for carbon-free power through short-term “index plus” contracts that assign SCP’s portfolio the carbon-free attribute of output from an existing resource. In 2025, SCP spent around $6.4 million on carbon-free energy from short-term index plus contracts. In evaluating tradeoffs between cost, environmental performance, and other strategic investment priorities, staff propose exploring the role these contracts play in SCP’s IRP. Procuring carbon-free energy theoretically increases demand and sends a market signal to build additional renewable capacity – but in the current world of acute infrastructure constraints, the additional value of these contracts in accelerating clean energy deployment is likely limited. Importantly, any decision to reduce short-term carbon-free contracting would lead to SCP’s power source disclosure showing a greater share of unspecified energy and a portfolio that may appear less climate-forward than PG&E, but it would also allow potentially $5-7 million in other more valuable investments annually.
• Local Resources: As the example portfolio above demonstrates, the role of local resources in SCP’s IRP could be limited unless they are explicitly prioritized. The GeoZone and Capital Projects and Engineering are two important tools SCP can utilize to support increased local development. Staff propose testing a portfolio that works towards acceleration of GeoZone and 100 MW of local solar and storage development by 2040. To be successful, a local portfolio must be accompanied by the near-term strategic investments discussed in the Local Resources section above. • Customer Energy Solutions: Staff see a potential pathway to growing both the GridSavvy event-based fleet and load shift capability to a scale that can meaningfully impact SCP’s supply-side portfolio and provide important benefits to relieving local infrastructure constraints. To better calibrate the potential role and value of customer 65 of 68
energy solutions, staff propose evaluating portfolios that benefit from expanding GridSavvy to 30 MW and facilitating 400 MWh of daily load shift. • Robustness: The DMUU approach SCP is applying to its 2026 IRP enable staff to stress test candidate portfolios for future uncertainty and evaluate the trade-off between near-term portfolio decisions and long-term cost exposure. Portfolios that minimize downside risk are likely different from portfolios that seek to maximize upside. Staff will explore the cost of more robust portfolio compositions and incorporate insights into recommendations to the Board in May.

Table 3 illustrates how varying the specifications above can be used to develop a set of distinct portfolios for evaluation. Given the substantial hours required for these evaluations, staff will share between 4 and 5 total portfolios with the Committee and Board this spring and a recommendation on which alternative to consider for submittal to the CPUC. Modeling results will provide an estimate of the cost impacts of each alternative.

Table 3. Example Alternatives for 2026 IRP Portfolios
Specification Compliance Only Stay the Course Strategic Max Affordability Least Cost Increased costs for
voluntary targets
Increased costs for
strategic investments
and robustness
Increased costs for
strategic investments
and robustness
Voluntary
Climate Targets State law 85% hourly mitigation
85% hourly when
achievable with new
resource contracts
100% hourly
mitigation by 2030
Use of Short-term Index Plus
Contracts
Only for compliance Used for voluntary
targets
Only for compliance /
use savings for
strategic investments
Used for voluntary
targets
New Local
Resources Only if least cost Only if close to least cost 50% goal: 50 MW and
50% of strategic
investment
100% goal: 100 MW
and full strategic
investment
Customer
Energy Solutions No strategic scale-up
Modest growth / No
strategic scale-up
50% goal: 15 MW
GridSavvy and 200
MWh load shift
100% goal: 30 MW
GridSavvy and 400
MWh load shift
Robustness No downside
mitigation
No downside
mitigation
50% weighting for
robustness Fully robust
66 of 68
Next Steps
Staff will incorporate direction received from the Board in developing portfolio alternatives.

Portfolio alternatives will be compared and tested for compliance with CPUC requirements before staff identify a preferred portfolio that will be presented to the Committee in April and Board for approval in May.

After completing the 2026 IRP, staff are interested in developing an internally driven process to annually engage the Committee, Board, and public that is not sensitive to unexpected delays and schedule adjustments by the CPUC. In addition, a simpler annual resource check-in could be less intensive compared with this effort.

Agency Goals
This item is directly related to the Board’s 2026 goal for completing an IRP that reduces reliance on natural gas power and is responsive to rapidly changing conditions.

Community Advisory Committee Review
The Committee’s February meeting included a comprehensive discussion of the material above. The Committee provided the following input:
• Distributed Storage / Virtual Power Plants (VPPs): The Committee expressed interest in seeing distributed storage and VPPs playing a significant role in SCP’s IRP.

As such, the Committee supported staff exploring aggressive goals for load shifting and expressed interest in proactively addressing regulatory and market barriers to deployment. The Committee also recommended more discussion of distributed storage and VPPs as an alternative to supply-side resources, rather than a separate initiative.
• Storage Technology Diversity: The Committee expressed concerns about safety and supply chain risks of lithium-ion battery technology. The Committee recommended exploring other technologies, taking into account both cost and operational and environmental risks.
• Seasonal Storage: The Committee expressed interest in further exploring the opportunity for seasonal storage, such as the methanol technology currently included in the IRP, to improve the feasibility of grid decarbonization. • Local Resource Development: The Committee noted that local resources provide non-quantifiable benefits that are important to consider in IRP, such as workforce, economic development, energy independence, and reliability. But the Committee 67 of 68
cautioned that any preference for local resource development must be balanced with a need to retain cost competitiveness with PG&E.
• Short-term Contracts: The Committee recognized staff’s concern that short-term contracts may be less effective as a climate tool as they once were, but also acknowledged how a portfolio with higher reportable emissions and natural gas power could be problematic for customers simply looking at numbers and not paying attention to climate impact details. The Committee did not provide a clear recommendation on how to proceed, but appreciated the need for a genuine internal debate.
• Alternatives: The Committee asked that a “Compliance Only” portfolio not be included for consideration. Staff shared that they would not recommend a “Compliance Only” portfolio but recommend keeping it as an alternative to establish a baseline for comparing costs. The Committee appreciated that there were alternatives that included ambitious goals for local development and customer energy solutions.

Attachments
➢ None.
68 of 68

Sonoma Clean Power Board of DirectorsMarch 5, 2026

Sonoma Clean Power Board of Directors
March 5, 2026