As a Lake County resident and strong supporter of clean energy, Community Choice Aggregators, and more competitive energy markets, I would ordinarily welcome Sonoma Clean Power’s (SCP) proposal to expand its service area to include Lake County. However, I am concerned about the way SCP is framing — and potentially misrepresenting — this expansion, particularly in relation to its GeoZone initiative.
When SCP first presented the proposal to conduct a feasibility study, it assured the Board that Lake County’s inclusion in the service area would not be contingent on joining the GeoZone. Yet the final feasibility study suggests otherwise.
For example:
Page 4: “Lake County’s participation in the GeoZone is mutually beneficial and it is strongly recommended that Lake County join the GeoZone concurrently with SCP’s electric service.”
Page 28: “Given the strategic nature of the GeoZone and potential long-term ratepayer benefits, it is strongly recommended that Lake County join the GeoZone concurrently with SCP’s electric service. The SCP Board may want to establish expectations or a requirement on Lake County’s participation in the GeoZone in its offer for service.”
These statements raise legitimate concerns that SCP may be positioning GeoZone participation as an implicit — if not formal — condition of service expansion.
While I support geothermal energy in principle, there is not yet enough clear, publicly vetted information about the GeoZone proposal to make an informed community decision. What information has been shared is often confusing or contradictory. For instance:
Scale and Impact: SCP's website promotes the concept of small, house-sized geothermal plants. But what was shown to the Board appears to involve multi-acre industrial-scale developments, potentially with several plants clustered in close proximity.
Technology: It’s unclear which geothermal technologies are actually being proposed. Are we looking at closed-loop or open-loop systems? Low-temperature or high-temperature extraction? Some of the technologies referenced appear to be unproven at scale.
Location Ambiguity: Page 27 of the feasibility study depicts an “Early Interest Area,” yet the map also shades much of the western and southwestern County. Which areas are actually under consideration for development?
These unanswered questions matter — particularly because SCP previously assured Lake County residents that GeoZone participation was not part of the current service area decision. And yet, those same residents now see language in the feasibility study that suggests otherwise.
The vision of steam plumes dotting the landscape of Big Valley or Middletown, or large-scale geothermal infrastructure intruding on our rural vistas, is not appealing to many. Nor is the prospect of frequent micro-quakes — now confined mostly to remote Calpine sites — occurring near Lakeport, Kelseyville, Clearlake, or Middletown.
It’s also important to note that SCP’s feasibility study assumes a 90% opt-in rate from Lake County residents. That may be achievable — but only if SCP proceeds in good faith, without linking service expansion to GeoZone participation. Many residents are eager to leave PG&E behind, even if the savings are modest. But the value we place on Lake County’s natural beauty, character, and seismic stability far outweighs any marginal benefit on our utility bills.
If the GeoZone is included — implicitly or explicitly — in the service offer, SCP should not expect widespread community support. I suspect the opt-in rate would fall well short of projections.
Therefore, I respectfully urge the Board: Please move forward with evaluating the inclusion of Lake County in SCP’s service area, but keep the question of GeoZone participation entirely separate. That decision should come only after full community engagement, technical transparency, and independent environmental review.
Dear Board of Supervisors,
As a Lake County resident and strong supporter of clean energy, Community Choice Aggregators, and more competitive energy markets, I would ordinarily welcome Sonoma Clean Power’s (SCP) proposal to expand its service area to include Lake County. However, I am concerned about the way SCP is framing — and potentially misrepresenting — this expansion, particularly in relation to its GeoZone initiative.
When SCP first presented the proposal to conduct a feasibility study, it assured the Board that Lake County’s inclusion in the service area would not be contingent on joining the GeoZone. Yet the final feasibility study suggests otherwise.
For example:
Page 4: “Lake County’s participation in the GeoZone is mutually beneficial and it is strongly recommended that Lake County join the GeoZone concurrently with SCP’s electric service.”
Page 28: “Given the strategic nature of the GeoZone and potential long-term ratepayer benefits, it is strongly recommended that Lake County join the GeoZone concurrently with SCP’s electric service. The SCP Board may want to establish expectations or a requirement on Lake County’s participation in the GeoZone in its offer for service.”
These statements raise legitimate concerns that SCP may be positioning GeoZone participation as an implicit — if not formal — condition of service expansion.
While I support geothermal energy in principle, there is not yet enough clear, publicly vetted information about the GeoZone proposal to make an informed community decision. What information has been shared is often confusing or contradictory. For instance:
Scale and Impact: SCP's website promotes the concept of small, house-sized geothermal plants. But what was shown to the Board appears to involve multi-acre industrial-scale developments, potentially with several plants clustered in close proximity.
Technology: It’s unclear which geothermal technologies are actually being proposed. Are we looking at closed-loop or open-loop systems? Low-temperature or high-temperature extraction? Some of the technologies referenced appear to be unproven at scale.
Location Ambiguity: Page 27 of the feasibility study depicts an “Early Interest Area,” yet the map also shades much of the western and southwestern County. Which areas are actually under consideration for development?
These unanswered questions matter — particularly because SCP previously assured Lake County residents that GeoZone participation was not part of the current service area decision. And yet, those same residents now see language in the feasibility study that suggests otherwise.
The vision of steam plumes dotting the landscape of Big Valley or Middletown, or large-scale geothermal infrastructure intruding on our rural vistas, is not appealing to many. Nor is the prospect of frequent micro-quakes — now confined mostly to remote Calpine sites — occurring near Lakeport, Kelseyville, Clearlake, or Middletown.
It’s also important to note that SCP’s feasibility study assumes a 90% opt-in rate from Lake County residents. That may be achievable — but only if SCP proceeds in good faith, without linking service expansion to GeoZone participation. Many residents are eager to leave PG&E behind, even if the savings are modest. But the value we place on Lake County’s natural beauty, character, and seismic stability far outweighs any marginal benefit on our utility bills.
If the GeoZone is included — implicitly or explicitly — in the service offer, SCP should not expect widespread community support. I suspect the opt-in rate would fall well short of projections.
Therefore, I respectfully urge the Board: Please move forward with evaluating the inclusion of Lake County in SCP’s service area, but keep the question of GeoZone participation entirely separate. That decision should come only after full community engagement, technical transparency, and independent environmental review.
Thank you for your attention and leadership.
Sincerely,
Thomas Lajcik